Customer Reviews

The Death of Conservatism

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

In reading The Death of Conservatism, I've become convinced that this slender little volume is going to have a huge impact on politics over the next few years--everyone is going to have something to say about it.

Distilled to its essence (hardly needed in that it is a very quick read), Tanenhaus' argument is that the two great pillars of American society are its political institutions and what Tanenhaus would call its patrimonial or traditional social institutions such as schools, churches, corporations, unions, etc. Although liberals and conservatives may disagree on which pillar is more important, the fact is BOTH are required for the county's stability. Tanenhaus goes on to argue that when the conservative movement was most dynamic and effective, it produced great intellectual figures such as Burke or Buckley who could articulate their positions and formulate policies that took into account both these foundational pillars, and pragmatic politicians such as Regan who could work with both their allies and enemies to put these ideas into place. He notes that that this cooperation between the "thinkers" and the "do-ers" wasn't a marriage of convenience, it was absolutely essential to moving the agenda forward...the intellectuals were keen on developing rationales that made sense to the broader public, which paved the way for the politicians to actually implement conservative policies. Tanenhaus goes on to strongly emphasize that the great conservative thinkers and politicians were above all practical, not blindly ideological--Buckley strongly denounced extremists such as the John Birch Society, and Regan made clear he was a fan of the New Deal.

Tanenhaus argues that conservatism is dying today because the right has abandoned this whole apparatus from the ground up: politicians are forced to be ideological instead of practical, they have divorced themselves from rigorous thinkers and locked themselves in a media echo chamber, and scorn the very idea of government institutions as having relevance. Collectively, this has led conservatism to be irrelevant as a political or social force--it does not offer solutions to the problems Americans face. Moreover, it doesn't have the ability to state that there ARE problems Americans face. He notes that in their desperation to hand Obama a defeat on health care reform, conservatives risk marginalizing themselves for a generation as a party of obstructionists with no agenda of their own. He warns that Americans instinctively want both political AND social institutions to thrive and clearly want a strong civil society; the party that delivers these things will be the party in power.

Tanenhaus's remedy is that conservatives need to look back on their history, and rebuild the movement from the ground up if they are to be successful again. For starters, the movement needs to develop and pay attention to a new generation of thinkers--writers outside the echo chamber who once again develop arguments that make sense to non-conservatives. Such thinkers are out there--David Frum, for example or David Brooks--but they are frequently marginalized by ideologues. He also emphasizes the need for pragmatic politicians, noting that Teddy Roosevelt and Nixon both supported health care reform, and Regan passed huge budgets both when he was president and even when he was governor of California... because that was what was required.

And this brings back the question of how folks will react to this book, which throws down the gauntlet for the "practical" Republicans to regain control of their party. Limbaugh, the Teabaggers, and Hannity will probably denounce this book as a sellout, while Joe Scarborough will probably mail copies to everyone on his Christmas card list. I think it's masterful, and brilliantly articulates the dilemma faced by the Republican party. I cannot recommend it enough for every American, on either side of the ideological divide, who has any interest in politics.

This compact volume traces the current incarnation of the American movement conservatives who first began taking form during the New Deal years under FDR. These new thinkers crystallized during the 1950's under the watchful eye of William F. Buckley. 1968 marked the beginning of their ascent to power. With a brief dip in the ashes (the fall of Nixon), conservatism reached an apogee during the Reagan years. Then, according to the author, things began to fall apart.

He claims that the movement has been co-opted by "revanchist" activists who have driven away many of the true conservatives. These neo-conservatives are slashers and burners of the Rush Limbaugh ilk. They are not willing to work within the existing framework like a Barry Goldwater or a Whittaker Chambers, these revanchists are decidedly non-conservative in their attitude. For example, the spoken desire for Barack Obama's failure is a wish for this nation's failure and that is certainly an attitude that a classical conservative, a true conservative, would abhor.

Tanenhaus thinks conservatives must rebuild their strength and their focus to counterbalance the forces of resurgent liberalism. While the movement seems to be on life support as the "leaders" get more shrill and divisive while polarizing and disenfranchising the electorate, Tanenhaus sees a silver lining here; as the movement has faltered, the average American seems to be getting more conservative. Fresh vision and leadership could right the ship.

This was a brisk read and very enjoyable. I "read" the four hour audio book in a single session to and from my work destination. Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times book review does a great job differentiating the "movement" conservatives from conservatives like Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli. It is especially strong in its coverage of the 60's, especially William F. Buckley and interesting asides like highlights of the career of the late NY Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The book was too short. I felt attention should have been paid to thinkers like Leo Strauss, Alan Bloom, the think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and the transformation of New York in the Giuliani administration. Tanenhaus is correct in his assessment of the "noise makers" of today when held in contrast to those who sought to "conserve" social stability and civil society. The Tea Bagging "You lie" conservatives are the polar opposite of Edmund Burke. The Republicans and the right should retreat into the wilderness, read this book and emerge with a stronger vision that is relevant to today's politics. The left and the democrats should read this book to see the value of having a strong opposition to act as a corrective to ideological excess and a disregard of history.

My only complaint with this book is the misleading title. Indeed, I doubt Tanenhaus chose it, since he contradicts it in the text itself. Conservatism isn't dead, because we are almost all of us mixtures of liberal and conservative. Only ideologues are wholly one or the other.

Tanenhaus's argument is far more subtle than the triumph of liberalism (which, as a liberal, I vigorously deny). American politics - to the extent that it follows any ideology at all other than political pragmatism - is a constant dialogue between conservative and liberal, with a 5% dash of pure crazy thrown in. Tanenhaus is saying that one strain of conservatism is indeed dead - the neocon/Fox News kind. It's not dead in the sense that it hasn't followers, but it has no constructive ideas relevant to the problems at hand.

For example, the fiscal crisis of 2008-2009 was not ameliorated by the Friedman free market, but by massive (in my opinion, not nearly massive enough) bi-partisan government intervention to shore up the financial wreck. It was a such a great success, that neocons now argue that it wasn't necessary in the first place. Bull pockey. The effects still linger in the crushingly high unemployment rates and the weakness of both government and private sectors to do much to create jobs. The current crop of Congressional Republicans (and there really are no liberal Congressional Republicans) propose a solution of more tax cuts for the wealthy. Why on earth would this necessarily create jobs? We had the Bush Tax Cuts and we got ourselves in this mess precisely because the beneficiaries of those cuts didn't invest in their own businesses with an eye toward expansion. Instead, they downsized, even with the cuts. I don't fault the wealthy for wanting the cuts. We'd all like to pay less tax. However, I don't see how one can argue that it will inevitably spur growth. On the other hand, I don't hear much constructive coming from Conservative and Moderate Dems, either (liberal Democrats, I hate to break it to anybody, are extremely rare in Congress) - that is, something that will create market conditions that will tempt the private sector to reinvest in this country.

God knows there are opportunities out there - developing non-fossil-fuel energy technologies adequate to our consumption is certainly one of them. Yet no large manufacturing or engineering corporation have committed to this in a big way. No large US bank is investing in it. Instead, they're playing little games with pieces of paper and stripping their operations to maximize profit, rather than creating real wealth. This has been going on for 40 years, at least.

Tanenhaus talks about the roots of American Conservatism. He may be one of the few present-day writers on the topic (including, sadly, conservative ones) who's actually read Edmund Burke. He gives a lucid history of conservative thought in this country from pre-federal times. This is not a thick book. It's lean and brims with real scholarship and hard analysis, while reading as well as a New Yorker profile. The book flies straight to its targets. Above all, it doesn't bluster, and it doesn't content itself with a mere recitation of political catechisms. He points out great reasons to be conservative, which is one reason he wrote the book. He wants a strong argument from the conservative side, if only to make liberalism more rigorous and robust.

I remember 40 years ago, in the aftermath of Goldwater's defeat, when conservatives were the object of scorn and ridicule. There was a lot of reflexive and unthinking liberalism about, because the politically powerful conservative voices (as opposed to the intellectuals like William F. Buckley, George Will, and a lot of others) put up slogans, rather than arguments. This made liberalism rather mushy, because liberal truths seemed self-evident and certainly fuller of intellectual content. It ruined liberalism, in my opinion, for many decades until it finally became something other than common wisdom - rather, principles that needed justification. To a great extent, it's still pretty weak and vague as to principles. I, a liberal, can't define one. I do a little better with conservatives - that is, those conservatives who actually have a set of principles to defend, as opposed to the dumbo "conservatives" who wear funny hats and believe that mice have human brains or that a DNR document means fascist death panels and Muslims are the Anti-Christ. I suppose it's only fair. In the 60s we had a lot of dumbo liberals who believed that all government was evil and imperial and that everybody on the other side was a wingnut or a Nazi. Indeed, to me these times mirror the 60s - but it's a fun-house mirror. This doesn't mean the problems we face aren't grave. They are indeed, but we have a better chance of digging ourselves out of our current mess if we give up sloganeering and turn our best thinking, left and right, to solutions.

This book is precipitated, first, by the loss of the last presidential election by the inglorious Republicans, or pseudo-conservatives, but also by the disappearance of any semblance of true conservatism from national politics. Two things about the book: regardless of the ridiculousness of this brand of Republicanism, their demise is greatly exaggerated; secondly, the entire concept of "conservatism" is beset by misrepresentations.

The author's admission that most of us are both liberal and conservative helps little. Gordon Wood in "The Radicalism of the American Revolution" made the essential point that the formation of the United States was a liberal undertaking. We rejected kowtowing to kings, priests, feudal lords, etc. We emphasized equal liberty for all (initially, white men) and created a political community based on the participation of the common man to greater or lesser extent. We accept that "We, the People" will decide what measures will be undertaken by our government. We don't automatically accept old thinking and old ways of doing things, usually reinforced by social elites. It is totally nonsensical to speak of anti-government sentiment in a democracy when it is actually our responsibility to participate in gov and address our issues and advance the cause of ourselves, if not mankind.

The author makes an invidious comparison between the French Revolution and its Declaration of the Rights of Man versus our supposedly conservative, practical founding. Of course, he has to acknowledge that our own Declaration of Independence speaks of the equality and rights of men. There is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution attempted to rein in democracy, which actually testifies to our democratic instincts. Applying political labels is almost impossible. Were the Whigs, the forerunners to the Repubs, in their advocacy of gov intervention, liberal or conservative? Were the Jacksonians, forerunners to the Democrats, in their destruction of the Bank of the US and pro-Southernism, radical or conservative? The fact is that elements of preservation and change are part of any political era and of all parties.

But the fundamental change since the Age of Jackson that pertains to today's conservative-versus-liberal arguments, which the author neglects to note, is the rise of the mega-corporation and a corporate elite. This is not the "disinterested" colonial elite concerned with public service. No, their penetration and control of our government and culture has been so complete as to be virtually undetectable. The legal order, the very nature of work and employment, the flow of information - all of these are orchestrated by corporations with an interest in profits, not a virtuous, democratic social order. Traditional society and our mores have been far more affected by the push of huge businesses than any other factor. It is from this elite element that intense anti-gov rhetoric flows, while receiving massive amounts of gov services, if not outright welfare. Through their propaganda efforts, they have managed to convince sizeable segments of our society, evangelicals and working people, to name some, that adverse social and economic developments are due to gov excess. Of course, many others are closely tied to the self-interests of corporations.

Unfortunately, corporate capitalism, especially in its laissez-faire mode, has shown a great deal of instability through the years. The major depressions of 1877, 1893, and the early 1930s are only the tip of the iceberg - 2008-09 come to mind. We, the People have been forced to contend with the social destructiveness of capitalism through the only entity that has any power to contain their excesses, namely, government. This is where the labeling starts. When Progressives or New Dealers attempted to deal with corporate excess - this is "liberalism." When corporations want to continue their privileged place in society with no changes despite obvious social negativities - this is "conservatism." When a party attempts to sway our society to actually live up to emancipation laws adopted over one hundred years ago or to keep evangelicals out of public affairs - this is liberalism run amok. But to continue to ignore our founding principles concerning equality and keeping gov religion-free is supposedly conservative. Can both of these positions have equal legitimacy?

The author's examples of true conservatives are Edmund Burke and Disraeli. Curiously, neither was anti-government, per se. Burke was against the excesses of the French Revolution, though it's hard to see the appeal to Americans of a philosopher comfortable with monarchy - that's in opposition to our founding principles. The author notes that some so-called conservatives of recent vintage, such as Reagan and Nixon, despite their rhetoric, were very practical in their approach to gov, with Nixon even advocating a guaranteed income. They were not knee-jerk no-change agents. One might ask again, when a political party or person is acting in the best interests of the nation as a whole, what exactly is the difference between liberal and conservative? It is hard to argue against debate in a democracy - a two party system. Hopefully, it is all reasonable, transcending labels of liberal and conservative.

The author refers to the current Republican party as "movement" conservatism. In actuality, it is a radical libertarian party completely in thrall to the rich with an agenda of preserving/conserving the privileged position of corporations and their elites in American society. And they have managed to drag along millions of people who are upset with developments in the nation but who are too blind to see that it is these very corporations who have contributed most to their woes and complaints. Who, other than business elites, gratuitously downsize, ship jobs overseas, invite in millions of visa workers, cause a near economic collapse, produce salacious entertainment products, etc? One thing is absolutely certain, "movement" conservatives are not even close to being conservative in their regard for the social order.

The notion of the "death of conservatism" is quite ambiguous. The author does not clarify what it means to be conservative in a liberal, democratic order that specifically calls for the equality and rights of all men. Hopefully, a conservative is not one who supports the existence of elitism that is at best indifferent, or worse opposed, to the implementation of our fundamental principles. Secondly, there is no particular great insight in pointing out that the GW Bush presidency was a disaster for the nation economically and internationally. But there is not much evidence with which to contend that the corporate agenda is much diminished. The so-called liberal party has imposed few additional constraints on corporations despite their tendency to self-destruct and their acceptance of large amounts of taxpayer money. Only in times of highly skewed thinking, could the conservative demonization of liberals and gov continue nonstop despite the propping of the teetering corporate order. Unfortunately, given the corporate hegemony of our social and political order, rather than death, it is far more likely that the misconstrued "conservative" Republican Party will rise sooner than later.

Despite the brevity of the book and its vagueness, it does invite thinking about the nature of our politics - long overdue. For that reason, it is recommended.

I'm always suspicious of books that are titled, "The Death of...." or "The End of.....", but this book is a nicely outlined history of the conservative movement over the past sixty years or so. Author Sam Tanenhaus focuses on personalities such as William F. Buckley, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to assess where conservatives are today. It's not that they're nowhere to be found, but are lurking in all sorts of shapes and forms. Tanenhaus is at his best when he reminds us that not one major spending program was done away with during the Reagan years and the spendthrift ways of Bush 43 have put remaining conservatives in a tailspin. It's no wonder there is no conservative alternative to Barack Obama and it's not hard to imagine why. "The Death of Conservatism" is worth a read.

It's been awhile since I read this book. However, given the unfair comments on here I thought I should add my prospective. To begin with this is perhaps the worst titled book ever. The 'death' it speaks of is not a poltical death but a death of intellectual creativity and Mr. Tanenhaus has said that this is a culturally wide phenomenon not a circumstance isolated to conservatism. I tend to agree. Also, the book actually only deals in very small part on current politics and is instead a sort of survey of right wing political history and thought. It begins, in sixities and goes through the second term of Bush. In a later addition I would like to hear Tanenhaus, who has become a semiregular staple of it, speak about the at least partial push back that Salem radio network has given to the poltical culture of talk radio. As for the book itself it is highly readable but perhaps those who have read political philosophy and history in depth will likely find this overview unsubstantial. For anyone though looking for a general book about conservative history, I would highly recommend this.

Tanenhaus provides entertainment for complacent liberals by announcing that their critics are brain-dead. He does this by defining "conservatism" simply as desire to conserve institutions that already exist. Since US institutions have been shaped by liberalism for decades, liberals are now actually conservatives, and "movement conservatives" simply don't know what they're doing, either intellectually or politically: the 2008 election proved that they have no constituency. According to Tanenhaus, Barack Obama is actually a conservative (p. 117). Wow.

According to Tanenhaus, "on the great issues of the day [conservatives] are virtually silent". Tanenhaus himself is completely silent about e.g. Thomas Sowell and Theodore Dalrymple: no mention of them anywhere in the book.

This is a very flimsy book. Published in early 2009, it amounts to a "Mission Accomplished" banner for the victory of November 2008. The brains it must take to edit two sections of the NYT, as Tanenhaus does.

Tanenhaus has written a brief, yet powerful analysis of the origins and evolution of conservatism in America. His analysis focuses not on conservative "issues" but on the philosophical underpinnings of conservative politics and how these have been expressed over the ages-from Edmund Bruke, to Benjamin Disraeli, Willian F Buckley, Nixon, Reagan, and George W Bush. The point is, of course, to understand and explain the rise (and presumptive fall) of what Tanenhaus calls Movement Conservatism. In the end, the author succeeds in presenting a detailed and convincing thesis on where conservatism must go if it is to survive as a conserving, not destroying, force in American politics.

This book is a must-read for anyone interested in political theory, political philosophy, or contemporary American politics.

I find it curious that neither the author nor any reviewers make the distinction between conservative and reactionary.
True conservatives, like Burke, are essentially defenders of the status quo, while reactionaries, like many of the Tea Party supporters, argue in favor of turning back the clock--often to a mythical past. The left to right political spectrum runs --radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary. It seems that the concept of conservative and reactionary have become blurred. This distinction is precisely what the Republican party is struggling with.