The conservative betrayal that tops them all

A few weeks ago, the editors of National Review, invoking the “three legs of the stool” image of Reaganite conservatism, endorsed Mitt Romney for president because, more than any other candidate, he supported all three legs of the stool. This week, writing in Time magazine, Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor of National Review, declares that it’s time for conservatives to follow the example of John McCain and start reaching out to independent voters, since that’s where electoral success lies for the Republican party.

In a previous post I pointed out how NR, because of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, has effectively switched its loyalty from Romney to McCain. But what Ponnuru has now done is much bigger than that. Solely on the basis of the results in Iowa and New Hampshire, Ponnuru is calling on conservatives to give up conservatism and become liberal-leaning McCainites. As for those who still believe in conservatism, Ponnuru derides such adherence as the “closing of the conservative mind,” and says that such conservatives are living in “a kingdom of the blind.”

It’s beyond amazing. Had there been no surprise Huckabee surge in Iowa, had Romney carried Iowa and then New Hampshire, NR would at this moment be celebrating the enduring vitality of Reaganite conservatism. But instead, solely on the basis of margins of a few thousand votes in two small states, the boys of NR have now abandoned, not just their candidate Romney, but the founding philosophy of their own magazine.

- end of initial entry -

James W. writes:

I am surprised to see the boys at National Review so confused—about everything—at the same time that, in my opinion, a more substantial number of conservative voters than ever before have learned the bitter lesson that liberals can do greater damage with an uncommitted “conservative” Republican in the White House than a liberal Democrat. Does this really need explaining? [LA replies: Yes. It’s as though all the hard-won lessons of years had not just been thrown away, but nuked.]

McCain’s lead is fools gold, and he has no chance whatsoever of getting the nomination. The fact is, people like me will vote, but not pull any lever for that office were the choice McCain or Huckabee versus Clinton. And it will be Clinton.

This leaves Julianne, Thompson, and Romney. And possibly a brokered convention.

There are not going to be any Republican leaders, for the simple reason we don’t trust them. They’ll take turns getting knocked off at the top.

Larry G. writes:

You drive down a tree-lined road every day on the way to work. Occasionally you notice a new driveway and a narrow road leading back into the woods, but you ignore it because the road is still lined with trees. Then one day the trees are gone and a sign announces a new office park. Only then do you realize that the trees by the road were but a thin layer for appearances, and that over time the land behind them had been stripped and turned into housing developments and shopping centers, and you are surrounded by a barren concrete-scape as far as the eye can see.

As one or two true conservatives fade or drop out of the Presidential primary race, we discover the true lay of the land: a choice of two socialists on the Democrat side, and a choice of liberals on the GOP side. But this is not a sudden development, but the result of the triumph of leftism over the last 50 years or more. NR’s change is not sudden either, but the result of a long term hollowing out that has occurred. W.F. Buckley caved on marijuana decriminalization decades ago, and caved on immigration in 1997 [when he fired O’Sullivan as editor and appointed Lowry]. We are only now realizing that behind the facade there are no conservatives left.

George writes:

So, Ponnuru wants conservative Republican voters to concede that man created global warming is settled science, abandon the Second Amendment, and join the socialist left in raising taxes. [LA replies: I don’t see where in the article Ponnuru embraces the manmade global warming thesis; he just mentions the fact that McCain thinks nuclear power is a way to deal with it. Though I guess it could be argued that since McCain seems to accept AGW, and Ponnuru says conservatives should move in the direction of McCain, Ponnuru is implicitly endorsing AGW.]

Essentially, Ponnuru wants the GOP to gut what few conservative planks the party has left in the twilight of the Bush era in order to win over independents who voted for the Democrats in 2006.

But I could not help noticing Ponnuru never, ever, suggests the Republicans abandon the Bush policy that above all was responsible for independents running away from the GOP two years ago: messianic democratic world revolution.

Presumably, Ponnuru never suggests abandoning neocon world revolution and their pet project in Iraq because that would require the neocon wing of the party to make sacrifices in pursuit of the squishy moderate middle.

I have a better idea, instead of allowing the neocons to throw conservative voters under the bus via a McCain presidency, why don’t conservative voters throw the neocons under the bus by convincing Ron Paul to run third party and sink McCain in the general election?

How does a Paul/Tancredo third party ticket sound, Ramesh?

LA replies:

Well, if conservatives are going to set out to sink the neocons, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to do it with a conservative candidate, rather than a libertarian candidate?

“Essentially, Ponnuru wants the GOP to gut what few conservative planks the party has left in the twilight of the Bush era in order to win over independents who voted for the Democrats in 2006.”

Except for anti-abortion; as long as you’re anti-abortion, you’re a “conservative.”

Joseph C. writes:

This is what happens when you give responsibility to those without principle. For years, traditionalist conservatives (a tautology to be sure, but one that is, sadly, necessary to distinguish from neo-conservatism) have watched their elected leaders sell them out repeatedly in the name of expediency and political comity. At each turn, we were told to hold our noses, go along, and that this is the best we can get.

Conservatives, ostensibly elected on principle, have responded to the counterculture through either tolerance (the welfare state and mealy-mouthed responses to civil disturbances) or collaboration (unfettered immigration). Now that the demographics have changed, and recent immigrants (legal and illegal) have multiplied abundantly, they tell us, “OK. Maybe you were right all along. But still, here we are, so we have to adjust to the new reality” (the reality that they have created and helped nurture). “Might as well compromise, cut our losses, and fend off a complete disaster.”

If the political “conservatives” and their fawning courtiers at National Review think we have no real conservative in the race, they need look no further than their own mirrors. They created this mess, they stood by helplessly and capitulated to liberalism at every turn, and now they can live with the consequences. There is no reason true (i.e., traditionalist) conservatives should come to their rescue and accept their fate. We elect them, and they work for us, not the other way around.

In the short run, worse is better. We needed Carter and the humiliation of Iran to get Reagan. We needed two years of unfettered 1960s leftism in the early 1990s to get the (too brief) Gingrich Revolution. There is no need to “cut our losses” now. We probably need Hillary or Obama to get America angry enough to lay the groundwork for the next revolution. If I am going to be stuck with a liberal, it should be a Democrat. At least that way we can fight back.

Steven Warshawsky writes:

There is pervasive unease among conservatives these days, who are struggling to decide what, exactly, “conservatism” means circa 2008.

The Reagan coalition was composed of three main groups: nationalists, moral traditionalists, and supporters of free enterprise. This is an inherently unstable political alliance, which requires a popular and effective leader to hold together. No leader presently exists who speaks with authority to each part of this coalition. This is the biggest problem we conservatives have today.

But there is a deeper underlying problem. In the past 20 years, the nationalist and free market elements of this coalition have taken a tremendous beating.

The collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the preeminent foreign policy issue that both motivated the nationalist element and also was subscribed to by the free market and traditionalist elements. Today, the “conservative” foreign policy response to militant Islam is in disarray. Moreover, the ascendancy of PC and multiculturalism makes it very difficult for people to speak frankly about the nature of this threat and what we need to do about it. PC and multiculturalism similarly make it very difficult to speak frankly about the leading domestic policy issue for nationalists: immigration. At the same time, the capitalists have grown increasingly opposed to immigration controls, and there appears to be little common ground between nationalists and the corporate elite on this issue.

The ideology of free enterprise also is in sharp decline. Compared to when Reagan was president, the welfare-regulatory state has expanded at all levels of government. Today just about everyone wants his own government handout. Where are the defenders of the free market? Few people today can articulate why economic freedom and private property are the best foundation for organizing an economy. Even many (most?) of the people who are very upset with government “takings” still want their middle-class entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which simply are takings in another form. Even the capitalists do not really believe in free enterprise these days. They are mostly happy with government regulation of the marketplace.

In the past twenty years, the only segment of the Reagan coalition that has continued to develop its political and ideological skills and to work to re-shape the national dialog in ways conducive to its interests are the moral traditionalists. For which they deserve great credit. Yes, our society still is awash in immorality and family breakdown. But the moral traditionalists, the so-called Christian Right, undeniably have grown in vitality, legitimacy, and influence. Certainly, much more so than the nationalists and the supporters of free enterprise.

So when you write, in an apparently dismissive manner (I could be mis-reading you)—“Except for abortion; as long as you’re anti-abortion, you’re a ‘conservative’”—surely you recognize that this is the direction the conservative movement has been tending for 20 years. When the first reason conservatives give for rejecting Rudy Giuliani, for example, is that he is pro-choice, then they are elevating the abortion issue to primacy. If a candidate, say Mitt Romney, adequately changes his position on abortion, then he’ll be given serious consideration as a “conservative” candidate. News flash: He’s not. Or if a candidate, say John McCain, always has been pro-life, he will be given a pass on his other liberal political positions. Does anyone think that Ron Paul would be having as much influence if he were a doctrinaire libertarian, i.e., pro choice? Of course not. This is what people routinely point to when speaking about Paul to assure themselves that he “really” is a “conservative.” He’s not. Nor, frankly, is he a “libertarian.” He’s an ignorant crank who occasionally says something sensible.

So if you do not believe that abortion is the be-all and end-all of conservatism, then what is the “first principle” of conservatism? I know what I think it is: economic liberty and limited government. That should be the starting point when evaluating candidates and policies. Certainly there are many other important issues and considerations. But something has to take priority. You appear to be unhappy with the fact that abortion is the top issue for “conservatives” in this country. So what should be?

LA replies:

The recovery and preservation of our national and civilizational existence.

Terry Morris writes:

You wrote:

Except for anti-abortion; as long as you’re anti-abortion, you’re a “conservative.”

This is an absolute statement of fact if I ever saw one. Any true conservative could not argue with it, nor can he not have noted that this is indeed the case. It may well be THE test of all tests to gauge one’s commitment to genuine conservative principles in a single sentence—does simply being anti-abortion make me a “conservative”?, if I think so then I’m not a conservative—so I congratulate you for laying it out so concisely. Would that more people understood this.

And when shall “conservatives” abandon even this fundamental value? With today’s “conservatives” who needs liberals?

Roy H. writes:

Once you drop the troublesome burden of sticking to conservative principles, as Rich Lowry and Rod Dreher have done, what does that leave you as? Really not much more than some sort of general public figure or celebrity like Paris Hilton, or, worse, her pal Kim-somebody, noticeable just for having been noticeable once. If you can halfway do a media jig and you can wrangle access to enough outlets, a column, a blog, that weird blog video thing, a talking head spot on a cable or public TV show, you can keep your trained seal ball juggling act going at least until somebody fresher comes along. I fully expect Lowry to diversify further by getting another panelist spot somewhere, and Dreher to pop up on the Food Channel as the “Crunchy Cook,” pushing traditional French cooking.

Kim Kardashian is notable for being O.J. friend’s daughter and Paris Hilton’s pal. Lowry and Dreher both met William F. Buckley. These days, really, what’s the difference? Lowry and Dreher don’t say anything more intelligent than “That’s hot!”, just more wordy.

LA replies:

Brilliant.

LA writes:

As a historical reference point showing how the current editors of NR take liberalism, not conservatism as their guide, see my August 2003 article, Ponnuru calls conservatives anti-homosexual bigots. It’s about how Ramesh Ponnuru in a cover article at NR called for surrender to homosexual marriage.

Alan Roebuck writes:

Steve Warshawsky wrote:

…what is the “first principle” of conservatism? I know what I think it is: economic liberty and limited government.

And you replied that the first principle of conservatism is

“The recovery and preservation of our national and civilizational existence.”

Your answer is where the rubber meets the road, but I think that we can articulate an even more fundamental principle: Who has the authority to say how society is ordered? (It has to be “who” rather than “what” because the impersonal cannot have authority over the personal.)

For example, the leftists say, “We must redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.”

We must? Says who?

And the traditionalists say, properly, “We must not redefine marriage.” But says who?

Until you can answer these questions, that is, identify a proper source of authority, the culture war will rage on. And since liberalism rules, albeit unofficially, the basic principle of conservatism should be to clarify who has the authority to say how society really should be ordered. Of course, God is the ultimate Authority, but the ordering of society also involves elements not found in God’s Word, elements such as the customs and traditions that make us who we are.

Any examination of the ultimate issues of life will have to involve religion, and this is why mainstream conservatives generally shy away from such discussions. But since the enemy controls the mainstream understanding of these ultimate issues, true conservatives have no choice but do battle in this arena.

As an example, consider Michael Medved’s position on how to oppose same-sex marriage. He contends that we need to find non-religious arguments against it, because many people will not respect a religious argument. But guess what: if God does not declare homosexuality to be a sin, then it’s not a sin. Every non-religious argument against the legitimization of homosexuality can eventually be overcome, if the premises of society are secular (as they are now.) To arrive at a different destination, you need an entirely different starting point.

There are, of course, legitimate questions of tactics. We need not always lead with Christianity, because many will intuitively sense the correctness of our traditionalist positions. Furthermore, we will need to make at least limited alliances with non Christians (as long as those non-Christians are not overtly hostile to Christianity; Steve Warshawsky would be in this category.) But the true traditionalist warrior needs to have the right premises.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 11, 2008 08:35 PM | Send