I posted below on David Frum’s article taking to task his fellow Republicans. Here’s another such commentary, by conservative-libertarian think tank intellectual Steven F. Hayward, who argues that “US conservatives must reform their internal ideology in order to create a coherent effort to revitalise the party.” Money quote
…Which brings us to the third major political fact of our age: the welfare state, or entitlement state, is here to stay. It is a central feature of modernity itself. We are simply not going back to a system of “rugged individualism” in a minimalist “night watchman” state; there is not even a plurality in favor of this position. A spectrum of conservative and libertarian thinkers acknowledge this, though this perception has not penetrated the activist ranks. Back in 1993, Irving Kristol called for a “conservative welfare state” on the pragmatic grounds that “the welfare state is with us, for better or worse, and that conservatives should try to make it better rather than worse.” National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru noted in 2006, “there is no imaginable political coalition in America capable of sustaining a majority that takes a reduction of the scope of the federal government as one of its central tasks.” William Voegeli, author of the most trenchant critique of the welfare state (Never Enough) since at least Charles Murray, concludes, “No conservative, either in the trenches or the commentariat, has yet devised a strategy for politicians to kick deep dents in the side of the middle-class entitlement programmes without forfeiting a presidency or a congressional majority.” And libertarian economist Tyler Cowen faces the reality squarely: “The welfare state is here to stay, whether we like it or not.”
Thank you, Mr. Hayward, for telling it like it is. Not that your alternate reality-based fellow conservatives will be paying attention…
Indeed, they seem to be well inoculated against the virus of more nuanced arguments. And that is a pity because it was not always so. I became a conservative at university (yes, I know it’s usually the other way around) because I was attracted to what I felt at the time was a very serious and thoughtful group of people with ideas worth exploring. I am a big fan of Russell Kirk and I actually am re-reading his work to remind me that such thoughtfulness did exist once upon a time within the American conservative movement. What I see today is anything but – I even have the impression that many of these folks would consider Kirk himself suspect.
I don’t think there could ever be one ideology for conservatives, and by extrapolation, the Republican Party. Indeed, the effort to do is, imo, not a very conservative thing to do in the first place, and counter-productive in the second place. I think it is well-nigh impossible to set one ideology for conservatives because there is so much diversity of the very premises that constitute their respective, individual, outlooks or weltschauungs – by these, I mean the unspoken, assumed presuppositions of which one is not necessarily conscious of holding. Before one articulates in clear and distinct ideas and words one’s own set of political beliefs and opinions, one develops a gut feeling for things, and these gut feelings vary widely according to geography, social class, religion and race. Now, for sure, I think it would be good for Republicans and conservatives to clean away alot of the crap that pollutes the airwaves and the net. The party’s wingnuttery is a symptom of a deeper malaise in Republican ranks that is afflcting most especially the baby boomer generation. I would say they’re living badly the end of deeply-held certitudes. I don’t think much improvement in the methodology of thinking conservatively is going to take place so long as the baby boomers remain predominant – its not inter-generational prejudice I hold, rather I just believe they are, as a group, so terribly disoriented and their model of political engagement – culture war against liberals – is revealing itself to be an impotent means to further their beliefs (whatever they may be at this point).
Interesting that you see a generational aspect to the GOP’s wingnuttery, particularly as it’s the latter that rails on against the 1960s liberal-left. Intra-generational conflicts tend to be particularly virulent and personal.