The Conservative Movement is Dead; Long Live the Conservative Movement

 

national-review-anniversary-william-f-buckley-r “Only a few prefer liberty — the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.” Sallust, Histories

I have been thinking about what went wrong with the Conservative movement and why in a year where the Democrats nearly handed us the election we failed to capitalize yet again. It dawned on me that so much of the commentary focused on the Republican Party, conservatives in general, the failure of our gatekeepers, our “betrayal” by the establishment, and the inadequacies of the various candidates. What I want to do is look at the Conservative movement and see how it is doing.

The first question I want to answer is what the Conservative movement was and then I want to make the case for why it died and why we need it again. William F. Buckley is widely and, I think, correctly seen as the founder of the Conservative movement. He started the movement in reaction to the progressive consensus of the time that we had moved past the founding documents of America and that we had the capability of remaking society. This progressive consensus was that we could retain democracy and some of the rights promised in the US Constitution but, at the same time, we needed to abandon the restrictions on our power that the Constitution had put in place because we knew so much more than before and there was so much more that we could control. In other words, Liberty was not an important value when it was possible to know what was best for people and we had the ability to guide people to good outcomes.

Buckley famously wanted to “stand athwart history, yelling stop!” Which was the right attitude to take since the people he was dealing with in the 1950s were part of the intellectual consensus but culturally had grown up in a time of Classical Liberal values and believed in them. There had not been a successful defender of our classical liberal order since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s and the crisis of the Great Depression and then World War II had muted all ideological disputes for more than 12 years.

To tap into this cultural conservatism of the people the people had to realize that there was a disconnect between the liberal intellectual consensus and the people’s felt classical liberal values. Buckley founded National Review to provide that intellectual framework. Not only would they defend classical liberal values of limited government, federalism, personal liberty, and Judeo-Christian values, they would form a consensus on the right bringing together different streams of the conservative intellectuals together through fusionism. All of this succeeded and key to its success was the rise, less than a decade after the founding of National Review, of the movement of the New Left.

The New Left undermined the connections between the progressive consensus and the felt classical liberal values of most the people. The dominant political consensus came under attack from the Right and the Left and the progressive liberals were the ones without the intellectual firepower to fight and win either battle. More on the Progressives and the New Left in another post.

Buckley’s Conservative movement succeeded in disrupting the consensus of his time, something any movement must do to succeed, and in providing an intellectual framework for changing the direction of the country. This was key because once a consensus is disrupted people need to see a way forward or the support they feel for the new movement fades and they can even turn on the new movement for leading them down a blind alley. It is far easier to destroy an old order than it is to replace that order with something new. That is why revolutions that truly bring about something new and unknown to a country usually fail, while things like the American Revolution succeed because they are trying to restore or protect liberties that are known to the people.

Back to politics. As the conservative movement got going, it needed a vehicle and the Republican Party needed issues to win back power. Because of FDR, the Democrat party was the beneficiary of the political Consensus which was, to simplify greatly, a belief that instead of a focus on negative rights and individualism, the government would focus on providing for the common good even if that meant trampling on some individual rights and liberties and especially if that meant on removing or weakening checks on government power. The conservative side of the consensus was to preserve, even if primarily through hypocrisy, a certain kind of social conservatism. Since the Republican Party was on the outs of this they needed issues to use against the Democrats because you could not always run a war hero in every presidential election. The Conservative movement provided such issues and the movement began to grow in the Republican party.

American Political History, in Brief

American political parties were not primarily vehicles for ideology for most of American history. American politics primarily served to mediate between the different economic interests of different regions of the country and local politics were decided on issues of competency, political corruption and reform. Whigs and Democrats and then Republicans and Democrats switched positions in local politics all the time. The great thread that was close to an ideological divide was the Civil War and Segregation. But since that also was a regional issue it fit very well with over political class. FDR and the New Deal changed everything because of the extended amount of time and opportunities that Great Depression and World War II offered. Though it needs to be mentioned here that FDR’s overwhelming desire for complete power, his savior complex and his desire to throw out American’s republican traditions, like serving only two terms as President, and his incredible political skills all played an important part in the change as well. 

The Republicans resisted and made real progress in the Truman administration, which is what gave birth to the new political consensus. With Eisenhower, both parties were basically in service to this political consensus. Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon and Carter were all part of the general liberal/progressive Consensus politics though they empathized different parts of the Consensus and had different priorities. The people backed the Consensus politicians too. Nixon’s second term reelection landside was due in part to the fact that people perceived Nixon to be a champion of the Consensus politics and opposed to both the Conservatives and the New Left.

Carter won after Nixon to reform the Consensus politics and put it on more virtuous footing. However Carter’s only plan for how to do this was to act, in his own estimation, virtuously.  So no matter how many virtuous decisions he made, by Carter’s own lights, the rest of the world did not care and spun out of control. Since the problem of the Consensus politics was not that they needed a virtuous man but that they no longer worked so Carter’s presidency failed.

The Reagan Effect

Then came Reagan. He was a movement Conservative and had fully developed his ideology but he felt and looked like an old familiar Consensus politicians. Reagan comes into office and immediately begins to apply conservative principles to the problems of the day and give answers to the problems the public perceived to be problems.  One of the hurdles that he had to overcome was the natural Republican tendency to think that you don’t need ideology to win and maintain power. Political operatives can often be frightened by a strong ideology because it can box you in and trap politicians in positions that aren’t “winning” and politics is about winning power and the mediating problems peacefully. This led traditional Republicans to fear and mistrust Reagan but it also allowed Reagan to see and exploit the weaknesses in the Democrats and exploit them. In the end Reagan’s mix of practical political competence, ideological clarity and his success in fixing the things public thought were wrong with the country made him untouchable and made Republicans that wanted to win to be like Reagan. Many politicians that became Conservatives did it as a political tactic though and not as an actual change of heart. Reagan’s success also killed the Conservative movement as a movement and welded the movement to the Republican party. Reagan showed us the way to further our goals and the movement Conservatives took the path of growing and controlling the Republican party. What was not clear at the time was the fact that the Republican Party was much bigger than the Conservative movement.

During the Reagan-Bush years the Democrats were in disarray as old Democrat Consensus politicians unsuccessfully tried to harness the New Left and failed at that spectacularly. What Conservatives needed to do was maintain power and to maintain our position in the Republican Party and the whole country would begin to return to the Classical Liberal principles and cultural norms that we knew were essential to a successful country. At least that is what Conservatives hoped. Reagan, when he left office, was old and that was a big weakness because the next President would be the de facto leader of the Conservative movement. The leader that Conservatives got was Bush who was a wonderful man in many ways but was a Consensus politician by instinct who wanted to do his job with great competence and professionalism. What he wasn’t was a leader for Conservatives and his presidency by any measure was highly competent and successful and he secured several of Reagan’s victories like winning the Cold War. What the people needed from him however was to see where Conservatives would go from here. What was our next move, what would a new Conservative political consensus look like? George Bush was not capable of answering these questions and so he lost to Bill Clinton and Ross Perot who were both perceived as offering answers to these questions. More on both them in a following post.

When Clinton betrayed his small government rhetoric, people responded by getting on board the Gingrich revolution and putting Republicans in charge of the legislature. Gingrich could have become the Conservative leader the movement needed but he was not stable enough. Dole ran against Clinton and he was as far from a Movement Conservative as you could get promising to be Reagan if we wanted him to be. Meanwhile Conservatives began celebrating their massive victories but doing what all movements do when they get power they began refining their message and writing people out of the movement in effort to have more success and to avoiding having to make so many compromises. The 1990s is where the term “RINO” becomes popular and the Republicans begin to rid the party of old Liberal Consensus politicians. Also the “Fusion” part of the movement begins to fray and break apart as different factions of party began to demand their spoils. Pro-lifers needed more out of Republicans, libertarian economic conservatives wanted to end socially minded tax breaks, Christian conservatives needed cultural change and, as pay offs were demanded, unity was undermined. Meanwhile, in the public mind, politics had turned back to compromise as Republicans and Democrats were working together and passing Welfare reform and balanced budgets.

The Conservative movement was not served very well by the next Presidential candidates either with Bush being a kind of Conservative but being judged by foreign policies, war and crisis management. Who in the public’s mind was really elected with a mandate to continue the Clinton politics of compromise while leaving Clinton’s gross personal weaknesses behind. McCain was nearly a pre-Reagan throw back and Romney famously spoke Conservatism as a second language. What was worse than the politicians not providing the leadership the movement needed but the Conservatives stopped being a movement. This happens to movements of many kinds, when leadership changes direction and vision can be loss while it is important to remember that while the Conservative movement dominated in issues and policy ideas, the Republican party was always bigger than the Conservative movement. When the Movement lost momentum and vision it was always possible that a different faction of the Republican coalition could assert itself and the Republican party was not going to resist that takeover. Republicans are about winning elections and beating Democrats, not advancing an ideology.

Let’s sum things up. The Conservative Movement was founded by William F Buckley and others to disrupt a Progressive/Liberal Consensus that emerged after the Great Depression and World War II. In this, the Conservative movement succeeded. In doing so, they gained a dark mirror image and rival known as the New Left. That rivalry lasted through the first aborted efforts to take over the different political parties and, against all odds, the Conservative Movement won that race and took power with President Reagan.

Since that massive victory and all the other victories that Reagan’s presidency made possible, the Conservative Movement stopped being a movement and became the dominant faction in the Republican Party, but represented only one part of the larger Republican coalition. The last two years of the Bush administration and the Obama administration made people doubt what Conservatives could do and different factions in the Republican Party decided that Conservatives need not lead their coalition. They found a champion in Trump and the rest will soon be history.

How can the Conservative movement reconstruct and invigorate itself in our current environment and not only bring the Republican Party back on board but see new growth in the movement? That’s for my next post.

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

There are 62 comments.

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

    Great post.

    • #1
  2. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    “Conservative Christians needed cultural change”, what do you mean, or could you give an example, at 69 years old, I do not know to what you are referring.  Concerning Buckley, in “God and Man at Yale”, Buckley focused on the classroom assertions on two subjects, belief in God was unfounded and reflected a simple, naive mind, and that the best and most just system of economic organization was socialism.  George Will, in a talk on religion and liberty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbA5ab18SCo, said that Buckley told him that, “a conservative did not have to be religious but could not be hostile to religion”.  Many of our self styled conservatives are much more like the faculty at Yale than Buckley or his colleague Whittaker Chambers, or most of the population of the 1950’s.

    • #2
  3. Lance Inactive
    Lance
    @Lance

    Conservatism is hard.  It requires discipline and the vision to understand how today impacts tomorrow, and that our ability to act today is dependent on all our yesterdays before it.  The joy comes in the eventual success, which means one must find satisfaction and fulfillment in how one purports themselves in the present.   There must be more public value placed on such things before it can be expected to resonate in the political.   Until such time, those of us who do ascribe to such beliefs, and actively try to live up to them, will be on the outside.   We just refused to believe for the longest time that the big tent had already packed up and moved on.

    • #3
  4. Matt White Member
    Matt White
    @

    Re:  cultural change. It would be more accurate to say social conservatives were resisting cultural change rather than demanding it. The demands for change have been coming from the left.

     

    • #4
  5. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Jim Beck:“Conservative Christians needed cultural change”, what do you mean, or could you give an example, at 69 years old, I do not know to what you are referring. Concerning Buckley, in “God and Man at Yale”, Buckley focused on the classroom assertions on two subjects, belief in God was unfounded and reflected a simple, naive mind, and that the best and most just system of economic organization was socialism. George Will, in a talk on religion and liberty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbA5ab18SCo, said that Buckley told him that, “a conservative did not have to be religious but could not be hostile to religion”. Many of our self styled conservatives are much more like the faculty at Yale than Buckley or his colleague Whittaker Chambers, or most of the population of the 1950’s.

    I meant that in the broadest sense possible like DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).  A desire for politicians to stand up for more for traditional culture, that kind of thing.  They wanted to see progress in reverse the liberal cultural tide.  Does that answer your question?

    I am a cultural and religious conservative so I meant no harm or insult in my list.

    • #5
  6. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Matt White:Re: cultural change. It would be more accurate to say social conservatives were resisting cultural change rather than demanding it. The demands for change have been coming from the left.

    100% agree.  However, I would add to your comment and further explain my point, Social Conservatives wanted to see movement on their issues, see respect for our traditions, see visible resistance to the left that kind of thing.  I do not mean Social Conservatives were trying to impose cultural change by law the change they desired broadly speaking was to stop the Left.  Though in the case of abortion and few other areas (like pornography) we did call for laws to change.

    • #6
  7. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Lance: There must be more public value placed on such things before it can be expected to resonate in the political. Until such time, those of us who do ascribe to such beliefs, and actively try to live up to them, will be on the outside. We just refused to believe for the longest time that the big tent had already packed up and moved on.

    As a frame of mind Conservatism is hard but it not impossible.  In my next post I will explore how this conservative concept actually resides deep inside the American soul and how we can tap into that.  Right now the left lives on this issue through hypocrisy.   When Americans think they are dependent on some on or need the dole they tend to rise up and fight to free and independent.  However if the people think they are owed the welfare well that is a completely different story….

    • #7
  8. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    A very solid piece.  Keep them coming.

    • #8
  9. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    I Walton:A very solid piece. Keep them coming.

    Thank you I will.

    • #9
  10. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Brian Wolf:

    Lance: There must be more public value placed on such things before it can be expected to resonate in the political. Until such time, those of us who do ascribe to such beliefs, and actively try to live up to them, will be on the outside. We just refused to believe for the longest time that the big tent had already packed up and moved on.

    As a frame of mind Conservatism is hard but it not impossible. In my next post I will explore how this conservative concept actually resides deep inside the American soul and how we can tap into that. Right now the left lives on this issue through hypocrisy. When Americans think they are dependent on some on or need the dole they tend to rise up and fight to free and independent. However if the people think they are owed the welfare well that is a completely different story….

    The problem first and foremost is that “conservativism” requires a high degree of social trust, which is sorely lacking.

    • #10
  11. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Guruforhire: The problem first and foremost is that “conservativism” requires a high degree of social trust, which is sorely lacking.

    Yes this is big obstacle my next post will take a crack at how we can crack the trust issue.  It will not be easy.

    • #11
  12. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Brian Wolf:

    Guruforhire: The problem first and foremost is that “conservativism” requires a high degree of social trust, which is sorely lacking.

    Yes this is big obstacle my next post will take a crack at how we can crack the trust issue. It will not be easy.

    It takes a decade to squander what an eon created.  It will probably take another hundred years or so to fix the damage done.

    • #12
  13. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Guruforhire: It takes a decade to squander what an eon created. It will probably take another hundred years or so to fix the damage done.

    Perhaps but I hope otherwise.

    • #13
  14. RyanFalcone Member
    RyanFalcone
    @RyanFalcone

    I think Sallust is wrong. Something happened after WWI. I think people stopped believing in the thought of a fair master and stopped believing in the up-side to liberty. Most folks stopped believing in anything. Man-kind has become an “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” race. As such, the debate has become in the minds of too many, should I vote Democrat and destroy myself on my own terms or vote Republican and have them destroy me on their terms?

    What we need is a shining city on a hill for everyone to see. They must be able to see, hear, taste and feel what conservatism is, un-filtered by the enemies of humanity and God. The sight of the miracle of human endeavor being performed to excellence is inspiring. We are starved for inspiration.

    We have been inching towards a new Dark Ages for 100 years or so. What we need is a Renaissance.

    • #14
  15. Quake Voter Inactive
    Quake Voter
    @QuakeVoter

    Ambitious post, written with some real narrative drive.

    I would recommend you reconsider a few points, however.

    No summary of postwar conservatism which fails to mention communism can be accurate. Treating the victory for humankind in the Cold War with a throwaway phrase no more consequential than deregulating trucking is a big mistake. It leads you, I feel, to ignore the long history of the “New Left” in postwar politics and its deep communist roots. Trying to assess WFB outside of the fight against communism is a purely speculative enterprise.

    There is also a certain Holden Caulfieldism I sense, maybe mistakenly, in your assertion of conservative hypocrisy defining the postwar era. I am the last of five children, born in 1965. My parents were school board/chamber of commerce conservatives. Sure there were small hypocrisies, but waking hours were devoted to family, church, local sports and local politics. My dad’s only vacation overseas involved a tour of some small islands in the Pacific in the early 1940s.

    I don’t see how their lives and priorities, which were very commonplace, were exercises in hypocrisy. My mom is now in her late 80s and worried that her recent spine injury will prevent her from babysitting her grandchildren or standing up to take Communion.

    Sorry, but characterizing the postwar lives of American conservative families as primarily hypocritical is the kind of brutality I expect to find in John Cheever, not Ricochet posts.

    Finally, the italics seems to indicate you feel the American electorate was responding to some superficial perceived problems in 1980. Ten percent unemployment, 15 percent inflation, ARMs heading towards 20%, crime wracked cities, American military impotence in Iran, Russian invasion to support a Communist regime in Afghanistan and the full court Bolshevik press in Central America.

    Were these really misperceptions?

    Of course I may be misperceiving your broad conceptual categories, unavoidable given the scope of your post, and may be taking some things a little too personal.

     

     

     

    • #15
  16. Freesmith Member
    Freesmith
    @

    Quake Voter: No summary of postwar conservatism which fails to mention communism can be accurate. Treating the victory for humankind in the Cold War with a throwaway phrase no more consequential than deregulating trucking is a big mistake. It leads you, I feel, to ignore the long history of the “New Left” in postwar politics and its deep communist roots. Trying to assess WFB outside of the fight against communism is a purely speculative enterprise.

    Correct. A glaring omission and the first thing I noticed: constructing American conservatism after World War II without the Cold War as a backdrop is like building a two-legged stool.

    It falls over.

     

     

    • #16
  17. Mr. Conservative Inactive
    Mr. Conservative
    @mrconservative

    You had me at hello. Sign me up (for the next column and for the new conservative movement/party). Wish I had written this. This is some of the best analysis and writing on this subject I have seen.  It encouraged me greatly. Well done.

    • #17
  18. BD Member
    BD
    @

    The current agenda of Buckley’s magazine includes tax credits as the major economic initiative and acquiescence to a huge immigration amnesty.  No thank you.

    Also, Buckley talked up Pat Moynihan as the GOP candidate in 1980.

    • #18
  19. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Mr. Conservative:You had me at hello. Sign me up (for the next column and for the new conservative movement/party). Wish I had written this. This is some of the best analysis and writing on this subject I have seen. It encouraged me greatly. Well done.

    I really appreciate that Mr. Conservative I hope to live up to your expectations in the following days.

    • #19
  20. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    How can the Conservative movement reconstruct and invigorate itself in our current environment and not only bring the Republican Party back on board but see new growth in the movement?

    I am convinced that this is very, very easy, and you allude to it in your post.  Figure out what the middle class think is a problem, and then tell them it is a problem, and tell them how you are going to fix it.  Today the middle class are worried about the economy, and about foreign influence in our country.  The current nominee of the Republican party knows this and has hit these things hard, which is part of why he’s been so successful.

    • #20
  21. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Quake Voter: Treating the victory for humankind in the Cold War with a throwaway phrase no more consequential than deregulating trucking is a big mistake. It leads you, I feel, to ignore the long history of the “New Left” in postwar politics and its deep communist roots. Trying to assess WFB outside of the fight against communism is a purely speculative enterprise.

    @freesmith @quakevoter  As I mentioned in the OP I plan to write up a lot more about the New Left in another related post to this one.  I also characterized in my post winning the Cold War as a massive victory and one that convinced Movement Conservatives that they had one.  In my next post on this subject I will also take a little deeper look at what the victory in the Cold War meant and how the massive impact of that victory actually hurt us in domestic politics and as a movement.

    Quake Voter: My parents were school board/chamber of commerce conservatives. Sure there were small hypocrisies, but waking hours were devoted to family, church, local sports and local politics. My dad’s only vacation overseas involved a tour of some small islands in the Pacific in the early 1940s.

    Your parents sound like wonderful people.  I think you misunderstand me and for that I will accept the blame for that, lets look at the offending passage.

    the political Consensus which was, to simplify greatly, a belief that instead of a focus on negative rights and individualism, the government would focus on providing for the common good even if that meant trampling on some individual rights and liberties and especially if that meant on removing or weakening checks on government power. The conservative side of the consensus was to preserve, even if primarily through hypocrisy, a certain kind of social conservatism.

    So I am talking about the Political consensus of the time not indivdual conservative people.  This was a liberal/progressive consensus and to gain and hold the kind of power they had it had to have a conservative side to it.  So Christianity was not despised publicly even if Progressives were already turning on it. Same-sex marriage would have gone no where back then, Segregation in the south was covered over for support for big government and welfare.  That is the kind of hypocrisy I am talking about Political hypocrisy primarily practiced by Democrat politicians.

    Quake Voter: Finally, the italics seems to indicate you feel the American electorate was responding to some superficial perceived problems in 1980. Ten percent unemployment, 15 percent inflation, ARMs heading towards 20%, crime wracked cities,

    No, they were not misperceptions at all.  The public correctly understood the problems of the country.  However Goldwater was also right in 1964 but back then the public did not understand the problems facing that nation as Goldwater did.  By 1980 public perception and Conservative critique and solutions had converged and made Reagan the political success that he was to be.

    • #21
  22. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    BD: The current agenda of Buckley’s magazine includes tax credits as the major economic initiative and acquiescence to a huge immigration amnesty.

    National Review has long been for reduced immigration and strong border controls and remains strong on those views today.  I am strongly for restricting immigration and pro-assimilation policies today primarily because of reading National Review.

    BD: Also, Buckley talked up Pat Moynihan as the GOP candidate in 1980.

    As you will see from my next post Buckley did that because he was leading a movement not a political party.  Movement Conservatism can be advanced by Democrats and Republicans both.  But Buckley did realize that Moynihan was a dead end and backed his old friend Reagan but that kind of out side the box thinking is what can make a movement successful but can never work as long as Conservatives are just one part of the Republican party.

    • #22
  23. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Spin: I am convinced that this is very, very easy, and you allude to it in your post. Figure out what the middle class think is a problem, and then tell them it is a problem, and tell them how you are going to fix it.

    Yes this is a key and very important part of constructing any movement for social, cultural or political change.  Trump is doing this as marketeer finding a under serviced group and then bringing them on board as his clients.  For a movement this it is a little different in that you need to make sure the problems you target and tactics you employ are first effective but also don’t lead down a blind alley as you strive to achieve your over arcing goal.    But I ask for your indulgence here as I plan to explore the very thing you point out in more depth in my next post.

    • #23
  24. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    RyanFalcone: I think Sallust is wrong. Something happened after WWI. I think people stopped believing in the thought of a fair master and stopped believing in the up-side to liberty. Most folks stopped believing in anything. Man-kind has become an “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” race.

    We agree over all.  The second part of your comment about modelling Conservatism is vitally important.  But I will register an objection.  America certainly inherited many intellectual diseases from post WWI Europe but the country remained brightly optimistic and energetic and even more so after World War II.  And not only that if we are producing men that want to live like “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”, then they are looking for fair masters that will allow them to live that way.  So I think Sallust is on to something still.

    • #24
  25. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Excellent post.  Thanks!

    Here’s something I wrote in 2014: Conservatism Is Dead. And So Is Liberalism.

    The key thing is that conservatism was essentially not liberalism.  When liberalism died then so did conservatism.

    I wrote this a few months ago: The Noise In The Fog.

    What we’re seeing now is the rotting, stinking corpse of the old way.  Meanwhile, a new seed has fallen.

    If we want to win, we need to be first to the new seed.  We need to stop fighting over the corpse.

    • #25
  26. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    May I say here, thank you editor, which ever one you are, for your fine work on the post and the improved picture.  I appreciate it.

    • #26
  27. Brian Wolf Inactive
    Brian Wolf
    @BrianWolf

    Casey:Excellent post. Thanks!

    Here’s something I wrote in 2014: Conservatism Is Dead. And So Is Liberalism.

    The key thing is that conservatism was essentially not liberalism. When liberalism died then so did conservatism.

    I wrote this a few months ago: The Noise In The Fog.

    What we’re seeing now is the rotting, stinking corpse of the old way. Meanwhile, a new seed has fallen.

    If we want to win, we need to be first to the new seed. We need to stop fighting over the corpse.

    Great and thank you for the references to your posts I will eagerly read both!

    Also your last sentence is exactly right, I will be very grateful to see what you think of my next post.

    • #27
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I was just saying to a friend that for new things to emerge, old things need to die. They don’t have to go through a violent death, but they need to collapse. (I like what Casey said in comment #25.) Part of the problem is that we refuse to “let go of the corpse,” thinking there is something that can be saved. Better to let it all go, use our experience (not even policies and programs) of what works, and move forward.

    • #28
  29. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    All in all a wonderful post.    However you seem to assert that Movement Conservatives took over the Republican Party and that, to me, is not true and represents Reagan’s greatest failure.    While Reagan and Movement Conservatives won landslide elections for the Republican Party, they never controlled the levers of power within the Party apparatus.    And they misjudged the level of animus the Establishment harbors towards those whom George Will famously called Reagan’s “kamikazee conservatives.”   The Establishment has had the knives out for those “kamikazee conservatives” ever since Reagan had the audacity to run against Ford in the 1976 primary.   GHW Bush lost the Party’s 1980 primary, but he never lost the Party apparatus.    The voters may have been Reagan’s, but the Party remained firmly Bush’s.    And as soon as Reagan left office the Party reverted to pre – Reagan form.    The  only difference was an appreciation of the vote-getting power of the word ‘conservative.’    Every Tom, Dick and Harry who wanted to get elected stuck ‘conservative’ on their campaign blurb whether they meant it or not.    And all too often they didn’t mean it.   That cognitive dissonance between ‘conservative’ label and action is the genesis of the Tea Party and the dichotomy we face today.

    • #29
  30. michael johnson Inactive
    michael johnson
    @michaeljohnson

    Your whole post made me laugh….thanks.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.