Posted under Conservatism
Reading the excellent new book The Limits of Power by Andrew J. Bacevich, I was reminded of why, for years, I refused to call myself a conservative, despite my many sympathies and philosophical commonalities with its founders and later prominent figures. Though the book’s primary focus is the nature of the warfare state both at home and abroad, it could just as easily be read as an indictment of post-war conservatism; particularly it’s consistent failure to confront hard truths, despite its allegedly “realist” rhetoric.
As a self-described conservative, Bacevich is no stranger to the Right. Though he was an early “Obamacon,” his tepid endorsement of the Illinois Senator (“The Conservative Case for Barack Obama“, The American Conservative, March 24, 2008) included one of the better descriptions of conservatism in recent memory, in which Bacevich cited six principles as the cornerstones of the anti-ideology:
- a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that
genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;- a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
- veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of
stewardship for Creation;- a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
- respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a
wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;- a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the
sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
While one might quibble with some of the implications that could be drawn from these points, it is hard to imagine that Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver would find much of the above disagreeable. In fact, most self-professed men of the traditional Right have claimed most of the above as heartfelt convictions.
With that in mind, it is interesting that Bacevich relies almost exclusively upon the words, critiques and sentiments of Leftist opponents of militarism and the managerial state.
Instead of quoting James Burnham or utilizing his theory of a “managerial revolution” as it relates to government, Bacevich makes the same general point by utilizing the theory of the “Power Elite” promoted by New Left founding father C. Wright Mills. The entire historical model Bacevich relies upon is that of historian William Appleman Williams, another New Left hero. Bacevich, the conservative, seems to owe nothing to William F. Buckley, but his account of the rise of National Security State does closely parallel that of perhaps the National Review founder’s most bitter rival, Gore Vidal. Readers will search in vain for any mention of Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan, and yet Robert Byrd and Robert La Follette receive accolades. Bacevich quotes and borrows from Leftist after Leftist – with nary a conservative example in sight.
That a foreign policy “realist” and a self-described conservative would rely almost entirely upon the Left to make his case is interesting. He did not have to rely on figures of the Left to make his argument, something Bacevich implies when pointing favorably towards “paleoconservatives.” There are deficit hawks, anti-imperial conservative historians and others who could have been solid examples to bolster Bacevich’s argument from the Right. But these figures have largely been obscured, not just by the rise of neoconservatism, but also by the collapse of conservative principles in general and the elevation of realism in the electoral arena – even as realism in the policy arena has all but disappeared.
This is not to say that the author is unaware of the existence of principled conservatives. There can be no doubt that Bacevich is aware of the non-interventionist Old Right, and the realist bona fides of contemporaries like Michael Scheuer, Leon Hadar and others are well known. Still the reader can’t help but get the feeling that the former Army colonel knows that these figures wield no influence within the halls of power and in fact seem to face their fiercest opposition from those that in theory reside on “their side” of the political divide.
One of the best illustrations of this gap between conservative rhetoric and conservative reality is Bacevich’s comparison of the language and strategies of former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.
As Bacevich correctly notes, one of the only “realist” speeches in recent political history was the infamous “malaise” speech delivered by former President Jimmy Carter. The crux of Carter’s speech was that Americans needed to conserve more, consume less and “balance the books”. For this speech, Carter was labeled a “pessimist” whose rhetoric was in direct opposition to the “American Dream.” His defeat by the “optimist” Ronald Reagan was, in part, born of that speech and Reagan’s expansionist policies both at home and abroad were largely ignored by conservatives of all stripes, who instead focused their collective gaze on the Gipper’s abstract rhetoric about a “shining city on a hill.”
Reagan idolatry symbolizes the bankruptcy of many Right movement figures, neoconservative or otherwise, and by proxy the corruption of the much of the conservative milieu. The cult of the personality surrounding Reagan has always sought to ignore the facts about the man and his “revolution.” Tax cuts promoted to increase the size of government, unfettered spending in the most bureaucratic government agencies and the belief in consumption with no costs may be “revolutionary”, but they certainly aren’t conservative.
Though easy targets for disdain, there is plenty of blame to be directed at the Right other than neoconservatives. By deifying the concept that nothing (let alone ideas) has consequences as long as one has faith in the “exceptional” nature of the “American spirit,” many well meaning conservatives have become just what they despised: pie-in-the-sky liberals with an unfettered belief in progress. That this liberal belief in progress is often balanced by a conservative respect for tradition and a libertarian favoring of the entrepreneurial spirit does not make it any less utopian.
Family, faith and free markets ought to be the basis of any practical conservatism but are more often perverted, becoming Republican talking points promoting growth for the sake of growth. Mainstream conservative concerns about throwing the baby out with the bath water are understandable, but when politics consistently trump principle one must wonder if the baby has not already drowned; as the conservative mind turns away from the Right, promotes the wrong and settles all too comfortably into delusion.
RonL on 10 Sep 2008 at 2:35 am #
Which of these 6 principles means ignoring the ideology of those who openly want to destroy you?
When did those claiming to love Burke set fire to “Reflections on the Revolution in France”?