Defining Conservatism Down

So I took the Pew political typology quiz and got the result "Main Street Republican."  I'm generally skeptical that these types of labels can adequately convey one's political outlook, but I also realize we need shorthand.  As shorthand goes, this result isn't bad.

On Pew's scale though, the category to the right of mine was "Staunch Conservative" which I suspect is more accurate for me.  I didn't have to look hard to figure out how Pew decided I didn't belong in this category.

Pew described Main Street Republicans as being, "generally less enamored of business than staunch conservatives."  Being enamored of business, is not the same thing as preferring free markets and it is not conservative, regardless of what Pew and most of the major media outlets in the United States believe.  Specifically, there were two questions on the quiz about business and profits where I think Pew misunderstood which answer was a conservative one.

The first asked whether or not business in general makes too much profit.  I answered yes.  Not because profits are bad or businesses are evil, but because I believe there are many companies in the United States who earn profits that they would not earn if we had a more competitive and free marketplace.  These rents are earned by employing government power to stifle competition and restrict supply.  This includes things seen as innocuous by many of us, like patents on drugs, as well as the extraordinary government bailouts of private businesses that took place over the last few years.  American capitalism in the 21st century is still a profit and loss system, but the profits and losses these days are too often determined by the ability to compete in Washington DC rather than in the market.

Mises and Hayek wouldn't have considered themselves conservatives, but their thinking about economics and markets formed one of the pillars of American conservative thought in the 20th century.  I doubt either of them would look at the current business landscape in this country and suggest we had achieved some sort of free market triumph.

The second question was whether or not I thought power was concentrated in that hands of too few large companies.  I answered that it was.  Again, I think Pew misunderstands which is the conservative answer here.  Bigness is antithetical to conservatism, which values "our little platoons" in Burke's phrase.  Thinkers like Russell Kirk were wise enough to fear big business just as much as big government.  Neither are conducive to maintaining "the permanent things."  Conservatives do believe in a hierarchical universe, it's just not one that has Ben Bernanke and JP Morgan at the top.

This sort of muddled thinking about what is and isn't conservative at times makes it difficult to have a sensible discussion about politics.  The fact that a well respected organization like Pew can't seem to grasp the problem here serves as a good reminder that when dealing with received wisdom one should always consider the source.

The Problem with the Republican Party

Paul Ryan has been getting a lot of press lately and has become something of a national spokesman for the Republican Party. When I read this criticism of Ryan, it neatly encapsulated just what is wrong with the GOP as a whole in my mind:

The Wisconsin congressman’s latest proposals may seem like austerity measures, but let’s be honest: they’re austerity measures proposed for a Democratic government. With a Republican in the White House, would you want to wager on Ryan humming the same tune?

That's Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative Magazine. In the course of three paragraphs pointing out the faults of a critique from the Left, McCarthy savages the GOP:

We have the GOP to thank, after all, for wage and price controls under Nixon; the Americans With Disabilities Act under Bush I; and two wars, No Child Left Behind, the prescription-drug benefit for Medicare, and the bank bailouts under Bush II. Yet all the propagandists insist this is the anti-government party.

Think you're a small-government type? Go read the whole thing.

The usefulness of Glenn Beck

David Frum, the very thoughtful, centrist-leaning conservative thinker, had a bit of a happy hour after CPAC, and he said to me: The thing I respect about Glenn Beck is that he managed to take hard-money crankery away from anti-Semitism.

That's from Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent on a recent episode of the NPR program Fresh Air.

If Frum is correct in his analysis of Beck, I think it's hard to overestimate the value of such a contribution.

Separating a healthy skepticism about the limits and proper role of government from anti-Semitic or racist notions that people of good will rightly find distasteful, is an important function. A function critical to the revitalization of the Republican party and the nation as a whole.

Even Sarah Palin is getting in on this act. In this National Journal article, the author is equating Palin's anti-intellectualism with that of George Wallace, but takes great pains to point out that she in no way shares the racism that figured so prominently in Wallace's life. Beyond pains really. If nothing else, we know by the end of the article that Sarah Palin is no racist.

While I personally would prefer that the current conservative movement was characterized more by Russel Kirk book clubs than Glenn Beck's chalk board, I'll take what I can get. It is important that suburban Minneapolis soccer-moms realize that skepticism about the federal government's ability to remake healthcare in this nation does not make you some sort of raving tinfoil hat wearing anti-Semite.

If Beck and Palin really can separate these two competing strands of thought, then perhaps all the Levi Johnston drama, crying, and misspelling will have been worth it.

The C in CPAC

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is happening this week, but from the reports I've heard, I can't help but wonder if the first 'C' should stand for confused, rather than conservative.

First, we have new MA Senator Scott Brown receiving a warm welcome. The only problem is that Brown's not much of a conservative, as Wisconsin's own Lance Burri pointed out a few short weeks ago:

He's pro-choice. He voted for a regional version of Cap-and-Trade. He voted for RomneyCare – an early version of what we now call ObamaCare.

Three big strikes, where conservatives are concerned.

Apparently those aren't strikes with the particular group of conservatives at CPAC.

Next, we have former V.P. Dick Cheney receiving what can only be described as a hero's welcome. What, exactly, has Cheney done that brings him such enthusiasm? Pat Buchanan reminds us:

[Former Senator Alan] Simpson is right in his assertion that anti-tax Republicans went along with George W. Bush’s spending spree — for two wars, prescription drug benefits under Medicare and No Child Left Behind.

Cheney was, of course, the number two man during this spending spree. No doubt he would prefer to be remembered primarily for the two wars, but even still, what conservatives find to applaud in this record is simply lost on me.

Maybe I should wait and reserve judgment until Wisconsin's CPAC insider tells me I'm all wrong, the dream is still alive, and being conservative means something more than adopting whatever stances are most likely to result in electoral success.

For now though confusion reigns and the chances for clarity are anything but certain.

Reconsidering Beck

The question as to whether or not conservatism is dead has been making the rounds lately. Steven Hayward writing in The Washington Post makes clear that this is not the case. The headline of the piece asks if conservatism is brain dead, but in reality Hayward's analysis turns on a question of balance:

During the glory days of the conservative movement, from its ascent in the 1960s and '70s to its success in Ronald Reagan's era, there was a balance between the intellectuals, such as Buckley and Milton Friedman, and the activists, such as Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, the leader of the New Right. The conservative political movement, for all its infighting, has always drawn deeply from the conservative intellectual movement, and this mix of populism and elitism troubled neither side.

Hayward argues this traditional balance is now largely lacking. He calls the Tea Party movement "authentic," but, "unfocused." He also discusses the conservative portion of the opinion media and includes a surprising take on Glenn Beck:

Okay, so Beck may lack Buckley's urbanity, and his show will never be confused with "Firing Line." But he's on to something with his interest in serious analysis of liberalism's patrimony. The left is enraged with Beck's scandal-mongering over Van Jones and ACORN, but they have no idea that he poses a much bigger threat than that. If more conservative talkers took up the theme of challenging liberalism's bedrock assumptions the way Beck does from time to time, liberals would have to defend their problematic premises more often.

I don't have cable, so I don't watch Beck, but this is the first time I have seen him discussed as tackling the issue at the heart of the opposing ideology. Lately, it seems many on the right want to focus on the question of whether or not Beck is bad for the movement. Hayward argues convincingly that he is not, and that there is no need to work to minimize or derail his efforts.

What is needed, it seems, is the passion conservatism currently displays combined with ideas resulting from clear thinking, articulated sharply.

A movement whose passionate side is grounded by rigorous thought will be far better suited to withstand the force of the passionate winds, regardless from which direction they blow.

It is also a movement that I, and many others, would find appealing. Even if it included Beck.

Left! Right! Left!

Last week, The Crunchy Con had a post up titled New Right: the new New Left? In which he highlighted:

Fascinating observation by Patrick Deneen, on an emerging minority voice on the marginal Right that's taking up the critical stance toward the American narrative espoused half a century ago by the New Left.

When I read those words, I immediately thought of another American Narrative that touched on a similar phenomenon of left/right confusion. Admittedly, it is a narrative that uses the muddled state of affairs to a different end than Dreher & Deneen.

Check out the following passages from Thomas Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49 (Peter Pinguid is a soldier celebrated as the first casualty of the Cold War by a society named in his honor, Oedipa is the book's heroine, Metzger her companion, and Fallopian is an evangelizing member of the Peter Pinguid Society):

"Peter Pinguid was really our first casualty. Not the fanatic our more left-leaning friends over in the Birch Society chose to martyrize."

"Was the Commodore killed, then?" asked Oedipa.

Much worse, to Fallopian's mind. After the confrontation, appalled at what had to be some military alliance between abolitionist Russia (Nicholas having freed the serfs in 1861) and a Union that paid lipservice to abolition while it kept its own industrial laborers in a kind of wage-slavery, Peter Pinguid stayed in his cabin for weeks, brooding.

"But that sounds," objected Metzger, "like he was against industrial capitalism. Wouldn't that disqualify him as any kind of anti-Communist figure?"

"You think like a Bircher," Fallopian said. "Good guys and bad guys. You never get to any of the underlying truth. Sure he was against industrial capitalism. So are we. Didn't it lead, inevitably, to Marxism? Underneath, both are part of the same creeping horror."

And later in the book, Metzger once again engages Fallopian on his economic philosophy:

Metzger...wanted to argue. "You're so right-wing you're left-wing," he protested. "How can you be against a corporation that wants a worker to waive his patent rights. That sounds like the surplus value theory to me, fella, and you sound like a Marxist."

While I am not sure that Pynchon has anything to offer the Right (or the Left for that matter), I do believe these episodes have a point aside from their comedic value: Some of the most interesting political and philosophical discussions occur within parties or movements, rather than between them.

********************
Here's the link to Lot 49 over at the Google Book Search in case you want to check it out!