Reform and Revolution

From Yuval Levin's fine piece on how McCain should be running:

"A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve" was Edmund Burke's definition of the statesman two centuries ago, and it remains the hallmark of conservatism. While American conservatives have sometimes liked to think of themselves as revolutionaries (or radical counter-revolutionaries), the most significant accomplishments of the conservative movement have actually been targeted reforms that turned existing institutions to conservative ends. The Reagan "revolution" gave us a tax code better suited to entrepreneurship and growth. The Gingrich "revolution" gave us a welfare system with incentives geared toward encouraging independence and initiative. Conservative reform of urban law enforcement, and early efforts at reform of local education (through school choice), have improved what we have, rather than rejecting it. Reform, not revolution, is the conservative path to supporting strong families and free markets.

To this analysis, I would add one further point: The likely alternative to the reformist tendency on the Right - a tendency to which Yuval and I both subscribe, obviously, and which is limned by George Packer in this week's New Yorker - is a right-wing politics that would tend to be simultaneously revolutionary and quietistic. Or, perhaps more aptly, that would cycle between radical dreams and resigned, "let's withdraw from politics" pessimism. This "revolution or bust" tendency has defined traditionalist conservatism for some time now, with an alienation from actual-existing American politics coexisting with sweeping visions for what American politicians ought to be doing with themselves instead; it's manifested itself frequently among religious conservatives over the years as well; and in an era of liberal re-ascendency, it's easy to imagine such a spirit engulfing the entire American Right. You start by telling yourself that retrenchment - whether to the age of Gingrich or Reagan or Robert Taft - is the path to victory, and you end, when victory doesn't materialize, by embracing defeat as a badge of honor, and pining for either the barricades or the monastery.

I should add that of course there are times when quietism is the better part of valor, and times when revolutions are necessary things. And given my own declinist instincts, I can easily imagine myself ending my writing career sharing the "only a revolution (or the Benedict option) can save us now" point of view that some of my favorite dissident conservatives partake of. But I'm not ready to take that path just yet.

Comments

This in an interesting post. In what ways do you think American/world society is degenerating and what kind of possible future revolution are you envisioning? I don't think you've explicitly articulated these arguments before.

Posted by Korha | May 19, 2008 5:08 PM

I forget, was Burke in favor of trumped up invasions of other nations which posed virtually no established threat?

Posted by ed | May 19, 2008 5:15 PM

If this new wave of conservatism leads to universal health care, a realistic solution to global warming, and an end to the useless occupation of Iraq, it might actually be worth something. Failing that, it's just more blowhard clowns pretending to be part of the solution while just grabbing as much of the treasury as they can stuff into their pockets.

And do please stop with the declinist quietist bullshit. Nobody is buying this newfound depth in the party of Newt Gingrich, Jack Abramoff, and Tom Delay. Save it for the next decade, mmmkay.

Posted by Little Boots | May 19, 2008 11:26 PM

I don't understand how someone can claim to honor the great traditions of conservatism - "A disposition to preserve and an ability to improve", or skepticism about the ability of government to handle big challenges, or respect for individual freedom - and still vote Republican on the national level. The Republicans (as currently constituted) have proven themselves to be the mortal enemies of all these ideas.

Posted by peter | May 20, 2008 1:16 AM

Levin's article suffers from the same problems that dog almost all contemporary rightist proposals on domestic policy - they propose things that 70% of the country hates.

Examples:

-Privatizing social security (#3 on the list!)
-Ending Medicare as an entitlement (!!!)
-Making individuals cover more of the cost of their health care

Most of the rest of it is small bore stuff that isn't going to turn any election (tort reform), or utterly contentless calls for governmental reform:

The FDA needs more than new resources; it needs a top-down redesign

McCain is well suited to take on Wall Street's excesses without attacking its core strengths. The key is not more regulation, but smarter and leaner regulation, which removes unnecessary burdens from businesses but protects America's large new investor class--which did not exist when many of our regulatory institutions were born. It is also time to consider fundamental reforms of the federal reserve system.

Basically, Levin has attempted to shoehorn a massive turn to the right in domestic policy - dismantling social security and medicare - into a "reform" agenda by larding on top of his radical (revolutionary, even) agenda a bunch of blather about institutional reform that he clearly lacks the knowledge to explain, or even to propose in a coherent way.

Ross and Reihan's book, as I see it, is one of the very few contemporary rightist domestic agendas that doesn't suffer from the delusions that Levin displays here. The right, after 2005, actually thinks they can win on social security privatization and dismantling medicare? I can only wish that the McCain team is that stupid.

It's not fair to ask a right-wing pundit to constantly attack the right, but I would have been interested to see Ross take on Levin's policy proposals, because to me they embody just about everything nonsensical about contemporary rightist domestic politics, which Ross and Reihan have proposed to, yes, reform.

Posted by DivGuy | May 20, 2008 7:39 AM

Sounds awfully flip-floppy to me. But then, conservatism is awflly flip-floppy. Either you get idiots who think "this is the best of all possible worlds" and so do nothing, or you get the Grover Norquist comedy troupe with its special brand of economic and social illiteracy, or you get the fantasists who think that selective reading of Aristotle, married to an idealized feudal society is the virtuous way to go. The modern conservative oscillates between equally unconvincing position with an amusing shamelessness. If Bush taught us anything, it is that there is no conservative core identity waiting to be recaptured - there are simply different factions, ideologically disunified, but agreeing only on a hatred and fear of liberalism, combined with a belief that the conservative thing to do is to cram the rich fuller than they already are.

Posted by morzer | May 20, 2008 8:44 AM

A Prayer.

Please, Lord, spare us from more conservative reforms.

Spare us further reforms to our justice system, for too many of our brothers are in jail.

Spare us reforms to our farming systems, for too many of us are dying from the poisons in our food.

Spare us reforms to finance, for too many of us have lost hour homes.

Spare us reforms to our industry, for we're choking the atmosphere with gasses and spreading our poisons to other nations.

Spare us reforms to our social safety networks , for too many families are being left out.

Spare us reforms to our tax structures, for the rich keep getting richer and the poor shoulder the burden of choked government with excess fees and penalties.

Spare us the burden of education reform, for our children are no longer unable to compete in the global economy after being taught that intelligent design is intelligent and the way to get an education is to sign up for a tour in Iraq.

Spare us more of their political reforms, for our nation is no longer free.

Spare us reforms of our military and foreign policies, for we are much less safe then we were a decade ago.

Please lord, spare us from conservatives who think they have the answers. They're a cross who's weight is nearly beyond bearing.

Amen.

Posted by zic | May 20, 2008 9:34 AM

To paraphrase and invert an oft-quoted one-liner from the Nixon era-- I believe this country is about to move so far to the Left that you won't even recognize it.

The conservative revolution of the 1970s and 1980s didn't change our political institutions to nearly the extent that the revolutionaries hoped, but it was a runaway success in terms of shaping attitudes toward government. In much of the country, one can't even propose a bond issue to fix a bridge on the county road without provoking a mob of zombies who accuse you of socialism. And yet the bridge still needs to be fixed.

I think the failure of neoconservatism in Iraq is going to be very important in terms of bringing about a saner foreign policy, in which we don't have to watch all the Republicans and half the Democrats wave the bloody shirt of Neville Chamberlain whenever anyone suggests it might be wise to negotiate with someone we don't like.

But it's the broader failure of conservatives to merely run the country in a sustainable way, or in a way beneficial to anyone other than $2000/plate donors, that's going to bring about a much more devastating rejection of conservative ideology. It's becoming clear that most movement conservatives have absolutely no grasp of the long-term political trends. They're doubling down on the least popular part of their message and the resentments of dwindling demographic groups. They richly deserve the electoral fate that awaits them.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 20, 2008 11:26 AM

ooh, "limned"!!

Posted by M Kakutani | May 20, 2008 12:40 PM