Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
That's what Conor Friedersdorf is claiming over at The Atlantic. Whatever I (or you) think about Christie, I'm not at all convinced he's heretical. Let's take a look at each of Conor's four points of would-be heresy.
1. Compromise Conor says compromise is "anathema to a lot of the conservative movement," noting that "candidates like Michele Bachmann" gain support "precisely because of their reputation for being stubbornly uncompromising." I hear that Rush Limbaugh has wasted no time clobbering Christie for compromising with socialism. But consider what's happened to Michele Bachmann's poll numbers. (They're cratering.) And contemplate the argument that would best support Rush's apparent attack: it's not that Christie has sold out to socialism in New Jersey, but that his successes in-state might not map very well onto the political landscape in Washington. As I understand it, mainstream conservatives aren't enemies of compromise as such. They're convinced that compromise inside the beltway doesn't work either as a negotiating tactic or a political strategy -- certainly not with this president. Christie's claim is that his experience in New Jersey proves that Republicans, including conservatives, can compromise and succeed at the national level. That this is a contestable -- and testable -- claim doesn't quite prove that mainstream conservatives are opposed at the level of principle to compromise.
2. Exceptionalism Conor casts Christie as believing that "American exceptionalism isn't a natural state of being or an inheritance -- it is something to which we aspire, and we're presently falling short." Christie strikes an alleged contrast with Marco Rubio, for whom our exceptionalism is "our legacy as a people." How is that claim challenged by Christie's insistence that we demonstrate, and not merely assert, our exceptionalism? It's not -- mainstream conservatives incessantly criticize Barack Obama for believing America to be no more or less exceptional than other countries...and for actually making America less like its exceptional self and more like France, Sweden, or any of those other social democracies. In order for us to have "failed to live up" to our "tradition of exceptionalism," we must have received that exceptionalism from past Americans and America past, no? When it comes to American exceptionalism, it's a mainstream conservative truism -- sometimes to a fault -- that we're possessed of a remarkable inheritance that we're always in danger of losing forever. Christie said nothing to call into question the idea that we've inherited an exceptional America. In fact, his claim that we're in danger of losing it is predicated on the notion that we have inherited it.
3. "Americans should care what foreigners think of us." The Christie Doctrine -- the opposite of the Bush Doctrine -- is that the fate of freedom abroad is dependent on the fate of freedom here at home. Rather than the typical ritual invocations of Reagan, Christie's, on this score, remind us that an appreciation for America's role as a model of prosperity through liberty is not inconsistent with a wariness, or even an active disrespect, for regimes who would see the world imitate their much different model, in which liberty is meaningless or even dangerous to human flourishing. Mainstream conservatives, RINOs, and libertarians have all been caught in the act of feeling this way. Christie has not set himself apart.
4. "Americans cannot remake the world in our image through force." Yikes, says Conor: "does Bill Kristol still want him to run?" I laughed, and there's no doubt -- as I hinted above -- that Christie's worldview as presented differs vastly from that laid out in Bush's Second Inaugural. But, again, the messianic delirium channeled into the Bush White House by Michael Gerson and company has never been an animating principle of mainstream conservatism -- or even establishment Republicanism. Of course, the right is plenty comfortable with remaking important portions of the world in our image -- that is, portions filled with armed opponents practicing a fundamentally rival form of governance (the Confederate South, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Communist Europe). If anything, Christie's pitch -- visibly lapped up by the crowd at the Reagan Library, hardly marginal to conservatism -- is that we should not persist with the Bush Doctrine because losing our domestic focus will cause us to lose what makes America exceptional in the first place.
Mainstream conservatives often tout the 'fruitful' or 'constructive' character of their internecine squabbles (in contrast, they say, to those on the left). What Christie offered in his Reagan Library speech is not at all a retread of the Bush-era caricature of the right that many Americans have come to expect (courtesy, by far, of its angriest and bitterest critics on the left). But on inspection, it's hard to count it as a departure from the mainstream of modern American conservative thought and practice. Critics are free to say that's good or bad. And Christie's themes are more than open to rigorous challenge on implementation and detail. But from what I can gather, the response to his speech coming from the mainstream right is not the response you'd expect from "fighting words." I can't say I'm terribly surprised. Christie's personality may throw off waves of iconoclasm, but a Ron Paul he ain't.
And what about Huntsman, who really is viewed with contempt by many mainstream conservatives? Didn't Christie, as some have suggested, delivered a speech Huntsman could have given? Maybe so -- but that goes to show how much Huntsman's problems with mainstream conservatives have to do with attitude, and, uh, flagrant acts of base-baiting. What would be viewed with suspicion coming from suspect mouths is likely to be viewed more as affirmation coming from Christie's. Christie's real 'heresies' against movement conservatives (see his beatdown of critics of his appointment of a Muslim judge) may have movement conservatives in a stir, but they didn't show up at the Reagan Library. Movement conservatives, when you get down to it, just aren't the same thing as mainstream conservatives. If Christie belongs outside of the second category as well as the first, you wouldn't know it from this speech.
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Wouldn't someone have to have a basic understanding of conservatism and Republicanism to be able to diagnose heresy correctly? I haven't seen much evidence of that basic understanding from that department of The Atlantic.
My impression, from your fisking of the item, is that its author figured that anything he could headline with some controversial assertion about Chris Christie would be good for a few page views, without requiring much actual thought going into the item.
May '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Frankly, Conor's definitions of what makes a "conservative" are freakishly cartoonish. Even here, where the "Party of No" activists tend to congregate, there are plenty of big tent people who even let George Bush be in the party.
Chris Christie is a conservative- and pretty mainstream at that. He is not as isolationist as Conor and, presumably James, he is also, despite misconstrued statements, not out of the mainstream regarding CAGW. Those who deny all possibilities of some level of AGW tend not to understand the issue.
Reagan would have happily stumped for Christie, Ryan, Bush, Romney, Huntsman, Santorum, Cain, McCain, almost anyone in the last 20 years or so. He probably would have been uncomfortable with Pete McCloskey and Bob Michel from prior decades.
Mar '11
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
I'm not sure who the "party of no" activists here are. Not even sure what it means.
CAGW is catastrophic? I don't think so - and I am not sure who this mainstream is, either. It depends whether you think the atmospheric feedback mechanisms are negative or positive, and I am in the negative camp. The science ain't settled, just like we are not sure about the speed of neutrinos.
Jun '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Everything is relative. Being the brightest conservative light in New Jersey is kind of like being Sudan's best alpine skier.
Dec '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
As for Christie the politician, he has a record. Deeds, not words.
As for The Atlantic’s polemicist, he has had enough exposure to conservatives to be aware of the advantages of the conservative creed—its grounding in reality, its rooting in the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, its branching in the direction markets take it, and its growing validation in contrast to the compounding failures of the authoritarian, centralized collectivism of government planned states—to want to peel off some of its fruit. To his discredit, he always prefers to spit the seeds back at it in order to attract attention.
His formula consists of adopting conservative language, distorting it, misrepresenting a conservative position, then flattering himself for his sophistry as if his “unique” perspective were insightful rather than simply polemical and self-serving. Apparently, sometimes it works.
Jul '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Conor's a sharp guy, but I tend to disagree with him often.
Presuming a contemporary American conservative orthodoxy exists, does that make one of us a heretic?
I say no. It just means Conor makes more mistakes than he ought.
Anyway, I agree with the Minnesotans, Christie is relatively conservative.
May '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
I find myself agreeing with James and his sharp critiqye to this extent: I agree that Christie fits comfortably within the mainstream of conservatism. What I ought to have argued, to be more precise and accurate, is that he committed heresies against the conservative movement, which is a different thing. But it's tricky to define the overlap and the differences. Take Rush Limbaugh, for example.
Charles Gordon, for the record, I vehemently contest your (mis)characterization of my work.
And Duane, what definition that I offered of "what makes a conservative" is cartoonish?
Sep '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Conor's schtick is simple - criticize Republicans for not being lockstep moderates in left leaning venues.
May '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Franco,
I don't want Republicans, or anyone for that matter, to be moderates. I am an extremist civil libertarian, for example, and I am not an "all the politicians in Washington D.C. should play nice together" guy. The problems I have with the Republican Party are many -- I detest its hypocrisy, corruption, anti-intellectualism, aversion to freedom on various social issues, and its failure to live up some of the principles that it articulates -- but if you follow my work, you know that I've been as disgusted as anyone by Barack Obama too, and that at the state level, in California, I vote Republican. What bothers many conservatives is that unlike them, I haven't pledged allegiance to Team Red, and made all my writing a strategic gambit at effective propaganda. Most folks reading this site regard themselves as being on a team politically, or part of an ideological movement. I don't.
Jul '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Welcome back Conor. In short, all of them.
Compromise: Would that it were true. Reagan compromised on spending when he made deals on taxes that included promised tax cuts from a Democratic Congress. Oops. Cuts never materialized. If Bush the Elder were a conservative I could cite "read my lips," but he never fooled anyone on that score. The "uncompromising" schtick is what the other side hits you with when they want you to capitulate. Compromise has undermined the deadlocks the Founders built into the Constitution and rocketed the federal government into an unsustainable, unprincipled, brutish, tyrannical mess.
Exceptionalism: As embodied by the vision of the city on the hill has always been a goal, a striving, the tragic view understands that humans being humans cannot achieve that. American exceptionalism is in what we do and how we do it. The day we turn away from that legacy is the day we become just one more Eurosocialist dystopia. Lie down and die like good subjects when touched by the scythe of our death panel.
Jul '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Americans should care what foreigners think of us: The world has accepted our help in one breath and cursed us as militarist monsters the next. Our defense of Europe has so atrophied the "Great Powers" that the UK expended its national supply of Tomahawk missiles (64!) in two days of engagement with Libya. The UK and France are combining efforts to bring the complement of large European aircraft carriers up to one. The US manages 11 carrier groups. The way one appeals effectively to Europeans these days is in some way that lengthens their vacations, increases the size of their benefits, or alleviates their debt.
Americans cannot remake the world in our image through force As James Poulos rightly points out, the notion that conservatives are war making colonialists has always been a joke. George Will has been railing against the nation-building hubris for at least half of a decade. Few of the serious conservatives I speak to think there is still an American interest in staying unless it is to finally settle affairs with Iran and Syria. I believe Bush undertook the task as Christian charity for the phenomenally poor, ignorant, and perennially bullied peoples there. Moral hubris.
Jul '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
It is understandable to take a shopping list of objections to the policies of a self-proclaimed conservative and paint that as conservatism, but through the whole Presidency of George Bush those of us watching the conservative debate realized he was far afield a lot of the time. After eight years of conservatives raising objections, the peanut gallery now rises and declares: This is who you are. The only principled response is Pffft!
In one breath you declare yourself a radical civil libertarian and in the next you declare yourself not part of a political team. Previously you have presented yourself as a fellow conservative, although, frankly, from your arguments here I have never been able to detect a conservative tradition. Not a dig, just an observation. The civil libertarian declaration clears that up a little bit, I suppose.
As James also points out, Christie is unspeakably ignorant and arrogant in his views on Sharia. The unfortunate flip side of his willingness to speak sharply is that, when he is dead wrong and plainly uninformed, he looks the fool. Probably a better candidate than Romney or Paul, maybe on a par with Perry. But not a winner.
Apr '11
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
As a conservative and a Jersey native, I'm a Christie fan. Here in California, I've noticed recently that when I mention Jersey the response "Eeeey, Chris Christie!" is starting to gain on "Yo Snookie!!!" And it's a generally positive association - even from liberals.
I don't know enough about this Muslim judge to opine.
Although, I tend to agree with Christie on this Sharia Law business. Yes, it's a legitimate concern with regard to Muslim communities in Europe, but it's absurd to think Sharia Law is taking hold anywhere in the US.
Those who cry wolf about Sharia in the U.S. distract from legitimate threats from radical Islam just as McCarthy damaged serious efforts to counter communist infiltration of US institutions. Like Birthers, they should be loudly denounced by serious conservatives.
That said, Christie's self righteousness can be off putting - especially when directed against conservatives. For example, Christie recently signed off on some unconscionable toll increases ($14 to cross a #@$# bridge!). Then, in a press conference, he lashed out at opponents as dishonest for calling these tolls a tax increase on commuters. Apparently the governor has never heard of a "use tax."
May '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Sisyphus
Welcome back Conor. In short, all of them.
Compromise: Would that it were true. Reagan compromised on spending when he made deals on taxes that included promised tax cuts from a Democratic Congress. Oops. Cuts never materialized. If Bush the Elder were a conservative I could cite "read my lips," but he never fooled anyone on that score. The "uncompromising" schtick is what the other side hits you with when they want you to capitulate. Compromise has undermined the deadlocks the Founders built into the Constitution and rocketed the federal government into an unsustainable, unprincipled, brutish, tyrannical mess.
Sisyphus, I never said that aversion to compromise defines conservatism, only that calling for the need to compromise is fighting words to some conservatives. You seem to be among them!
And I have a response, though it's directed at a fellow critic of compromise, Rish Limbaugh.
Sep '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Conor Friedersdorf
· Sep 28 at 6:03pm
No political party or large group of individuals is immune from the charges of hypocrisy, etc. In fact you seem to expect the Republican party to march in lock-step or at least to be all of one mind and purpose. You are too politically aware to really believe this is possible.
t looks to me like you take different factions of the Republican voting coalition and then act as if they are hypocrites for disagreeing with each other as though it is (or should be) some kind of political monolith. Some Republicans believe x, others y, and still others z.
You clearly don't like movement conservatives who operate within the GOP or at least hold more sympathy for them over Democrats. That's fine. But to disparage the entire party because of this element's power, I have to think there is something else going on.
Sep '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Moreover, since we are in a two-party system, it is quite possible that one party can be more corrupt, more hypocritical, etc. than the other. I say that mainstream Democrats are far worse than mainstream Republicans in this regard, mostly because they have the media on their side they can get away with so much more.
We are an incredibly free country on the social level. There are some valid disputes but they are not nearly as important as economic freedom and personal freedom, both of which the Democrat party is infringing upon more and more, and to whatever extent the Republican party does this I will fight them too.
Sometimes you have to take sides - not as a non-thinking partisan, but as a calculated political strategy to bring about the kind of country you desire.
And there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy coming from your position as well. It seems that it is fully justified for someone like yourself to criticize conservative Republicans such as those who listen to Limbaugh calling them, in essence "heretics" or worse, but you won't afford them the same respect you give yourself.
Sep '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Because of the dominance of the left-leaning media, the word "compromise" is evoked when the chips are down for Democrats but never when the Democrats have the upper hand. Then Republicans are "obstructionists" standing in the way of progress.
Under these game rules, Republicans lose 100% when they lose and must give up half of what they win.
The Democrat's subtle definition of "compromise" becomes even more insidious when you consider how they use retoric to shape the debate. For example, government programs have built-in increases, but when Republicans want to slow growth, the Democrats call these "cuts" . Democrats propose increases on top of existing increases and claim Republicans won't "compromise".
There is nothing wrong with a true compromise, but I guarantee you Conor, calls from Democrats for "compromise" is most likely to be a strategy all it's own to force Republicans, or lure Republicans, into capitulation.
Lastly, there never should be "compromise" on bad ideas. Democrats are proposing colossally bad policies. If I'm making soup and my kid wants to put a cup of sugar in it, I'm not going to compromise and put in half.
May '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
Franco,
I agree that both of our two main political parties is guilty of hypocrisy. On too many occasions to count I've complained about the Democrats who accused the Bush Administration of creeping fascism for its national security policies, only to fall silent when Obama embraced most of them and occasionally went even farther toward abridging civil liberties.
And while I agree that it's often necessary to vote for the party you regard as less bad, I disagree that sometimes you have to pick sides as a political strategy, if by "picking sides" you mean ignoring the indefensible stuff done by the party you back. What I want, whether from fellow journalists or folks who comment at Ricochet while doing their day jobs, is a commitment to the proposition that it is good and healthy to criticize anything and everything one regards to be wrongheaded. Too often, here and everywhere, criticism of the favored party is met with second-guessing about motives and arguments about how the other guys are worse.
Sep '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
So then Rush Limbaugh criticizing the Republican establishment for being too quick to compromise, in the sense that I have outlined above, is healthy too, no?
Conor Friedersdorf: I agree that both of our two main political parties is guilty of hypocrisy. On too many occasions to count I've complained about the Democrats who accused the Bush Administration of creeping fascism for its national security policies, only to fall silent when Obama embraced most of them and occasionally went even farther toward abridging civil liberties.
And while I agree that it's often necessary to vote for the party you regard as less bad, I disagree that sometimes you have to pick sides as a political strategy, if by "picking sides" you mean ignoring the indefensible stuff done by the party you back. What I want, whether from fellow journalists or folks who comment at Ricochet while doing their day jobs, is a commitment to the proposition that it is good and healthy to criticize anything and everything one regards to be wrongheaded. Too often, here and everywhere, criticism of the favored party is met with second-guessing about motives and arguments about how the other guys are worse.
May '10
Re: Is Chris Christie a Republican 'Heretic?'
My objection to Rush Limbaugh's commentary isn't that he is criticizing the GOP establishment for being too quick to compromise. It's that he is illogically speaking as though what compromise means is taking the most fraught ideological differences that separate the two parties and agreeing on the middle ground. But as I explain here, that isn't the nature of all compromise, and it certainly isn't the kind of compromise that independents are calling for.