Why Conservatives Can't Govern

[Tony]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.wolfe.html

Search hard enough and you might find a pundit who believes what George W. Bush believes, which is that history will redeem his administration. But from just about everyone else, on the right as vehemently as on the left, the verdict has been rolling in: This administration, if not the worst in American history, will soon find itself in the final four. Even those who appeal to history's ultimate judgment halfheartedly acknowledge as much. One seeks tomorrow's vindication only in the context of today's dismal performance.

About the only failure more pronounced than the president's has been the graft-filled plunder of GOP lawmakers--at least according to opinion polls, which in May gave the GOP-controlled Congress favorability ratings in the low 20s, about 10 points lower than the president's. This does not necessarily translate into electoral Armageddon; redistricting and other incumbency-protection devices help protect against that. But even if many commentators think that Republicans may retain control over Congress, very few think they should.

Eager to salvage conservatism from the wreckage of conservative rule, right-wing pundits are furiously blaming right-wing politicians for failing to adhere to right-wing convictions. Libertarians such as Bruce Bartlett fret that under Republican control, government has not shrunk, as conservatives prescribe, but has grown. Insiders like Peggy Noonan complain that Republicans have become--well, insiders; they are too focused on retaining power and too disconnected from the base whose anger pushed them into power. Idealistic younger conservatives bewail the care and feeding of the K Street beast. Paleocons Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak blame neocons William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer for the debacle that is Iraq. Through all these laments there pulsates a sense of desperation: A conservative president and an even more conservative Congress must be repudiated to enable genuine conservatism to survive. Sure, the Bush administration has failed, all these voices proclaim. But that is because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left. The ideas of Woodrow Wilson and John Maynard Keynes, from their point of view, have always been flawed. George W. Bush and Tom DeLay just prove it one more time.

Conservative dissidents seem to have done an admirable job of persuading each other of the truth of their claims. Of course, many of these dissidents extolled the president's conservative leadership when he was riding high in the polls. But the real flaw in their argument is akin to that of Trotskyites who, when confronted with the failures of communism in Cuba, China and the Soviet Union, would claim that real communism had never been tried. If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.


The United States, as the political scientist Louis Hartz argued in the 1950s, was born liberal. We fought for our independence against Great Britain and the conservatism that flourished there. In Europe, a conservative was someone who defended the traditions of the monarchy, justified the privileges of the nobility, and welcomed the intervention of a state-affiliated clergy in politics. But all those things would be tossed out by the revolutionaries who led the war for independence and then wrote the Constitution. We chose to have an elected president, not an anointed monarch. Our Constitution prohibited the granting of titles of nobility. We separated church and state.

Of course, we had more than our share of thinkers who distrusted national authority; conservative political philosophy may not come naturally to Americans, but a fear of centralized power and an unwillingness to pay heavy taxes does. Beneath the broad political liberalism embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was a frequently unexamined conservatism that questioned the very idea of the vibrant, expansive society that America promised to be.

If government is necessary, bad government, at least for conservatives, is inevitable, and conservatives have been exceptionally good at showing just how bad it can be. Hence the truth revealed by the Bush years: Bad government--indeed, bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and unfair government--is the only kind of conservative government there is. Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.

Three examples--FEMA, Medicare, and Iraq-- should be sufficient to make this point. Because liberals have historically welcomed government while conservatives have resisted it, it should come as no surprise that the Federal Emergency Management Agency worked so well under Bill Clinton and so poorly under Bush I and II. True to a long tradition of disinterested public management, Clinton, in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, appointed James Lee Witt to head FEMA. Witt refocused FEMA away from civil-defense efforts to increasingly predictable national disasters, fought for greater federal funding, achieved cabinet status for his agency, and worked closely with state and local officials. For all the efforts by Republicans to attack their enemies, no one has ever put a dent in Witt's reputation. Government under him was as good as government gets.

Upon assuming office, George W. Bush turned to former Texas campaign aide Joe Allbaugh to run FEMA and then shifted it into the new Department of Homeland Security (whose creation he had opposed). Allbaugh, and his hand-picked successor Michael Brown, like so many Bush appointees, were afflicted with what we might call "learned incompetence." They did not fail merely out of ignorance and inexperience. Their ineptness, rather, was active rather than passive, the end result of a deliberate determination to prove that the federal government simply should not be in the business of disaster management. "Many are concerned that federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an oversized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective state and local risk management," Allbaugh had testified before a Senate appropriations subcommittee in May, 2001. "Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level." There was the conservative dilemma in a nutshell: a man put in charge of a mission in which he did not believe.

Long before Katrina destroyed New Orleans, Allbaugh and Brown were busy destroying FEMA: privatizing many of the agency's programs, shifting attention away from disaster management, and shedding no tears as scores of agency staff left in dismay. Human beings cannot prevent natural disasters, but they can prevent man-made ones. Not the Bush administration. Its ideological hostility toward government all but guaranteed that the physical damage inflicted by a hurricane would be exacerbated by the human damage caused by incompetence.

A long read, but the man makes some interesting points without relying on partisan rhetoric or demagoguery. What does the utter failure of conservatism to achieve it's stated goals mean for the future of conservatism?

[Grammatron]

Define a conservative.

[KelvinG]

Define a conservative.

Obviously there is never going to be one single definition, but one thing I've always felt Conservatives like to pride themselves on is this whole idea of less government and less spending.

I've seen neither from recent Conservative governments.

[Jocko]

A long read, but the man makes some interesting points without relying on partisan rhetoric or demagoguery. What does the utter failure of conservatism to achieve it's stated goals mean for the future of conservatism?

Conservatism has not been in Washington since 1988. It was spotted briefly in congress in 1996, but hasn't been seen since. Like "liberal," the term has evolved into something less precise.

[Grammatron]

Obviously there is never going to be one single definition, but one thing I've always felt Conservatives like to pride themselves on is this whole idea of less government and less spending.

I've seen neither from recent Conservative governments.

True, it's just this article isn't saying anything new or profound.

And his points have counter points, for instance for a good example of how FEMA worked "so well" under Clinton look no further than 1994 Earthquake in Los Angeles. And I do not mean to bash Clinton nor do I blame him for that at all, I simply want to point out that to think FEMA is some amazing agency that will swoop down and solve all the problems is a pipe dream.

I do however agree that Republicans have not kept the promises of shrinking the government, then again, if you look at Bush's campaign promises in 2000 he proposed plenty of government programs and thus was by no means a conservative in that sense.

[Tony]

Define a conservative.

Read the article.

[Grammatron]

Read the article.

I did. Is this how you define "Contemporary conservatism" as well?

[Tony]

I did.

Then what compells you to ask such an absurd question? The author is clear about what he is talking when he says "conservative".

[Grammatron]

Then what compells you to ask such an absurd question? The author is clear about what he is talking when he says "conservative".

My question was to you and not to the author. If you agree with how the author defines conservatives then it's all I want to know.

[Tony]

My question was to you and not to the author. If you agree with how the author defines conservatives then it's all I want to know.

Why? I don't see how that is relevant. The discussion is about the article, not my definition of conservative.

[corplinx]

I'd like something more than FEMA scapegoating as evidence of support for his thesis. The videos released pre-Katrina showed the feds on top of the hurricane situation. It appears that much of the New Orleans problem was due to one man who was just re-elected not heeding warnings and preparing. The problem wasn't the reaction (which in lieu of Gulfport/Biloxi looking like it was hit by a nuke was probably too much for New Orleans which was unscathed except for flooding which wasn't even citywide, aint the CNN effect great) but the preparation. New Orleans had gone through the drill for the previous hurricane and let its guard down for Katrina.

[senorpogo]

So conservatives like small government but when they're elected they have to manage a large government which, since it's something they intrinsically don't like, causes their heads to explode kind of like when a super-intelligent alien computer gets tricked into a logical paradox by Captain Kirk.

How cute.

[Grammatron]

Why? I don't see how that is relevant. The discussion is about the article, not my definition of conservative.

Because you ask a question in your OP -- "What does the utter failure of conservatism to achieve it's stated goals mean for the future of conservatism?" -- and I would like to know if your definition is the same as the one the article uses.

[Tony]

Because you ask a question in your OP -- "What does the utter failure of conservatism to achieve it's stated goals mean for the future of conservatism?" -- and I would like to know if your definition is the same as the one the article uses.

For the purposes of this thread, yes, my defintion is the same as the one in the article.

[Grammatron]

For the purposes of this thread, yes, my defintion is the same as the one in the article.

That makes no sense, but thank you for answering the question.

[Tony]

That makes no sense

Why not?

[Grammatron]

Why not?

It seems like something a politician would say when they don't want to be held accountable for their words at a later date or during another discussion.

[Jocko]

Why not?

Because most people accept a certain definition of a word and stick with it, rather than qualifying it as "for the purpose of this thread"?

[Tony]

It seems like something a politician would say when they don't want to be held accountable for their words at a later date or during another discussion.

Then how about this. Why don't you describe what is wrong with the author's definition and explain how it is inaccurate in regard to today's conservatives.

[Tony]

Because most people accept a certain definition of a word and stick with it

No they don't. Words change definition depending on context all the time.

[hgc]

Because most people accept a certain definition of a word and stick with it, rather than qualifying it as "for the purpose of this thread"?Why should Tony's possible future definition of the word have any bearing on the discussion within this thread, since he has stipulated the definition he'll use within this thread?

[Apollyon]

True to a long tradition of disinterested public management, Clinton, in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, appointed James Lee Witt to head FEMA. Witt refocused FEMA away from civil-defense efforts to increasingly predictable national disasters, fought for greater federal funding, achieved cabinet status for his agency, and worked closely with state and local officials. For all the efforts by Republicans to attack their enemies, no one has ever put a dent in Witt's reputation. Government under him was as good as government gets.

%^&# &#&#&!

I despise historical revisionism.

First of all, Witt was a crony of Clinton's, which is the primary reason he got appointed to the post.

Second of all, claiming everything was rosy under Witt is pure bunk. Maybe some folks don't recall Hurricane Floyd?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Floyd

Criticism of FEMA

The Hurricane Floyd disaster was followed by what many judged to be a very slow federal response. Fully three weeks after the storm hit, Jesse Jackson complained to FEMA Director James Lee Witt on his CNN program Both Sides Now, "It seemed there was preparation for Hurricane Floyd, but then came Flood Floyd. Bridges are overwhelmed, levees are overwhelmed, whole towns under water ... [it's] an awesome scene of tragedy. So there's a great misery index in North Carolina." Witt responded, "We're starting to move the camper trailers in. It's been so wet it's been difficult to get things in there, but now it's going to be moving very quickly. And I think you're going to see a — I think the people there will see a big difference [within] this next weekend!"

3 weeks? People started bashing Bush and FEMA not 3 days after Katrina. Yet Witt allows people to wallow in flooded misery for 3 weeks and somehow he was "as good as government gets"?

Puhleeze.

[Grammatron]

Then how about this. Why don't you describe what is wrong with the author's definition and explain how it is inaccurate in regard to today's conservatives.

Because I do not think that the current government, at least the Executive branch is conservative. And as I have previously stated, if you look at Bush's campaign promises they were far from conservative.

[Tony]

I despise historical revisionism.


What historical revisionism?

Are you saying none of this:

True to a long tradition of disinterested public management, Clinton, in the wake of Hurricane Andrew, appointed James Lee Witt to head FEMA. Witt refocused FEMA away from civil-defense efforts to increasingly predictable national disasters, fought for greater federal funding, achieved cabinet status for his agency, and worked closely with state and local officials. For all the efforts by Republicans to attack their enemies, no one has ever put a dent in Witt's reputation. Government under him was as good as government gets.

Happened?

[Tony]

Because I do not think that the current government, at least the Executive branch is conservative. And as I have previously stated, if you look at Bush's campaign promises they were far from conservative.

In otherwords, your defense is of the "No True Scotsman" variety.

What about the House and Senate? Are they real conservatives?

[hgc]

In otherwords, your defense is of the "No True Scotsman" variety.

What about the House and Senate? Are they real conservatives? Here they come! They come marching in to every thread that wishes to discuss "liberal" or "conservative."

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/54344a152e8c067d.jpg

[KelvinG]

I do however agree that Republicans have not kept the promises of shrinking the government, then again, if you look at Bush's campaign promises in 2000 he proposed plenty of government programs and thus was by no means a conservative in that sense.

Do you think there has ever been a true "conversative" government in power in the USA, i.e. one that truly limits spending in comparison to their Democratic counterparts, and truly follows a less government approach?

Personally, I think those are cute buzzwords used by Republicans, but in reality the party doesn't differ much from the more lefist, supposedly spend happy Democrats.

[Apollyon]

What historical revisionism?

Are you saying none of this:

Happened?
Do you really think that's what my post was addressing when taken in context?

[Grammatron]

In otherwords, your defense is of the "No True Scotsman" variety.

No need for strawmans here.

A conservative who says he well spend on social programs is not a conservative. It's that simple. Bush ran on a platform that said he will cut taxes and increase spending, whoever voted for him thinking he was a conservative forgat to read the latter part, to say the least.

What about the House and Senate? Are they real conservatives?
Some are and some are not.

[Tony]

Do you really think that's what my post was addressing when taken in context?

That's what you quoted in relation to your charge of "historical revisionism".


Let the goalpost moving begin.

[Grammatron]

Do you think there has ever been a true "conversative" government in power in the USA, i.e. one that truly limits spending in comparison to their Democratic counterparts, and truly follows a less government approach?

Personally, I think those are cute buzzwords used by Republicans, but in reality the party doesn't differ much from the more lefist, supposedly spend happy Democrats.

I think people will never agree on what "true conservatism" is but I do hope that there will be a government that will cut or drop some programs. That will require opposition in the senate or between the White House and the Senate. One party rule, from either party, does not seem to work.

[Tony]

A conservative who says he well spend on social programs is not a conservative. It's that simple. Bush ran on a platform that said he will cut taxes and increase spending.


Then I guess there are no conservatives. Every conservative runs on cutting taxes and increasing spending (they use code: "lower taxes and strong national defense").

Some are and some are not.

Who are these conservatives that have come out against funding for the military, faith based initiatives, farm subsidies, school vouchers, corporate bailouts, and abstinence education?

[Apollyon]

That's what you quoted in relation to your charge of "historical revisionism".


Let the goalpost moving begin.
Does the term "context" carry any meaning for you?

What was the context of my reply?

If you really believe it necessary and you can't comprehend context, or if my reply was too complex, I will be happy to break it down for you into something a bit simpler.

Geez I hate the game players. :rolleyes:

[Grammatron]

Then I guess there are no conservatives. Every conservative runs on cutting taxes and increasing spending (they use code: "lower taxes and strong national defense").

100% of them? Interesting.

Who are these conservatives that have come out against funding for the military, faith based initiatives, farm subsidies, school vouchers, corporate bailouts, and abstinence education?
All you have to do is look is for articles against politicians who vote to send troops to battle with sub-par equipment, fight all religions, let our farmers and country starve, keep our kids illiterate and ignorant, outsource all the jobs and encourage sex in schools.

[American]

What does the utter failure of conservatism to achieve it's stated goals mean for the future of conservatism?

It's.

What college should our kids avoid?

[Tailgater]

%^&# &#&#&!

I despise historical revisionism.

First of all, Witt was a crony of Clinton's, which is the primary reason he got appointed to the post.

Second of all, claiming everything was rosy under Witt is pure bunk. Maybe some folks don't recall Hurricane Floyd?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Floyd



3 weeks? People started bashing Bush and FEMA not 3 days after Katrina. Yet Witt allows people to wallow in flooded misery for 3 weeks and somehow he was "as good as government gets"?

Puhleeze.


That is so funny. I lived in Florida during hurricane Andrew also. The local response was so great, they barely needed FEMA in the first place. I don't see why people think that a horde of aircraft is going to come down and move millions of people in days to begin with.

[Jocko]

Why should Tony's possible future definition of the word have any bearing on the discussion within this thread, since he has stipulated the definition he'll use within this thread?

Because one Claus Larsen is more than enough for any forum; Lord knows we don't need another one.

[hgc]

Because one Claus Larsen is more than enough for any forum; Lord knows we don't need another one.That's a grave insult to Tony, of Godwinesque proportions.

(Does that fall under Godwin, btw?) ;)

[Tony]

100% of them? Interesting.


Yep. Unless you can show a conservative politician who ran on a platform of reduced or weakened national defense and higher taxes.

All you have to do is look is for articles against politicians who vote to send troops to battle with sub-par equipment, fight all religions, let our farmers and country starve, keep our kids illiterate and ignorant, outsource all the jobs and encourage sex in schools.

So no-one. Glad we cleared that up. Then it's safe to conclude that your bit about "true conservatives" is a case of No True Scotsman and that there are no "true conservatives" in Congress.

[hgc]

...
So no-one. Glad we cleared that up. Then it's safe to conclude that your bit about "true conservatives" is a case of No True Scotsman and that there are no "true conservatives" in Congress.This is why it's best to identify "conservatives" and "liberals" as those who self-identify as such, at least as a generalized starting point.

[Grammatron]

Yep. Unless you can show a conservative politician who ran on a platform of reduced or weakened national defense and higher taxes.

This is not what you asked for previously.

So no-one. Glad we cleared that up. Then it's safe to conclude that your bit about "true conservatives" is a case of No True Scotsman and that there are no "true conservatives" in Congress.
Wrong, my counter to your question was that virtually every politicians votes against or introduces a bill that could fall under those depending on who writes the article.

This is all very subjectives, that's why the article is an opinion on a group of people no one can agree on other than they are all Republicans, but it's not partisan at all...no sir.

[RandFan]

Thanks Tony, it was an interesting read.

Let me start by first disagreeing with the 2nd quote that you address which I find a rather bizarre proposition. There is no question that America at its inception was liberal, assuming the context and meaning of liberal as the author does at this point in his article. "Liberal", meaning to favor reform. There are two problems with this.

1.) It is beside the point. The rest of the article has little to do with this definition of liberal vs conservative.

2.) Once America was established the new government became the status quo. American liberalism based on this definition would by necessity be different than Colonial liberalism.

This sort of reminds me of the rhetoric of the Communist regimes. They did not want to be viewed as Conservative. They would forever define themselves as "revolutionary". Hence any new revolution would simply be defined as "counter-revolutionary".

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" --The Who.

As to the last quote of the article. I reject the notion that Conservatives don't like government and therefore are unable to govern. That is a patently absurd statement and is not borne out by history. Whatever problems George W. Bush may or may not have is not directly tied to the fact that he is or is not conservative or how much he is conservative.

There is nothing axiomatic to conclude that a politician that does not ideologically like a social program can't effectively and efficiently manage a social program. I will grant that it could make it difficult to find effective political leaders to govern and manage a government that is in a number of ways counter to one's ideology.

Of course, if we accept the logic of the author then liberals shouldn't ever be left in charge of the military. I think there are a number of conservatives that actually agree with that.

As to the no-true Scotsman argument. Words have meaning and words are used to convey information. In order to discuss the merits of the argument it is fair to agree as to what the word "conservative" means and in what context. There are a number of definitions and or usages. Is it really unfair to understand what each of us mean when we use a word like Conservative?

As for the first quote. I'm not an expert in political science. If the majority agree that Bush is the worst president or among the worse ever then the sheep will accept that and nothing else will matter. As for myself, I concede that I am biased. While there is no question that Bush has made mistakes. I have been quite critical of him for several gaffes, some of them quite serious. But I very much agree with his response to 911, Afghanistan and Iraq. Though I admit concern for the way some of the war in Iraq was handled.

In any event, I think many of those who are so dismissive of bush are guilty of confirmation bias. They see what they want to see. The election was so divisive and so emotional that Bush failed long before he ever took the oath of office.

Are you really so sure that Bush is the worst president ever? That Conservatives have utterly failed and can't govern? Whatever, I accept that you believe it.

My sentiment can be summed up by another poster in another thread in another forum.

...

There's a lesson here. Reasoning is hard, very hard. We need to test our assumptions rigorously, we have to proceed with the assumption that we are wrong, not right, and we have to test even after we are sure we are right. We just have to. Because the human brain and formal logic do not mix.

So I'm bewildered by subforums like politics. We know we can't test our assumptions, or that the test are ambiguous at best. I have a vague idea that I like parts of the Democratic platform - ecological conservation, suspicion about business affairs, tolerance of personal affairs, and parts of the Republican platform, but am I sure? No. Not enough to bust a blood vessel in argument, not enough to even argue. Raising questions is fun, and exploring ideas, but I have no illusions that I have any real understanding of the consequences of a set of policy decisions. (emphasis mine)

This is simply one of the best posts that I have ever read on this forum or any other for that matter. It's a good read. Of course it is not very satisfying as far as ego goes. We like to be right. Hell, we need to be right.

So what do I think? That's a good question.

[Morrigan]

100% of them? Interesting.

All you have to do is look is for articles against politicians who vote to send troops to battle with sub-par equipment, fight all religions, let our farmers and country starve, keep our kids illiterate and ignorant, outsource all the jobs and encourage sex in schools.
Nani?

[Dcdrac]

Conservatism has not been in Washington since 1988. It was spotted briefly in congress in 1996, but hasn't been seen since. Like "liberal," the term has evolved into something less precise.

Both seem completely meaningless now, like fascist and communist, spot the difference if any.

[Zep]

Addressing the OP, I thought it was a series of quotes that got progressively more and more anti-GWB specifically, and less and less about conservatism, as they went on. They seemed to be wanting to portray Bush as the archetypical conservative, then shoot that down - so, a strawman?

Personally I would not classify GWB as a conservative in the political sense. (I wouldn't classify him as any brand of politician - he seems to just flounder about, politically, but that's by the by.)

Nor do I think that there is one brand or style of conservatism in the US - it's a very broad spectrum. And it would seem some conservatives of one school tend to actively dislike those of another conservative school quite vehemently, much moreso than they might dislike most centrist or left-leaning folks. So is it reasonable to put all non-lefties under the same conservative umbrella?