Here is a fine post by Rod Dreher at Crunchy Con, writing about Andrew Bacevich’s article in The American Conservative, on how the conservatives since Reagan have actually pursued policies inimical to true conservatism. He’s asking for conservatives to comment on the article; conservative Vox Nova readers, please do!
A selection from Bacevich:
For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion. The Republican establishment may maintain the pretense of opposing Big Government, but pretense it is.
Social conservatives counting on McCain to return the nation to the path of righteousness are kidding themselves. Within this camp, abortion has long been the flagship issue. Yet only a naïf would believe that today’s Republican Party has any real interest in overturning Roe v. Wade or that doing so now would contribute in any meaningful way to the restoration of “family values.” GOP support for such values is akin to the Democratic Party’s professed devotion to the “working poor”: each is a ploy to get votes, trotted out seasonally, quickly forgotten once the polls close.
Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation.
The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home. The Republican Party of Bush, Cheney, and McCain no longer accommodates such a candidate.
This reminds me of my favorite book on American Politics: John Lukacs, A New Republic. It’s a terrific history and interpretation on how the United States, from Wilson on, became a thoroughly different nation than the one the founders brought about. (Although mutatis mutandis, something similar could be said for Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln in my opinion. Plus the U.S.A. of the Declaration of Independence was a different kind from the U.S.A. of the Constitution, something a lot of people forget as well.)
He points to bureaucracy, imperialism, populism, and “popular culture” as the culprits. I won’t try to summarize the book; run don’t walk to the bookstore and pick it up! Here’s a selection, which sure seems to apply forcefully to G.W. Bush (Lukacs has long been a conservative critic of Reagan’s so-called “conservatism”; he is critiquing Reagan here):
That the transformation of the American presidency to a publicity enterprise is inseparable from the existence of such a vast ‘executive’ bureaucracy should now be obvious. In the Middle Ages, indeed, until about the seventeenth century, kings had no cabinets; they depended on councils of advisers. In the second half of the twentieth century the elective monarchy of the American presidency assumed more and more of the characteristics of medieval kingship, with the liege lords having the power of determining access to the monarch, to the extent that even cabinet officers could no longer see the President on their own, that is, without the consent of the aforementioned liege lords who determined not only what and whom the President should see but also what he should hear — and perhaps, subsequently, think. That such a near-absolute preoccupation with publicity involves an underestimation of the character (and implicitly, of the necessary intelligence) of the elected President — as well as of the American people — should be obvious too.
A few thoughts.
Well I guess I am a tad turned off right off the bat by the term “true conservatives” What is that? The fact is there are many valid conservatisms running through the party. We have done more damage to ourselves in the Republican party in many ways by trying to exclude the “heretics”. From immigration to the Gang of 14 to the Filibuster to even things like the Dubai Terminal lease deal these term comes up. Even though there were valid Conservative positions on all sides.
That being said I take issue with his stance on abortion. I hear this line trotted at all the time that the “GOP” is not interested in over turning Roe V Wade or I guess what he means is that the pro-life people that SAY they are pro-life in the GOP do not . That is it all a charade. Well if there is some conspiracy perhaps he can or others can point it out. Bring some facts to the table. Till then it all seems like a line that is intended to be repeated so much that it becomes true just by hearing it all the time.
As to his other issue well his stance reveals a valid stance and point of view in the Conservative movement but it is not the only one.
If he wishes to stay home fine. However if this occurs on a large scale expect a massive disaster especially down the ticket. The GOP is going to have a very tough time in the Senate. The House is not lookin great either. It gets worse. We have a census coming up. A massive staying home by “true conservatives” will have a huge effect on the Governors and State Houses. We could very well be setting ourselves up for huge disaster when a few years later our people are not in when we all have to redo the lines!!! Whatever his litmus test is of “true conservatives” they too shall suffer in the fallout.
This is the rub. We just had a Presidential primary. Why do people after having a fair opportunity to make their case to the voters threaten to go home and take their toys with them because they did not get their way. Perhaps they should go out and make their case stronger next time.
As to big Govt. Well they need to come up with solututions and make the argument to the people themselves. The Drug Benefit got passed because there was a crisis. What was their solution? Why could they not sell it to the American people. Where were all these true small Govt Conservatives when Bush was trying to really reform Social Security!!!
Now I understand his main pont is the war and he has a different view than other such as myslelf as to Americn Foreign Policy. I think we shall be in fine hands with McCain and to be honest in his argument he did not convince me at all that McCain would be intervening all over the place.
THe author of the piece says:
“Yet conservatives should fault the president and his party for pretending that they are seriously committed to curbing or reversing such tendencies. They might also blame themselves for failing to see the GOP’s cultural agenda as contrived and cynical. ”
The Culural agenda is contrived or cyncal? Let us name names then. Also this seems very much like what Obama is saying. Elect me and we shall come together and get pass race by going after the forces in DC that is keeping us down togther. The Corporations, etc etc. I would think a “true conservative” would recognize that the Federal is only a part of it. That the real grunt work occurs on the State and local level. In fact it occurs not in Govt at all but in the Churches, in the community, and such.
I have not even got into what 8 years of a Obama or Hillary Presidency will do to the courts. In other words if you want to see Federal Intrusion you have seen nothing yet.
THe nation goes in its mood to left of cent to right of center all the time. Staying home very much could produce a result that is makes the result of the election way way far more out of wack thatn the true intentions of the American people and result in a political dynamic that will tkae years and years to undo.
Further evidence that paleocons may be paleos. but there is nothing conservative about many of them. Bacevich hasn’t been a conservative for quite a while, and in his more candid moments he has recognized this:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/85723/tomdispatch_interview_bacevich_on_the_limits_of_imperial_power
Conservatives have no more reason to accept his advice than they would the advice tendered by any political adversary.
Bacevich hasn’t been a conservative for quite a while, and in his more candid moments he has recognized this.
???
He recognizes that he’s not a neocon.
If conservatives tend to condemn, liberals tend to condone; but there is less difference between condemning and condoning than meets the eye. The arrogance of power lies at the root of both. To put the matter in psychological terms, the conservative may be blocked by dependency; the liberal tends to be blocked by counterdependence. The conservative may be prejudiced; the liberal tends to have a prejudice against all firm stances.
Franz Josef van Beeck
Reagan wasn’t a true conservative. Neither of the Bushes was or is. Maybe Herbert Hoover wasn’t. Barry Goldwater was, I guess, until he grew up at about age 75. Maybe Cal Coolidge was a true conservative. What’s left, Rush Limbaugh?–(the William F. Buckley Jr. of our day. O Tempora! O Mores! as my Latin teacher Mrs. Rens liked to say, quoting Barack Obama.)
Perhaps “conservatism” is nothing but a pose after all, an attitude akin to that of the man in the Temple Jesus spoke of, the guy who thanked God for being one of the good guys. (One thinks in particular of George Weigel in this regard.)
Or I suppose it is a pose with one sincere, persistent, consistent principle: Cut Taxes!
Bacevich hasn’t been a conservative for quite a while, and in his more candid moments he has recognized this.
none is right… Bacevich is simply distancing himself from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.
Bacevich’s book The New American Militarism is great. “Conservatives” and “liberals” alike should definitely read it.
“The essential point is this: conservatives intent on voting in November for a candidate who shares their views might as well plan on spending Election Day at home.”
BREAKING NEWS!!!
CONSERVATIVISM IS DEAD!!!
DON’T EVEN BOTH VOTING ANYMORE!!!
JUST HAND IT OVER TO THE PRO-ABORTION, EVEN BIGGER GOVERNMENT, MORAL RELATIVE LIBERALS!!!
Jay,
We’re talking about a single Republican candidate, not conservatives en masse. Let’s think about this before displaying such histrionics.
“We’re talking about a single Republican candidate…”
And ignoring the long-term consequences if McCain loses.
Presidents come and go my friend, but the federal judges they appoint determine significant issues for DECADES. Maybe you haven’t hear about this yet, but the next president might get to nominate 50 additional federal judges upon inauguration day. http://oldfordroad.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/bill-proposes-50-new-federal-judgeships-for-next-president/
Don’t vote. But then don’t wonder why the social conservative, pro-life movement will suffer a 40-year setback if Obama or Hillary gets to stack the courts with pro-abortion judges for the next 8 years.
And if you don’t care to vote at all in November, feel free to stop posting your political opinions on this blog for the next four years thereafter.
Presidents come and go my friend, but the federal judges they appoint determine significant issues for DECADES.
Sounds like Obama-messiah-mania has crept into the McCain camp as well. This was the same crap the Bush heads peddled 8 years ago, and again 4 years ago and so many Catholics were duped by it. And look at the amazing results 8 years of Bush has accomplished for the unborn. All we were left with is an intensification of the culture of death through the normalization of war and empire, and a new republican candidate who wants to extend that policy for centuries (if america even lasts that long).
And if you don’t care to vote at all in November, feel free to stop posting your political opinions on this blog for the next four years thereafter.
Ah, voting as sacrament. Even if one is a principled nonvoter, he is invited to sit down and shut up for he has not paid proper homage.
Michael: do you think Gore or Kerry would have appointed a Roberts to the SC? Bush lost a ton of political capital re: Terry Shiavo. But I think he stuck to his guns because he believed her parents were right. That took a lot of guts.
The GOP is very far from perfect. But liberal Catholics talk themselves into believing that Bush has done “nothing” for the pro-life cause. They want to console themselves into believing that there is no difference between donks and Republicans on this issue so they can feel guiltless voting for the Dems.
Donna
Get the book, “Our Fight 4 Terri,” offered here: http://www.fight4terri.com/main/ and you will see how Bush did not “stick to his guns.” You can see a discussion of such starting on page 388.
It was one of many times where Bush really proved where he stood (and that was as a politician who says everything for votes, but does nothing).
“And look at the amazing results 8 years of Bush has accomplished for the unborn.”
Michael, the only thing necessary to be a liberal is to be oblivious to the facts. Why don’t you take your own advice and “look at the amazing results of Bush…”:
FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE ROE V. WADE, THE SUPREME COURT (THANKS TO BUSH APPOINTEES) FINALLY VOTED TO UPHOLD A TOTAL BAN ON A PARTICUALR TYPE OF ABORTION.
A president’s nominees are a huge part of his or her legacy!!! Wake up my friend.
Don’t tell me or anyone else that Bush hasn’t done anything for the unborn. I submit he’s done just about everything in his power to do so — except for waving that imaginery magic wand you seem to think he’s hiding.
U.S. Citizens ultimatley participate in this particular American republic by voting. If you don’t care to vote AT ALL or participate in our democracy, the rest of us voters can figure things out without your annoying rhetoric. (You should at least have the good sense to vote 3rd party.) If you choose not to vote at all, you have no business attempting to sway other voters. It’s called hypocrisy.
They want to console themselves into believing that there is no difference between donks and Republicans on this issue so they can feel guiltless voting for the Dems.
Republicatholics do the same thing in reverse: amplifying the supposed differences between the two parties so that they will feel guiltless voting for republicans, i.e. the republicans are the “party of life” while the dems are the “party of death.” This is a flat lie, and this kind of thinking is not the thinking of the Church, who speaks about a “culture of death” and a “culture of life.” Both parties are the protectors of the culture of death, the republicans just as much as the democrats. Republicatholics either lack the conscience to be able see that republican platform of war, torture, individualism, racism, etc are death-dealing and evil, or they actually are in fact in favor of these same policies which are contrary to what their Church teaches. I tend to believe more and more that the latter is true. The longer I live outside of the immediate american context, the more I see how truly bizarre american Catholicism with its partisan thinking really is.
Jay, the banning of partial birth abortion is hardly a victory for those who uphold the sanctity of all life. Even pro-life hero Fr. Thomas Euteneuer said as much:
“[N]ot one baby will be saved by this decision because the abortion industry will just alter their procedures for killing late-term babies and call it by a different name.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9145
Contrary to what you suggest, I do not think that there is a presidential “magic wand” that will end abortion, which is PRECISELY why I do not trust republicatholic insistence that I vote for a republican if I want to end abortion.
U.S. Citizens ultimatley participate in this particular American republic by voting.
I’m sorry if you think voting is the “ultimate” way in which we participate in democracy. I think that is, indeed, what the powers want us to think, and you have fallen for it. Democracy means much more than that. Was it Emma Goldman who said, “If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal”?
If you choose not to vote at all, you have no business attempting to sway other voters. It’s called hypocrisy.
I’m sure I am in some ways a hypocrite. But MY gauge for measuring that is the Gospel and the Church, as opposed to the “good u.s. citizen” yardstick that you seem so fascinated by. If you judge me a hypocrite based on the ideals of “the republic,” I could care less, my friend.
Michael,
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I must dissent here:
“the banning of partial birth abortion is hardly a victory for those who uphold the sanctity of all life. Even pro-life hero Fr. Thomas Euteneuer said as much: ‘[N]ot one baby will be saved by this decision because the abortion industry will just alter their procedures for killing late-term babies and call it by a different name.’”
I’m sorry, but the American legal community recognizes that the ban on partial-birth abortion as a truly significant decision–a landmark decision. It is the first crack in the long line of Roe v. Wade decisions and quite possibly the beginning of the end for Roe (at the outrage of Obama and Hillary). I’m sorry if you cannot appreciate that achievement, but this may be the first step in saving many, many babies! It took about four presidencies and 35 years to get to this point. The pro-abortion community is desperate to stop the progress and gladly awaits your non-participation in November.
Jay – I certainly hope you are right about the PB abortion ban being the “beginning of the end” of abortion, but I have my doubts.
It took about four presidencies and 35 years to get to this point.
If this is so, then a simple vote for or against a republican isn’t the hinge on which this issue turns, is it?
The pro-abortion community is desperate to stop the progress and gladly awaits your non-participation in November.
I look forward to being your scapegoat, then, in one way or another.
“If this is so, then a simple vote for or against a republican isn’t the hinge on which this issue turns, is it?”
Yes, because that’s how long it took to get enough conservative justices on the Supreme Court to rule that way on the issue. Obama or Hillary appointees (over the span of 4 to 8 years and decades thereafter) would work against any progress in restricting abortion.
So, Jay, you’ve merely transferred the magic wand that will “end” abortion from the president to the supreme court.
Michael J. Iafrate,
do you really think the unborn should be ignored? You of all people ought to hold the value of an unborn human life to a higher level than that.
It is not about voting for a Republican or Deathocrat… it’s about not voting for a rabidly pro-abortion candidate, and the result of not voting for the alternative a candidate who is opposed to most abortions and has stated he will nominate justices likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade, by all accounts the necessary precursor to eliminating abortion in the US… if that’s what you really want.
God Bless,
Matt
Well, if you put it that way, I guess so. Every once in a great while the High Court reverses itself. There are no guarantees, but most conservatives will agree that the chances are better with McCain making nominations to the federal judiciary.
I think we can agree that our nation’s issues are ultimately spiritual, and we can both be steadfast in prayer for this country we love.
do you really think the unborn should be ignored?
No. And I have said nothing to suggest that I think they should be ignored. And the fact that you even asked me this question, in an apparently deliberate attempt to misrepresent my views, confirms for me that you should be ignored.