Conservatism Is Dead; Long Live Liberalism? (Part I)

In one of the most penetrating, scathing, and witty articles I have ever read, George Packer details the falling apart of conservatism (New Yorker May 26). But does it follow that liberalism is getting its act together and that Obama will ride its resurgence to the White House? Are we about to enter a new liberal era?

Packer reviews several recent books on the rise of conservatism in the late 20th century, such as Rick Perlstein's Nixonland and Sean Wilentz's The Age of Reagan: a History 1974-2008. He also interviews several contemporary leading conservative authors and public figures -- from Pat Buchanan to Rich Lowry, David Frum to David Brooks; he examines recent reports issued by leading conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation; and he visits conservative magazines such as the National Review and Commentary. He finds all of these to be boring, empty, and uninspiring; the products of a movement that has run out of steam. About the kindest thing he has to say about any of them is that they are like "the spasms of nerve endings in an organism that's brain-dead." He calls the writings of the newly appointed editor of Commentary, John Podhoretz, "crude"; those of Newt Gingrich a "wonkish parody" of some of his earlier work; and quotes Pat Buchanan as suggesting that conservatism has "degenerated into a racket." All in all, a grand bankruptcy.

I should note in passing that Packer, in an article than runs almost 9,000 words, fails to explore what is widely considered the strongest suit of conservatives: their claim that they are the best guardians of national security, of homeland protection. (He does mention their stubborn commitment to the defense of the invasion of Iraq).

Some may well jump to the conclusion that with the conservative tide at least ebbing, the tide is rising for liberalism. The highly regarded late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. long claimed to have found that American politics swing back and forth between conservative and liberal periods. By this account, after eight years of Bush, a liberal comeback is due (if not overdue). Senator Gary Hart, basing himself on this historical narrative, called on Obama to campaign as an unabashed liberal. Critics of this theory, however, point out that American history is marked by long periods of conservative domination interrupted by short liberal interludes.

Since Nixon, out of 7 presidents, 5 were Republicans and only 2 were Democrats -- and not particularly liberal ones at that. Whatever one calls the Carter presidency, it was anything but liberal. (His dedication to human rights and peace emerged mostly after he'd left the White House). Based on my experience serving in the Carter White House, I can attest that the only thing he considered holy other than his Christian faith and family values was a balanced budget, a core conservative value. Clinton's record is more complicated; he certainly did reveal some liberal proclivities, but his welfare reform was clearly in a conservative mode, and he capped most social programs in order to balance the budget. (He ended up generating a surplus which the Bush administration inherited and squandered). At other times, when looking for common ground, promoting volunteerism (AmeriCorps), and trying to defuse tensions between the races and between the religious right and the liberal secularists, Clinton was much more a communitarian than a liberal.

Communitarianism, a social philosophy centered around the concept of community, is hardly a household word and is very unlikely to become one. However, one should consider it -- because Barack Obama is easily the most communitarian presidential candidate of all those we have seen for decades. He, as I will show in my next post, is much more likely to usher in a communitarian era than a liberal one.

Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at The George Washington University. For more discussion, see The New Golden Rule. To contact him, email [e-mail]. See also www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[RobinSeattle]

What I would like to see is a long era of pragmatism.

Both conservatives and liberals have their value to society. It is when either is allowed to run amuck that we have embarrassing nonsense occur.

I'm a liberal but want the Clinton deficit reduction program, which could be called conservative (and conservatives were against it---go figure) reimposed. We have to start thinking of it as a national security issue, but nobody talks about it just like nobody talks about how any involvement with Iran brings the Russians with it. The media is really falling down on the job here, but after how they basically rolled over for Bush, is that any surprise?

I want to see the American values of legal fairness and civil liberties realized again. One thing that impressed German POWs during WWII was that Americans didn't resort to the same interrogation tactics that Hitler's men did and it tended to keep those POWs from becoming lifelong enemies of the USA. That evaporated with Bush and it has cost us dearly and helped foment terrorism rather than stanch it.

Please, oh please, let's stop the craziness and just do what is right for everybody in this country.

[Liberoservative]

I am so sick and tired of these labels of conservative and liberal... IMHO, we have two sorts of peopls, the givers and the takers.... the takers have been in power forever and the givers have been the downtrodden... we haven't moved much from the fiefdoms of the middle ages and we are all serfs to the royalty.

You guys gripe about your civil rights being abused because of Obama's support of FISA ... when three weeks ago you were touting his second coming.... you really turn my stomach...

You have two choices.. well, three reallly.. you can either go with the candidate that has offered us a new path or the candidate that will continue the same path... or you can just not vote.. I really don't give a flying fig because I am in that upper 5 percent who won't be effected... what I do give a flying fig about is my Country... I don't like the way we are moving and I think that we have decimated democracy and republic in favor of plutarchy... Vote whatever you want.. I'm voting for Obama because I think that we need somebody that will shake things up... you vote as you want to because it won't make any difference to me....

[freecasey]

Most people have no sense for the reality of today, this moment. A hundred years ago, the world's population was 1.7 billion. It took all of human history to get there. One hundred years later, there are 6.7 billion. One hundred years ago, horses and trains were primary modes of transportation, transcontinental communication -- and even intrastate communication -- were in their infancy, and economies, religions and cultures were mostly confined to geographical borders.

To be conservative is to be in denial of the change we have brought upon ourselves and must confront daily. It's disrespect for and fear of the vast diversity of the human experience. If we dwell on 20th century comfort zones and don't continually cast our eye to the future, the world will indeed spin out of control.

[UnbiasView]

I fail to see how conservatism is dead. Right now it should be because Bush is a screwup but libralism disappeared because of Jimmy Carter as well.

It goes in cycles and to say it is dead makes you look rather stupid.

This country is right leaning on economic issues and left leaning on social issues. Neither party satisfies the majority so no party will ever hold reign. Not to mention people are getting sick of government and want less of it rather than more which is also right leaning (except the last 8 years).

[RoloTomassi]

I rarely agree with the author [whom I consider to something of a zionist], but YOU, of all people, referring to him as STUPID...that really takes the cake, as you are usually hard-pressed to do more than repeat right wingnut talking points, ad nauseum.

Should you ever lose your blatant BIAS and actually learn to think for yourself, you'll understand what the man is talking about; should Obama actually be more communitarian than liberal, many things about his presidency could equally satisfy and disappoint both traditional ideologies.

We need more than the the right and the left, and as the world changes, those who cling to convervatism and morally corrupt systems designed to produce unbridled greed will find themselves in a very small majority.

[UnbiasView]

How do you figure conservatism will be the small minority? Less government in your life and less taxes is a value that will go away?

Maybe the 9% approval rating shows that we need less in out life.

[ProudLiberalDan]

As long as Democrats run away form the word "liberal" and take money from corporations, there will be no "liberal" alternative. All we will get are varying degrees of conservatism.

The attempt to substitute the word "progressive" has not been successful as the American people and the media still prefer the word "liberal".

Progressive policies stem from liberal values. Would our leaders only stand up for the good name of liberalism.

Many people are "liberal" but don't know it because our leaders are terrified of the word "liberal".

[UnbiasView]

True liberals should run away from the name because it is attached to people like Pelosi and Boxer. Far left and far right are both bad things because the majority is in the middle and doesn't hold the line like a party hack on the left/right.

[Liberal2]

No, "true liberals" should point out Reid and Pelosi (Boxer?) are actually conservative democrats. All you need to do is look at their record.

Election of a new cadre of conservative democrats (replacing the democrats who became rethugs in 1995) simply means the secret coalition of conservative democrats and rethugs is reborn.

[Liberal2]

Precisely. Wish others understood this too.

Funny how all those conservative farmers in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin all are demanding government welfare. Lazy buggers. They should show some personal initiative and get a job.

"...Many people are "liberal" but don't know it because our leaders are terrified of the word "liberal"...." Yup, basically "liberal thought" is just common human decency. Odd that conservatives can't grasp that. Oh, maybe they do. And hate it.

[JoePalooka]

"Liberalism" as a panacea for the current setback of conservatism is a false hope. Liberalism is as dead and empty of relevance as "Whigism". Obama is wise to be tacking starboard.

[UnbiasView]

Liberalism has some decent ideas, conservatism has some decent ideas but the problem is when you put a bunch of far out there hacks together you get nothing done because they act like school children . . . take a look at the 9% approval ratings of the Congress.

[tao53nyc]

Translation: The more wealthy and successful among us need to start looking for places to hide income and assets ASAP - "liberal" administrations always target that group to tax heavily in order to pay for the grand new social/welfare programs they'll be selling the hoi polloi.

[UnbiasView]

Correct, in turn you have less incentive to invest in businesses and will weed out most small businessed.

[Liberal2]

Pity it would require at least four years of economics and sociology to show you what a fool you are.

Curious that the nation grows most under liberal administrations. Don't wanna believe me? Check out the post-war consrquences of WWI and WWII, look closely at "GI Bill" impact, subtract out the impact of oil and electricity.

Lemme give you another thing to look at: The nation is no longer a agrarian society. What are the differences between a agrarian nation and a industrialized nation in recessions and depressions?

[jmpurser]

The problem is that though indeed "conservatism" has proven itself beyond all reasonable doubt to be an unmitigated disaster there is no "liberalism" to take it's place.

[UnbiasView]

If you think the Bush policies reflect conservatism you are sadly mistaken. What part of the Bush policy has decreased the size of government in the last 8 years?

[jsarets]

Communitarianism looks and sounds too much like communism. Better call it progressive libertarianism.