Counterculture Conservatism

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... tism-4001/

Counterculture Conservatism
The right needs less Ayn Rand, more Flannery O’Connor

By ANDREW J. BACEVICH • February 6, 2013



How to revive the flagging fortunes of the Republican Party might matter to some people, but it’s not a question that should concern principled conservatives. Crypto-conservatives aplenty stand ready to shoulder that demeaning task. Tune in Fox News or pick up the latest issue of National Review or the Weekly Standard and you’ll find them, yelping, whining, and fingering our recently reelected president as the Antichrist.

Conservatives who prefer thinking to venting—those confident that a republic able to survive eight years of George W. Bush can probably survive eight years of Barack Obama—confront a question of a different order. To wit: does authentic American conservatism retain any political viability in this country in the present age? That is, does homegrown conservatism have any lingering potential for gaining and exercising power at the local, state, or national levels? Or has history consigned the conservative tradition—as it has Marxism—to a status where even if holding some residual utility as an analytical tool, it no longer possesses value as a basis for practical action?

To which a properly skeptical reader may respond, perhaps reaching for a sidearm: exactly whose conservative tradition are you referring to, bucko?

Well, I’ll admit to prejudices, so let me lay them out.

(Fans of Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman will want to stop reading here and flip to the next article. If Ronald Reagan’s your hero, sorry—you won’t like what’s coming. Ditto regarding Ron Paul. And if in search of wisdom you rely on anyone whose byline appears regularly in any publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, well, you’ve picked up the wrong magazine.)

The conservative tradition I have in mind may not satisfy purists. It doesn’t rise to the level of qualifying as anything so grandiose as a coherent philosophy. It’s more of a stew produced by combining sundry ingredients. The result, to use a word that ought warm the cockles of any conservative’s heart, is a sort of an intellectual slumgullion.

Here’s the basic recipe. As that stew’s principal ingredients, start with generous portions of John Quincy Adams and his grandson Henry. Fold in ample amounts of Randolph Bourne, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Christopher Lasch. For seasoning, throw in some Flannery O’Connor and Wendell Berry—don’t skimp. If you’re in a daring mood, add a dash of William Appleman Williams. To finish, sprinkle with Frank Capra—use a light hand: too sweet and the concoction’s ruined. Cook slowly. (Microwave not allowed.) What you get is a dish that is as nutritious as it is tasty.

This updated conservative tradition consists of several complementary propositions:

As human beings, our first responsibility lies in stewardship, preserving our common inheritance and protecting that which possesses lasting value. This implies an ability to discriminate between what is permanent and what is transient, between what ought to endure and what is rightly destined for the trash heap. Please note this does not signify opposition to all change—no standing athwart history, yelling Stop—but fostering change that enhances rather than undermines that which qualifies as true.

Conservatives, therefore, are skeptical of anything that smacks of utopianism. They resist seduction by charlatans peddling the latest Big Idea That Explains Everything. This is particularly the case when that Big Idea entails launching some armed crusade abroad. Conservatives respect received wisdom. The passage of time does not automatically render irrelevant the dogmas to which our forebears paid heed. George Washington was no dope.

In private life and public policy alike, there exists a particular category of truths that grown-ups and grown-up governments will respectfully acknowledge. For conservatives this amounts to mere common sense. Actions have consequences. Privileges entail responsibility. There is no free lunch. At day’s end, accounts must balance. Sooner or later, the piper will be paid. Only the foolhardy or the willfully reckless will attempt to evade these fundamental axioms.

Conservatives take human relationships seriously and know that they require nurturing. In community lies our best hope of enjoying a meaningful earthly existence. But community does not emerge spontaneously. Conservatives understand that the most basic community, the little platoon of family, is under unrelenting assault, from both left and right. Emphasizing autonomy, the forces of modernity are intent on supplanting the family with the hyper-empowered—if also alienated—individual, who exists to gratify appetite and ambition. With its insatiable hunger for profit, the market is intent on transforming the family into a cluster of consumers who just happen to live under the same roof. One more thing: conservatives don’t confuse intimacy with sex.

All of that said, conservatives also believe in Original Sin, by whatever name. They know, therefore, that the human species is inherently ornery and perverse. Hence, the imperative to train and educate young people in the norms governing civilized behavior. Hence, too, the need to maintain appropriate mechanisms to restrain and correct the wayward who resist that training or who through their own misconduct prove themselves uneducable.

Conversely, conservatives are wary of concentrated power in whatever form. The evil effects of Original Sin are nowhere more evident than in Washington, on Wall Street, or in the executive suites of major institutions, sadly including churches and universities. So conservatives reject the argument that correlates centralization with efficiency and effectiveness. In whatever realm, they favor the local over the distant. Furthermore, although conservatives are not levelers, they believe that a reasonably equitable distribution of wealth—property held in private hands—offers the surest safeguard against Leviathan. A conservative’s America is a nation consisting of freeholders, not of plutocrats and proletarians.

Finally, conservatives love and cherish their country. But they do not confuse country with state. They know that America is not its military, nor any of the innumerable three-lettered agencies comprising the bloated national-security apparatus. America is amber waves of grain, not SEAL Team Six.

Given such a perspective, American conservatives cannot view the current condition of their country and their culture with anything but dismay. Yet apart from mourning, what can they do about it?

My vote is for taking a page from the playbook of our brethren on the radical left. Remember the “long march through the institutions”? It’s time to mobilize a countercultural march in an entirely different direction.

Conservatism—the genuine article, not the phony brand represented by the likes of Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, or Grover Norquist—has now become the counterculture. This is a mantle that committed conservatives should happily claim. That mantle confers opportunity. It positions conservatives to formulate a compelling critique of a status quo that few responsible Americans view as satisfactory or sustainable.

Put simply, the task facing conservatives is to engineer a change in the zeitgeist through patient, incremental, and thoughtful action. Effecting such a change presents a formidable challenge, one likely to entail decades of effort. Yet the task is not an impossible one. Consider the astonishing successes achieved just since the 1960s by left-leaning proponents of women’s rights and gay rights. There’s the model.

The key to success will be to pick the right fights against the right enemies, while forging smart tactical alliances. (By tactical, I do not mean cynical.) Conservatives need to discriminate between the issues that matter and those that don’t, the contests that can be won and those that can’t. And they need to recognize that the political left includes people of goodwill whose views on some (by no means all) matters coincide with our own.

So forget about dismantling the welfare state. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and, yes, Obamacare are here to stay. Forget about outlawing abortion or prohibiting gay marriage. Conservatives may judge the fruits produced by the sexual revolution poisonous, but the revolution itself is irreversible.

Instead, the new conservative agenda should emphasize the following:

Protecting the environment from the ravages of human excess. Here most emphatically, the central theme of conservatism should be to conserve. If that implies subordinating economic growth and material consumption in order to preserve the well-being of planet Earth, so be it. In advancing this position, conservatives should make common cause with tree-hugging, granola-crunching liberals. Yet in the cultural realm, such a change in American priorities will induce a tilt likely to find particular favor in conservative circles.
Exposing the excesses of American militarism and the futility of the neo-imperialist impulses to which Washington has succumbed since the end of the Cold War. When it comes to foreign policy, the conservative position should promote modesty, realism, and self-sufficiency. To the maximum extent possible, Americans should “live within,” abandoning the conceit that the United States is called upon to exercise “global leadership,” which has become a euphemism for making mischief and for demanding prerogatives allowed to no other nation. Here the potential exists for conservatives to make common cause with members of the impassioned antiwar left.
Insisting upon the imperative of putting America’s fiscal house in order. For starters, this means requiring government to live within its means. Doing so will entail collective belt-tightening, just the thing to curb the nation’s lazily profligate tendencies. Conservatives should never cease proclaiming that trillion-dollar federal deficits are an abomination and a crime committed at the expense of future generations.
Laying claim to the flagging cause of raising children to become responsible and morally centered adults. Apart from the pervasive deficiencies of the nation’s school system, the big problem here is not gay marriage but the collapse of heterosexual marriage as an enduring partnership sustained for the well-being of offspring. We know the result: an epidemic of children raised without fathers. Turning this around promises to be daunting, but promoting economic policies that make it possible to support a family on a single income offers at least the beginnings of a solution. Yes, just like in the 1950s.
Preserving the independence of institutions that can check the untoward and ill-advised impulses of the state. Among other things, this requires that conservatives mount an adamant and unyielding defense of religious freedom. Churches—my own very much included—may be flawed. But conservatives should view their health as essential.
Who knows, perhaps in 2016 or 2020 the existing Republican Party’s formula of protecting the well-to-do and promoting endless war while paying lip-service to traditional values and pandering to the Israel lobby will produce electoral success. But I doubt it. And even if the party does make a comeback on that basis, the conservative cause itself won’t prosper. Reviving that cause will require a different formula altogether.

Now you’ve got my ideas. Perhaps you have better ones. If so, I’d be interested to hear them.

Andrew J. Bacevich teaches at Boston University. An updated edition of his book The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War will appear this spring.

The sort of conservatism advocated here is indeed similar to those environmentalists/Greens who advocate "sustainable development" and otherwise thinking small. Its also a far better recipe for conservatism than most of the Tea Party.

[Simon_Jester]

Interestingly, while such a brand of conservatism cares intensely about balancing budgets, they might be a lot more open to tax increases.

It's the fondness for corporate plutocracy, more than any other single variable, that distorts and poisons modern conservatism.

[Prannon]

I would be willing to do business with that sort of conservatism. I think that many Americans on both sides would sympathize greatly with such a brand.

I've always been of the opinion that the American body politik really needs and is made whole by conservative and liberal elements. The exclusion of either would be unhealthy. It's just that in the last few decades, the political top has been hijacked by religion, corporations, etc so much that the political discourse has locked up.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I can't help but notice this is quite what we see in the radical left, which is rightly mocked for the existence of a million splinter groups that proclaim they, and they alone, will bring the true socialism which the others can't. Perhaps seeing their values, their economy, and then their political party dying a horrible death has caused a few fractures in the right. This I think is a good thing, because one of these schismatics eventually prevails and brings on some change and renewal.

[UnderAGreySky]

If this is conservatism, then I guess I have been a conservative all along. I'm not even snarking (much) here - in the list of "things to do" at the end of the essay, what are the opposing points a "liberal" would want? As far as I thought, you didn't have to be liberal to want the US military to be less imperial, to want to conserve resources, to want couples to stay together (though the disagreement would be on whether they need to be *married*).

So what makes this guy a 'conservative', and what would a sensible liberal opponent of his argue about?

[Rogue 9]

If this is conservatism, then I guess I have been a conservative all along. I'm not even snarking (much) here - in the list of "things to do" at the end of the essay, what are the opposing points a "liberal" would want? As far as I thought, you didn't have to be liberal to want the US military to be less imperial, to want to conserve resources, to want couples to stay together (though the disagreement would be on whether they need to be *married*).

So what makes this guy a 'conservative', and what would a sensible liberal opponent of his argue about?

The underlying point is that by and large the mainstream Democratic Party is not liberal, and that the Republican Party has moved far off into lala land just looking for something to differentiate themselves and so gain power. A liberal opponent of his would argue for the expansion of the welfare state (he acknowledges that what the United States currently has is here to stay, but note a distinct lack of saying he likes that or would add to it) and large public works projects.

In the current U.S. political environment, he'd have a lot more Republican opponents than Democratic ones, though, at least among office-holders.

[UnderAGreySky]

So all it boils down to is, "I can't admit that the Democrats are more conservative than the Republicans today, who are batshit insane, so I'm going to pretend that what I'm saying is a conservative way of being a Republican." That's my reading anyway

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Actually, it's much closer to "I believe in conservatism in the literal sense, of conserving the good of the present against radical change no matter how much better it promises it will be". Thus the cultural conservatism (without being reactionary), the economic conservatism (instead of the economic liberalism embraced by most right-wing parties today), the ecological conservatism, and the general distrust of putting too much power in one hand lest it be used for rapid change, whether that hand be government or a small upper class.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Just excising power from the crazy evangelicals would do wonders for the Republican Party. The best to have done this recently was, frankly, putting Ron Paul against Obama in the general. The craziest shit he couldnt have done anyway.

Nah, the future in the GOP lies in people who actually are for less govt and less govt spending, and hold Ron Paul's view and foreign military affairs. AKA dont do them. Not necessarily Tea Party crazy, but pro-reasonable regulation etc.

The GOP will survive someway. And the Reagan through Bush II era will be remembered as the era that the GOP rode the wave of evangelical votes and immigration votes. Although they mostly only blustered and bullshitted. Had they actually done a damn thing about immigration, this country wouldnt be 300 milion + and African-Americans would still be the largest "Minority" by far.

Honestly, it was doomed to failure since the Evangelical Christians couldnt get super high conversion rates and ironically did not have high birth rates. Starting in 1979, they would have needed something like an average of 5 births that make it to adult per wife and a massively high degree of lasting marriages and they would have had to put a full halt on most foreign immigration.

They failed at literally all of that. And now?

The Evangelical Christian wing of the GOP is losing its place of the three big components and its losing it fast. The Libertarian wing is gaining strength while the third wing of NeoCons is holding steadyish.

Should be an interesting decade.

May we all live in interesting times.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Well, they didn't fail as much as "it was literally impossible to do". Well-off people have less children, and also it's a fact that you can't stop immigration if you can't influence the factors behind it. The only kind of immigration a government can stop is the one beginning from their own country.

Also I don't know about your interpretation, but living in interesting times is a Chinese curse, not a blessing, since these times suck massively for those involved. There, I've had my moment of pedantry.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Dominarch's Hope I am curious how you think the Liberterians are "Gaining Power"

Ron Paul for the most part is largely ignored within the party base.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Well, they didn't fail as much as "it was literally impossible to do". Well-off people have less children

Due to culture. There is nothing preventing them from popping out more kids and supporting them. The problem is that the Evangelicals failed to convince there wealthier members to pop out the kids. Its not impossible, as the Mormons attest. Its a cultural artifact of the modern day really and ironically a left over of feminism of that time.

, and also it's a fact that you can't stop immigration if you can't influence the factors behind it. The only kind of immigration a government can stop is the one beginning from their own country.

Wrong again. You can most definately control immigration to your country if you are a first world nation or even 2nd world. Its just that the logical conclusion of such measures are considered a bit evil. First you lockdown the border. Then refuse to let anybody you dont want over it for any reason, and have a zero tolerance policy for those caught in the country illegally with know documentation or record. Anchor kids? Put them into orphanages/CPS or change the particular law in regards to that. Then it comes to shooting/minefields of anybody who tries to come over by force, again zero exceptions. Although it would rarely come to that. It also involves an boat people who arent from approved nations being turned away and forced back out to sea or imprisoned permanently. If the US did this, there is jack all other countries could do about it except declare war. And none of which that are capable of being a threat would be willing to do so.

Same applies to any nuclear power that is in the G8.

Also I don't know about your interpretation, but living in interesting times is a Chinese curse, not a blessing, since these times suck massively for those involved. There, I've had my moment of pedantry.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

The GOP will survive someway. And the Reagan through Bush II era will be remembered as the era that the GOP rode the wave of evangelical votes and immigration votes. Although they mostly only blustered and bullshitted. Had they actually done a damn thing about immigration, this country wouldnt be 300 milion + and African-Americans would still be the largest "Minority" by far.

What group do you believe to be the largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S.?

Here's a hint, its not Hispanics, nor is it Asians.

Stumped yet? The largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S. is atheists, and I completey fail to see how immigration reform would affect that.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Due to culture. There is nothing preventing them from popping out more kids and supporting them. The problem is that the Evangelicals failed to convince there wealthier members to pop out the kids. Its not impossible, as the Mormons attest. Its a cultural artifact of the modern day really and ironically a left over of feminism of that time.

Lotsa claims, dude, lotsa claims. I'd like some proof of the incredible Mormon birthrates, and a side order of proof that Mormons are on average just as well-off as Evangelicals.

Wrong again. You can most definately control immigration to your country if you are a first world nation or even 2nd world. Its just that the logical conclusion of such measures are considered a bit evil. <snip the rest>

Oh, so apparently we'll have some more of your conviction that enough genocide will solve everything. Tell you what, instead of inflicting your bloodlusting rhetoric upon us, how about showing us some countries that went down the "bit evil" path, as well as the results of the policies they adopted?

[Zaune]

Also, the US/Mexican border is what, a thousand miles long? More? And consists mostly of barely-habitable desert to boot? Locking it down completely would cost the economy far, far more than a few hundred thousand undocumented workers who aren't paying income tax.

And don't bother bringing up the "taking our jobs" argument, the South fought a fucking civil war for the right to import coloured people to do all the shitty jobs for them.

[Dominarch's Hope]

[quote="Dominarch's Hope]The GOP will survive someway. And the Reagan through Bush II era will be remembered as the era that the GOP rode the wave of evangelical votes and immigration votes. Although they mostly only blustered and bullshitted. Had they actually done a damn thing about immigration, this country wouldnt be 300 milion + and African-Americans would still be the largest "Minority" by far.

What group do you believe to be the largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S.?

Here's a hint, its not Hispanics, nor is it Asians.

Stumped yet? The largest and fastest growing minority in the U.S. is atheists, and I completey fail to see how immigration reform would affect that.[/quote][/quote]
And? Evangelicals are lsoing their foothold into the GOP as is Neocons. Atheism is no barrier to Libertarianism.


So...yeah what was your point again? Mine is that by alienating Hispanic Immigrants and actually not doing a damn thing or putting anything into effect that stemmed the tide, the GOP shot itself in the ass..

Which is all the funnier because Bush II was fairly aware that is was a stupid idea to do that. He also stomped down hard on any notions internally of the war on terror being a war on islam and stomped down on that perceptions.


Those two things, among others, makes it clear that Bsuh and his cronies were fairly competent in leadership compared to the modern day GOP.


Which is hilarious in and of itself.


Also, I took a look at some demographic maps, and it appears that the majority of the Black population actually still lives in the South. Which is hilarious because Black swing 90%+ towards Democrats while the Deep South is staunchly republican. So basically, the Black vote is being de facto suppressed.