When I joined the staff of National Review as a lowly associate in 1984, the magazine, and the conservative movement itself, was a fusion of two different mentalities.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Conservative Mind
By DAVID BROOKS
On the one side, there were the economic conservatives. These were people that anybody following contemporary Republican politics would be familiar with. They spent a lot of time worrying about the way government intrudes upon economic liberty. They upheld freedom as their highest political value. They admired risk-takers. They worried that excessive government would create a sclerotic nation with a dependent populace.
But there was another sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative, intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual, family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national government.
Because they were conservative, they tended to believe that power should be devolved down to the lower levels of this chain. They believed that people should lead disciplined, orderly lives, but doubted that individuals have the ability to do this alone, unaided by social custom and by God. So they were intensely interested in creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.
Recently the blogger Rod Dreher linked to Kirk’s essay, “Ten Conservative Principles,” which gives the flavor of this brand of traditional conservatism. This kind of conservative cherishes custom, believing that the individual is foolish but the species is wise. It is usually best to be guided by precedent.
This conservative believes in prudence on the grounds that society is complicated and it’s generally best to reform it steadily but cautiously. Providence moves slowly but the devil hurries.
The two conservative tendencies lived in tension. But together they embodied a truth that was put into words by the child psychologist John Bowlby, that life is best organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base.
The economic conservatives were in charge of the daring ventures that produced economic growth. The traditionalists were in charge of establishing the secure base — a society in which families are intact, self-discipline is the rule, children are secure and government provides a subtle hand.
Ronald Reagan embodied both sides of this fusion, and George W. Bush tried to recreate it with his compassionate conservatism. But that effort was doomed because in the ensuing years, conservatism changed.
In the polarized political conflict with liberalism, shrinking government has become the organizing conservative principle. Economic conservatives have the money and the institutions. They have taken control. Traditional conservatism has gone into eclipse. These days, speakers at Republican gatherings almost always use the language of market conservatism — getting government off our backs, enhancing economic freedom. Even Mitt Romney, who subscribes to a faith that knows a lot about social capital, relies exclusively on the language of market conservatism.
It’s not so much that today’s Republican politicians reject traditional, one-nation conservatism. They don’t even know it exists. There are few people on the conservative side who’d be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for the working class. There are very few willing to use government to actively intervene in chaotic neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are born out of wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to absurdly low levels.
The results have been unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order, Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country. Republicans have very little to say to Hispanic voters, who often come from cultures that place high value on communal solidarity.
Republicans repeat formulas — government support equals dependency — that make sense according to free-market ideology, but oversimplify the real world. Republicans like Romney often rely on an economic language that seems corporate and alien to people who do not define themselves in economic terms. No wonder Romney has trouble relating.
Some people blame bad campaign managers for Romney’s underperforming campaign, but the problem is deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional conservatism. The Republican Party has abandoned half of its intellectual ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners, but not as parents, neighbors and citizens.
Posted by
on Sep. 25, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies:
by
Gold Member
on Sep. 26, 2012 at 11:38 AM
No, you imply a contradiction when there is none, regarding repeal, as id repealng the ACA contradicts Romneycare. It doesn't. One's state, the other's federal. and Romney is not just saying people should turn to the ER. He is saying states should be encouraged to pursure their own healthcare reforms.
And "the tape" cuts him off at the subject of China and then starts in a different topic. It is clear that either the whole speech was not taped or that the whole tape was not released. Romney admitted his statements were ineölegantly put, and taken in perspective, he is believable, as his past actions and present policy are committed to good policy for the 100% of Americnas. (Perhaps even 110%, if you count his immigration reforms ;)
Quoting Sisteract:Repeal HC= repeal healthcare, federal. Sorry you misunderstood.
Please go back and listen to MR's words again- either that or you've been listening to a different tape.
Quoting Meadowchik:Romney did not call people enslaved victims. And the 47% segment has never been displayed in full context. It's simply nuts to extrapolate from an incomplete speech when you have actions and policy to refer to. And Romney is not saying we should repeal Romneycare. He is saying we should appeal Obamacare. National vs state is fundamentally different.
Quoting Sisteract:Action over words.
Anyone here a MA resident when MR was Gov?
Did he put his words into action?
How does repealing hc coverage for all and indicating that those without could just go to the ER for care, dovetail with those words that you just posted?
How does calling 47% of the populace enslaved victims denote working together as a community in good times and bad?
People are not stupid-
Quoting Meadowchik:Apparently David Brooks did not listen to Romney's RNC acceptance speech.
Excerpt:
"And that's how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families for our joy, our support, in good times and bad. It is both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, our faiths.
That is the bedrock of what makes America, America. In our best days, we can feel the vibrancy of America's communities, large and small.
It's when we see that new business opening up downtown. It's when we go to work in the morning and see everybody else on our block doing the same.
It's when our son or daughter calls from college to talk about which job offer they should take....and you try not to choke up when you hear that the one they like is not far from home.
It's that good feeling when you have more time to volunteer to coach your kid's soccer team, or help out on school trips.
But for too many Americans, these good days are harder to come by. How many days have you woken up feeling that something really special was happening in America?"
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160357612/transcript-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech
Romney is connecting economic heealth to the ability of everyday Americans to participate in their communities. Perhaps Brooks does not realize that America, rightly so, is quickly coming to a point of narrower and narrower choices, because of our fiscal problems. That's how it is when a household overspends, and that's how it is when a nation overspends. And we're all part of it.
The most pressing social issue today is the economy
by
on Sep. 26, 2012 at 11:47 AM
It's David Brooks - he writes for the other writers of the Times, not for the readers.
Quoting Meadowchik:
Apparently David Brooks did not listen to Romney's RNC acceptance speech.
Excerpt:
"And that's how it is in America. We look to our communities, our faiths, our families for our joy, our support, in good times and bad. It is both how we live our lives and why we live our lives. The strength and power and goodness of America has always been based on the strength and power and goodness of our communities, our families, our faiths.
That is the bedrock of what makes America, America. In our best days, we can feel the vibrancy of America's communities, large and small.
It's when we see that new business opening up downtown. It's when we go to work in the morning and see everybody else on our block doing the same.
It's when our son or daughter calls from college to talk about which job offer they should take....and you try not to choke up when you hear that the one they like is not far from home.
It's that good feeling when you have more time to volunteer to coach your kid's soccer team, or help out on school trips.
But for too many Americans, these good days are harder to come by. How many days have you woken up feeling that something really special was happening in America?"
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/30/160357612/transcript-mitt-romneys-acceptance-speech
Romney is connecting economic heealth to the ability of everyday Americans to participate in their communities. Perhaps Brooks does not realize that America, rightly so, is quickly coming to a point of narrower and narrower choices, because of our fiscal problems. That's how it is when a household overspends, and that's how it is when a nation overspends. And we're all part of it.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Mitch McConnell Defends Obama Administration On AP Scandal
- nanaofsix531
on Sep. 25, 2012 at 8:46 PM