DiscussMormonism.com

As a self-diagnosed liberal, it is easy for me to use the put-down attributed to Alfred E. Wiggam:

"A conservati­ve is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time".

Yes, it's simplistic and unfair. But I find myself really opposed to the increasingly binary view of the universe proposed by many modern conservatives: "Government+regulation = bad / Free enterprise+deregulation = good". Is the answer to increasingly complex social systems to become more simplistic and less nuanced?

Today I read an article by David Brooks in the NY Times about the roots of conservatism. In it he references an blog by Rob Dreher titled: "What is a Conservative?".

Ron Dreher says:

Ron Dreher wrote:...what we call conservatism draws on both traditional conservatism (that is, generally, social and cultural conservatism), and libertarian anti-statism (which entails strong free-market principles). Conservatism — American conservatism, that is — is the result of the blending of these two schools of thought, which cannot be completely reconciled, but rather exist, or should exist, in creative tension.

The two principles that should ideally exist in creative tension have become way out of balance:

David Brooks wrote: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.

I highly recommend both articles to both liberals and conservatives. I think they both touch on something important that has been lost in our national debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/opinion/brooks-the-conservative-mind.html?src=me&ref=general
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-is-a-conservative/

It's worth noting right off the top that David Brooks is a neoconservative. Like other neocons, he is quite anti-libertarian in his outlook and that informs his belief that traditional conservatism is in tension with it. Brooks is one of the poster people for the more statist "national greatness" wing of conservatives and he is heavily vested in portraying it as somehow more authentic or connected to roots. Ironically, the neocon mish-mash of views is a relatively recent development. It grew out of disaffected liberals from the late 60's to early 80's disagreeing with the more dovish inclinations of Democrats and the growing tendency towards cultural liberalism (sexual revolution, etc.) While being very hawkish on foreign policy and tending toward social conservatism on certain issues, they retained a core belief in the role of the welfare state and economic social uplift.

And, as an initial reaction, given that the last Republican president was heavily influenced by Brooks' neocon circle and the last Republican nominee was a near ideal neocon/Brooksian candidate, it seems a bit premature to be pining for the good old days when his views were ascendant. That was basically yesterday.

What about the fall of conservative Traditionalism...?

"A conservati­ve is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time".

This is an ancient and obsolete understanding of what conservatism both was and especially what contemporary conservatism is, which has nothing to do with this misrepresentation of the philosophy.

"Government+regulation = bad /

Overwhelmingly and in most cases, this is correct.

Free enterprise+deregulation = good".

Overwhelmingly and in most cases, this is correct.

Is the answer to increasingly complex social systems to become more simplistic and less nuanced?

I have no idea what this means, or why ever more complex and labyrinthine government control and meddling in human affairs is implied by it.

Today I read an article by David Brooks in the NY Times about the roots of conservatism. In it he references an blog by Rob Dreher titled: "What is a Conservative?".

David Brooks is not a conservative, and is in no position to produce an intellectually serious analysis of its origins of nature. For that I would suggest Russel Kirk's salient work on the subject:

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/det ... rinciples/

http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/det ... ence-1957/

Ron Dreher wrote:...what we call conservatism draws on both traditional conservatism (that is, generally, social and cultural conservatism), and libertarian anti-statism (which entails strong free-market principles). Conservatism — American conservatism, that is — is the result of the blending of these two schools of thought, which cannot be completely reconciled, but rather exist, or should exist, in creative tension.

This is essentially correct, in very rudimentary form, and has long been known as fusionist conservatism, being a fusion of traditional conservative ideas and libertarian concepts.

David Brooks wrote: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.

As the above makes clear, David Brooks' writes much of what he writes to keep him invited to the right parties by the right people and maintain him as a part of the right social circle within the hip northeastern/Manhattan social register among the liberal Anointed.

If one wants to understand conservatism (or any philosophy) your source is going to be of paramount importance. It should be a primary source and it should actually be a source.

EAllusion wrote:It's worth noting right off the top that David Brooks is a neoconservative.

Brooks isn't any kind of a conservative at all, but an intellectual rent seeker among those whom he sees as his sociocultural "betters." David Brooks is a token ornament at the NYT who has no more clear understanding of conservatism or its intellectual patrimony than many in this forum do, and who is kept there as a miniature poodle for that reason.

Like other neocons, he is quite anti-libertarian in his outlook and that informs his belief that traditional conservatism is in tension with it. Brooks is one of the poster people for the more statist "national greatness" wing of conservatives and he is heavily vested in portraying it as somehow more authentic or connected to roots.

The neoconservatives aren't so much "statists" as realists, unlike far too many "strong" libertarians who's understanding of history and the realities of human nature have been sacrificed to the totemization of "freedom." This is, however, usually a radically secularist totemization, and is empty of the social and cultural insights that inform the Founder's vision of a society under optimum conditions and which inform the conservative sensibility and outlook. They support a strong military within a modern, global context and the extension of "hard" power, when necessary, based upon the lessons of history and exigencies in which America finds itself from time to time, and find both leftist and libertarian ideological puritanism on subjects of national security to be dangerously naïve and ahistorical (and protection of the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic, is, after all, the core, fundamental task of legitimate government, in the Founding and constitutional sense).

Ironically, the neocon mish-mash of views is a relatively recent development. It grew out of disaffected liberals from the late 60's to early 80's disagreeing with the more dovish inclinations of Democrats and the growing tendency towards cultural liberalism (sexual revolution, etc.) While being very hawkish on foreign policy and tending toward social conservatism on certain issues, they retained a core belief in the role of the welfare state and economic social uplift.

Some do, some don't. David Horowitz is no fan of the welfare state, but at the same time is not, as is the case with me, against a "safety net" if done properly and at the proper levels of government intervention.

In any case, Brooks is a faux conservative who essentially writes for liberals within a very narrow cubicle of elite opinion. So few people actually read or take the NYT seriously that it really doesn't matter, one way or the other. You can search the most popular and respected conservative clearinghouse sites (like Townhall), blogs, and the rest of the conservative New Media, and you won't run across David Brooks.