SI cover features area model
Winter weather photos
Madison vs. Waynesville
Book Nook provides readers with insights into the world of books. Vick Mickunas takes you into the center of the publishing world with the latest book buzz, book reviews, and exclusive chats with authors..Home > Blogs > Book Nook > Archives > 2009 > August > 13 > Entry
Is conservatism dead?
Sam Tanenhaus wonders if the conservative movement has expired? Tanenhaus considers the issue in a new book coming out in September, THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM.
I interviewed Tanenhaus years ago on WYSO for his biography of Whittaker Chambers. We had a fascinating conversation about those long ago days of Alger Hiss, Tricky Dick Nixon, Roy Cohn, and a pumpkin filled with secrets.
Here’s a press release that gives the lowdown on this new book:
“Already discussed by George Will and George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week… and interviews confirmed for NPR’s All Things Considered MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and Charlie Rose, THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM is going to provoke debate on both the right and left.
Sam Tanenhaus is the editor of the New York Times Book Review and Week in Review and the prize-winning biographer of Whittaker Chambers. He is presently writing a biography of William F. Buckley. He regularly appears on MSNBC/Morning Joe and has written extensively for the New Republic and Vanity Fair.
Drawing on 20 years of research on modern conservatism, Tanenhaus has written a manifesto on what has gone wrong with the party and how conservatives today need to rediscover the roots of their honorable political tradition. THE DEATH OF CONSERVATISM shows that conservatism today is in fact a counter-revolutionary movement which seeks not to “conserve” the traditions of “civil society” but rather to destroy them through a politics of ideological warfare. Tanenhaus asks “why does the contemporary Right define itself less by what it yearns to conserve than by what it longs to destroy?” For seventy-five years, Tanenhaus argues, conservatives have been split between two factions: consensus-driven “realists” who believe in the virtue of government and its power to adjust to changing conditions, and movement “revanchists” who distrust government and society-and often find themselves at war with America itself, seeking revenge and retribution.”
And some blurbs:
“Taut, eloquent, provocative and carefully-argued, Sam Tanenhaus uses his mastery of American intellectual and political history to bring us a consistently original interpretation of our recent politics—and to suggest a way forward for American conservatives. The Death of Conservatism will almost certainly prove to be one of those rare books in American history that have a signal impact both on a political movement as well as the public at large.”— Michael Beschloss
“Today’s conservatives resemble the exhumed figures of Pompeii, trapped in postures of frozen flight, clenched in the rigor mortis of a defunct ideology.” -from The Death of Conservatism
Tanenhaus discusses the following:
The differences between the GOP and the conservative movement. They are not one and the same-and shouldn’t be. No party should become captive to a movement. The GOP allowed this to happen in the Bush years and must make sure it doesn’t happen again. For the moment almost every public spokesperson for the GOP comes directly out of the movement—Rush, Newt, Cheney, Palin. The nation has rejected them and the hard-edged accusatory politics they represent. The GOP must make it clear it is listening to the majority of the people and not to a small entrenched constituency.
Health care needs to be fixed. A majority of Americans are open to a nationally administered system. There is no authentically conservative reason to oppose it. This is an opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate they can govern responsibly by joining the majority, precisely as they did in 1964 when they helped passed the landmark civil rights bill.
Gay marriage and/or civil unions. A huge, missed opportunity for the GOP. Gay marriage is proof that the country is getting MORE, not less, conservative. A generation ago gays personified “alternative life styles.” Now they want to join the mainstream and uphold family values—and be responsible parents. What serious-minded conservative would oppose this?
The function of the minority or “moon” party is to keep a close watch on the governing (“sun”) party. How can conservatives do this? One way is make sure Obama-age liberalism doesn’t abandon the center and veer off into “left-liberalism”—that is, become the party of LBJ instead of FDR.
Foreign policy. The unilateralist, American-centric foreign policy of the Bush years was a failure. Why are conservatives like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and McCain trying to reestablish it in Iran even as more temperate Republicans like Richard Lugar and Henry Kissinger have praised Obama’s restraint?
“Sam Tanenhaus’s fascinating intellectual autopsy of the conservative movement comes along at just the right time to explain and illuminate this epic moment in American political history.” -Jeffrey Toobin
“Sam Tanenhaus has written a brilliantly penetrating analysis of the conservative movement’s collapse. It’s elegant, provocative and intellectually dazzling.”-Jane Mayer
“The Death of Conservatism is not another book by another liberal with a pornographic fascination with the American right. This is a work of wise and erudite reflection-political and social criticism of a classical kind. Tanenhaus writes with calm authority about ideas and power; about movements and parties, and the momentous difference between them; about the glory, and the decay, of the other counterculture of our times. His book is a service to liberalism, and to conservatism, and to America.” -Leon Wieseltier
Vick Mickunas
Permalink | Comments (30) | Post your comment | Categories: politicked
Comments
By Rob
August 15, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
Alaskan, there is no profit in denying history. Reagan took office when the tax code included obscene high end marginal tax rates. He identified that as a principal problem in the Carter recession and fixed it. You can’t talk to a single serious banker from the 1980’s who won’t tell you that Volker’s monetarist policies were largely the right ones, and using money supply strategies as a focal point worked. You can’t realistically compare Bush and Reagan tax policy. Reagan took high marginal tax rates down, Bush took low rates lower and added exemptions. Reagan actually added tax revenues over the long term. Bush did this while fighting a a war of adventure. Reagan’s tax policies were much more responsible than Bush’s. And by the way - there was credible reporting on NPR just yesterday about how California handled the crack epidemic (three strikes) is a major burden on the current state budget - we can’t afford our prisons. I think Reagan had been dead long before that mess hit the fan. But blame him if you like. At the end of the day - I think the point of Vick’s review is that if you compare Reagan’s brand of conservatism (see a problem, fix it) to the current brand (blame the other side for everything, just say no, maintain ideology above all else) - it’s legitmate to wonder if they’re not doomed.By irishguy
August 14, 2009 8:11 PM | Link to this
Mark, maybe your not a big college football fan, but I saw it as a sports metaphor. I’ve heard several used in political discussions. “Ball’s in their court” “Step up to the plate” “Swing and a miss” etc, etc. Granted, reloading is something one does with one’s firearms, but that never crossed my mind ‘till you mentioned it. BTW, who’s the nutty ESPN anchor with the sign?By Mark from St Paul
August 14, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this
Why would anyone refer to their political movement as if it was a gun and its members were bullets?By irishguy
August 14, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
Mark, as opposed to Ted making unrealized threats, is it possible you’re reading things into his comments that aren’t there. The term “Reloading” is quite common in reference to perennial college football powerhouses like our OSU Buckeyes. Just because one is a conservative doesn’t mean one is advocating armed mayhem. I’m sure Ted was talking about developing new leaders and policies.By Mark from St Paul
August 14, 2009 12:01 PM | Link to this
Ted, most people would consider your remark about “reloading” to be a veiled threat. Reloading may be used by ESPN, but I wasted fifteen minutes on google ascertaining that ESPN doesn’t use it in the same breath as the word dead. Reloading is something you do with a gun. When ESPN says it, they’re using gun terminology and I’m pretty sure they’re careful to put it in a context that makes clear that ESPN isn’t talking about shooting someone. The links are to the death threats at townhalls. Talk radio has ratcheted up the violent rhetoric to the point where apparently you, Ted, don’t even realize you’re issuing threats. I’m sure that you’re just using language like Rush uses every day. And this all speaks to Tanenhaus’s point: the current Republican party has been radicalized to the point where you can’t even have a conversation without things getting ugly. You can’t have it both ways. Either Republicans aren’t conservatives, or conservatives have been blowing up federal buildings, assassinating abortion doctors, killing women at their aerobics classes and shouting down elected officials at townhall Q&A sessions. Seriously, you’re better off conceding Tanenhaus’s point and backing away from the radicals as fast as you can. And in the context of this comment thread, how would you interpret my saying, “I’m not done yet, just pausing to reload”?By irishguy
August 14, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this
Ted, the links were to the huffington post and think progress. As my father used to say: “consider the source”By Rob
August 14, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this
Ted - evidently, liberals don’t have a corner on character assassination. I just read a Limbaugh piece. While at no point in this specific polemic does he make (or even attempt) a salient, cogent argument with respect to health care reform (although he does repeatedly assail the notion and applaud individuals for grinding town hall meetings to standstills), he does take numerous shots at the administration. He claims they are just like Nazis, and their policies are very similar to the National Socialist movement of 1930s Germany. Now I am familiar with history, and I think it’s more than a stretch for anyone who knows anything about the two “organizations” (the current U.S. adminstration and the National Socialist party) to keep a straight face and declare an honest comparison. There are absolutely no plausible points of comparison. However, the right over the past ten days persists in this ridiculous notion. Why? well, one valid point of view works like this. Mr. Limbaugh may perhaps have a cynical view of his audience, and may assume that they’ll believe darn near anything he tells them without critical analysis. If he tells them the administration are Nazis, then they don’t know or care what a Nazi was/is, they only know they were bad and evil. QED, character assassination from the right. And by the way, this is where the conservative movement continues to go wildly off the rails. The Republican party claims a pro-business bent. If there is any constituency in America in need of managed, predictable expense levels in health care, it is U.S. business. You don’t need to look much further than GM to figure that out. So why don’t the Republicans seize the opportunity and take the lead on this issue? I suspect an honest assessment would have something to do with financing campaigns a la campaign contributors, and keeping the base placated. In short, the past two Democratic adminstrations have tried to address this problem. The past two Republican administrations have refused to acknowledge the problem exists.By Ted
August 14, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
Irishguy, There was no ESPN announcer arrested for carrying an Anti-Obama sign. Mark made up the incident for the purpose of appearing dillusional. It worked. Mark, Take another sip of your koolaid, turn on MSNBC and stay away from the keyboard for awhile.By irishguy
August 14, 2009 9:21 AM | Link to this
Mark, I checked out your links, but didn’t see a reference to ESPN. They listed the fellow as “unidentified”. Who was he?By Mark from St Paul
August 13, 2009 7:46 PM | Link to this
Would that be the ESPN that talks about refreshing the backfield of liberty with the blood of linemen? [http://tinyurl.com/msnzbn] Or the ESPN announcer arrested for carrying a sign saying “Death to Obama” on one side and “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids” on the other? [http://tinyurl.com/qomsvw]By downsized
August 13, 2009 6:48 PM | Link to this
Typical caveman response from Raoul. His form of conservatism, good. Anything he deems liberal, bad. He was one of the conservatives fiddling while Rome burned. Have you no compassion for the countless WORKING Americans suffering because of a healthcare system priced beyond their means? You are truly a “let them eat cake”, FAKE conservative. Truly patriotic Americans don’t let their fellow citizens suffer this way. What you sow, I hope you reap.By alaskanriley
August 13, 2009 6:25 PM | Link to this
Seems like the budget legacy of Reagan is in the process of utterly destroying California. And if you think the present administration’s deficits are bad, - a gift from the “conservatives” mind you - why just go back to Ronnie to see how it was done before the “liberals” dug us out with the 90’s. I know that everyone reveres Reagan but his economic policies are similar to Bush - speak loudly, spend foolishly and cheat. This is the president who demanded the wall come down when the country behind the wall was falling over from expansionism and foreign adventures - sound familiar? Reagan’s platitudes have been co-opted by every wing nut around and I’m sick of it. The guy was a tool of the right wing who put a sheen of righteousness on a corrupt part of our past. Or was his failure to address things like the Iran Contra connection and the crack epidemic just a fluke? Ronnie was a B grade actor with A level handlers, unfortunately they don’t seem to act for our America but their own agenda.By Ted
August 13, 2009 6:11 PM | Link to this
Mark you’re a genius. That quote is straight off ESPN when they typically describe a team after a good recruiting year. Nice try though and the Tim McVeigh mention was special. Character assassination 101 was not your best class…obviously.By Mark from St Paul
August 13, 2009 5:12 PM | Link to this
“Conservatism isn’t dead…it was re-loading.” I couldn’t have come up with a better summation of what Tanenhaus and I are saying. That’s straight out of the NRA-fronted gun industry’s literature and Good Ol’ Boys 101. In fact I googled it to make sure it wasn’t a Tim McVeigh quote because it certainly has that ring to it.By Raoul
August 13, 2009 4:44 PM | Link to this
Vick, I think I will check this one out and get back to you. However, it seems like another example of what I think is going on in this country. There is a lot of dodgeball going on, with the media trying to focus people on the collapse of conservativism while behind the scenes the left is trying hard to seize the moment and transform this country. The pendelum always swings, and it will swing back. Once people realize that America really is special, that our standing for liberty and freedom is worth preserving, and that granting too much power to the government is the granddaddy of all dealbreakers, liberal politics will lose it’s luster. America produces winners and losers, but the promise and opportunity of winning sets us apart. I think true conservatives understand that. I don’t think liberals do.By Blowfly
August 13, 2009 4:37 PM | Link to this
Is conservatism dead? Reminds me of that scene from Monty Python - Bring out your dead, I’m not dead yet, thwack. Every day I watch the right merge with the conspiracy theorists and wonder if the democrats are smart enough to just keep giving them enough rope.By Rob
August 13, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this
Alaskan, I’m with you to a point, but I’m not sure I can entirely agree. The conservative movement I signed up for during the Reagan era was anything but an exercise in looking back. It was a progressive leaning and thoughtful movement which offered ideas in response to challenge. Now obviously, with thirty years hindsight, there is room for reasonable people to disagree as to how many of these ideas turned out to be good or bad. However, your point of view suggests an organic stagnation of conservatism from that time and I cannot agree. There hasn’t been a “falling apart” as much as there has been a falling away. This departure from the center was done with clear eyed calculation. My own experience is that the conservative movement sold its soul as it worried more about winning elections than about moving the nation forward.By downsized
August 13, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this
alaskanriley makes some excellent observations. The tired euphemisms of label-philosophies no longer apply. The once proud brands of liberal and conservative have morphed beyond recognition. We need a return to citizen representatives who are not the best money can buy. We need to re-examine what Democrats and Republicans really advocate. We need serious review of obstacles preventing alternatives to the stranglehold of a two party system. We need full disclosure of which elected officials are “owned” by whom. If we ever needed a free and investigative press, it’s now. We need courage and a liberated viewpoint devoid of past politics and free flowing lobbyist hush money.By alaskanriley
August 13, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this
I’m reminded that yesterday’s conservative is today’s liberal. Society changes over time and the defining characteristics of these various “isms” alter like clockwork. The isolationist of the 1930’s was the same kind of guy that thought England was the cat’s meow in the Civil War. This same thinker today is the world’s policeman. That turned out well. Liberals merely think different. Conservatives think back. Neither is necessarily correct, but both forget the one primary rule. Everything falls apart without repair, rehabilitation and renewal. We need a new naming nomenclature to describe folks who want to fix what’s broken and clear away the entrenched interests who benefit from the broken processes of the past. It would be really nice if we could model this new effort in a civil manner. I miss Bill Buckley and I think his comments on the Palinistas, Rushbots and the two faced newts would be immensely entertaining.By Rob
August 13, 2009 1:38 PM | Link to this
Ted, I think you are making the point I was trying to make - albeit by example instead of exposition. What profit is there in refusing honest self examination and honest criticism?By vick
August 13, 2009 1:33 PM | Link to this
Alright, Ted, so are you predicting that this book will be a best-seller, too? After all, it is a book about conservatism written by a conservative. His purpose? To save true conservatism.By Ted
August 13, 2009 1:15 PM | Link to this
On the contrary, Mark from St Paul, I know plenty of liberals and very few can defend their position without resorting to character assissinations. Americans primarily are Conservative, honest polling shows this time and time again. Conservatism isn’t dead, far from it, it’s the Left trying to convince themselves that it is. Conservative books are best sellers, Conservative news outlets have the highest ratings and citizens who thought they were Liberals are resisting the march toward Socialism. Conservatism isn’t dead…it was re-loading.By william
August 13, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this
Is conservatism dead? I sure hope so. Long live progress.By Rob
August 13, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this
Thanks for the review, Vick. I have been deeply dismayed by the slow, almost tortured death of conservative intellectualism over the past decade. Maybe this will help those of us who share that particular sympathy figure out what the heck happened?By Mark from St Paul
August 13, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this
So what you’re saying Ted is that you know what’s in every liberal’s heart, even though you don’t sound like you know any? Sounds like you’re EXACTLY the kind of counter-revolutionary, pseudo-conservative Tanenhaus is writing about! Having grown up in one of the most conservative corners of Iowa, I understand conservatism very well, and appreciate how the Republican party went off its rails with Nixon’s Southern strategy. Conservatism isn’t about racism, and it’s most certainly not about manufactured distractions (Birthers, Deathers, Dick Cheney stabbing Bush in the back [see today’s WaPost]). This counter-revolution has its roots in old style Southern Democratic politics, and that cess has destroyed the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt style conservation, and America’s proud tradition of isolationism.By Alice
August 13, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this
“The Death of Conservatism is not another book by another liberal with a pornographic fascination with the American right.” I love this. The title of the book alone turned me on…By irishguy
August 13, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
As much as you’d miss us, I don’t think we conservatives are going away anytime soon Vick. As a matter of fact I noticed 3 of the top 5 on the NYT best sellers list are conservative books. (Malkin, Levine, & Morris) so there must be quite a few of us reading them. I’m guessing Mr Tanehaus isn’t cracking the top 10.By Ted
August 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this
Not sold on the idea that the Right is at war with America. No matter the intellect, it’s not a credible statement. A more credible observation would be to say the Leftist’s agree that America is always wrong, no criminal is guilty of a crime (it’s their upbringing) and a government solution is the only solution.By vick
August 13, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this
Good point, LMJ-yes, despite the fact that Tanenhaus works for (gasp!) the New York Times, he has always been a conservative in my book. He writes about the things that he knows, mainly conservative subjects. His upcoming bio of Bill Buckley is one more example…By lmj
August 13, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this
Thanks for the heads-up on this one, Vick. It does look like a winner. I think I was sold seeing that Tanehaus wrote it - prejudiced as I am.