Despite the fact that I'm apparently an establishment flunky who's "ready for embalming" (the times change, but the paleocons are just as good at winning friends and influencing people as ever), I quite agree with Daniel McCarthy that George Packer's "Death of Conservatism" essay would have profited from some engagement with the dissident factions on the Right, include Ron Paul supporters, Crunchy Cons and others. In Packer's defense, though, his essay was focused more on the intersection of conservative ideas and the modern Republican majority than on conservative ideas per se - which is one reason, for instance, that it made sense for the piece to begin with Nixon and Buchanan rather than with WFB and National Review, which is where essays that survey the modern Right usually start. There's a lot of interesting intellectual action among the dissident conservatives, but if there's a big gap between the ideas being peddled by the reformist conservatives nearly-embalmed establishment hacks quoted in the Packer piece and the world of actual-existing Republican politics, then the gap between the Paulite paleos or the "Wendell Berry-Michael Pollan Right" and the American political scene is roughly the size of the Grand Canyon. Bridging this gap (in the absence of a Peak-Oil-related national trauma, that is) has always been the challenge for the traditionalist right; as someone who follows the intellectual debate among dissident conservatives with interest and sympathy, I would only suggest that pissing on anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan might not be the best way to go about it.
« Mark Schmitt on the GOP | Main | Our Brand Is (In) Crisis » The Outsiders30 May 2008 11:42 am Comments (6)
Is there any reason to believe that Wendell Berry considers himself on the right? Or even more so, Michael Pollan? I don't think being anti-modernist is synonymous with 'conservative', if it ever was. Especially inasmuch as environmentalism, probably the most popular anti-establishment movement around today, is generally considered a movement of the left, and is in large part anti-modernist. I consider myself pretty anti-modernist but definitely of the Left. 
I don't think anyone is saying that Berry or Pollan consider themselves to be on the political Right. Rather, the observation is that there are a lot of traditionalist and "crunchy" conservatives who are sympathetic to their ideas, and whose proposals for political and cultural reform are motivated by them. American agrarianism, though, which was as environmentalist and anti-modernist as they come, was pretty clearly a conservative cause. This is just one of those instances where, even if ideological boundaries don't break down, common causes are detected in surprising places and unlikely alliances can be formed.
Don't take it personally. Being grumpy is a big part of the paleocon style. Coalition building, not so much. Being a reactionary intellectual is a respectable vocation, but it isn't politics. That being said, a pol could *steal* some ideas from paleoconservatism. Coming out against World War II won't win friends and influence people, but leaving the Middle East sounds like a good idea to most Americans. Bringing back the Confederacy or the Stuarts is out, but enforcing immigration laws might sell in Peoria.
There are lots of issues in which the American public prefers the "paleoconservative" ideas to those of mainstream Republicans. Trouble is, those ideas are only those which the "paleoconservatives" share with liberal Democrats. Get out of Iraq now? Sure, but the American people trust Obama to do it right, much more than they trust Ron Paul. Pull back on free trade? By all means, but they want Nancy Pelosi to lead on this issue much more than Pat Buchanan. Stick it to the CEO's on Wall Street? Awesome idea, but the man for the job is Harry Reid, not Wendell Barry. And so on, and so forth. Hence any "mainstream conservatism learning from paleoconservatism" is going to look a lot like mainstream conservatives becoming much less conservative.
"There are lots of issues in which the American public prefers the "paleoconservative" ideas to those of mainstream Republicans. Trouble is, those ideas are only those which the "paleoconservatives" share with liberal Democrats." True on both counts. But people are already looking past 2008. The question is what comes next after this year's crack up. Some paleo ideas will enter the mainstream, perhaps from unexpected parts of the political spectrum. But I wonder if the revolt against Bush isn't going to make the whole-hog paleo ideology more, rather than less repellent to the public. Bush wasn't a Southern frontier Scots-Irish Jacksonian. But his manner was close enough to that stereotype that people are going to shy away from paleo celebrations of Celts and Confederates.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Ross,
It strikes me that there are actually lots of issues - the war, inflation, deficits, trade, federalism, and (maybe) immigration - where the paleoconservative/traditionalist Right is much closer to the popular mainstream than you're giving them credit for. There may indeed be a Grand Canyon-sized gap between them (us, I guess) and the "American political scene", but that's arguably more a product of partisan alignments than real popular opinion. Whether a political coalition centered on these sorts of issues - I try to provide a cursory list here, in case you're interested -, combined perhaps with some more of the populism that you and Reihan have advocated, could be a real force in electoral politics remain to be seen, but I don't think that the possibility can easily be dismissed.
Posted by John | May 30, 2008 3:05 PM