Defeatism Among Conservatives

 

For almost my entire lifetime, the friends of liberty have been in retreat. They have accepted the welfare system, and they have temporized with the administrative state. With regard to domestic affairs, they have been in competition with the progressives – but only in one particular. The battle has been over who can better manage the system. In effect, what we have witnessed is a struggle between two species of progressives – managerial progressives who for the most part come out of the business world and intellectual progressives drawn from the academy. Only rarely in the last century have we had a genuine conservative as President – a man guided by an understanding of what the Founders had in mind when they adopted the Declaration of Independence and framed the Constitution. Only rarely has the Republican Party presented itself as a party of principle. The prospect terrifies many of those who consider themselves conservatives. They cannot imagine our departing from the New Deal order. All that they really want to do is to slow down the liberal juggernaut.

It is not always wrong to temporize. That is precisely what one should do with evils likely to disappear if one leaves them alone. That is what one should do with evils beyond one’s capacity to change.

But occasions do present themselves in which institutions and practices that once seemed entrenched and impregnable can be disposed of, and on such occasions temporizing is disastrous. We spent much of the Cold War attempting to accommodate the Soviet Union – and rightly so. In the beginning, they had the best artillery in the world and a great many divisions; later, they had nuclear weapons.

But a time came when shrewd observers recognized that the revolutionary generation had passed from the stage, that the Soviets had lost their élan, and that their economy was imploding. These men persuaded Ronald Reagan that what had always been deemed impossible was well within our grasp – that it had become possible to roll back communism without a nuclear war. And he, in turn, had the courage and the resolve necessary if an American leader was to seize the occasion and subject the Soviets to pressure that they could not bear. The proponents of Realpolitik recoiled in horror, but Reagan pressed on.

We now live in the worst of times. We are subject to a President and a party intent on fixing elections; on denying to workers faced with unionization the secret ballot; on shutting down conservative talk radio; on marginalizing Fox News; on demonizing Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, and John Boehner; and on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives.” This is the meaning of the massive expansion of federal expenditure and regulation under Obama; it is the likely consequence of Obamacare; and it will come to pass if we do not reverse course, repeal Obamacare, radically cut back federal expenditure, pare regulation, and balance the budget without imposing – except perhaps for a short time – additional taxes.

We also live in the best of times. At no time in the last sixty-four years has American public been as fed up and aroused as they are now. At no time have they been as well-informed. At no time have they been as open to genuine change. The onslaught of Barack Obama is the last gasp of the welfare state. The Social Security Administration is now paying out more than it takes in. Medicare and Medicaid are dependent on general revenues. If we do not cut back, we will have to pony up – and if we choose to pony up, we will soon discover that marginal tax rates affect conduct – that you can raise taxes and collect considerably less, rather than more, in revenues. This is a time for decision, and the American people know the score.

If we could roll back communism, we can roll back the welfare state. We can eliminate the administrative state, restore the separation of powers, re-establish constitutional government, provide for legislative accountability. We can do this, or – out of timidity or a disgraceful taste for running other people’s lives – we can acquiesce. It is not a time for half-measures. Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have unwittingly opened the way for a return to first principles and a political realignment. If we do not seize this occasion now, we may never have another opportunity to change the direction in which this country has been tending for almost a century now.

In the order imagined by Woodrow Wilson and the progressives, set in motion by Wilson’s great admirer Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and extended by Lyndon Baines Johnson, we were destined to drift in the direction of what Alexis de Tocqueville called soft despotism. But Barack Obama has awakened us from our slumber, and we have an opportunity to become again what we once were – free women and men governing ourselves within a republican order characterized by federalism and the separation of powers. At this point, the only thing that we have to fear is fear itself. The only obstacles are the ambition of the would-be managers in our own camp and the timidity of those who mistake temporizing for prudence.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Inactive
    @DavidSchmitt

    Thank you, Mr. Rahe. We must begin serious talk of how this roll back will occur. We must have actual proposals, time tables and budgets for how to roll back bureaucracy. For two Federal agencies, the EPA and the FDA, I would propose strengthening state agencies interlinked by private, professional, watchdog and industrial associations. This will require people to understand that, in some cases, reducing central (and even globalist) control will not be the elimination of government, but will require and permit–by subsidiarity–increasing regional and local control and the creation of diverse and healthy experiments in government. Concerning the social and welfare roles that the Federal government has taken on, I believe that simply eliminating the 900 pound gorilla of Washington bureaucracy will result in religious and private initiatives expanding quite independently and almost spontaneously to address those needs. Where will such forums be located? How will they be funded? How can they be implemented? Analogous to the role played by osteoclastic cells in the remodeling of living bone, can government be reshaped by an agency devoted to reducing government: a bureauclastic agency, as it were? It might be a temporary, government agency well worth its budgeted cost.

    • #31
  2. Profile Photo Member
    @
    Duane Oyen

    Conor, you think that someone who was born in the US, but rejects that citizenship by fighting on the battlefield for the enemy shooting at our military, should be granted the same rights to which he is entitled if he were caught burgling the 7-11? I share the rest of your concerns and hopes, but this one makes no sense to me on a Constitutional law basis.

    I know, I know. There is no legitimate GWOT, just a law enforcement nuisance caused by Israel being beastly to Gaza and exacerbated by what Fareed Zakaria describes as our overreaction to peace-loving, no-real-threat members of MB. · Sep 11 at 5:46pm

    Edited on Sep 11 at 05:48 pm

    Duane,

    I have no problem with killing Americans who’ve taken up arms against this country on a battlefield.

    But what about someone who is targeted for killing far from any battlefield while they sit eating breakfast with their kids in Stockholm? That latter scenario is encompassed by the executive power claims Obama has made.

    • #32
  3. Profile Photo Member
    @DuaneOyen
    Conor Friedersdorf

    But what about someone who is targeted for killing far from any battlefield while they sit eating breakfast with their kids in Stockholm..scenario…encompassed by … executive power claims Obama has made. · Sep 12 at 4:06pm

    There are words claiming executive power in every administration- the issue is always what they do with the power. If some expat in Sweden was gunned down without being actively at war against the US, TVG would be held to account.

    Changed topic: I also love Chris Christie’s speeches and his actions. But no matter how Gorbasm-inducing it may be when he dresses down some richly-deserving NEA thug in a town meeting, you cannot make a long term diet of that- you have to show steady success over at least 5 years of solid work in electoral office with hostile legislators. I like Daniels- he clearly fits my performance criteria- he is probably not a national candidate for reasons not his fault (short stature, bad hair, reluctant wife), just as the great Haley Barbour is likely not for, image reasons, as well.

    Get rid of the US populace desire for “glib” and beauty, and we will make progress.

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.