This morning, the Hudson Institute hosted its annual Bradley Symposium at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington. Last year, some readers will recall, I participated in a symposium on “Publishing and the Power of Ideas“, an event that coincided with the tenth anniversary of Encounter Books. This year’s topic was Making Conservatism Credible Again.
Congressman Paul Ryan, an up-and-coming Republican star from Wisconsin, gave a splendid introductory talk before rushing off to the corridors of power in a brave effort to staunch the incontinent flood of spending by our masters in Congress. A quixotic campaign in the Age of Obama? Perhaps. But Congressman Ryan sounded several themes that other panelists touched upon and that I believe will have great resonance with the American public. Arthur Brooks, the President of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the panels moderator, articulated two core points: 1) a defense of the capitalist system has to be made primarily in moral not economic terms and 2) conservatism needs to offer not only criticism of left-liberal policies but also practical answers to real-life questions. Governor Mitchell Daniels from Indiana, Yuval Levin from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Rich Lowry from National Review affirmed and expanded upon these points (though Yuval Levin put in a word or two for the importance of “no,” of being critical). Two high points: Mitch Daniels description of Obama’s actions these last few months as “shock and awe statism” and Rich Lowry’s observation that Obama’s has in his short reign violated almost every one of his campaign promises. Would he have been elected by promising a $1.85 trillion deficit? On a government owned General Motors? On a frontal assault on the bankruptcy laws? On a massive increase in energy costs and massive decrease in health care options?
My own sense is that the problem for conservatism is less credibility than communicability. When polled, 70 percent of the American reaffirm their preference for the free market. Why then are we consorting so intimately with policies that are patently socialist? There are many answers to that question, including the failures of recent Republican administrations to hew to the path of fiscal responsibility and market discipline. But a large part of the problem is what Aristotle would have called a rhetorical problem. Rhetoric, he said, is the art of persuasion. How well have conservatives done persuading the electorate that their policies, that their world view, is the one that is most likely to conduce to what “the good life for man”? To ask the question is to answer it. Republicans have done a terrible job at occupying the rhetorical high ground. This symposium did a good job of analyzing that failure and — perhaps even more important — of demonstrating what a robust and rhetorically potent conservatism might look like.
Yes, Roger. As usual, you hit the main point, simply and clearly. But no better example of failure in social-cultural-political articulation is needed than the last Republican presidential campaign. It was, presumably, designed and managed by some of conservatism’s best and brightest. If so, we are justified in depression!
You, like me and a host of others, applauded and were moved by most (but not all) of McCain’s positions. They were just and justified. But even in cases where clarity would have been easy to achieve, his articulation was muddy and his points either ambiguous or grossly over-simplified.
The attractive and likeable Gov. Palin was even worse. The pair were addressing the party’s LCD, and only that. On the late-emerging economic issues, neither they not (since then)any strong conservative voice has uttered comprehensible alternatives to the Democrats’ juggernaut. All they’ve done is to cry “statism,” and “socialism.”
Those words mean very little to most voters these days. Most voters these days lack even the elementary historical and cultural knowledge required to understasnd those words. Most voters are products of the failed educational system of the past three decades. And no conservative has taught them the necessary lessons in history and political economy through the medium of speeches. The media won’t help. It has to be done viva voce!
Conservatism will have no renaissance here until it is once again a set of rational, articulate, informed, and eloquent positions on what we are and have been, and what we must do to survive that way and not as just another stumbling postmodern polity of the West. Who will say and do it? And where?
Conservatives need to acknowledge that the free market works but that there must be legitimate parameters and rule sets to guide it.
The free market does not “care” about who gets harmed in its mad dash of creative destruction. To make it palatable for those that will fail in the race, so to speak, there must be some small ameliorative
spring boards so that people can be given the proverbial “hand up, not the hand out.”
Also, obvious greed must be prosecuted ruthlessly so that people feel that there are consequences for unrestrained greed.
The problem today is that the free market has been viewed not as a tool for social betterment, but as a tool for overt self aggrandizement and the “losers” are so angry they are quite willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Conservatives need to start discussing how government can be made “responsible.” The goal cannot be to kill it, it must be to truly reform it. That was what many believed the promise of Obama to be, though the actuality is that he seems more interested in the moment at growing it.
There must be a balance.
Speaking of Aristotle, he, like many (though not all) great thinkers believed in a Golden Mean that is neither too much nor too little.
Reaganomics has a core that still is beneficial and can be harnessed for amazing good, but a dogmatic and unrelfective embracing of it doesn’t acknowlede there may need to be some tweaking to avoid it becoming a caricature of itself.
“Making Conservatism Credible Again”
This was a dumb idea. No conference should revolve around the implied concept that conservatives don’t have their act together. There is nothing wrong with our core beliefs. The greatest challenge to American conservatives is not our ideas—but how best to overcome the never ending slime jobbing of the MSM and its leftist allies. Too many conservatives foolishly fall for the con job that its immature and whiney to constantly complain about media bias. But it’s the truth! And it is absurd to believe otherwise.
The entire conservative campaign this last election was a lesson in hamartia; while the McCain/Palin campaign understands core conservative values, they simply lacked the ability to explain them coherently enough to the mmerican public. I agree with Paul, yelling “Statism” and “Socialism” mean next to nothing to a public that has had those ideas jammed down its throat the last 30 some odd years.
Characterizing Statism and Socialism and what they do to the free-market economy ought to be a top priority for the conservative ticket come the next campain.
“…they simply lacked the ability to explain them coherently enough to the mmerican public.”
Conservatives need more leaders who can represent their views to a confused public. My complaint is limited to the David Frum types who believe that we must “moderate” our positions to become more popular. The very title “Making Conservatism Credible Again” could be interpreted in this manner. And yes, I might just be jumping to an invalid conclusion.
The Reagan quote was very moving, and the implication is that a better formulation of free market wisdom ought to be in terms of duties rather than benefits. The talk in our societies, basically advertising, is full of benefits, mostly disappointing. Inner integrity is a largely neglected arena of current discourse.
We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes.