Damon Linker, whom I admire and respect a great deal, has written a status report of the brains and voices of the Right. While he uses broad strokes about National Review's "The Corner" and Commentary's "Contentions" (I really enjoy both of those blogs a great deal), I think his assessment is quite good. I feel mildly vindicated by the fact that Linker reads the same people I do (obsessively), namely those at The American Scene and Front Porch Republic.
There is no point deluding ourselves about the fact that the Right is a bit fractured at the moment. There are a considerable number of players who seek different agendas, almost like an issue-tug-of-war, although there are more than two ends to the rope. Many, like Linker, feel the drag of social conservatism is a big (if not the biggest) hindrance to a sustainable party and future. I think this analysis is far too simple. While I don't share many of the same ideas as social conservatives, giving up on these voices is not what Americans (conservative or liberal) should do. The hardest moral quandaries (gay marriage, abortion etc.) are those that need the most careful thought, not an eventual mass caving by people because they've become impatient by lack of national consensus or frustrated by what they believe are obsolete or religiously-influenced ideas. To state the obvious: pluralistic democratic societies are never unanimous or uniform places, and you can never please all of the people all of the time. But that doesn't mean we should give up on these issues or somehow cave-in.
The Republican Party needs work (ahem,I am for hire, ahem) and it should tend to itself before too late. The intraparty soul-searching doesn't seem to have yielded too many results as of yet, except of course the first black chairman (who hasn't impressed me as of yet). But the great minds writing on the Right indicate a bright future ahead (far brighter than those on the left if you ask me!). When those that attract the most attention (Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh et al) are pointed to as the leaders of the party or the face of conservatism I have to laugh. That is a narrow reading (and an intentional libel) of conservatism today.
The left has found a way to a large enough coalition (mostly through an incredibly charismatic and adroit politician) to currently control the Congress and the White House, though problems certainly remain. But I feel very comfortable knowing that there is certainly a strong future ahead for American conservatism. To all my conservatives and neos and Right-leaning friends out there: Don't get discouraged by the notion that the ideas that we subscribe to are somehow outmoded or are being repudiated. That is hogwash. We are in good hands my friends. Very good hands.
Posts
Adjust contrast of a pdf free
8 years ago
Indeed! Three cheers for the new guard!
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the Right is fractured in many ways, but therein lies our strength, our ability to synthesize dynamic solutions for a myriad of modern dilemmas.
And when you do get picked up in the big leagues, I'll be your bodyguard.
Do you guys ever read the Becker-Posner blog? (www.becker-posner-blog.com)
ReplyDeleteI just want to say that though I am bit of a leftist, I support good and smart policy above all ideology. Whether it comes from the right or left doesn't matter to me at all. But in the mind of a leftist, the right's social conservative agenda seems too much to bare, and directly contradicts free market ideology.
The problem is that I'd be willing to accept conservatism without the baggage of social conservatism. That today you can't have one without the other is a major impediment to your party's progress. When you've reconciled that, I think and I hope we can look forward to an era where the right and left both work together on sound policy-making.
I have another thought to contribute...
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Republicans have been increasingly associated with "politics" while the Democrats are more concerned with "governance." This is a bad omen for Republicans, who surely want to avoid becoming reactionary and do-nothing speechifiers. In fact, it's a bad omen for us all, because a strengthened Republican party which is likewise interested in good governance and less politics would certainly enrich debates and benefit us all.
Right now it's almost as if the two parties resemble a dysfuctional household, each of whom agrees on the common goals but can't come together despite their mutual interest in doing so. In fact, the two parties are nothing without each other, because each left to its own devices would certainly spell self-destruction.
We need a new culture of politics and debate in Washington, and I think from what I've seen Obama has made some progress on this. If he gives an inch, the Republicans should take it and give one of their own (such as social conservative issues). Parties don't exist for their own sake. Repeating this mantra might also benefit us all.