Why the Conservatives Won't Crack-up, But the Left Probably Will

The predictions of the conservative crack-up anticipating John McCain's defeat appear to have come to fruition. We hear of the post-election GOP power grab among the Governors in Florida, contenders for the chairmanship of the RNC, or the future presidential nominees racing to Iowa. Conservative politicians, pundits and intellectuals are openly struggling to define the reasons for Republic defeat, blaming everything from incompetence to immigration to incumbency.

Each reported argument, disagreement or challenge is welcomed by the progressive media as signs that the conservative crack-up is finally upon us. It isn't. In fact, the Left is in far greater danger of cracking up than the conservative movement ever has.

Conservative infighting is nothing new. Ideological fissures have existed since the battle between the libertarians and traditionalists of National Review in the 1950s to paleoconservative revolt from (alleged) neoconservative dominance in the 1980s. Nothing came of it. Movement conservatives under Eisenhower, Nixon (twice) and G. H. W. Bush threatened to leave the Republican Party and start afresh. It never happened. Evangelicals and anti-immigration zealots said "never" to McCain. They rallied before the convention.

The "conservative crack-up" trope goes back to a 1987 edition of The American Spectator. Disillusioned with Reagan's second term, conservatives debated whether the movement had a future. It was followed by the rise of the Christian Coalition, the founding of Fox News and The Weekly Standard, the explosion of conservative talk radio, Gingrich's Contract for America victory, and the Bush era of Republican dominance. Some crack-up.

Yet, the prediction persists relentlessly. Journalists like to dramatize high-profile defections and public criticisms within conservative circles as tectonic shifts or historic re-alignments. Conservatives threaten defection to pressure their superiors to toe their ideological line. For liberals, it's an exercise in wish-fulfillment: unable to unite themselves, they project their frustrations on hoping for the conservatives to "crack-up" instead.

But what exactly is going to crack-up? Is the Heritage Foundation going to stop sending policy memos to Republican staffers? Are Weekly Standard columnists going to stop appearing on Fox News discussion panels? Is Pat Robertson going to join forces with Howard Dean? The questions are rhetorical for a reason: the conservative Counter-Establishment is the most cast-iron entanglement of alliances and dependencies known in modern American history.

Uniting the factions is a strong cultural base. Becoming a conservative is more than signing up to a handful of policy positions or pulling the Republican leaver. It is a personal calling, a cause and crusade.

For the elites, conservatism is a privileged club with its own histories and rituals that are passed down across generations from experienced mentors to ambitious aspirants. They tell a story that runs from the fragile beginnings of the 1950s, the coming out party of the 1960s, the great advances of the 1970s, the victories of the 1980s, the struggles of the 1990s and the missed opportunity of the 2000s. They give them books to read, memorize and quote, together with the Brooks Brothers uniform to wear and Buckley poses to adopt. Soon, the young conservative has a job at a conservative organization, a new self-affirming social group of like-minded friends, from whom a spouse will the chosen to raise the next generation all over again.

Whether or not they trace their intellectual lineage to the traditionalism of Burke, neoconservatism of Strauss or libertarianism of Hayek, they share a common stigma that conservatism brings in the liberal settings they're forced to inhabit, for the most part, college or graduate school. It is their rejection from the "Liberal Establishment," and their rejection if it, that demarcates the boundaries of the big-tent of conservativism. The discomfort of ideological over-crowding never exceeds the dangers, real or imagined, of venturing out to a hostile, "Liberal" world.

For the grassroots conservatives, conservatism is a not a political game, but a moral struggle against Communists and terrorist appeasers, sex educators and abortionists, regulators and redistributors. These moral categories map onto Democrats and Republicans so perfectly that the loyalty to the GOP never requires reward as the opposing side doesn't hold a different point of view, it's in league with atheism (at best) and evil (at worst).

Newt Gingrich failed to pass a single pledge of the Christian Coalition's Contract with America, and George W. Bush did little to promote school prayer or fund faith-bases groups or ban gay marriage, despite the hot rhetoric. It was Bill Clinton who delivered them the V-Chip, school uniforms, the Defense of Marriage Act and Charitable Choice for faith-based groups. Yet Hillary Clinton was the one deemed the "Antichrist" among these campaigners, not the political secular and adulterous Gingrich .

The organizational matrix of the conservative Counter-Establishment maps perfectly onto this cultural arrangement. The genius of W. F. Buckley, Jr. was to place those with different ideological leanings within the same organization, NR. As conservatism expanded, this model was replicated. Major think-tanks and PACS embraced the diversity of the conservative movement under a single roof.

Sure, there are a few strict ideologues such as The Weekly Standard or The American Conservative, but these are small, elite outfits. They are noisy but have little impact on the grassroots activists, powerful interest groups and corporate-funded think-tanks that make up the core partnerships of the conservative coalition. And these partners are carefully catered for. Conservative entrepreneurs from Buckley to Weyrich to Norquist invest heavily in keeping them united, from banquets in Stamford, Connecticut to weekly meetings at the offices of American's for Tax Reform.

It is the Left that should be fearful of a crack-up. Its past is a history of fractures between whites and blacks, unions and feminists, moderates and radicals. The Left has never been culturally or organizationally unified but has always been and remains a balkanized mish-mash of interest and constituency groups, factions of the Democratic Party, partisan journalists and a disparate academic intelligentsia. The new progressive movement, and its rapid institution-building, represents another, albeit highly significant, Balkan state, not a new Leftist confederacy or empire.

Yet, for the first time, every stripe of the Left and center-Left has united, brought together through their mutual opposition to Bush expressed through the Obama candidacy. Now that Obama has won, the real test has begun. Once the excitement of victory passes, the interest groups will remain united so long as they get their piece of the pie and their privileges are protected. The first test will be the unions whose demands for card-check or the auto industry are already looking contentious among Democrats who they have invested in so heavily. Once Obama takes office, further conflicts will no doubt ensue. Activist journalists and bloggers will peel off as compromises are struck, half-measures are settled for, and his hawkishness towards Pakistan becomes foreign policy (we already saw the first signs of this when the Netroots revolted over Obama's support for the FISA bill last summer).

America has spoken: it is ready for change. The question for Left is: are you? Can the Left become a united front or will it remain a house divided against itself?

Comments

[microcosm]

Fox News' dirty little secret is that an Appellate Court ruled in Fox's favor, that it (and other newsmakers) can legally lie to the public in their news stories. This is another opportunity for citizens to put a check on power.

Sign the FCC News Quality Rating petition at http://ceasespin.org or http://FixNewsNow.org

With enough grass roots support this solution will make the news media accountable to the public and force them to fulfill part of their public interest obligation.

The News Quality Rating System is a non-partisan, anti-censorship alternative to the Fairness Doctrine.

[jhNY]

Voted for Obama, and wish he were a leftist politician, so that we leftists could stay in solidarity with him should he make cynical compromises in an effort to maintain a solid front of support for our own kind, but as he is a centrist, I feel no compunction to criticise accomodations made to rascals of any political persuasion, and certainly will not support or defend further military foolishness in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq, or....

[timm0]

You've well-documented the tradition used to refresh the elite members of the aristocracy. Clearly, they reliably support the vehicle that helps them maintain their wealth and power despite their often reliable personal lack of morality, ethics, and competency.

There are the "elite" and there are the rank and file peasants (who have a different indoctrination experience) in the equation. Also, there is a party structure, which is shaped by those who successfully get access to the steering wheel. You can expect that the R party structure will stay in place, but you can't expect those at the steering wheel will stay because the current set of variables (economy, global events, demographics, national debt) hasn't existed before.

I think the fight to get into the control room of the party machine will be savage and could lead to unpredictable results. There are aristocrats who are smart enough to see the error of the last 28 years and will want to change course (not that they're much better than the neocons, the moderates are just smart enough to realize that they need a 'cooperative' public to maintain their wealth and mass-poverty undercuts their goals). So many conservatives get off on "crusades" that the whole cloak of unity may actually give way to civil war in the ranks of the R party. Maybe not now, but if 2010 yields a DemSenate majority of 65-35, then soon after that election.

The radical and disastrous neocon ideology is vulnerable to takeover.

[MrTessier]

Very intresting article, kind of got disjointed at parts, but maybe I am just a bit tired. I agree wholeheartedly with your thesis, although I think that Obama may be mischaracterized as a progressive or liberal leader. I followed him fairly closely for the last 5 years, and the label used in the election as the most liberal candidate in history simply does not hold water. I think that the more liberal folks that formed the coalition which helped to elect him will be dissappointed. From some of the things I have read, there is a call to go extremely liberal in the coming four years, and I really don't believe that Obama believes it would be the right thing for the country. I applaud his devotion to education, but other then that, the liberals are going to be screaming bloody murder once his policies start coming out. I've never understood why they were so enthusiastic for Obama, if you read the audacity of hope, it was clear that he houses both liberal and conservative leanings. His stance on the death penalty, gun control, and abortion are perfect examples. He hasn't been hiding it, it's been right there for any who wanted to check.

[fpie]

What this all really boils down to is that the right finds it's unifying strength in hate and fear where as the poor left just wants to do good work. And it is so much easier to wreck things than to build them. The right really does have a lot of advantages.
What the left had going for it this time was that the voters were afraid and hated what the right has done to the country and the world. Now if we can just hold that thought. Oh yeah and screw bipartisanship. Cut 'em if they stand, shot 'em if they run. Figuratively that is.

[speeddeeps]

I agree with you completely, the Liberals are idealist where as Cons are realist> Sometimes we need to compromise.

[timm0]

Yes. Neocons are realists. Right.

For example, if gays marry, society will plunge into anarchy. If prayers aren't said in school, kids will turn to drugs, mate with goats, and become liberals. These sorts of things are very realistic. Thank you conservatives for keeping us so grounded in reality!

[CitizenE]

The right will continue to maunder because they have a failed ideologies in which they have been proven wrong: fiscal policy? led to the biggest government intervention is American business since the 1930s. Military adventurism in the place of a real foreign policy? led to an unbelievable loss of stature in the world increased danger and chaos throughout the middle east, empowerment of Iran, not the least cause of which being the rise of a Shi'ite Iraq, complete breakdown between Palestinians and Israelis, and world wide expansion of terrorist networks. Religious fundamentalism and white man's angst? the 2008 elections--look at the demographics.
When it comes to facing the hard realities of the world we live in today, the right has nothing more to offer than the same old 19th century economics, science, and Manifest Destiny bs. Whether they are sniping at one another or the left, the right is simply awol gazing at their own reflections as they have been while in power.
Yes, the question is will the left rise to the occasion, and certainly given what we know about the entire political class, they could blow it, but the right had better wake up and realize that before Ronald Reagan, their ideas were pretty much considered, and rightly so, the province of loonies and extremists--"kneejerk reactionaries." After watching the Bush administration (filled with conservatives from previous administrations, especially Ronald Reagan's) and the Palin-McCain debacle, doesn't that epithet ring truer with every passing moment?

[MrTessier]

I agree to some extent, but I think there is a big difference between the Bush republicans and the Reagan republicans. A lot of the republicans I work with are pretty sick and tired of the brand that is left. They want to hate Obama, but so far, they really can't. Most of all, they really are sick of having huge government spending and running the defecits we are running. They seem willing to give up anything if it meant a return to sanity. If Obama brings us back to within eye shot of ballancing the budget in the next four years, it will convince an aweful lot of them that the centrist way really does prove to be preferrable to the far right philosophy.