Lose Its Appeal Over Years

James Joyner admonishes me over my FDL post last night. As the post was not especially intended to please a "conservative" ear, it is understandable that Joyner's response is what it is -- essentially, a reasonably civil raspberry. Fair enough. However, the post betrays certain misapprehensions which are worth identifying.

FDL's Thers is piling on the "has conservatism run out of ideas" bandwagon and inadvertently helped demonstrate why conservatism will never die....

It turns out that conservatism was never "an intellectual movement at all" but rather "an essentially nihilist politics of vicious opportunism, where the entire goal is power for its own sake." The forty percent or so of Americans who self-identify as conservative? "[C]ompletely crazy idiots."

Like political parties, political movements in the ascendancy invariably overreach. Too many conservative Republicans interpreted a narrow Electoral College victory in 2000, which gave them nominal control of the policymaking apparatus, as a universal mandate. A cottage industry of books insulting the forty percent of Americans who voted the other way as stupid (If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d be Republicans), traitors (Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism), both (The Enemy Within, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder)  or barely worth talking to (How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)). 

Now that the Republicans are down, too many on the other side are making the same mistake. Conservatism has been rejected! Everyone agrees with progressive ideals now! Only the stupid, racist few disagree these days!

It's not inconceivable that the November elections return the White House to Democratic hands, increase the party's House majority, and even provides a filibuster-proof margin in the Senate. But it's a lead pipe cinch that they'll screw it up, became the corrupt, power-at-all-costs goons that they now accuse their opponents of being, and piss off enough of the country that they'll be thrown out on their butts. Not because they're bad people who hate America but because that's what people in power do.

I never said that "everyone agrees with progressive ideals now." I didn't say it because I don't believe it. Neither do I especially need to be reminded of the fecklessness, past or present, of the Democratic party. I'm not sure why Joyner considers it an especially profound insight vouchsafed to only an enlightened few that entrenched political parties or movements tend to become corrupt, sclerotic, and thereby unpopular. I mean, well, duh. That's not a rebuttal to anything I said, but rather the recitation of a banal truism.

I was instead focusing upon "movement conservatism" and its conceptual relationship to a supposedly "pure" and "timeless" Platonic Ideal Conservatism, as in the formulation of noted tool Michael Goldfarb. [Correction; it was even bigger tool Dean Barnett, and thanks to Our Paul in comments for politely pointing this out.] But let's stress that Movement Conservatism is a specific, well, movement; the term identifies a specific group of people who did and said specific things for specific reasons -- and that current notions of what an Ideal Conservatism might be come from what these actual people actually said, and what they actually say.

As I said, Packer's article has its faults. But the complaint of its right-wing critics, that Packer fails to draw a distinction between the GOP and Ideal Conservatism, is so much wishful thinking. Joyner makes much of the tendency of "movements" to become corrupt, a point that Pat Buchanan recites in Packer's article somewhat more pithily:

Pat Buchanan was less polite, paraphrasing the social critic Eric Hoffer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

And again, this is a perfectly banal observation, not a profound insight. What is really remarkable about the remark is that this is Pat Buchanan saying this about his time in the Nixon administration, and that he's just more or less gleefully informed us of how he and his accomplices successfully pulled off the Southern Strategy. What "Great Cause" did that serve?

Movement conservatism started off as a racket. Movement conservatism has always been about exacerbating and then profiting from existing cultural, social, and economic resentments. There was never any fall from an original ideological Eden. The corruption was there from the start. Packer is quite right to emphasize how the political and popular success of movement conservatism owes everything to its legitimization of a politics of resentment that arose in the 1960s. Movement conservatism has nothing without Hatred of the Liberal, a point reinforced not least by the image with which Joyner chooses to adorn his post.

It's quite nice that Joyner deplores Coulter-level books and says their crudity is part of the reason the GOP is in trouble. However, this class of stuff is just a less sophisticated version of commonplace rhetoric you see emanating from everywhere else on the right these days. And if Joyner wants to dump it, fine, but the brute fact is that without accusations like, say, that Barack Obama is an un-American socialist, well, the GOP might as well just concede the election immediately. And everyone knows it. The right just cannot win if it renounces the politics of resentment, and that's all there is to it. You can't scrub ugly. You can't reboot Soviet Communism without perpetrating once more its rottenness, and you can't retool movement conservatism without it eventually fucking up royally.

Which is why I see no reason to believe that invocations of a "pure, timeless" conservatism are anything more than so much self-serving horseshit. If there were any substance or value to it as an intellectual concept, first of all, it would sound a lot less vapid. Sorry, "a belief in free markets, free people, and in the greatness of the American people and the American nation" is sonorous doxa, pure and simple. None of these terms means anything as far as policy goes and in the real world can be used to justify pretty much any absurdity, like, say, an immensely disastrous, ill-conceived invasion and occupation of a foreign nation justified by utterly disingenuous bullcrap.

I lack patience for invocations of ideological purity in the context of serious analysis. As I said at FDL, if "movement conservatism" were truly guided by lofty principles as opposed to nihilistic opportunism, history would have turned out differently. It sure would have been nice to see "movement conservatives" put their "principles" into action in say the fall of 2002.

"Intellectual movements" that end up unable to cope with empirical scientific data (global warming), that end up making excuses for torture, that depend upon self-flattering fantasies such as a belief in a partisan "liberal media," that delight in the sort of race-baiting nonsense we've already seen in this election season, have nowhere to go. It is eminently reasonable to draw the conclusion that there is just nothing to "movement conservatism" except a dead end. "Conservatism" as it is currently embodied just cannot handle the truth. It can't afford to.   

This is why when someone like Sullivan strays from the fold on an issue like torture (!) he's given The Business; and it's also why when he tries to grapple with something like global warming, he ends up, well, wanking. (There's nothing essentially Burkean about a fucking carbon tax, Andrew). It's also why the "forward thinking" conservatives Packer discusses are able to say "this isn't working" but can't offer any solutions that aren't mere policy tinkering. Too many false premises.

And yes, liberalism has its problems too, but I wouldn't get too excited by that if I were a "conservative." When the other side can come up with "no more stupid wars" as a winning policy issue, you've dug yourself into a pretty deep hole. And, you know, when you've found yourself in a hole, stop wanking.

UPDATE: Rick Moran offers a rebuttal of my FDL piece.

The energy comes from George Packer’s New Yorker essay on the “Fall of Conservatism” which is still echoing around the blogs. In fact, it was this laughably shallow piece at Firedoglake that got me thinking about writing a series of blog posts on Packer's thesis. I thought I could do a much better job than this fellow if only because 1) my vocabulary allows me to get through an entire post without once using the word "f*ck"; and 2) I am not a half-crazed, obscenity spewing, ignoramus who missed the point of Packer’s essay and substituted a thesis of dubious logic and intellectually incoherent arm chair psychology for reasoned analysis.

Oh wait, that's not actually a rebuttal. I look forward to Moran's series of posts on Packer's article perhaps more than I can say.

Incidentally, Moran's claim that he has a larger vocabulary than I do because I like to say "fuck" is perhaps not defensible, but it's still fucking funny.

Comments

[Tom Traubert]

Well done, Thers. Very well done.

[flory]

1) my vocabulary allows me to get through an entire post without once using the word "f*ck";

Isn't this statement somewhat self refuting?
Or does the fact that he used an asterisk instead of the letter 'u' mean that he actually didn't use the word fuck in his post?

As for your work here -- you've got the wingnuts in a tizzy.
Good job.

[R. Porrofatto]

Ditto on the well done, you are exactly right.

I think it's a strategic mistake to think that conservatism is down for the count, by any means. They have the money, the media, and a right-wing outrage and spin machine that is second to none. At the same time, all the bellowing by conservatives about those other conservatives, you know, the ones who've "overreached," is just so much highfalutin ass-covering at this point. The winger priesthood may clothe themselves in some diaphanous conservative philosophy, or pay lip service to "ideas," but none of it actually exists unless it gets put into practice when they have the reigns of power, and big tax cuts and no-bid contracts for the friends and relatives don't count.

Here's yet another reason conservatives deserve whatever decline is coming to them: they seem to be utterly incapable of anything but dishonesty in order to win—an argument, election, anything. Joyner: The forty percent or so of Americans who self-identify as conservative? Go look at the poll he links to. It does say that 41% of voters think of themselves as conservative, but only on fiscal issues. When fiscal and social issues are put together, only 24% say they are conservative on both.

[LA Confidential Pantload]

Moran's got a point. He's not a half-crazed, obscenity-spewing ignoramus; he's a completely-fucking-insane ignoramus.

[Jemand von Niemand]

It turns out that conservatism was never "an intellectual movement at all" but rather "an essentially nihilist politics of vicious opportunism, where the entire goal is power for its own sake." The forty percent or so of Americans who self-identify as conservative? "[C]ompletely crazy idiots".

BOB: Ding Ding Ding Ding!! We have a winner! Don -- Let's tell Mr. Joyner what he's won!

DON: Well, Bob; James will spend the rest of his life denying responsibility that his support of conservative policies was a reflection of their essentially amoral and dehumanizing character!!

BOB: Fucking Out-standing!

[DrDick]

Dead on, Thers, and a masterful job at that. As you observe conservatism is not an ideological movement in any real sense. At its heart it constitutes an ever shifting set of justifications for elite privilege and power. That is all it is: a movement of, by, and for the wealthy in order to preserve their power and privilege. They make various gestures to attract the support various non-elite groups since they cannot win elections on their own. It is now and always has been about getting and holding onto power.

Oh, and fuck the Morans.

[gregor]

As soon as someone starts calling a liberal potty mouthed, the debate is over, and the liberal is not the loser.

[El Tiburon]

Interesting in that he can forgo the f-bomb, but then lets fly with the personal attack and taunts.

Fuck me running, but when used properly, Fuck can be a great addition to just about anything.

[Rmj]

Yeah, Rick Moran: it's all about your and your superiority.

Funny, you wouldn't have to tell us about it if you could show it instead. Ad hominem is a basic logical fallacy, ya know.

And "Fuck" is a fine Anglo-Saxon word. Don't be afraid to spell it; it won't hurt you.

[Warren Street]

Conservatism is dead amongst young people. It's like self-identifying oneself as a braying jackass. How many people honestly believe that being a "conservative" five years from now is going to be a wise move in life in general? It would take a radical change in American perceptions, but the one perception that isn't changing any time soon is:

Bush+conservatism+republicans=fucking disaster.

Until THAT equation changes, Thers should be rest assured that what's in existence now is dead and dying. Another form of the ideology that opposes progressive liberalism is going to have to start evolving soon. Look for it to metastize itself out of the mindset of the Taylor Marsh's out there who will try to destroy Obama any way they can.

[herr doktor bimler]

Can't see why anyone would boast about the poverty of his vocabulary.

[Steve J.]

THERS,

Here's a little ammo for you.

F.A. Hayek, "Why I am not a Conservative"

relevant excerpt here:

http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2005/12/hayek-on-conservatives.html

[GWPDA, yclept Irate Historian]

The only politicals more thin-skinned than US 'movement conservatives' have got to be Stalinists. This is not a observation, but rather a verity - perhaps someday we can avoid having to hear the whinging of either cadre.

[herr doktor bimler]

Can't see why anyone would boast about the poverty of his vocabulary.

[maryo]

This reminds me of a pic over at Watertiger's place - it shows a guy holding a sign that says "Get a brain moran."
I never realized til now that he meant Rick.

[Milo Johnson]

Sheesh, that's going to leave one hell of a fucking mark...

[Innocent Bystander]

Except for taxcuts for the rich (not synonymous with smaller government), what do conservatives stand for?

Lessee, here's what I used to think defined the conservative philosophy-

* Smaller government and fiscal restraint. Balanced Budgets!

* Keeping the government out of my personal business.

* No foreign entanglements.

So Bush has basically, trashed the core tenents of conservativism...but I don't recall any chorus of outrage and angst from the 'movement conservatives'. Pretty much the mantra was was 'whatever it takes to keep the power'.

So the party is over and the place is trashed...now that the collective is waking up with a hangover, how are they going to regain credibility when it comes to their avowed 'principles'? I don't think we'll see it in our lifetime (well, mine, anyway).

[ac]

Interesting that he can forgo the f-bomb but doesn't mind at all using real bombs...

The ones that kill people.

[Just Saying]

So, are the forty percent or so of Americans who self-identify as conservative? '[C]ompletely crazy idiots.'? Inquiring minds want to know.

[TeddySanFran]

Well, duh.

[c u n d gulag]

FUCK HIM?
Yes, FUCK HIM!!!
I can think of nothing more semi-stupid to say.
So, FUCK THAT IDIOT!

Nuff' said...

[Robert Waldmann]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/rjw88/get_a_brain_morans.jpg

[0uterj0in]

Conservatives are like the brakes on history.

[Harold]

Appeals to a perfectly natural desire for cultural continuity are powerfully resonant. This is the reason movements calling themselves "conservative" develop such clout.

[¡El Gato Negro!]

Conservatives are like the tits on a bull.

(Jour typo, she is all better now.)

[sbj]

There will always be flim flam, hence there will always be conservatism and prosperity-based religious dogma in one form or another.

[trace]

that fucking moran doesn't know how to spell. he thinks there's an asterisk in the word fuck.

[Thers]

Appeals to a perfectly natural desire for cultural continuity are powerfully resonant. This is the reason movements calling themselves "conservative" develop such clout.

Hence the obsession of such movements with inventing "cultural continuities" out of either whole cloth or ahistorical bullshit, whichever comes easiest to hand.

[pbg]

Is Moran the Gate Keeper or the Key Master?

[PghPa]

The term sonorous doxa side tracked me. Could you elaborate?
The whole of conservative ideals have been used and sullied by bushco to the detriment of all of us citizens. Can the republicans be so oblivious to the damage of their core values by this gang of thugs they promoted and supported?
Thanks for this thought provoking post!

[aw]

So, are the forty percent or so of Americans who self-identify as conservative "[c]ompletely crazy idiots"?

My personal assessment of them would be "gulls and naifs".

[dave in RI]

Conservative philosophy: I want what I want. Thus, conservatives push for or against government regulation depending on the subject, for or against judges who judge depending on the case, for or against government involvement in the market depending on their interest at the moment.

[jcasey]

This is right on the mark:

It's quite nice that Joyner deplores Coulter-level books and says their crudity is part of the reason the GOP is in trouble. However, this class of stuff is just a less sophisticated version of commonplace rhetoric you see emanating from everywhere else on the right these days. And if Joyner wants to dump it, fine, but the brute fact is that without accusations like, say, that Barack Obama is an un-American socialist, well, the GOP might as well just concede the election immediately. And everyone knows it. The right just cannot win if it renounces the politics of resentment, and that's all there is to it. You can't scrub ugly. You can't reboot Soviet Communism without perpetrating once more its rottenness, and you can't retool movement conservatism without it eventually fucking up royally.

The Coulter stuff is indistinguishable from George Will's "Liberals are communists" objection to everything they do. Global Warming? Communist plot aimed at denying you the right to your Land Rover.

[may]

Reading this post was a relief and a joy after reading the idiocy that Atrios linked to this morning at the LA Times - about educated voters hurting the democratic process.

Thers, you are a horrible polarizing anti-democratic something or other. Thanks!

[Our Paul]

I happen to be a reader, and occasional commentator of Outside the Beltway. Although my social and political leanings are strongly Center Left, I find James Joiner’s writings reasoned, and well stated. Good enough, so that a slow writer / slow thinker like myself is a bit jealous. Like all of us who put their pants on, one leg at a time, he occasionally strays outside the boundary of reasonable argument.

The same cannot be said Thers. His language, and that of some his fans posted above, is atrocious. My sentiments are best expressed by Irate Historian | May 25, 2008 at 09:17 PM (above):

Can't see why anyone would boast about the poverty of his vocabulary.

I suspect that Christy Hardin Smith, Diggby, and others toes are curling at this man’s crudity.

If the language chosen is a measure of the man, it not surprising that Thers would attribute the original post to Michael Goldfarb, when it was actually written by Dean Barnett.

[jvill]

Unless the conversation is about tax cuts or deregulation, modern conservatives have literally nothing to add to any discussion of the challenges that this country faces, and will face in the future.

Nothing at all.

It really is just that simple.

[Thers]

I suspect that Christy Hardin Smith, Diggby, and others toes are curling at this man’s crudity.

Why don't you email them and ask? Especially Christy -- she might not even be aware that this class of stuff is appearing at her own blog.

Thanks for catching the Dean Barnett thing.

[Thers]

The term sonorous doxa side tracked me. Could you elaborate?

doxa; I'm using the term in Bourdieu's sense (scroll down)

[DeadeyeDickCheney]

Not so much the brakes on history as the reverse gear on the evolutionary transmission.

[DeadeyeDickCheney]

@jvill: Please give them a chance. There's always room for another, "Nobody could have predicted..." That seems to be the only contribution that Conservatives can make now that their policies have been tried, tested, and failed.

[Sammy]

1) my vocabulary allows me to get through an entire post without once using the word "f*ck";

And in that simple sentence, Rick Moran was able to perfectly illustrate the "use/mention" distinction, which is often used in language theory. Unfortunately, that is the only redeeming facet of his post.

[Darryl]

It always struck me that capitalism when touted as being the optimally efficient method of "the law of the jungle" s nothing more than a social law of nature. It's not a philosophy any more than gravity is a philosophy. People who carry the banner of capitalism might just as well proudly proclaim themselves "gravitationalists", with a firm belief in gravity. The philosophy starts some point after that, surely. When you try to prevent people falling to their deaths through the considered implementation of safety barriers or warnings. The free market concept of laissez faire and buyer beware is simply is a shrugging of the shoulders at the fact that saints and sinners fall with equal speed to their deaths. No thought is given to trying to affect the outcome. The brain has stopped reasoning at the observance of a simple mechanism

[Our Paul]

In view of the fact that Thers has corrected the misquotation of Michael Goldfarb to Dean Barnett, thanking me… and,

In view of the fact that that my post has inadvertently been deleted from the comment section… and,

In view of the fact that I am inordinately proud of the link under one leg at a time (Do not ask me why, it would take too long.)

I am re-inserting my original post

I happen to be a reader, and occasional commentator of Outside the Beltway. Although my social and political leanings are strongly Center Left, I find James Joyner’s writings reasoned, and well stated. Good enough, so that a slow writer / slow thinker like myself is a bit jealous. Like all of us who put their pants on, one leg at a time, he occasionally strays outside the boundary of reasonable argument.

The same cannot be said Thers. His language, and that of some his fans posted above, is atrocious. My sentiments are best expressed by Irate Historian | May 25, 2008 at 09:17 PM (above):

Can't see why anyone would boast about the poverty of his vocabulary.

I suspect that Christy Hardin Smith, Diggby, and others toes are curling at this man’s crudity.

If the language chosen is a measure of the man, it not surprising that Thers would attribute the original post to Michael Goldfarb, when it was actually written by Dean Barnett.

Addendum (not in original post): I have occasionally been known to use language that shock a young maidens sensibilities, but that usually occurs when striking my thumb with a hammer, or some idiot fails to ease the main sheet during a puff of wind…

[Thomas Allen]

I would say that you have at least one more word in your vocabulary than Moran. Fuck.

[Thers]

Our Paul, what do you mean that your original comment was deleted? Scroll up to 11:30.

I made a pretty simple misattribution, and now you just made a simple oversight. I suppose this says volumes about both of us on a deep personal level.

[Our Paul]

Thers:

Big red face, missed the next at the bottom of the first page of comments.

Sigh, Perfection is an elusive mistress!

I searched my soul for an appropriate burnt offering for my sin and transgression. The best I could do, was this. Enough "F's" to keep us all happy.