Conservatism and Solutions

Andrew's thoughts on the George Packer "Death of Conservatism" essay are well worth your time, but obviously I'm more sympathetic toward Yuval Levin's rejoinder. When it comes to his differences with the various reform-minded conservatives mentioned in Packer's piece - myself included - I feel like Andrew is mistaking a policy disagreement for a major philosophical difference. He writes, for instance:

[Their] argument is framed in such a way as to violate conservatism's core insight ... Conservatism is not, to my mind, about solving problems, which is why it remains a very problematic governing philosophy for modern Americans. It is about a modesty toward what problems government can ever solve. Its responses to emergent questions will not be an attempt to "solve" them, but to ameliorate them with a narrow set of tools. And the narrower the better.

I agree - an essential modesty about the scope of government action and its ability to "solve" the great problems of the day is crucial to conservatism. (Which is why I wear as a badge of honor the remarkably similar liberal rejoinders to Grand New Party offered by Packer and E.J. Dionne - Packer's complaint that Reihan and I are "unprepared to accept as large a role for government as required by the deep structural problems they identify," and Dionne's lament that we're unwilling to accept "the level of intervention in the economy that the current inequities may require.") But this first principle only gets us so far, as Andrew's next paragraph suggests:

To give one example: the gas and climate question. Conservatives will not deny the problem but nor will they impose an onerous or overly-ambitious solution. If the evidence emerges that our carbon dependence is both damaging our environment and empowering our enemies, then change is necessary. But an elaborate cap-and-trade government monitored and imposed scheme is not appealing; or a government-engineered switch to biofuels (unintended consequences). A clear, solid carbon tax that simply encourages individuals and companies to innovate and switch to renewable energy would be a conservative solution. Simple, transparent, and targeted correctly with a minimal growth in government power. If fiscal circumstances permit, you can balance such a tax hike by lowering income tax or providing safety-net subsidies to those most in need as a result. And a truly conservative president would not be afraid to say, in his or her best eat-your-vegetables tone, that this is the only workable solution and that the alternative is worse.

I think this is a good example of why arguments about what "true conservatives" will do often don't tell us very much. Sure, a conservative might support a carbon tax for the reasons Andrew lays out - but then again, a conservative might instead agree with Jim Manzi that any carbon tax will perforce be both onerous and overly-ambitious. Moreoever, a conservative might also disagree with premise that climate change is the most pressing "emergent question" that our government ought to "ameliorate" and favor reform on other fronts instead.

I don't deny that on questions having to do with the scope of government action Andrew may be marginally to my right. (Though not far enough to prevent him from supporting Barack Obama.) But overall, I think our disagreements have more to do with differing assessments of the big problems the U.S. is facing - he's primarily worried about global warming and the looming entitlement crunch, so far as I can tell, and I'm more concerned about issues related to family structure, mobility and inequality - than with deep-seated ideological differences that make him a "true conservative" and me something else. Not that Andrew and I don't have deep-seated ideological differences, mind you - I just don't think the question of whether government should try to "solve" every problem or merely "ameliorate" the most pressing ones is one of them.

Comments

"I don't deny that on questions having to do with the scope of government action Andrew may be marginally to my right. (Though not far enough to prevent him from supporting Barack Obama.)"

Of course, Andrew is supporting Obama precisely because of Obama's showy unwillingness to stand with mainstream Democratic thought on the scope of governmental action.

Obama's rejection of universal healthcare was all about bringing the Marty Peretz and General Electric folks on board.

Posted by Petey | May 22, 2008 6:15 PM

"Moreoever, a conservative might also disagree with premise that climate change is the most pressing 'emergent question' that our government ought to 'ameliorate' and favor reform on other fronts instead."

What bugs me about a lot of contemporary conservatives is that this judgment of which problems are "most pressing" is itself an ideological exercise. It's one thing to minimize the significance of an issue, like climate change, because of a rational, thoughtful assessment of risk; it's another to dismiss it because acknowledging it as a problem would require you to rethink your positions on other issues.

Posted by Jorge | May 22, 2008 6:17 PM

"Moreoever, a conservative might also disagree with premise that climate change is the most pressing 'emergent question' that our government ought to 'ameliorate' and favor reform on other fronts instead."

What bugs me about a lot of contemporary conservatives is that this judgment of which problems are "most pressing" is itself an ideological exercise. It's one thing to minimize the significance of an issue, like climate change, because of a rational, thoughtful assessment of risk; it's another to dismiss it because acknowledging it as a problem would require you to rethink your positions on other issues.

Posted by Jorge | May 22, 2008 6:17 PM

It certainly is fascinating to learn the thoughts of "conservatives" who supported John Kerry and Barack Obama, have denounced and abandoned the Catholic Church, and support gay marriage and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Next up, let's hear from "liberals" who favor abolishing the estate tax and affirmative action, who are pro-life, and who want to bomb Iran.

Posted by y81 | May 22, 2008 10:35 PM

y81,

Well, as a conservative I'm opposed to raping and molesting children and aiding or covering up for those who engage in such horrific evil. Therefor I have no choice but to "denounce" the Catholic Church for its disgusting, reprehensible, evil behavior during my lifetime.

How could any conservative not?

Score whatever points you want on Andrew Sullivan, but denouncing the international organization that's done more to employ, aid and cover up for pedophiles than any in the history of the civilized West should be a no-brainer for any conservative.

I apologize if this seems harsh, my friend, but, frankly, we're talking about something (the behavior of the Mother Church in your lifetime as well as mine) that is both literally evil and literally obscene.

Posted by A.D. | May 23, 2008 12:21 AM

Great post, Ross.

Posted by Kevin | May 23, 2008 12:23 AM

The failures of conservative principles in government (Bush / Reagan's deficits) and failure of liberal principles (Great Society over-reach / social anarchy in the sixties) are essentially the same; a disregard for the inevitability of human nature to make principles of any stripe irrelevant. Institutional failure, corruption, idiocy - like gravity they cannot be defied by ideological purism.
Socialists becoming right wingers (Christopher Hitchins) or right wingers becoming socialists (Andrew Sullivan) has far less to do with any evolution of thought on their part and far more to do with the failures of ideological principles they once supported once they were enacted as government policy.
The best government is bland and passionless a-political and neither right nor left, neither conservative nor liberal. But ideological blandness hardly sells books, gets you on television or gets you tenure at the universities. Or gets you elected.
No wonder so many Democrats wish they could kick out all of the liberal crazies and Republicans wish they could get rid of the wing nuts. Maybe all of the moderates can get together and call themselves The Party For People Who Don't Mind Paying Taxes As Long As The Damn Potholes Get Fixed.

Posted by Nathan | May 23, 2008 12:39 AM

Good post. But, the most pressing issue for those of us interested in more practical politics is - why is there this huge gulf between conservative thinkers like Ross and Andrew, and so-called conservative politicians?
Ross mentions several reasonable conservative responses to climate change. I notice the list did not include: "Support junk science. Suppress genuine research. Appoint political hacks to key posts. Lie and stonewall." Yet this is the only approach that has any currency among actual conservative office holders. The pattern is replicated across many issues. I've never found a fully satisfactory explanation.

Posted by peter | May 23, 2008 12:49 AM

Isn't Manzi's view primarily motivated by the thought that the harms of global warming are extremely hard to accurately predict/that the high estimates are relatively low probability events (I can't always figure out which point he's more concerned about).

Presumably the argument about what a true conservative would do requires some agreement about the facts on the ground. I'd always thought Manzi's position was primarily driven by disagreement about the facts (both the scale of the harms attributable to global warming, and the potential to alleviate them with various approaches).

Posted by Justin | May 23, 2008 1:23 AM

Peter, I know absolutely nothing about the issue, but I would tend to guess the answer is that our conservative officeholders might be financially supported and heavily lobbied by corporate interests that would rather not pay a carbon tax, be forced into a cap-and-trade system, or do anything about climate control whatsoever. Kind of like how many of our conservative officeholders used to say that the jury was still out on whether smoking caused cancer. This doesn't make them terrible people; in fact, I'd argue that you'd rather have your politicians be in bed with polluters than with, say, teachers' unions. But it is unfortunate.

Posted by Asher | May 23, 2008 2:47 AM

Good post, great links. Burke probably said it best- the argument is not about solving problems, but if doing so is aided by discarding wholesale earlier "solutions" already functioning in the form of existing institutions.

Most sensible folks are skeptical about the likelihood of a giant Federal intrusion into the most fundamental elements of the economy, and by extension the society represented by energy use, actually producing more solutions than unintended negative consequences.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 23, 2008 5:05 AM

But if the government doesn't do something about CO2, Robert, who will? (I assume that's what you're talking about above.)

The "free market" shows absolutely no sign of being interested in reducing CO2 emissions, except in the fig-leafiest of terms in some efforts to stave off needed governmental intervention.

Global warming/CO2 is an example of something that demands government regulation, because the short-sighted, stock-price-uber-alles, what's-our-profit-next-quarter "free market" has absolutely no ability to think in any longer terms than three months.

There is no short-term profit incentive for reducing carbon use, because its impacts will generally be slow (in human terms, quite fast in geologic time) to be felt. Therefore, the "free market" will completely ignore CO2 until long after it's too late to do anything about it.

This is another example of the fundamental flaw in current American economic thinking - the rise of the stock market in the public consciousness has ended any long-term thinking among businesses. It's all about what the stock price is tomorrow and what the profit will be in the next 10-Q.

One can have a grand academic debate over whether a federal or a private sector solution to carbon pollution would be the better option. But in the absence of any evidence that the private sector gives a damn about carbon pollution, then either the feds step in or we watch An Inconvenient Truth in slow-mo on a global scale.

Sort of like how nobody gave a damn about dumping hazardous waste and pumping toxics into the air, until the Clean Air/Water Acts forced their hands.

Private industry is not interested in keeping our environment and our ecosystem safe for humanity. Pollution controls are a "cost center," and those hurt profits.

Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman | May 23, 2008 6:06 AM

"Support junk science. Suppress genuine research. Appoint political hacks to key posts. Lie and stonewall."

That would be the liberal approach to global warming, young Peter.

Travis, where to begin? The histrionics of your eco-rant and others like it have had one tangible benefit - businesses are acting. Today, it's magazine ads from BP and other oil companies about looking for solutions. A lot of pandering, no doubt.

But precisely because the CEOs are as greedy as you say they are, they want to 1) find something that will replace oil when it runs out and 2) meet the demand of an environmentally conscious public. You're wrong when you say that businesses don't think long-term, but your hysteria is not completely without merit.

Let's check back in a few years. Give entrepreneurs the opportunity to address these issues, and stop scolding your neighbors about carbon footprints and putting bricks in their toilets.

Posted by Ferrell | May 23, 2008 10:29 AM

Coming from someone who says that global warming is junk science from lying, stonewalling liberals, I'll take your "eco-rant" comment as a compliment.

Posted by Travis Mason-Bushman | May 23, 2008 7:56 PM

I think a lot of us don't buy the "planetary emergency" analysis, Travis. Personally, I'm sure the climate is warming, and expect that there's a real human contribution to this. But we know that the climate has been both much warmer and much colder in the past--climate ALWAYS changes. Were we really all that much better off when the Chicago area was under a mile of ice, or when it was warm enough for farming on Greenland?

To the extent that we can do anything about climate change in the short term, which is damned little, it's my view that we should be working to adapt to the inevitable. There is probably a role for government, but history is not encouraging in this regard. Usually the negative unintended consequences of dramatic interventions outweigh the advantages. We need to be, in Burke's terms, "modest" about what government can actually do.

That said, I think there are several good reasons to reduce our oil consumption. Current high prices would eventually do so, but I wouldn't oppose a tax (I'd like to call it a War Surcharge) on gas, and letting the market do the rest. Where I live in Europe gasoline is about double its current price in the US, and the average income is about half of ours. The wheels are still turning.

Posted by Robert Powell | May 24, 2008 3:43 AM