Lamenting the Death of Conservatism

The 2012 general election was widely expected to be a blowout conservative victory -  at least in conservative circles. The right wing blogs, radio talk show hosts and television talking heads were certain that the president was going to lose, ending the brief chapter that interrupted the conservative story of this century. And history was on their side - the president had failed to turn the economy around, and his argument that he'd inherited an economy in shambles and faced non-stop obstruction from the right wing in Congress would not convince the electorate. With massive unemployment and seemingly little good news, at least for the working classes, it seemed impossible that President Obama could win another term, especially after the gridlock, standoffs and stalled economic agenda that marked the two years since the GOP won control of the House, an election that seemed already to indicate a deep distrust of the president's plans for the nation and a marked swing back towards conservative philosophy.

It is needless to add that all those predictions were false and that the president won a surprisingly robust re-election. As an unabashed liberal, I should be delighted, and certainly I am happy that Obama rather than Romney will take the oath of office in January. But that small consolation aside, this election was decidedly disappointing, at the presidential and congressional level. There were a few bright spots in the state referenda, the most significant being the clear victory for marriage equality in four states, marking the first popular vote in favor. The votes in a couple of states to legalize marijuana also portend a heartening move away from the three decade old sham called the "War on Drugs" - if the federal government reacts with wisdom.

But let me explain why the presidential election was such a letdown. In the run-up to voting day, this contest was portrayed as a clear cut choice between liberal and conservative agenda. Strangely enough, the loss of both the electoral college and the popular vote led to an instant revision on the part of some prominent conservative leaders who pointed out that the president had never really laid out a plan for his second term and hence lacked a mandate to undertake any plan during his term. They are partly right, but like the blind men with the elephant, also mostly wrong. First and foremost the president did have an agenda, and it is largely a continuation of his plans from his first term - regulation of the financial markets, extending healthcare coverage to larger numbers, immigration reform, controlling the deficit through a mixture of spending cuts and revenue increases. But, and this is the real crux of my problem, the president is no liberal and his agenda is really not at all liberal. He, like many Americans, leans slightly left of center, and is more likely to side with the liberal viewpoint than its opposite, but would be far more likely to be pretty much at the center if left to his own devices. President Obama took several years to embrace marriage equality, and has yet to rein in the Department of Justice from their long, wasteful and pointless war against drugs (targeting the smallest players and users while ensuring huge profits for the violent cartels and various terrorist organizations). He has embraced targeted assassinations of suspected enemies of the nation, with the verdict of death pronounced upon hundreds in secrecy and without trial, and many other questionable policies put in place by the Bush administration remain active or simply suspended (not cancelled or repudiated), with little transparency or scrutiny. The regulation of the financial market was a weak effort, and largely toothless, while the talk about increased marginal rates mostly remains just talk - these may be reflections of political necessity but the President has rarely pushed them vigorously in the halls of the legislature. His signature, and now likely permanent, achievement was the extension of health insurance to millions of previously uninsured workers. But the system lacked a strong government role and represents as much of a boon to the insurance industry as it does to the millions who now qualify for healthcare coverage. Tellingly, the basis of the entire plan was initially proposed by conservatives and first advanced as Bob Dole's alternative to President Clinton's plan, and then embraced by Speaker Newt Gingrich and implemented by Governor Romney in Massachusetts, before they developed a severe dislike of it. In short, the President is no liberal.

If that were the only problem, I would be only half as disappointed. Unfortunately, he was never opposed by any true Conservatives. Of course, to be opposed by a conservative, the movement would first have to decide exactly what form of conservatism they embrace and then pick a standard bearer to explain their position. Conservatism is essentially a wish to either keep things the way they are, or to restore them to the way they were at some point in the past. However from the practical viewpoint there are some things in the past that are considered worth keeping or restoring, while others are universally accepted as best left in the past. This concept is largely subjective obviously and manifest itself as two broad forms of conservatism, viz. social and fiscal, with an inherent dissonance betwixt them. Social conservatism is well defined in America, painfully so, with well defined positions that include support for the traditional family, opposition to birth control and abortion, opposition to gender equality, especially for homosexuals, and opposition to scientific theory that contradicts Christian theology. Perhaps I should be more charitable and describe their positions as support for only natural forms of birth control, strong belief in the sanctity of life, belief in the traditional roles of the "normal" sexes, and above all a deep religious faith in the absolute truth of Christian theology. This group was represented by Michelle Bachman, Mike Huckabee (in previous years) and Rick Santorum, and when the dust settled, they were left in the cold, with mere lip service to their ideology.

The fiscal conservatives have a less defined ideology. There are times when I wonder if they know exactly what they stand for themselves, for they sometimes seem to conflate policy for philosophy. Whether they articulate this or not, in the simplest and most positive terms they believe in the supremacy of the individual over the collective, and thence flows most of their policy. Since the individual is prime, government should be minimal, dealing with only issues like defense and international relations. The individual should be entitled to keep his earned wealth and spend it as he sees fit, rather than be forced to contribute it to a collective fund, which ties in nicely with the concept of a minimalist government. The individual rises or falls on his own merit, not on the support of others, an almost Darwinistic approach, but with space for compassion towards those of lesser merit, with the extent of compassionate assistance decided by each individual. In it's purest form, one can certainly understand this philosophy, even if one does not agree with the basic tenets.

From this philosophy flow the various conservative policies, but it is critical to note that a policy such as low taxation is means to an end, not an end in itself and too many conservative in America mistake one for the other. Low taxes as a policy follow from a philosophy that the individual is the best custodian of his wealth, but higher taxation would be a reasonable conservative policy if another policy took precedence, say national security. True conservatives believe in paying the bills as they go, and increased spending if deemed necessary must be paid for by higher taxes. And true conservatives should also accept the importance of prior commitments by the government to its citizens, even when they don't quite agree with that commitment - that commitment, be it social safety nets or medical coverage, must be met even as they're phased out, and by higher taxes if need be.

Governor Romney attempted to straddle the divide between the two strands of conservatism, but it was never clear exactly what aspects of conservatism he endorsed. It was never clear that he even understood the inherent conflict between social conservatism, which emphasizes the primacy of society over individual, and economic conservatism which takes the exactly opposite view. It is not impossible to reconcile the two worlds, but it required a level of intellectual honesty in assessing priorities that the GOP never indulged, neither in it's standard bearers and certainly not amongst its partisans. Both Governor Romney and to an even larger extent Representative Ryan ignored the dichotomy they were attempting to sell and never sought to define the conservatism they would embrace in their presumptive administration; Governor Romney had an inconsistent commitment to conservative principles to put it mildly, but I am not convinced that Paul Ryan, the supposed intellectual cares about the paradox in his position any better than Romney or even actually understands it.

While I do not share conservative principles, even less do I respect the many self-declared conservatives. And yet I, as bleeding heart a liberal a person whose heart ever bled,  lament the failure on the conservative side of the political divide. The liberals did not have a true candidate in this race, but President Obama is indubitably left of center (at least as the center is defined in America) and was accepted by liberals across the country; equally important he was identified as the liberal candidate by his opponents and embraced that label. But the conservatives never came to the fight, not on the intellectual field which is the challenging political battlefield. The GOP hoped to win the White House without winning the battle of ideas, believing that the election was theirs so long as they had a name on the ballot. Despite the ever increasing divergence between the social and economic conservative wings of their coalition, they did not address the issues but tried to pretend that they simply did not exist and nominated a man who sought to avoid every political label. The social conservatives did show up in the primary, and I admit that they are largely consistent in their core beliefs and clear about the kind of society they would like to build, but I am also convinced of the error of their beliefs and history has judged their ideas wanting time and again; in any event even the GOP decided against a full throat-ed endorsement of social conservatism in the presidential election. But the economic conservatives never came out to the lists and critically, have forgotten what their underlying ideology. Normally as a liberal, I would be delighted with a victory by the candidate on the left, but the fact is a healthy polity requires intelligent conservative policy as much as it needs liberals. Unlike some partisans, I respect honest economic conservatism even when I disagree fundamentally with the ideas. Conservatives are as invested in the success of society as liberals and it is foolish to accuse either side of hating themselves or their country; they only differ in the means to the same goal. In an ever changing world, continued success requires a continual examination of policy, and when one ideology gains too great a dominance, it tends to overreach and commit mistakes in policy. Equally dangerous is the stagnation that sets in on the intellectual side and refuses to recognize the changes in the world that make policy from a prior era unsustainable. Both sides of the ideological spectrum are equally susceptible to this failure born of hubris and need each other to balance their demons. If liberalism provides the helping hand and equal opportunity for every member of society, conservatism ensures that individual merit gains the recognition and reward it deserves. Conservatism ensures the generation of wealth while liberalism protects society from the excesses of over-concentrated wealth and indirectly provides the essential conditions that nurture merit and sustain growth in wealth in the first place. The disappearance of true economic conservatives leaves the American polity dangerously imbalanced, and clinging to clueless charlatans masquerading as intellectuals. The policies of Reagan do not work three decades later, but conservatives  have not yet figured the difference between policy and ideas and are floundering with no clear vision. Their only silver lining today is that the economic liberals are almost if not quite as intellectually bankrupt.

Occupy and Change

This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.

One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.

While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.

Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.

This Thing of Ours

Today is India's Independence Day, a day when a nation newly minted stepped forth into the community of free people and prepared to address the critical question of just what kind of government it should adopt. The word is instructive, for India chose her form of government, and while it often leaves much to be desired, and can drive its people to near insanity with its Byzantine forms and methods, it still is the government selected by the people of India. It is a day when I find myself musing on the nature of government itself, and its role in our life today, especially here in the United States.

In my current domicile, faith in government, tenuous at best is dropping once more, driven by a disgust at partisan gridlock and our elected representative's Nero-esque mastery of fiddling and fed in part by a strange delusion that it is American to distrust one's government. Whether such distrust is historic I cannot say, but one thing seems to be fairly certain - the current distrust and hatred of every aspect of our government is fruit of the Reagan revolution. Ronald Reagan, that master of the pithy soundbite, injected a poison into the body politic stronger perhaps than even he realized, and today we still suffer the consequences. When he declared that government was not the solution to our problems, but the problem itself, Reagan gave a catchy slogan to opponents of government and started us on the path to destroying ourselves.

Today, there is a strong constituency in the country that believes that whole government, or at least a very large part thereof should be shut down and those functions handed off to the private sector. This is, to view it charitably, a philosophy that seems largely ignorant of history. The American government, more than any other in the world, and certainly the first of its kind, was not a system of rules imposed upon the nation by an external force; rather it was a compact formed by the people and adopted as the most effective way of meeting the challenges they faced. This is a government, as Lincoln put it, by the people and for the people. And yet today we face a group of people who continually talk about the government as an alien entity that must be opposed and destroyed; one might as well seek to cut off one's arm or leg in a fit of pique.

There are two broad views of the fundamental nature of government. The minimalists believe that the government should be of such size and power that it cannot impact their lives at all, it should have no power to tax, or regulate. Being of the opposite camp, of course, I exaggerate their position, but based on statements by some of the loudest cheerleaders, I do not think I state it very wrongly. They would have people live by their personal means, and would have the government never aid or hinder the progress of any person, nor their destruction. There are naturally shades of difference, and this libertarian viewpoint is often compromised by those who would impose their own social values upon the rest through the medium of government.

On the other hand, there is the liberal view of government, of which I am a firm believer. Government was formed by us to serve our needs and purposes. It is a tool we have created to ensure our safety and progress, and it serves us at every level, from city to state to nation, and we have bestowed powers upon our government to serve specific needs in response to specific challenges. There is no magical level at which government becomes unacceptable and at some point the artificial walls between nations will crumble and be swept away and a world government will succeed our national governments as the highest power - this is the arc of history and we can embrace reality or stick our heads in the sand; the result will be the same with the difference being the level to which we can fashion the government that forms. As a liberal, I believe that we have formed our government to ensure equality and equal opportunity. It is something of an article of faith amongst believers in capitalism that "a rising tide will lift all boats"; we liberals believe in the same concept, that if we help our less fortunate brothers, it will benefit everyone.

It is sometimes suggested that liberalism is the enemy of capitalism. While some left-leaning governments have misstated the case, nothing could be further from the truth, really; the two are not mutually exclusive systems and should in fact bring out the best in both. Capitalism when it works, rewards excellence. A liberal government would actually ensure a healthier market to consume the fruit of a capitalist' labor and by promoting equal opportunity would actually inure the market against it's naturally monopolistic, and self-defeating tendencies. If there had never been a bust up of AT&T would we have enjoyed the explosion of mobile technology, or would we have been forced to suffice with whatever a monopolist company deigned to give us? Can capitalism thrive if there are no consumers for its produce? If capitalism is allowed to concentrate all wealth in the hands a very small number, wherefore the capital to fund development and innovation and improvements, given that great personal wealth rarely is harnessed in pursuit of the greater good?

And that really is the crux of the question: do we want a liberal form of government dedicated to the greatest good of the greatest number or do we wish to plow our lone farrows neither seeking help from anyone else nor offering any in turn? But in the end, no man is an island, and in the words of Disraeli, we must hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.