Opinion on Opinion: Is the Conservative Movement Dead? (2)

(cont from previous post - updated 1/10/13)

In the article at http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/12/crisis-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-end-road   James Kurth argues that in the 1970s (I would argue in the 1950’s as the threat of international socialism became clear)  three groups united under the single banner of "conservative":  (1) big business/money/banks, (2) social/religious conservatives, and (3) security conservatives.

His bottom line here is absolutely correct - the fit between these three groups was never good, and the alliance has come nearly undone today.

- Banks & business signed on enthusiastically for a platform that advanced their interests and gave them the moral high ground for out producing the Soviets at the same time. But when the threat of Communist attack ended, and the opportunities of economic globalization emerged, business found itself at odds with the idea of purely American interests. Banks and financiers in particular have absolutely no solution for the global economic challenges to the American worker in the 21st century. All the bumper stickers about "cut taxes and grow jobs" have turned out to be complete nonsense when facing the sheer scale of international competition (exacerbated by irresponsible risks by industry, and run-away deficit and debt by government). You can't cut enough taxes to make GM quit Mexico where they are paying workers $7 an hour and return to Detroit where they pay $55 an hour. As was clear from the Romney campaign, big business and in particular the banks have nothing attractive to say to Americans about the economy. They just repeat what Hoover said: "Have patience until the economy sorts itself out."  That approach didn’t work then; it won’t work now.  Meanwhile the wealth of workers and retirees disappears while big executives do just fine. The business/banking/financing wing of conservatism controls all the levers of the Republican machine, but they have no message for voters - none at all.

- Meanwhile, the neo-cons of the security wing are more bankrupt than FANNIE MAE. They were really born out of the WW II experience of dealing with German and Japanese Totalitarianism, and its new birth in Soviet Totalitarianism. This is why Israel and Jewish American participation was so important -- they shaped the strategic arguments to prevent a repetition of WW II and the Holocaust. But it turned out that this world view had less relevance to the world that emerged after the Wall came down in 1989. When the neo-cons tried to apply their ideas to Iraq and Afghanistan /Pakistan, the result was military and strategic disappointment. Their approach accounted for hostile ideologies. They had less success against hostile religions and race based strategies (China, etc.) -- except to suggest a long tactical struggle as we are seeing in Israel.

(It is interesting that Kurth misses the important role of Israel and American Jews in the conservative security wing. Perhaps he found this analysis too sensitive to say aloud. But from 1955 until 2005, American Jews played a decisive role in conservative security programs, research, education, publications, think tanks, theory, and in DOD and Republican administrations themselves. It is not an exaggeration to say this group was essential to strategic victory in the Cold War.  This is an important point, because many of the leading figures in this community had significant differences with their conservative business and social/religious partners. But these differences were patched over until the Cold War ended and the neo-con approach to security in the New World Disorder failed. Whether this important relationship can be reestablished remains an open question. )

- And finally, the money and security conservatives have been playing bait-and-switch on the social conservatives for 55 years. Kurth is absolutely right that the only success the Republicans gave the social conservatives in nearly 6 decades of fervent support was a thin temporary majority on the Supreme Court . . . which could only stop the bleeding from current liberal decisions, but not reverse those in the past. When it became clear in the 1990’s that the Republicans were not going to advance the values of religious conservatives, and the social/religious forces would have to make their arguments against drugs, abortion and homosexuality on their own, they proved incapable of doing so. The fact is that Western Christianity has simply not found a message that discourages people (and especially young people) from sex, drugs and rock and roll. Social conservatives needed the law to perform that function. Once out-flanked by liberals in law schools and on the Supreme Court, they have been unable to regain the intellectual high-ground on their own.

And finally - bravo to this author for being the first one to make a point that I have been making locally for 2 years. Obama care and increasing taxes (especially the death tax) serve the clear progressive purpose of removing older white people from the system, while confiscating their money for redistribution to others. In the face of this threat to older white social conservatives, the big money and security conservatives have no solutions to offer . . . or even any interest in the issue. Aging social conservatives may call Congress, but no one is answering the phone.

By putting all this together, the author does make a good case for the end of conservatism and the Republican party as we knew it before 2008.

BUT -- news flash -- history is not over.

- An economic crisis is coming - you cannot forever print money to keep interest rates at zero so you can borrow more than you create.

- A foreign policy crisis is coming -- a nuclear Iran, a toppled Saudi monarchy, a war between Japan and China, a crisis with the cartels on our border, a broad Muslim uprising in Europe - a major security crisis is coming -- maybe even at home

- A domestic moral crisis is coming -- we are raising monsters and sooner or later this will reach a tipping point.

And who knows what other flash points we might see based on Progressive overreach and fringe response: confiscation of weapons; refusal to enforce specific laws (like those having to do with drugs and immigration); murder of a popular figure because of race, or faith or politics, sexual orientation; seizure of control over financial or information resources; domestic WMD attack.  The list goes on.  Given the right crisis and the wrong response, Progressivism could lose ground to articulate and well informed conservatives.  The public that elected Herbert Hoover in 1928 abandoned him in 1932 and for the next 20 years. A similar reversal against the Progressives after a major national trauma is certainly possible.

 I actually think it is as likely that social conservatives might throw the big money guys under the bus to reshape the conservative cause as the other way round. After all, social conservatives are already predisposed to find common interest with security conservatives. And they have a compelling emotional message which may grow more attractive as the information revolution brings the effects of political corruption to see the light of day. 

So the future national story line is yet to be written.  It could well be about corruption, prosecution, and reform, championed by a resurgent Republican Party focused on moral and security issues, after their abandonment of the banks and industry as unreliable partners.

And that’s not what Kurth expects at all.