Taking the Long View
The conservative movement (excluding the neocons and fundies) almost seems necessarily quietest, and with the “wheels of history” rolling all over you, this is a proper response. It is telling that the premiere vehicle for properly conservative thought, The American Conservative, advocates a kind of cultural quietism, a recognition that quotidian political involvement necessarily runs counter to the traditional virtues Anglo-American conservatism tries to preserve and cultivate. If the two planks of your politics are man’s imperfectibility and that individuals can’t really improve society more so than “3000 years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax,” canvassing for Marilyn Musgrave or debating over whether hedge funds’ carry should be taxed as capital gains or personal income just isn’t going to come naturally.[snip]
Paleocons have “resurged” so many times, outraged at “liberal” overreach; after the French Revolution, the invasion of the Philippines, WWI, the founding of the UN, GATT, the Civil Rights Movement, the ERA, Gulf War I, NAFTA, Bosnia, Kosovo and now, with Gulf War II. Too bad their very orientation is one that necessitates marginalization and irrelevance. - Matt Zeitlin
Having earned some street cred from paleos like Daniel Larison and I, Matt Zeitlin drops this on us. First of all I find it encouraging that Zeitlin recognizes in all these historical eras a paleo-tendency. Secondly, I'd point out that the "Next Conservatism" article does not necessarily reflect the thinking of The American Conservative as a whole or even a majority of its editors and writers. It is a very worthy attempt to get out from under the "wheels of history." (One can almost sense that "h" wants to be a capital "H" - tread carefully Mr. Zeitlin) Third I'd like to take a minute and say that the paleo orientation does not necessitate marginalization and irrelevance at all. Let's build on that.
The surprising thing isn't that paleo-conservatism (or conservatism) fails to win - it is that is exists at all. Managerial liberalism occupies all the powerful positions because it is the natural ideology of a managerial state. Managerial liberalism is an incumbent force and has been so since at least the 1930s. To get ahead in politics, business and academia - you basically have to comply with it. We do not all choose marginalization and irrelevance - it is just our necessary position vis-a-vis a managerial regime we cannot yet overcome or displace.
Conservatism, as the paleos and I understand it is not in a defensive position, but in an insurgent position. Certainly many figures in conservatism have contributed to the movement's marginalization and irrelevance - deliberately courting their destruction. But once a group is marginalized it begins to attract marginal people. Think bow-ties, walking sticks, cigar habits and a propensity to include middle names in bylines. Have you ever been to CPAC? That doesn't even mention the conspiracy theorists and Clinton-haters. The conservative movements has all sorts of pathologies that work to its disadvantage. Being marginalized sucks.
Each one of the above examples of "overreach" has been just that: "overreach." The electoral constituency of the Right doesn't actually find itself in all out rebellion against incumbent managerial liberalism. In fact, most middle-Americans basically deal ok with how things are. Sure they kinda wish family formation was cheaper. But they have cable television and they eat alright. They do occasionally chafe under liberal overreach and thus give a party of the Right a few electoral victories here and there. What true conservatives must do is begin marching through the institutions of culture and transforming them or dismantling them. They must educate their natural constituents and begin to turn the occasional complaints about managerial liberalism into a more sustained revolt. They must do this at the same time that managerial liberalism begins to suffer from and die from it's exhaustion and internal contradictions - as it inevitably will. Managerial liberalism will not last forever - no ideology has. When will this all come together? We don't know.
For now we conservatives have to content ourselves with hearth and home and fun magazines. Occasionally managerial liberalism takes a few pointers from us about efficiency. That's nice. Unfortunately we have to endure these triuphalists talking to each other about the power of global capitalism and autonomy and "allowing people to fulfil their own ends". It's actually gotten boring. This kind of speech sounds so high-minded but in reality it means something cruder: the continued cultural dominance of centralized mass media entertainement. For managerial liberalism autonomy means watching the same television programs in Beverly Hills and Jakarta. If interacting with the cultural products of GE, Disney, and Vivendi is all that managerial liberalism promises us - then I can assure you it's not progress. Hell it's not even remotely as interesting as the old bourgeois values of the 19th century.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
6 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (6)
They just don't like paying for "other people" to have that stuff too.
Sustained revolt? I don't know. Collapsing under the weight of 30 years of everybody trying to have their cake and eat it too? Yeah, I can see that.
I OBJECT!
They are going to throw a pretty big fit too when the cake runs out.
As for being prepared: the only people I know of who are discussing the necessity of the relocalization of agriculture and the reorganization of transportation in the face of future economic and resource challenges are on the left. My right blog exposure is limited to MBD's links so if you know any critiques of unsustainability from the right, other then say Wendell Berry, I would love to hear about it.