Sullivan Fisks Brooks
Andrew Sullivan published a good post March 29 in which he fisks David Brooks’ column of that same day. It is a good read about conservatism, what conservatives should emphasize etc.
Moneyquote:
I’m a small government Goldwater conservative, but I think compulsory high school education is worth the trade-off of freedom. I think universal healthcare insurance is an infringement of liberty, but since we have committed to providing emergency healthcare for all, it’s a trade-off worth making for fiscal and moral reasons. Small government conservatives don’t want to abandon government. We want it small - but strong and focused on what government really ought to do. And we have learned from experience that the bigger government is, the less effective it often is; and the more confusing and massive it is, the less accountable it is.
H/t Pete Abel
I think that Bush unfortunately has effectively given up on the idea of small government, but I am less convinced by Sullivan’s obsessional rantings against the “Christianists” (to use the term he created). The Religious Right seems a lot less significant today than it was in the 1980s (Moral Majority and all that).
David,
It seems quite obvious to me that the Religious Right has less influence than it once had, but I don’t believe its peak was in the 1980’s. It’s true peak, I think, was when George W. Bush was elected president. He truly was their candidate.
I don’t think he has given up on it, I think he never supported it in the first place. Bush was not, when he got elected, a Goldwater conservative.
He is something of a mixture between the religious right and neoconservatism. He is, I repeat, not (and wasn’t when he got elected in 00) a traditional conservative (who are focused on small government. Neocons and relicons have other priorities).
“He is, I repeat, not (and wasn’t when he got elected in 00) a traditional conservative (who are focused on small government. Neocons and relicons have other priorities).”
I disagree with the suggestion that Bush was a neocon or religious right candidate. The Religious Right candidate in the 1999 primaries was Gary Bauer, who was a bit of a disaster. Bush was basically a Republican Party establishment figure when chosen in 2000.
If you recollect one of Bush’s big policy ideas was isolationism, very much from the paleo wing of conservatism. In fact the earlier chattering classes criticisms revolved around his distancing himself from Clinton’s interventionist foreign policy.
The big spending elements came from the “compassionate conservative” approach, which was aimed at middle of the road voters, not the religious right. Basically it was telling people that they can vote for the Republicans without worrying that we will abolish lots of spending programmes.
The “neo-con” moment came as a result of September 11. Neocons had a belief that the Arab world was a bit like the 1980s eastern bloc. They thought that one big push and all the dictatorial regimes would collapse and become democracies. This vastly underestimated the lack of cultural affinity for democratic ideas in Arab nations, but the Twin Towers showed that the Realpolitik that every regime had practised before then had led to a big mess.
To me, compassionate conservatism is actually very closely related to neoconservatism if it is not downright neoconservatism.