Sam Tanenhaus, editor of The New York Times Book Review, has some good news for conservatives. He does not, I hasten to add, intend it to be good. On the contrary, like Mark Antony (well, sort of . . .) he comes not to praise conservatism but to bury it. But when someone of Tanenhaus’s disposition comes along bearing tidings–and in The New Republic, no less–that Conservatism is Dead, it is time for us knuckle-dragging right wingers to rejoice. It’s not just that Tanenhaus doesn’t get what conservatism is all about: his immersion in the left-wing echo chamber that is The New York Times assures that his understanding of recent history will be composed entirely of fact resistant establishment clichés.
Tanenhaus begins by telling his readers that, bad though things were for conservatives after Barry Goldwater’s defeat in 1964, they are actually much worse now:
After George W. Bush’s two terms, conservatives must reckon with the consequences of a presidency that failed, in large part, because of its fervent commitment to movement ideology: the aggressively unilateralist foreign policy; the blind faith in a deregulated, Wall Street-centric market; the harshly punitive “culture war” waged against liberal “elites.”
This is one of those rhetorical gems that requires the tartness of Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman’s veracity–every word out of her mouth, said McCarthy, is a lie, including “and” and “but.” McCarthy’s judgment has to be somewhat altered in the case of Tanenhaus, for the lack of truth is not, I think, a product of mendacity so much as sclerotic liberal orthodoxy. The Left is everywhere engaged in a process of mythopoeic misrepresentation. George W. Bush must be demonized so that the Messiah, BHO, can be properly exalted.
Absent that distorting filter, we can see that 1) President Bush’s presidency cannot really be said to have “failed” 2) far from being committed to “movement ideology,” Bush was strikingly wet on many issues (prescription drugs for seniors, no child left behind, “compassionate”–gag–”conservatism,” etc.); 3) his foreign policy was not “aggressively unilateralist”: it just wasn’t a model of capitulation; 4) Bush did not exhibit a “blind faith in a deregulated, Wall-Street centric market” but intervened massively in the market when the economy faltered; 4) he did not, alas, pursue a culture war, “harshly punitive” or otherwise, against liberal “elites,” much as we might have wished he had. One sentence, five untruths: good job, Sam! But I do want to give credit where credit is due and point out that there is one element of truth to that sentence. It’s not an assertion, or even a word, rather a bit of punctuation: the scare quotes around “elite.” Conservatives should be proud to welcome genuine elites–i.e., those who excel in one pursuit or another–and he is surely correct that liberals can only be described as “elite” in a Pickwickian sense.
That’s the strophe of Tanenhaus’s broadside: trashing Bush. The antistrophe proceeds to the strains of a heavenly choir: Barack Obama pushing “boldly ahead” to bring light to a nation that is not just “sunk” but that has “been plunged” by you-know-who into “darkest economic passage since the Great Depression.”
We should not minimize the economic turmoil the country is proceeding through. But we should be skeptical of the crisis mongers–the Rahm Emmanuels who warn the Left never to let a crisis go to waste. In September, a large boulder was dropped in the pond. Ripples emanated out from that splash and they are making their way to the shore. All the bad news–the unemployment figures, the slowdowns, the problems with liquidity–all that was foreordained when Lehman Brothers imploded and the market sank. What seems not to be much noticed is the fact that the Bush administration’s actions stabilized the situation and laid the groundwork for recovery. Not, of course, that Bush will get any credit for this: but when you see that economy righting itself in a few months, remember that it was not because of Obama’s pork-filled pseudo-stimulus package but because banks and other credit institutions had been granted some necessary breathing space to get their businesses rolling again.
I like Edmund Burke too much to subject readers to a summary of what Tanenhaus does to him in his interminable (nearly 7000-word) essay. He ends by calling on conservatives to reject “ideology” and “recover their honorable intellectual and political tradition.” What he means, of course, is that conservatives should stop being conservatives and get with the leftoid program as epitomized by the Geist of The New York Times and Barack Obama. Sam Tanenhaus has written a piece that is half epitaph, half sermon for the conversion of sinners. He tells us that conservatism is dead, and then how conservatives might save themselves. Most conservatives, I suspect, will take a pass on the offer of redemption à la Tanenhaus. And as for the funeral Tanenhaus came to preside over, I suspect that conservatives will respond as Mark Twain is said to have done when he heard of his own obituary: rumors of their death have been exaggerated.
That was quite excellent – loved reading you pick apart that one sentence.
Aren’t liberals who do things like edit book review sections of papers supposed to be well read? I’m having trouble understanding how someone who can be well-read just repeats the same old tired and mendacious arguments the evening news uses. I mean, if I were a liberal, there’s no way I would ground my views in the news of the day – I’d at least go to Marcuse or maybe even as far back as Rousseau or something so that way I could articulate principle or “how society progresses” better. Or is it the case a liberal really believes in reading the news, he’s reading better stuff than Ruskin or Plato or something, since we’ve “progressed?”
liberals are stupid, ill-read, wannabe elites. Most have terrible manners and are hopeless lovers.
Cavaliers and Tories are always more fun than roundheads and whigs.
…[Bush] did not, alas, pursue a culture war, “harshly punitive” or otherwise, against liberal “elites,” much as we might have wished he had.
In fact, it was quite the opposite, with these so-called “elites” continually calling for Bush’s prosecution, if not outright execution. If such treasonous venom were spit in Obama’s direction, the speakers would be tried for hate crimes.
Most conservatives, I suspect, will take a pass on the offer of redemption à la Tanenhaus.
This conservative will certainly take a pass.
Lucky for you, Roger, that you have readers like me who can correct you when you blatantly misuse words.
A “unilateral policy” is one joined by over two dozen other countries but not France and Belgium. A “mulilateral policy” is one that France and Belgium join.
“Culture war” is when people criticize leftist culture. Thus, there is no cultural war on elite university campuses but there is when a minister criticizes something.
Oh, and as long as we’re on it, with respect to abortion, an “extremist position” is one embraced in whole or in part by over three quarters of American women and men.
And “ideology” is something conservatives have and should abandon.Leftist beliefs are simply reasonable, the default position for any intelligent person.
Mr Kimball,
When I saw Tanenhaus’ piece I had to laugh – it’s the only way to stay sane. His ignorance is either willful or just a matter of habit. Thank you for giving it the flogging it deserves.
Something I do not understand, and which creates a great deal of distress in me about the future of the Republic, is that too many people in positions of power and influence, like Tanenhaus, do not appear to have the ability to reason or to formulate a rational argument.
Is reality out of fashion?
I love it when the left fingerwags about conservative intellectual history. “You guys used to really have it together…you need to reconnect with your honorable traditions!” I’ve had a couple of lefty friends do this to me on occasion.
Of course, I had to laugh when one of these same fingerwagging friends was browsing my bookcase one day and came across my old copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Portable Conservative Reader.” He responded by rolling his eyes and muttering “oh please…”
Atlas Shrugged.
The Repulbicans will head for the hills and regroup. When they come back to civilization, they will find a another challenge to destroy. Only this time we have a collective history of their ideologies and not let them back in.
I came across this article while browsing the New Republic for the distortion du jour. Obviously, I knew what to expect, but enjoy picking over liberal misrepresentations and ommissions, so I began to read it. The sentence you broke down stopped me in my tracks. Instead of having to seek deeper into the article for any more nuanced distortions of conservative ideas, I could have spent all day shredding the blatant fallacies of just that sentence. Thank you for doing it for me. I am continually shocked to discover how deeply misunderstood / misrepresented conservatism is (especially by the left). Once I read the out-of-context Burke quotes, supported only by leftist assumptions about Burke’s meanings, used to denigrate the leftist assumptions about modern conservative’s intentions, I figured I’d seen enough. It makes me sick to think that writing an entire article of obviously bad history based on obvioulsy irrational assumptions can win you plaudits from such a large portion of our fellow Americans and a cushy job for a supposedly “intellectual” journal. If I didn’t have any self-respect or dignity, I would go into the liberal journalism industry, too.
I’m beginning to be alarmed about the frequency with which which Liberals like Mr. Tannenhaus, while embracing none of their principles, use such ancient worthies as Burke and Disraeli to scold non-ideological conservative such as myself for our apostasy from the true faith. It is probably no accident that he has chosen Whittaker Chambers and William Buckley as subjects for biography. I think they may be the new candidates for rehabilitation, and thus useful for invidious comparisons with the likes of us. Once, at an art opening, I had a short conversation with Deborah Solomon of the NYT, in the course of which she inquired about my political views. I told her that I was in many ways more to the right than Buckley, but that I found the cultish atmosphere surrounding National Review during his editorship not to my taste. She looked a bit perplexed and then said “So you are a neo-conservative?”. I might have added, but didn’t, that his frequent Latin bon mots were somewhat off-putting to those of us who had got our Latin from public schools. It also is remarkable how many reliably liberal writers the NR spawned during this period. Gary Wills is one who comes to mind.
The question arises as to what it is that these exemplary conservatives have in common. I can think nothing better than “clubbability”. It is true that the slovenly Chambers is a little problematical in this regard, but at least he went to Princeton? , was once a Communist, and Alger Hiss liked him. The somewhat less well known, but eminent, Dartmouth professor, Jeffrey Hart, who defected to the Obama camp during the campaign, is, at least, a candidate member.
So why would you ever spend a dime for the poisonous product of the liberal media.
One must remember that this is the Age of Equivocation. Much of which passes for “progressive” political thought revolves around taking a familiar word that has positive emotional connotations and attempting to claim that it means something that it does not. The example of “social justice” comes to mind.
By the same token they paint conservatives as being folks who want to freeze society and cling to old discredited ways that are no longer appropriate or desirable in our modern society. The great irony is that behind the rhetoric liberals cling to old ideas that originated in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries that have been discredited by events whenever they have actually been put into practice. The same old “progressive” ideas are given a new name and promoted as a new and daring direction that will lead us to a bright new world. In a very real sense it is the liberals who are the ones clinging to the past.
One must remember that this is the Age of Equivocation. Much of which passes for “progressive” political thought revolves around taking a familiar word that has positive emotional connotations and attempting to claim that it means something that it does not. The example of “social justice” comes to mind.
Tcoob. let me help you here:. Here is a re0edit.
99.9% of what passes for “progressive” political thought are outright lies. They can do no other thing. That is the just the sort of people they are.