Something of Value

Wednesday, September 2, 2009
You know, I used to be a Republican. For many years I self-identified as such, although it might be safer to say I was a small "l" libertarian and social liberal.

Now? Not so much. My own personal ethical and moral journey really couldn't have led me anywhere else, but the reasons for my move to the left are varied.

Not the least of these reasons was the infiltration of the movement by the religious right, whom I find hypocritical in the extreme. They redefined what it actually meant to be a "conservative," and their new definition left a bad taste in my mouth. In my own case, that was sufficient to get me to distance myself from conservatism in general, but lately I've been giving more thought to why conservatives make feel stabby, and why the movement has become such a joke in my own mind.

I was reading the September 7th issue of Newsweek last night, and there's an interview with Sam Tanenhaus, the biographer of Whittaker Chambers and William F. Buckley, who has a new book out entitled The Death of Conservatism. In his interview with Jon Meacham, Mr. Tanenhaus makes the assertion that the "death of conservatism" is due, at least in part, to the movement's failure to denounce extremism and embrace an intelligent, mature structure that props up civil society as a whole rather than narrow mindedly focusing only on your own party or agenda.

This really resonated with me.

The thing that really bothers me about "modern" conservatives is just how wacky they are. There's no serious discussion, there's no compromise, there's no interest in the common good - there's only their so-called "platform" which usually includes religious overtones and lining their pockets and the pockets of their supporters. They're extreme, and they show no interest in moderating their movement to be more inclusive and less radical.

It's tough to take conservatism seriously when their poster children are Sarah Palin, Betsy McCaughey and Michele Bachmann. They're a far cry from William F. Buckley, Jr., with whom I rarely agreed but almost always respected. Every time the right tries to join the conversation, I keep thinking, this is the best you can do? I'm supposed to take you seriously when the people who are supposed to be representing you in the marketplace of ideas put forth "death panels" as their coup de grace?

There is a Basuto proverb that Robert Ruark used as an epigraph for his 1955 novel Something of Value: "If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them."

It seems to me that the modern conservative movement has done away with their "traditional way of living," and has not replaced it with something of value.

I know there are thoughtful, serious conservatives out there who have an interest in participating in the public discussion. I know they have something of value to contribute to our policies, culture, and political life. So where are they? Not in the public eye, and not highlighted by members of their own movement as spokespeople for their ideas.

It would be a lot easier for me, as a liberal, to find middle ground with conservatives if their public representatives weren't so inflexible and radical.

Now make no mistake - there are plenty of people on the left side of the spectrum who are just as extreme, and intend to push their agenda with no thoughts of compromise. I recognize this, and understand why Republicans are feeling disenfranchised by the power shift that has occurred in the last two years in Washington. I also recognize that as a liberal, the far left is less offensive to me than the far right. These are limitations of my own perspective, and I try to take them into account.

But our president is attempting to lead from a moderate position. The far left is unhappy with him because he's not pursuing a more liberal agenda, based on their own priorities.

And they're wrong. Just as wrong as the far right was when President Bush rolled over the concerns of the left during his administration.

I have no particular loyalty to any political ideology. My views and opinions are constantly evolving. But if the Republicans/Conservatives don't evict the crazies from their inner circle, it's a pretty safe bet that my view will never evolve to the right again.

19 comments:

Megan said...

This is just how I feel. I'm a registered Republican, and I think the party's been taken over by whack-a-loons. It's not "conservative" to get the government involved in family structures or religion. Expanding the government isn't conservative. And Sarah Palin really has to explain to me how making your own end-of-life decisions is liberal. That doesn't even make sense.

Janiece said...

Megan, I thought you were Canadian. Or did you retain your U.S. citizenship when your family moved North?

Steve Buchheit said...

There was an interview this morning on NPR with Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum. He's writing a book about Treasury Sec. Paulson, and near the end of the interview they talk about Paulson idealism, and then how he found working with Pelosi and Frank to be very productive (he refused to name those he felt were not willing to do work and move forward).

Megan said...

Yes, I kept my citizenship. The 2008 elections were the first time I ever voted.

mom in northern said...

Ah…now you are quoting from one of my very favorite reads.

I found it as a teen, we won’t discuss WHEN that was, and I am now re-reading it…an old friend.

It is in my bag for my
journey south to Boogie sit…

Random Michelle K said...

As a lifelong liberal (so liberal it hurts we used to joke) I actually don't gloat when I discover a conservative turned liberal (nor do I get a toaster, but that's another joke entirely.)

But to be honest, in a way it saddens me.

I do (surprisingly) hold some conservative positions, however, and just like I'm embarrassed to hold the same positions as people who are opposed to shaving and think the lives of animals are *more* important than the lives of humans, I'm even more embarrassed to discover I have something in common with extremists on the right.

I think you've touched on it with your comment about being more distressed by the wackos on the far right than the far left. Yes, as I mentioned previously, there are plenty of far left extremists. However, they look and smell like extremists and so it's hard to take them seriously, even when they make the occasional valid point.

The extremists on the right, however, tend to wear suits and have money and general look like someone who has an ounce of sense. Until you start listening to them and realize they are as deranged as the far left. They've just learned to dress it up better and thus fool more people.

I think that's what makes it so frustrating. Te far right has all the trappings of normalcy and thus look better making their arguments.

Personally, I'm tired of the way the far right skews things. Since no one takes takes the far left seriously, the far right ends up skewing the debate, by making it look like things are weighted in their favor.

Hopefully that made sense.

Janiece said...

Megan, thanks for clearing that up. And yes, you should vote in Canada, too (insert arrogant finger-wagging here). I'm quite sure Canada has the same dearth of uninformed voters as we do, and since you actually, you know, read, you're eminently qualified.

Mom, your love of that book is what made me note the analogy.

Michelle, you do make sense. The U.S. is, by and large, centrist. But the right- wing wackies make it seem like we're right of center just from their volume.

Eric said...

The far left is unhappy with him because he's not pursuing a more liberal agenda, based on their own priorities.

I don't think this is that accurate a statement, though it's one that's been a popular talking point among some conservatives and centrists to the point that it's infected the conventional wisdom. A lot of people on the left who are unhappy with the President aren't necessarily on the "far left" or fringe, and a number of us (even if we are far left) aren't necessarily consumed by any specific or partisan agenda. In the case of those of us like Greenwald who are unhappy that the President has been spinning his wheels on torture investigations, all we want is for a President, any President, of any party, to simply follow the law. Preferrably the current sitting President and sooner rather than later, but it's not an "agenda"-driven thing.

I'm more patient on healthcare, myself, but I understand those who feel the President is failing to lead on the issue. Again, I don't think it's fair to say healthcare reformers are unhappy because he's not pursuing a more liberal agenda: they're unhappy because the President promised to pass reforms that should have been passed fifteen years ago, and because the President has tried bipartisanship and its clearly failed--which was a noble experiment, but, you know, "compromise" doesn't equal "we surrender and you get everything you want, in this case the status quo preserved for your big corporate donors."

Furthermore, I think there's some feeling--which I don't quite share, personally, because I never dared to hope the conservatives who claimed Obama was a liberal were telling the truth--that Obama ran a campaign that was designed to at least reassure if not actively mobilize the left, from which follows an idea that the man we elected owes us something for our time, money and effort. I.e. we elected Obama to do things like close Gitmo and fix healthcare and reverse Bush-era domestic spying because he said he would do those things; it's bad when those things seem to be stalling, it's worse (as in the case of domestic surveillance policies) when the President appears prepared or willing to continue policies that never should have been implemented.

One can also argue that the last two elections are a majority repudiation of those the President appears to be (I hate to use the word but cannot think of a better one at this late hour) appeasing. I certainly didn't like where the Bush majority wanted to take the country in 2000, but I understood that this appeared to be the majority will and I would have to suck it up and hope things worked out--majority rule with checks and balances is how the game works, after all. The majority now seems willing to try something different and it's reasonable, in my mind, for the majority leadership to act decisively and that the conservative minority will have to suck it up much as I did in 2000. I say this because there seems to be a common attitude from the middlish-conservatives that the left ("far" or not) should be passive because that's what we would have preferred the Bush Administration to be; that's nearly clever, except I think it misapprehends how our representative democracy actually works. People elect majorities precisely so that majority can pursue an agenda, not so the majority can stuff their collective thumb into their collective ass and say, "See, we wish the minority party had the decency to be this passive and incompetent when they were in power."

(CONT.)

Eric said...

(CONT.)

I didn't vote for Obama because I expected a liberal agenda; the only evidence I had of his supposed liberalism were the unsubstantiated claims of people who believe progressivism to be discredited and "liberal" a smear. I voted for a man who is a centrist wonk, and a centrist wonk I expected. That said, I also voted for a centrist wonk who said he'd close Gitmo (still waiting), that certain Bush-era policies were unconstitutional (he's embraced them), and who swore to uphold the law (which requires us under treaty to prosecute crimes against humanity once we are aware they've occurred). And if he were to pursue a "liberal" agenda while he was doing these things, well hell, I'm a liberal because I think it's right for my nation, so I'd be pretty damn pleased with that as a bonus.

(Sorry for the length. I got on a tear. I don't think you meant it the way it sounded, Janiece, but I'm tired of that line, which I think is promoted by a bunch of pundits who have a vested interest in not admitting they had their heads in the sand the past seven years.)

Eric said...

Oh, one last thing (!!) (sorry):

I also think at least some of us (or maybe it's just me) who have been complaining are more patient with the President than we let on. But we also think that it's better for our causes to keep nagging and airing our hopes and grievances than to merely sit back. Complain about healthcare, or torture prosecutions, or whatever, and maybe politicians will take heed. Sit back and wait, and you have nobody to blame but yourself if you're overlooked for the sake of somebody's eventual re-election....

Venus Vaughn said...

I remember watching some old Republican dude on TV once a few years ago and being fascinated by how much sense he made. I double, then triple-checked that he was actually a Republican.

Turns out he came from a time when the party represented FINANCIAL conservatism. To him it was all about balanced budgets, and fiscal responsibility. It had nothing to do with social conservatism or preventing others from basic rights like, oh, marriage, being able to adopt children, the right to (not) pray and health-care, etc.

That was the first time I ever understood why people self-identify as a Republican, and it was the first time I ever truly respected the goals of the party. Unfortunately, the party he was talking about is not one that exists anymore.

I'll always respect that guy for showing me that half the country hasn't always been about wingnut blowhards trying to force religion and "morals" down the other half's throat. I just wish I remembered his name.

Janiece said...

Eric, you make some good points. In the interview I linked to, the author references an analogy to a "sun" party and a "moon" party, and how the roles reverse in due time. Right now it's the Dem's turn to be in the sun.

My comment about Obama governing from "the center" was hyperbole, as you surmised - he's a Democrat, but he's a centrist Democrat, relatively speaking.

I continued to think about this over the course of the day, and while I understand that voices from the far ends of the spectrum are needful in order to ensure no one is disenfranchised, I just object to the voices the Conservative movement are choosing to represent them. As Venus notes, they used to be the party of fiscal conservatism and keeping government out of private life. Not so much now.

If those in the "far left" and "far right" were arguing intelligently and had defensible positions, then I think I wouldn't get so damn stabby about it. But instead of you on the left and WFB on the right, we get Jesse Jackson and Sarah Palin.

How do you get to an acceptable compromise position when those are your spokespeople?

So my issue is more with the current culture of our two-party system than with any specific platform issues.

Eric said...

I was thinking about that last bit this morning on the drive in to work, actually: the problem isn't with the far-right (or the far-left) engaging in principled opposition, it's the amount of unprincipled oposition. One certainly has the First Amendment right to pander, lie and fearmonger, but there's no obligation to listen to such people, and indeed a moral obligation to combat such persons (from whatever political or non-political place they come from) with every righteous tool available (Reason, logic, satire, for instance, are all valid tools; combatting lies with lies, on the other hand, isn't a valid means).

The problem with Palin and Jackson isn't that they speak out, it's that what comes out of the former's mouth are mostly lies and what comes out of the latter's mouth is mostly vapid obfuscation.

John the Scientist said...

An interesting critique of Obama from the Left.

Venus Vaughn said...

HC, if you haven't met Margaret and Helen, you probably should.

http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/michelle-bachmanns-burning-bush-theres-a-pill-for-that/

Enjoy :)

Janiece said...

Venus, I've been following them since they called Sarah Palin a "bitch." I even have the T-Shirt!

mom in northern said...

Just a quick note...

I say a pox on all zealots.
It has worked for me for years...

Tom said...

I want the things Eric talks about (close Gitmo, health-care, no torture, no domestic surveilance, etc), but I don't think those are "liberal" ideas. I think they should be American ideas.

I guess the most liberal would be health care. You can't have life, liberty, or freedom, if you are dead or incapacitated. Access to basic health care seems to be on par with access to clean water, or basic food, a necessity, not a priviledge. I didn't always feel that way, but I certainly do now.

But the rest of those, that's the way Americans should act. We've gotten away from Bill of Rights types of freedoms, and need to get back there. Freedom from fear, freedom from torture, freedom from spying, freedom from Police States.

Basic American stuff, I thought.

Janiece said...

Welcome, Tom.

I used to think those were basic American values, too. Now I realize that not everyone agrees, and I feel compelled to fight for them.