Yesterday we explored whether conservatives truly believe in democracy. While some clearly do not, I think most do. That may be a pet illusion, but it's an illusion I maintain because the alternatives carry ugly implications.
So what do conservatives believe in now? The more I listened to and read about this the less I was able to answer that question. Many of the core beliefs that animated conservatism have been discredited by events. It is, as I suggested yesterday, a movement that no longer knows what it believes.
More below the fold....
Conservatism - The Rubble and the Rabble, Part II
Much of the conservative movement lies in rubble, its core beliefs having been discredited by events. Less government is always better? See New Orleans. The U.S. military can dictate policy anywhere, against anyone? See Afghanistan and Iraq. Free corporations to make money however they see fit? See Wall Street.
Much of the rest seems a rabble, in the sense of scattered adherents to beliefs that most Americans have largely rejected in practice. Women are not returning to hearth, home, and economic dependence. People of color will not be forever marginalized, and indeed most demographers suggest that within the next 20-40 years the "minorities" will be the majority. LGBTs are increasingly accepted by most Americans, even if that "acceptance" is not yet as complete as we'd like. There seems a growing consensus that it's fine to practice your religion, or to have none, but that we can't demand that everyone practice our religion, or have none.
The proverbial "three-legged stool" of modern conservatism - economic libertarianism, religious fundamentalism, and nationalistic militarism - has been fractured, and that shouldn't be surprising.
Coherent beliefs, or coalition of voting blocs?
That "three-legged stool" was never built around a coherent belief set, and the inconsistencies were always its weakness. Economic libertarians wanted government out of the boardroom, but religious fundamentalists wanted government in the bedroom. Economic libertarians wanted smaller government, but nationalistic militarists wanted bigger defense budgets. Those were not the only inconsistencies, because each voting bloc looked back to a different "golden age" as its touchstone.
Economic libertarians look to the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when we were not yet so removed from English culture that aristocracy was a discredited ideal. Many of our Framers openly advocated for that, with notions of a "natural ruling class" from and by whom our leaders would be chosen, and whose superior breeding would be an essential check against the ignorant masses. Others among the Framers rejected that idea, and that unresolved dispute is embedded in the language and structure of our Constitution. Economic libertarians cling to an "original intent" view of the Constitution because in 1792 Americans had not yet rejected that aristocracy, in law or in practice.
Some religious fundamentalists look to that period as well, though through the very different lens of the Second Great Awakening. More often, however, they harken back to the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. While some point to the end of slavery as their signal success, the dominant fundamentalist sect is the Southern Baptist Convention, which split from other baptists over its defense of slavery. Their real signal success, and the yardstick against which they measure any effort, is prohibition: amending the Constitution to enforce their religious beliefs nationwide.
Meanwhile, nationalistic militarists look to World War II, a period of clear enemies, national unity against those enemies, and an unambiguous victory over those enemies. We often discuss this militarism in economic terms - as an excuse for defense contractors to feed at the public trough - and that's true for the handful at the top. However, for rank and file conservatives, the attraction lies in everyone sharing a simplifying and unifying focus: winning the war. Moral questions reduce to live-or-die, and win-or-lose. Rally 'round the flag and sally forth.
George W. Bush: Conservative Trifecta
Seen in that light, George Bush was a conservative trifecta. He was the son of a former president, the brother of a prominent governor, born to the "natural ruling class." He was also a religious fundamentalist who cited Jesus as his favorite philosopher and promised a new Social Gospel era with government funding of religious institutions. And 9/11 allowed him to become a "wartime president," demanding that Americans share his simplifying and unifying focus: crushing the evil-doers.
Not surprisingly, among conservatives Bush remained popular even to the end of his presidency, long after the rest of the nation had recognized the realities: his economic policies helped only the wealthy, religious fundamentalism was a divisive and often hypocritical wedge, and his wars did not have clear enemies over whom we did or even could win unambiguous victories. Add in the national horror and humiliation of Katrina, and even the faux-populism of Ronald Reagan's "government is the problem" was exposed as an overreaching generalization. Sometimes, events reminded us, government must be a solution or we all suffer for its failures.
With oil an ever-diminishing resource and climate science convincing even most conservatives that our ecosystem is endangered by CO2 emissions, and an economy in crisis, the three-legged stool policy of "government should enforce morality, win wars, and nothing else" was doomed.
The Bush trifecta went 0-for-3, and because those three legs look to different "golden ages" with very different visions of America, they have little left on which to agree. Until and unless they find some truly common and coherent belief system, all that's left is "We're not them." They offer no solutions because all they agree on is their dislike for President Obama and the Democrats.
But "No" is not a movement.
+++++
Happy Thursday!