The Controversy Over The Anatomy Of A Conservative Mind

'Vitruvian Man' by Leonardo da Vinci ca.1492, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice

A controversy has exploded in the Blogopshere over Professor Jeffrey Hart's article in the Wall Street Opinion Journal about "whether conservatives are often inclined to a kind of free-market utopianism (depending on how you define utopianism, of course they are), whether the pro-life cause is hopeless (Hart thinks so; he's probably wrong) - and the question of whether conservatism has grown, well, dumber over the past fifty years. Hart implies as much, when he writes that the Republican Party:

has stood for many and various things in its history. The most recent change occurred in 1964, when its center of gravity shifted to the South and the Sunbelt, now the solid base of "Republicanism." The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture

He cheekily claimes an anti-intellectual influence of the South and West on the GOP, which sets a few people into a spin, and gets a not so surprising nod of approval from Matt Yglesias:

You can give that a highly pejorative reading that I imagine conservatives will want to dispute, but the basic point here seems very clear-cut to me. Can anyone seriously dispute that the vast majority of America's premiere institutions of education and high culture are located in the "blue" areas? That's not to say the South is some kind of total wasteland -- I visited the Fort Worth Modern Art Museum earlier this year and it's first-rate, albeit a bit small -- but on the whole this stuff is primarily in the Northeast and to a lesser extent on the Pacific coast. At the same time, these institutions used to be bastions of conservatism and now -- as conservatives are wont to complain -- go the other way politically.

Jonah Goldberg: "It only seems fair someone bash the upper midwest. They get left out of all this stuff. Yeah, yeah. Nice people. But let's not forget the folks in Wisconsin alone have, for the last century or so, exported far more socialism than they've been able to consume domestically.
[...]
I have criticized the creeping populism of the right many, many times. But there's more to be said about the blue areas. Much of the truly successful anti-intellectualism in this country comes from blue areas. The low culture typified by the worst products of television and music come from the coasts, from rap music to trashy movies and sitcoms. Moreover there is a self-styled "sophisticated" strain of anti-intellectualism which runs through our premiere institutions of culture as well. "

Ramesh Ponnuru vehemently disagrees:

The Medicare vote in 2003 provides a test case. Were Southern Republicans less likely to vote against it than non-Southerners? No. One-third of the limited-government dissenters in the Senate GOP were Southerners, as were a third of GOP senators generally. Southern House Republicans were slightly more likely than non-Southern Republicans to vote against it. And these numbers understate the limited-government proclivities of Southern Republicans, since some of the dissenting non-Southerners wanted a more generous benefit (e.g., Lincoln Chafee) or had other objections to the bill (e.g., Gil Gutknecht).

Andrew Sullivan:

Of course the bastions of intellect and high culture in the U.S. are primarily located in the Blue States, and most of our intellectual mandarins tend to be Democrats and liberals. But this is hardly a change from the 1950s, before the South-Sunbelt shift took place, is it? Conservatism of any stripe has always been a minority view among the American intelligentsia - and if anything, the Southern turn of the GOP coincided with a dramatic increase in the number and caliber of conservative intellectuals, as various once-liberal thinkers abandoned a Democratic Party that seemed to have drifted too far left.
[...]
The alliance between conservatism, as it was once understood, and the historically Democratic American South is, in my view, a brilliant maneuver for gaining political power, but something that has mortally wounded the tradition of limited government, individual rights, balanced budgets, political prudence and religious moderation that were once hallmarks of conservatism.

So what about a more Libertarian Republican Party? A more libertarian conservatism? In all probability wouldn't be able to put together any kind of sizeable majority, at least not for the foreseeable future. A successful conservatism that was based in the Northeast and Midwest, balanced the budget, shrank the government, protected the environment and beauty, and made its peace with legal abortion?

There's a reason for the GOP's big-government turn in the last decade, and it's not just malice, corruption and incompetence, it's that some kind of a big-government turn is what the American people wanted from the post-Gingrich Right.

Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000 not in spite of, but because of his willingness to promise spending increases, to co-opt Democratic ideas on Health Care and Education, and to invent an effective language of "compassionate conservatism."

Professor Bainbridge:

This is a distinct challenge for American conservatism, especially the Anglophile strain represented by Russell Kirk, which looks back to English Tories like Edmund Burke for historical precedent and guidance. American conservatism thus finds itself torn between the polar extremes of nativists desperate to preserve a purported Anglo-American culture and open borders business types who seem to care nothing for cultural traditions (think National Review versus WSJ editorial board). One hopes for a middle ground, in which American remains open to anyone who embraces the "American idea," regardless of race or creed, while also striving to ensure assimilation to that idea.

A brilliant summary of all the arguments is made by Marc @ Spinning Clio, who attempted to livebolg the debate:

"I attempted to "liveblog" a running commentary and debate amongst different bloggers across different blogs about different aspects of the same topic. The topic was a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Jeffrey Hart. My goal was to see if your typical, everyday cross-blog debate would make more sense if it was organized and structured in more of a traditional format. I think it does. But it was a lot of work. In the end, I think such an aggregation provides useful context for someone interested in reviewing and deliberating the topic discussed."

Sigmund Carl & Alfred has some pertinent questions for Professor Hart to address:

    * If the population centers of the northeast/west coast are the centers of intellectualism and the arts, why are so many from outside the area so successful?
    * Along those same lines, why aren't there more 'home grown' success stories?
    * Why are the education levels in these centers and bastions of the arts, so poor?
    * Why do so many business leaders and government leaders hail from small towns?
    * Why are do many Nobel Prize winners come from decidedly non 'center of the universe' towns and cities?

My new best friend Steve @ Secure Liberty disects Hart with a surgeon's knife and does an inter alia slam dunk:

"Hart turns sanctimonious and smug as he insults those from outside of the Blue State centers as lacking in intellectualism and culture. He seems to be considering only certain types of education, intellect and culture, and on that basis he's right. Boston has more classical music performances annually than any city in teh world other than Vienna. I bet it doesn't have nearly as many country music performances as Nashville...or even lowly Branson, Missouri. Hart says earlier in his piece, "[m]en do not all desire the same things", and yet he conveniently ignores this in deciding which "culture" he considers valid. Is a fine French restaurant in Manhattan culturally superior to a fantastic BBQ/Ribs restaurant in Georgia? Who says? I guarantee you I'd prefer the latter."

And now let us give Professor Jeffrey Hart  the last word:

The Conservative Mind is a work in progress. Its deviations and lunges to ideology and utopianism have been self-corrected by prudence, reserved judgment as an operative principle, a healthy practical skepticism and the requirement of historical knowledge as a guide to prudent policy. Without a deep knowledge of history, policy analysis is feckless.

And it follows that the teachings of books that have lasted--the Western tradition--are essential to the Conservative Mind, these books lasting because of their agreements, disagreements and creative resolutions. It is not enough for conservatives to repeat formulae or party-line positions. The mind must possess the process that leads to conservative decisions. As a guide, the books, and the results of experience, may be the more difficult way--much more difficult in a given moment than pre-cooked dogma, which is always irresistible to the uneducated. Learning guards against having to reinvent the wheel in political theory from one generation to the next.

The arguments spill over both sides of the Blogosphere, and get quite a few blogers up in arms, and the others licking their lips as if they have just tasted the best Italian truffle:

Anchor Rising, The Dumb Ox, Legal Fiction, Donklephant, The Green Knight, Shakespeare's Sister, Big Brass Blog Armavirumque The New Criterion Joseph Knippenberg @ No Left Turns (check out the comments section)

Comments

[little cicero]

The best approach to dissecting conservatism is categorizing different types of conservatism.

Economic conservatism consists of individuals who want to downsize government and lower taxes in order to instate a free-market economy. Former Goldwaterites included, these conservatives are not neccesarily social conservatives, and may be lost to libertarianism if Big Government Republicans overtake the Republican Party.

Social Conservatism consists of individuals who are upset with the modern social apathy toward traditional and religious standards, and would like the law to assist in setting up much needed decency barriers. Consisiting in large part of Bible Belt residents and other religious people, social conservatives will go with whichever party is pro-life and reliable on a handful of other such issues.

John Wayne Conservatism consists of individuals who recognize evil in the world and feel an obligation to destroy it. Unilateral action may be used if needed and it is recognized that without military power, there is no diplomatic power. Murderers deserve to be killed at home and abroad, and other criminals are not treated harshly enough. This faction consists of Southerners in large part, as well as law enforcement workers and those in the military, and anyone else who has come face to face with evil.

[David]

Rambling reply. :-)

With respect, I don't think "anti-intellectual influence of the South and West" is a spot on summation of "The consequences of that profound shift are evident, especially with respect to prudence, education, intellect and high culture."

Background: as a "Southerner" or "Westerner" I am more so than most, bemoaning the fact that Lincoln's War killed the thing it was pledged to save...

:-)

Recognizing that "All generalizations are false, including this one"...

Indeed the West and South do not share the Northeastern or Beltway view of... Northeaster and Beltway pseudo-intellectual elitism, and in that regard are very much anti-intellectual and anti-"high culture" (the same "high culture" that views a crucifix in a jar of urine as "art"). Because the general culture of the South and West respects and even to some extent reveres and attempts to live by the well-established values of Western Civilization that Northeastern/Beltway are antithetical to, Northeastern/Beltway inhabitants (and yes, light-in-their-loafers Left-Coasters) see that culture as inferior.

Wrong.

Postmodernism, deconstructualism, central rule by an alite, relativism, radical feminism, trash represented as "art" and and all the other trappings of Northeastern/Beltway "culture" are anathema to the fundamental West/South ethos, and rightly so.

But lacking prudence? There, Hart unintentionally mocks Northeastern/Beltway culture. Prudence is a virtue made obvious by its absence from NE/B intellectualism, education and culture!

And speaking of education... aren't the failures of public education in the U.S. largely thye result of contributions from the "intellects" of the Northeastern/Beltway culture?

But as to other points of Hart's essay, well, who's to argue that conservatives largely... aren't, really. Or that much of conservative thought is... vapid. Nearly as vapid as almost all of so-called liberal or "progressive" thought of at least the last 50 years?

Bah. A pox on them all. :-) As represented in the current major parties, conservatism and liberalism are both dead. Liberalism has been swallowed by its own self-made stupidity based on pseudo-intellectual fantasy and conservatism by its own version of stupidity: greed coupled with a lack of moral testosterone.

[Darrell]

The elite Left refers to everything between the coasts as fly-over country. Their knowledge of these mysterious places is akin to reports coming back from deepest darkest Africa in the 19th century. Reading his orginal article, I don't agree with many of his points. I bet he is finding out today that original thought is alive and well throughout this great country of ours.

[D. Ox]

Great post Alexandra. Your blog is getting better and better. Sorry I don't stop by more often.

The National Review and Wall Street Journal dichotomy is a very good illustration of the range of "conservative" opinion. They are more aptly the poles of a spectrum of opinion. Beyond those poles there are reactionaries, with both feet glued to the past, and anarcho-libertarians, that are truly free-market utopians.

This variety is not a liability but rather a strength in our opinion. Despite dopey dem caricatures and neo-lib venemous lies about conservatives, conservatives actually debate things. We guess those on the left have forgotten about that dialogue thing that they used to go on and on about on their way into the seats of power in academia, Hollywood, and the Democrat party.

Fear and hatred? Oh we suppose that the neo-libs and dopey dems love us all then. Pretty hilarious.

Charles Krautheimer put it best: Conservatives think Liberals are not too bright, even if their heart might be in the right place. Liberals think Conservatives are evil.

Duh. Oh, sorry for that hateful expletive. I'm such a hateful hater, I'd better go join a neo-lib hater hater group. They know how to really hate hate. (and fear fear, no doubt)

Visit our blog for more lively banter.

D. Ox

http://thomistic.blogspot.com

[David Steinman]

Hats off to the responders of " The Controversy".
I appreciate Spinning Cleo for his systematics, and to "All Things" for giving him proper encouragment.
The response of Grim's Hall to Spinning Cleo appropriately took the discussion to the level of personal virtue.

We will continue to better understand the issue of the Reds and the Blues at the level of awareness
of individual virtue. While it may be seen as a stretch, elites of the Blue states have great difficulty in appreciating what Grim's Hall is talking about.

Dave Steinman

[Randy]

I have been blessed, as a part of my job, to travel all around the United States. I have been on over seventy planes alone this year. I was also blessed to have been raised in the South between Texas and Tennessee. I currently reside in Florida.

I meet lots of people and they are pretty much the same all across the country. The things they are interested in are different but the way they approach thinking through issues and discussing issues are pretty much equal on an intellectual level.

At the same time, I don't find a difference in intellectualism among the regions but in elitism. I think the coasts contain many elitists who want to justify their elitism by labeling it intellectualism. The truth is that they are judging the South, mid-west and west as inferior and want to feel good about doing so.

[Darrell]

Socialism, in its many forms, rots you from the outside in, as well as the inside out. To greed, fear, and hatred add envy. That's why today's Dems preach class hatred and seek to divide America into an infinite number of irreconcilable parts.

Modern technology is letting more Conservative voices to be heard, nothing more. We get to avoid the gatekeepers of the MSM. When so few Conservative voices were heard, like William F. Buckley, it was easy to make the mistake that Conservatism was equated with elitism. And Dems never let that go unmentioned. But it was only an artifact of gatekeepers. I'm glad the Left never 'gets' Rush Limbaugh. He is not the formulator of positions and opinions, he only broacasts what we are already saying. And thinking. The Web has opened up a whole new forum for these thoughts to be heard. Too bad these comment boxes don't have spell checkers! Or editors. That might explain the difference by itself.

[Scott]

It is a mistake to connect the rise of the Republican Party to any particular social or economic philosophy. The fact is, most people are less philosophical and more defensive. The South rallied to the Republicans because the Democratic socialist/atheist/defeatist drift started by FDR became a threat to the South, Midwest or everyone else in the hinterlands.

People just don't think in terms of "If we exceed x% of GNP dedicated to social reform, we are in danger of being socialists." What they see is,

"my child is learning a load of crap at school, the teachers are a bunch of commies, and the future is pretty grim if those teachers are successful in brainwashing my child. And maybe they are successful. Look at the abortion rate/illegitimacy rate/drug use/etc."
Or
"Look at the effects of welfare. Housing projects just make it easier to sell drugs/sex/violence. Welfare creates more welfare recipients. I don't want to pay for somebody's drug use/illegitimate children/etc."
Or
"The Democrats are run by a bunch of people who want to punish success/make America a third rate power/destroy the Christian values/etc."

It is also too early to tell what will happen to the "elite" areas vs. "non-elite" areas. Re: "Can anyone seriously dispute that the vast majority of America's premiere institutions of education and high culture are located in the "blue" areas?" The reason is that when these premiere institutions were created, the societies that created them were socially, culturally, religiously and economically conservative. A Harvard education was once truly elite, and the public's view of institutions like Harvard doesn't change very fast. Example: is the New York Times really the "Paper of Record" or did they just happen to be that once upon a time, and they are still carried by some impression that is no longer true?

Can you really get a better education at liberal Harvard/Princeton/University of (anything) California, or did that change in the last 40 years, and they are still riding a wave of opinion, etc?. Or think of it this way. 40 years ago, the education at those institutions was probably first class. Then the change started. All of the tenured professors who may have been liberal but still believed in quality were eventuall replaced by professors who were liberal, and believed that their liberal views were quality. The decline is maybe 15-20 years old, but a lot of people haven't accepted the fact that a liberal education at these institutions is crap. And the "trade" courses of these institutions are still pretty good: engineering, business/accouting, law, architecture, and so on.

Successful social change is really pretty slow, and that's probably a good thing. But change is usually caused by some gut reaction of good and evil, not a detailed analysis of cultural trends. Successful political movements have leaders that can capture the hearts of the people. The minds of the people usually follow their values.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Measuring conservatives by Joseph Marshalls yardstick goes two ways. My point was that using his yardstick, liberals offer nothing different- and certainly nothing superior.

[Paul Dirks]

Did anyone just notice that Sigmund et.al. just proved Joseph Marshall's point!

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred trackback

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

"Modern conservatism is on its best display in Rush Limbaugh or his many media clones"

Might we say that modern liberalism is on its best display in Michael Moore, Al Franken and Barbra Streisand, or any of their clones?

[Joseph Marshall]

This is essentially a tempest in a teapot. But then most "explosions in the Blogosphere" are, for we write in a very tiny teapot, indeed. Modern conservatism is on its best display in Rush Limbaugh or his many media clones, Ann Coulter, and James Dobson--for any perusal of the comment pages of any Conservative blog will show you that the views as expressed are largely defined by the people whom the writer hates or fears, and not by any well thought out intellectual framework.

Whether in foreign policy or domestic disagreement, it's real dynamic is that of an "enemies list".

And this is my own moral critique of it: the emotional bases of Conservatism in any but its rather aridly intellectual Libertarian forms consists of three emotions: greed, fear, and hatred.

All three are morally bad for you. They really are. They rot you from the inside.

[stackja1945]

Bush "compassionate conservatism" or Goldwater "uncompassionate conservatism."
Bush won two elections, Goldwater did not.