Only a few years ago, on the night of Bush's victory in 2004, the conservative movement seemed indomitable. In fact, it was rapidly falling apart. Conservatives knew how to win elections; however, they turned out not to be very interested in governing. Throughout the decades since Nixon, conservatism has retained the essentially negative character of an insurgent movement.
The New Yorker
The Fall of Conservatism
May 26, 2008
Classy tome in the May 26, 2008 New Yorker magazine examining what NYM contributor George Packer speculates to be "The Fall of Conservatism."
The article traces the origins of the American conservative movement from Barry Goldwater through the heady days of Ronald Reagan, and up to the Dubya adminstration, a time when our elected American president failed even to tally a majority vote, and Ronald Reagan's "big tent" seemed to be a mite tattered.
Borrowing from American author Sam Tanenhaus, author Packer moves on to draw some intriguing historical parallels between resulting political movements which may have been later generated, even in the wake of failed presidential campaigns:Goldwater was to Reagan as McGovern is to Obama. From the ruins of Goldwater’s landslide defeat in 1964, conservatives began the march that brought them fully to power sixteen years later. If Obama wins in November, it will have taken liberals thirty-six years. Tanenhaus pointed out how much of Obama’s rhetoric about a “new politics” is reminiscent of McGovern’s campaign, which was also directed against a bloated, corrupt establishment. In “The Making of the President 1972,” Theodore White quotes McGovern saying, “I can present liberal values in a conservative, restrained way. . . . I see myself as a politician of reconciliation.”
The article also adds some insight into John McCain's possible strategy in Packer's conjectural American post conservative era, wherein the odd Nixon/Reagan coalition of economic conservatives, religionists, super-patriots, etc., has arguably fallen apart at the seams.
This is a truly meaty piece. No brief summary can do it justice; so we won't even try.
Read George Packer's full New Yorker article here.
And please don't forget to come back with your comments, once you've fully digested this most-excellent article.
8 comments:
I've started to wonder whether it's a battle between Demos and Repubs, between liberals and conservatives, between big and small government, or whether it's really a battle between something more simple . . .
smart vs. dumb.
Reagan was a leader because he was smart (even though the dumb people couldn't recognize it), and Clinton was also very bright. We saw how much things improved when they were in office. But two dumb presidents, both Bush, reversed it all and them some.
Most of the people in Washington today seem to be aimless. They don't know what to do, nor do they know much at all, it seems.
Now with two liberals running for president, should we simply choose the smart one, and hope for the best?
Danny:
McCain is NOT a liberal, not by any meaningful definition of the term.
Let's look at the data.
You may recall my favorite site for political stuff is www.electoral-vote.com
Ranking of all US Senators taking data from a panel of liberal groups
Ranking of all US Senators taking data from a panel of conservative groups
Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. McCain are at the extremes of either ranking. For example, Sen. McCain has the same ranking among conservative groups as Sen. Bennett.
Liberals have Sen. McCain ranked at fifth from the bottom. They won't claim him, Danny. You might make a case for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Me) being some sort of moderate-liberal beast, but not for Sen. McCain.
What is striking in these analyses is how polarized congressional poltics has become. You'd expect a lot of overlap in the middle between "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans" but alas, neither of those species is present in Washington.
Mono:
You wrote: What is striking in these analyses is how polarized congressional poltics has become. You'd expect a lot of overlap in the middle between "conservative Democrats" and "liberal Republicans" but alas, neither of those species is present in Washington.
That's because the current members of the House and Senate have lost --- or never had --- any strong sense of the privileges and responsibilities of the legislative houses in which they sit. They see themselves now as either a collateral support mechanism for the White House if their party holds it, or an attack mechanism if their party doesn't.
Didn't used to be that way. Used to be, the members of both houses, both parties, jealously guarded the prerogatives of the houses in which they say, and would unite to smack down any perceived erosion of their privileges by the executive. There are still a few around, but not many. Sen. Byrd of West Virginia is one. When he thundered against the War Resolution and against the ludicrously named Patriot Act, his grounds were that the Senate was not doing its job, that it was surrendering the responsibilities and powers the Founders put in the Senate's hands to the President.
Byrd can be a pain in the ass, but he has on this the virtue of consistency. He blistered the Senate when Clinton was in and the Dems controlled it for the same reasons when it sought to avoid doing its job by surrendering authority to the White House.
During the New Deal period, with FDR at the height of his power, and the Dems running both houses of congress by substantial majorities, both houses told FDR to take his court packing scheme, cut off the rough edges and... well, you get the idea.
Can anyone reasonably find an example on a major bill of the Bush controlled Congress before the last election doing that? I can't.
Sadly, the President hasn't just seized unprecedented powers, the Congress had handed them to him. On a partisan platter.
Darn nice job of providing data Mono.
If I believed it, I could think about voting for the elitist sleaze bag McCain.
It's something to think about anyway, and I thank you for that.
Good analysis from you and Curm on the data too.
Here's something from Mish's blog. It's one of many reasons McCain cannot get my vote.
"Senators John McCain and Barack Obama released their Senate financial disclosure statements on Friday, revealing that Mr. McCain and his wife had at least $225,000 in credit card debt....
The bulk of the McCains’ obligations stemmed from a pair of American Express credit cards that are held in Cindy McCain’s name. According to the disclosure reports, which present information on debts in a range rather than providing a precise figure, Mrs. McCain owed $100,000 to $250,000 on each card.
Another charge card, held by what was described as a “dependent child,” had also accumulated debts of $15,000 to $50,000. In addition, a credit card held jointly by the couple was carrying $10,000 to $15,000 in debt, the filing indicated, at a stiff 25.99 percent interest rate. "
Good God.
At least $225,000 in revolving debt, with at least some of it carrying "subprime" rates? By the way, that $225,000 is the minimum - it could be as high as $565,000, but the Senate does not require exact disclosure - just ranges.
What in the Sam Hell is McCain doing?
And how can you possibly service that with the base salary as a Senator of $169,300 per year, before taxes?
But the sheer size of this debt on credit cards is astonishing. American Express truly loves the McCains - they should be spokespeople.
More to the point, however, is whether such a person is qualified to manage the financial health of the nation with the largest GDP in the world. Clearly, having lots of debt, and plenty of it on revolving accounts, doesn't bother the McCains.Now we get this; the more I learn, the more I dislike. The concept of a President that thinks its perfectly fine to carry around somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000 in debt on credit cards ought to scare the hell out of every American, especially when we as a nation are nearly $100 trillion in the hole!
"Fiscal responsibility" and "McCain" can't be used in the same sentence."
McCain the Gold digger:
"She'd(Cindy)told him (while McCain was still married to his first wife) she was three years older than she was; he (McCain) said he was four years younger. The real age difference: 17 years."
"McCain had to divorce (his wife)Carol, who had been seriously injured in a car accident before John returned from the war, and who was still debilitated. What would that do to his political aspirations in a conservative state like Arizona?"
"In 1982, John and Cindy McCain reported an income of $801,056. Of that, the only amount unrelated to Hensley was McCain's $31,038 Navy pension and the rest was his wife's inheritance money."
It's time to get rid H A F B...
Its BIG GOVERNMENT!!!
Post a Comment