The crisis in conservatism

[Cope]

So I make a post that largely centers on an excerpt from Ornstein (at it is related to the thread), and you respond with:

As if Ornstein is just dressing generic partisan criticism up. You are either saying he is acting as a partisan (lol) or his take on the issue has no merit. Which is it?

Neither. The excerpt you posted, as it exists in this thread - that is isolated from its context and any further explanation - functions as a generic partisan criticism of the Republican Party.

[Infidel144]

You are either saying he is acting as a partisan (lol) or his take on the issue has no merit.

I don't understand why you are saying "lol". Do explain.

[Heathen Hammer]

This post is a nice example of the intellectually bankrupt version of conservatism. It defies any kind of reality or understanding of logic.

Without explaining why it seems that you are just conflating your subjective beliefs with "reality and logic", without backing it up with any arguments. This is an intellectual equivalent of blocking your ears and yelling "Lalalala" instead of engaging in a discussion - popularity of such behavior pretty much being the main factor behind the current decline of liberal left.

[PointOfViewGun]

Without explaining why it seems that you are just conflating your subjective beliefs with "reality and logic", without backing it up with any arguments. This is an intellectual equivalent of blocking your ears and yelling "Lalalala" instead of engaging in a discussion - popularity of such behavior pretty much being the main factor behind the current decline of liberal left.

Given the fact that you were not using any arguments to back up your claims in the post I responded to were we shouting "Lalalala" at each other? Or are you simply trying to obfuscate what I was pointing at with such an empty accusation? Of course, were you also trying to mimic my own post with your own through the connection you try to make at the end of your post? All in all, you made a lovely self-destructive post. Thank you for that.

[Katsumoto]

Some good stuff, thanks all. I have to say that I don't quite understand how this crisis in conservatism could chiefly be considered a response to the (real or perceived) failures of liberalism. I'd be glad to hear otherwise but for example, how did liberalism force conservatives to so casually discard objective truth? How was passing corporate tax cuts a response to liberal radicalism? These aren't responses to liberalism in my view, but attempts to maintain power and influence. I am happy to be corrected here but as I understand it the majority of people support liberal policies over conservative ones, suggesting that perhaps with a decline in support for their policies conservatives in power have resorted to less nobler methods in the form of populism and outright propaganda.

[The spartan]

Neither. The excerpt you posted, as it exists in this thread - that is isolated from its context and any further explanation - functions as a generic partisan criticism of the Republican Party.

Why are the words of Norm Ornstein on the party representing Conservatives in the US irrelevant to the thread "The Crisis in Conservatism"? It directly relates to the OP.

I don't understand why you are saying "lol". Do explain.

Ornstein isn't exactly known as a partisan hack. He is pretty well respected on his analyses of US politics.

[paleologos]

Are you referring to some specific event here?

The first thing that comes to mind with nearly no effort is the "gender pay gap" and although the Dems as such were not the ones to introduce the concept they are guilty of adopting it.
But this is by no means the first instance of the "use of statistics, as a proxy for fact, being systematically superficial and intentionally deceptive" by the Dems.

I can think of an interview where the words "super predators" were uttered, an interview which made the argument for "3rd strike" laws and minimum compulsory sentencing.
In reality it was a move toward bootstrapping the prison-industrial complex.

And I can think of more than one interview that made the case for globalization, we have been seeing the results of that in the rust belt of the former iron heart of the USA.

I can think of the reasoning behind embedding the Duluth model in standard policy.

I can think of the social benefits given to single mothers, on the presupposition that there is no man living in the house, in reality a subsidization and incentivization of fatherlessness.

There are hosts of other issues related to both economics and identity politics but I don't believe it is is the point of this thread to list them.

My point is that when you are using statistics in an effort to patronize the people that they ought to be grateful for the conditions of their lives, you not only alienate yourself from the voters, you are also alienating the voters from fact.

[The spartan]

The first thing that comes to mind with nearly no effort is the "gender pay gap" and although the Dems as such were not the ones to introduce the concept they are guilty of adopting it.
But this is by no means the first instance of the "use of statistics, as a proxy for fact, being systematically superficial and intentionally deceptive" by the Dems.

I can think of an interview where the words "super predators" were uttered, an interview which made the argument for "3rd strike" laws and minimum compulsory sentencing.
In reality it was a move toward bootstrapping the prison-industrial complex.

And I can think of more than one interview that made the case for globalization, we have been seeing the results of that in the rust belt of the former iron heart of the USA.

I can think of the reasoning behind embedding the Duluth model in standard policy.

I can think of the social benefits given to single mothers, on the presupposition that there is no man living in the house, in reality a subsidization and incentivization of fatherlessness.

There are hosts of other issues related to both economics and identity politics but I don't believe it is is the point of this thread to list them.

My point is that when you are using statistics in an effort to patronize the people that they ought to be grateful for the conditions of their lives, you not only alienate yourself from the voters, you are also alienating the voters from fact.

Wait, these just sound like political grievances, how does this make Democrats responsible for "the break down of debate"? You could just replace "Democrats" with "Republicans" and then lay out a bunch of things Republicans say or did that you don't like as if that proves Republicans broke debate when they did so. From what OP seems to indicate, as well as what Norm Ornstein had said in his book, it seems that Democrats are more open to compromise than the Republican party, at the moment.

[Cope]

Why are the words of Norm Ornstein on the party representing Conservatives in the US irrelevant to the thread "The Crisis in Conservatism"? It directly relates to the OP.

I didn't say the comments were irrelevant: I said that they were generic criticisms which could - and have - been applied to both parties. That said, the problem is really inherent in the attitudes and presumptions of the OP. The thread itself is predicated on the false (and partisan) assertion that present instability is explicable via an appeal to an alleged crisis within conservatism. The reality is that, for a whole variety of reasons, voters are losing faith in the orthodoxy of the entire political elite - not just a sub-section of it.

[paleologos]

...how does this make Democrats responsible for "the break down of debate"?
...

It doesn't, not directly, anyway.
The debate begun to brake down with tactics introduced for the Republicans by Newt Gingrich a long time ago.
These tactics became viable because the people were starting to become "immune" to fact.
The reason for the people becoming immune to fact is that the Dems were using facts selectively, to build a narrative that would basically tell the people "Don't complain, you never had it better."
The reality of their lives was different and the narrative could not take hold.
So you have a situation where "liberal" politicians were using fact(oid)s to push a narrative that did not match the lived experience of the voters.
The Democrats damaged their reputation in this way and a large swathe of the voters became uninterested in them and what they had to say.

Also, I believe debate does not take place exclusively between politicians.

[The spartan]

I didn't say the comments were irrelevant: I said that they were generic criticisms which could - and have - been applied to both parties.

But they aren't equally applicable to both parties, that's why I referenced Norm Ornstein as an authority saying as much. I am not misrepresenting his beliefs, he is fairly clear with his positions.

That said, the problem is really inherent in the attitudes and presumptions of the OP. The thread itself is predicated on the false (and partisan) assertion that present instability is explicable via an appeal to an alleged crisis within conservatism. The reality is that, for a whole variety of reasons, voters are losing faith in the orthodoxy of the entire political elite - not just a sub-section of it.

I mean, I agree that many populaces are becoming more cynical about their political systems, but even if that is true that would not preclude a particular issue conservatism is having. There seems to be a specific backlash against Globalization they have that is much more based on national and ethnic identity (as opposed to concerns with economic inequality Progressives have) that manifests in distinguishable ways.

I should also add that this was the OP you are calling partisan:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is something that has been an ongoing trend in recent years and it is a shame to see conservatism witnessing such a decline. I'm not sure when it began but it became more noticeable for me as conservatives began to attack institutions they once considered practically holy (the FBI, Department of Justice) and supporting reckless tax cuts where once they called for fiscal responsibility.

I share the author's appreciation for the conservatism of old, which "tempers liberal zeal". A vital role, I'm sure we can all agree. However, as the article quite nicely explains, the 'radical conservatism' of today seems to have abandonded too many of the aspects that defined it in the past. Do you agree with this assessment? Will classical conservatism be able to make a return? Or will conservatism continue to move away from its core beliefs?

It doesn't, not directly, anyway.
The debate begun to brake down with tactics introduced for the Republicans by Newt Gingrich a long time ago.
These tactics became viable because the people were starting to become "immune" to fact.
The reason for the people becoming immune to fact is that the Dems were using facts selectively, to build a narrative that would basically tell the people "Don't complain, you never had it better."
The reality of their lives was different and the narrative could not take hold.

Wait, this is starting to sound like an "anecdotes over statistics" argument which is reeallly stretching it for me. If someone wants to argue that some part of the US is collapsing but they only want to provide anecdotes on why it is without providing any statistics, that is highly suspicious. Individuals being paranoid or panicky (their perception of current events) is not the same thing as those concerns being true. No matter how outraged Christians got at the "War on Christmas", politicians were never going to address those concerns because there was nothing to actually address. If the lesson outraged Christians learned from this was that "politicians aren't addressing our concerns!" then that was their fault, not the government for not addressing a non-issue.

So you have a situation where "liberal" politicians were using fact(oid)s to push a narrative that did not match the lived experience of the voters.
The Democrats damaged their reputation in this way and a large swathe of the voters became uninterested in them and what they had to say.

But this implies the "other" party doesn't have a reputation of dishonest uses of statistics as well, but it does, so that is obviously not a reason to disassociate from only one political party.

Also, I believe debate does not take place exclusively between politicians.

We are sort of on a debate section of a forum, so I obviously agree.

[The spartan]

EDIT: Double post.

[Cope]

But they aren't equally applicable to both parties, that's why I referenced Norm Ornstein as an authority saying as much. I am not misrepresenting his beliefs, he is fairly clear with his positions.

I disagree. Liberals politicians, journalists, academics and activists are every bit as culpable in denying objective reality, appealing to extremism, obstructing government business and denouncing national institutions as their conservative counterparts are.

I mean, I agree that many populaces are becoming more cynical about their political systems, but even if that is true that would not preclude a particular issue conservatism is having. There seems to be a specific backlash against Globalization they have that is much more based on national and ethnic identity (as opposed to concerns with economic inequality Progressives have) that manifests in distinguishable ways.

The root problem isn't specific to conservatism. Yes, the way said problem manifests itself through conservatism is unique, but it is no less unhinged than the way its manifests itself through liberalism. Attitudes toward migration and race are a classic example of what I'm talking about: where conservatives enable voices calling for wall-building and so-called "Muslim bans", liberals pursue self-indulgent fantasies of borderless societies and global citizenry; where conservatives ignore or excuse the wealth inequalities between African American communities and the rest of the country, liberals are busy making delusional promises about "reparations" and applauding the attention seeking antics of celebrities like Kaepernick.

I should also add that this was the OP you are calling partisan

For the reasons I stated, it is.

[The spartan]

I disagree. Liberals politicians, journalists, academics and activists are every bit as culpable in denying objective reality, appealing to extremism, obstructing government business and denouncing national institutions as their conservative counterparts are.

I guess I will just have to weigh your analysis against that of Norm Ornstein's. Ok, done weighing.

The root problem isn't specific to conservatism. Yes, the way said problem manifests itself through conservatism is unique, but it is no less unhinged than the way its manifests itself through liberalism. Attitudes toward migration and race are a classic example of what I'm talking about: where conservatives enable voices calling for wall-building and so-called "Muslim bans", liberals pursue self-indulgent fantasies of borderless societies and global citizenry; where conservatives ignore or excuse the wealth inequalities between African American communities and the rest of the country, liberals are busy making delusional promises about "reparations" and applauding the attention seeking antics of celebrities like Kaepernick.
For the reasons I stated, it is.

No one said, and I certainly don't believe, the root issue is Conservatism. The OP even clearly does not make anything close to that assertion; he didn't call Conservatism the problem or say it should be removed, he says it is needed to be a healthy balance to liberalism. The original article given in the OP extols the usefulness of Conservatism. I don't know how this could be presented gentler too you.

[Cope]

I guess I will just have to weigh your analysis against that of Norm Ornstein's. Ok, done weighing.

Argument from authority. Try again.

No one said, and I certainly don't believe, the root issue is Conservatism. The OP even clearly does not make anything close to that assertion; he didn't call Conservatism the problem or say it should be removed, he says it is needed to be a healthy balance to liberalism. The original article given in the OP extols the usefulness of Conservatism. I don't know how this could be presented gentler too you.

First, the premise of the OP is faulty: there is no "crisis in conservatism", there's a crisis of confidence in the established political and social elite. Second, I never claimed that anyone had argued that conservatism should be "removed" or otherwise discarded.

[The spartan]

Argument from authority. Try again.

1:"Hey man, my doctor said we shouldn't eat so many trans fats because it causes heart disease."
2:"I disagree, I haven't seen any reason it should cause heart disease"
1:"But...he is a doctor"
2:"Argument from authority, try again"

Unless you have particular reason to dismiss this authority, I don't know how your opinions matter compared to his on this issue. What is the point of authorities if not to cite?

First, the premise of the OP is faulty: there is no "crisis in conservatism", there's a crisis of confidence in the established political and social elite.

But, other people indicate there is something going on. Smart people. Why are they wrong and you are right about the state of conservatism?

Second, I never claimed that anyone had argued that conservatism should be "removed" or otherwise discarded.

Well you seem threatened that people, such as the OP, are discussing the current state of Conservatism. I am just pointing out the OP does not seem to be out to "get" Conservatism, at least with this thread, so why get flustered over the thread? If you have some other topic about political elites or globalism you want to discuss, go make that thread.

[Prodromos]

Some good stuff, thanks all. I have to say that I don't quite understand how this crisis in conservatism could chiefly be considered a response to the (real or perceived) failures of liberalism. I'd be glad to hear otherwise but for example, how did liberalism force conservatives to so casually discard objective truth? How was passing corporate tax cuts a response to liberal radicalism?

We might be talking about different people. The illiberal Right doesn't support free markets or lowering taxes and regulations on large corporations and the wealthy. The Right is obviously not a monolith, it's a coalition of disparate ideologies, some of which have more in common with the Left than with mainstream conservatism, and I have to emphasize that the illiberal Right don't consider themselves conservative in the traditional sense. They're generally strongly opposed to conservatism, viewing it as ineffective at best and controlled opposition at worst. They haven't jettisoned their conservative principles; they never had them in the first place.

These aren't responses to liberalism in my view, but attempts to maintain power and influence. I am happy to be corrected here but as I understand it the majority of people support liberal policies over conservative ones, suggesting that perhaps with a decline in support for their policies conservatives in power have resorted to less nobler methods in the form of populism and outright propaganda.

I think most people support a mix of conservative and liberal policies. The mainstream Right is culturally conservative and economically non-interventionist, whereas the mainstream Left is culturally liberal and economically interventionist. The illiberal Right favors a mix of cultural conservatism and economic interventionism. They believe their alliance with the mainstream Right hasn't worked out too well for them. The conflict between conservatives and the illiberal Right is a real complicated affair and rooted in ancient Protestant-Catholic rivalries, which we don't need to go into here, but here's an article that talks about it a little.

French vs Ahmari: Constitutional Conservatism and the Post-Liberal Dead End | National Review

The most bracing pieces are sometimes the least defensible.

So it is with Sohrab Ahmari’s fusillade in the religious journal First Things against my National Review colleague David French, which has occasioned a cataract of conservative commentary.

Ahmari’s piece is part of the “post-liberal” ferment among a coterie of mostly Catholic writers on the right. A Catholic convert who has written a widely praised memoir, From Fire, By Water, he argues that conservatives should give up on defending a neutral public square and instead “impose our order and our orthodoxy.”

This would seem a fierce rallying cry in the culture war, but really — like the denunciations of the American political order from a smattering of Catholic writers — comes from a place of despair that, if acted on, would promise only futility.

The animating insight of the “post-liberal” writers and their allies seems to be: We are losing the culture war so badly that the only option left is to impose our values on everyone else. How will they do that? Good question! We’ll get back to you after we are done savaging our allies.

To simplify, Ahmari’s prescription is fighting harder, being less civil, caring less about individual liberty, and focusing energy on politics instead of culture toward the end of socially conservative government impositions. He also expresses suspicion of evangelicals (French is one) for being naturally inclined to oppose authority (for instance, national churches).

This hardly sounds like a winning formula. Ahmari says he was shocked into his current radical posture by the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fight.

Imagine, though, if conservatives had argued for Kavanaugh on the basis that decency doesn’t matter to us much anymore — so we don’t care about the truth of the allegations against him — and furthermore, we expect him to impose his Christian (or more specifically, Catholic) values on the country. We would have lost in a rout.

Kavanaugh won the day by appealing to reason, fair play, and the presumption of innocence — in other words, things that the most disillusioned Catholic conservatives perhaps consider a sucker’s game, yet still have purchase with the American public.

Needless to say, America is not a country ripe for the imposition of Catholic traditionalism. Among other things, conservative Catholics aren’t operating from a position of strength. Overall, about 20 percent of the U.S. population is Catholic, and only about 37 percent of Catholics are Republicans. About half aren’t particularly conservative on abortion or gay marriage.

Ahmari appears to envision politics, and government action, as an escape from culture and excoriates French for the emphasis he puts on cultural transformation. But politics isn’t a magic wand. In a liberal democracy, it depends on public sentiment, which is decisively shaped by culture.

Ahmari, strangely, pours scorn on the idea that we need religious conversions. Obviously, though, the religious landscape of the country matters greatly. The growth of evangelicals — while the Catholic Church has been losing numbers — provides a crucial cultural and political backstop for social conservatives.

A top priority of the cultural Right has been getting President Donald Trump to appoint constitutionalist judges. This is right and proper. Besides its intrinsic value, as a practical matter, the Constitution is the strongest protection that believers have.

Let’s assume everyone on the right agreed for some reason to strip the First Amendment out of the Constitution. Would this free religious conservatives to steamroll and suppress our opponents, or the other way around? Almost certainly, the latter.

All that said, there’s much I agree with Ahmari about.

There’s obviously cause for great alarm in the culture war, which has unquestionably entered a new, more treacherous phase.

We need to realize that America suffers, not just from a swollen state, but from a toxic individualism, people detached from family, church, and community, and thus from larger meaning.

Finally, we need to hang together and, if we can’t muster decency when fighting our adversaries, at least show some when disagreeing with allies.

[Coughdrop addict]

Ultimately I think it goes back to the Moral Majority and other Christian fundamentalist groups becoming such a big part of the Republican party. They changed what it meant to be conservative, tying both the ideology and party to fundamentalism. This had the effect of giving Republican policies an air of unassailable spiritual truth, to the point where many Republican voters began to see any disagreement with them as evidence one was in league with Satan. This continued up to the GWB presidency, where the Iraq War and War on Terror were spoken of in the language of a crusade by Republicans who should have (and did) know better. Even after the end of the GWB presidency and the Christian right losing much of their power this attitude of "our political beliefs are holy" has persisted among Republicans. Unfortunately this leaves no room for debate, since any criticism or opposition is then by definition unholy and those who do so are evil. This has also allowed a deluge of liberal-demonizing conspiracy theories to spread among a voting base primed to believe what they are told without question.

The only way to fix things is for Republican leaders to set the example and take a stand against this demonization. Refuse to take the easy way. If they do that, eventually the base will follow.

[Prodromos]

Ultimately I think it goes back to the Moral Majority and other Christian fundamentalist groups becoming such a big part of the Republican party. They changed what it meant to be conservative, tying both the ideology and party to fundamentalism. This had the effect of giving Republican policies an air of unassailable spiritual truth, to the point where many Republican voters began to see any disagreement with them as evidence one was in league with Satan. This continued up to the GWB presidency, where the Iraq War and War on Terror were spoken of in the language of a crusade by Republicans who should have (and did) know better. Even after the end of the GWB presidency and the Christian right losing much of their power this attitude of "our political beliefs are holy" has persisted among Republicans. Unfortunately this leaves no room for debate, since any criticism or opposition is then by definition unholy and those who do so are evil. This has also allowed a deluge of liberal-demonizing conspiracy theories to spread among a voting base primed to believe what they are told without question.

The only way to fix things is for Republican leaders to set the example and take a stand against this demonization. Refuse to take the easy way. If they do that, eventually the base will follow.

I don't think the ongoing debate within conservatism has anything to do with fundamentalism, and the rest of your post is frankly plain demonization of Republicans. It's a cartoon villain caricature with no basis in reality.

[95thrifleman]

This thread shows the problems with both conservatism and liberalism quite nicely. The basic problem is politics is now extremist and "you are with me or against me."

There is no middle ground anymore, one side takes a position and the other will automaticly take the direct opposition, no matter if the original idea is good or positive. We have extreme factionalism and tribalism that is stopping political compromise and discourse, both side are guilty of it and as a result making it worse.

If the left come up with a cure for cancer the right would oppose it because the pill is the wrong colour and vice versa, it has to stop or we'll end up with a political system that is paralysed at best or drifts into some extremist nightmare.