Who Lost Conservatism

I’ve spent the last few weeks thinking about a rather depressing post by Daniel Larison in which he discusses who to blame for the fall of conservatism as of late. My first inclination, like many other conservatives, is to use the well-worn line that it was Republicanism, not conservatism, that took a hit during the 2006 mid-terms and last November. But I’ve recently begun to realize that the two are inexplicably linked, at least in the short term. While Republicanism exists outside of the conservative sphere, it is nearly impossible to find true conservatism that is independent of the Republican party these days. So we must be harder on ourselves. Larison does so first by dispelling some of the old arguments. 

As the cliché goes, there are three main factions in the conservative movement: social conservatives, economic conservatives and national security conservatives. Each faction has received blame for the right’s electoral troubles in inverse proportion to its responsibility. Fiscal conservatives, reformers and moderates all tend to agree that social conservatism is somehow the right’s albatross. But social conservatives had the least influence in the Bush White House and the least responsibility for Bush’s unpopular policies. Aside from the so-called “faith-based initiative,” which many Christian conservatives opposed, social conservatives saw little return for their reliable support.

Economic conservatives have been roundly criticized for the tax cuts that, combined with increased spending, have created a massive federal debt. They are blamed for forcing the GOP to adhere to disastrous free market dogmas that supposedly led to the financial crisis. By and large, however, the GOP adhered to nothing of the kind. From trade to finance, collusion with and government support for corporations were normal for the Bush administration, which was regularly at odds with the most libertarian members of the House GOP on these issues. Indeed, economic conservatives are mostly guilty of sins of omission and acquiescence.

The faction most responsible for the GOP’s political failure is national security conservatives.

Larison goes on to say that ironically it is the national security conservatives who have managed to escape any real criticism/scrutiny.

Yet within the party, they remain unscathed, their assumptions about the use of American power largely unquestioned, and their gross errors in judgment forgotten or readily forgiven. Among the mainstream right, the foreign policy of the Bush administration is barely a subject of debate. Rather than reorienting Republican foreign policy towards a political center defined by realism, humility and restraint, the GOP’s leadership and activists have redoubled their commitment to Bush and Cheney’s hawkish stances and to a lock-step defense of the Bush administration’s policies.

This situation creates a strange incongruity. In one breath, conservatives will invoke a baseless claim that Bush’s excessive spending lost them the country, and in the next they will defend to the last Bush’s decisions as Commander-in-Chief. Yet these were the decisions that, more than anything else, led to Democratic victories and the GOP’s now toxic reputation.

I will admit that I have been a foreign policy apologist as well. I still do not see the deep, dark motives for the invasion that liberals believe in, but I also acknowledge the terrible way the war was prosecuted. It is for that reason that Republicans are in such sad shape these days. And our blind devotion to the continued defense of the war and the way it was waged will keep us in the darkness. So I agree with larison that it is there we must start. i also agree with Larison that social liberals must stop using this opportunity to advance their agenda and fiscal conservatives theirs. Both sides should be looking to the national security hawks.