At his speech to Republican Party state chairs today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele engaged in some fascinating name dropping.
First, he invoked three conservative legends: Edmund Burke, William Buckley, and Ronald Reagan. Burke is the intellectual founding father of conservatism; Buckley was its greatest American proponent; and Reagan its most compelling American icon. The renewal of the GOP couldn’t be based on a more stable foundation, and by invoking these three, Steele demonstrated a depth sorely lacking in other contemporary conservative figures.
Steele went on to suggest that Republicans should stop attacking Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tim Geithner, and Barney Frank and concentrate their fire on President Obama and his policies. Again, Steele demonstrated depth and directness where too many on the right have become loose cannons engaged in a circular firing squad.
Finally, Steele alluded to the two most toxic voices on the right, a “conservative talk radio host” and a “former vice president,” without actually naming them. While his criticism was implicit rather than explicit—testament to the ruthlessness and viciousness of both Limbaugh and Cheney—Steele clearly sees them as liabilities, and rightly so.
The fact that Cheney actually prefers Limbaugh over Colin Powell as the face of the party shows how out of touch the former veep has become. Limbaugh’s character alone should disqualify him from that role, while Powell’s is beyond reproach. Limbaugh is an entertainer with zero governing experience of any kind, while Powell has served as Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during nearly half a century of exemplary public service; how can any serious person even compare the two, much less dismiss Powell and lionize Limbaugh?
The most serious problem conservatism and the Republicans face is the success of shallow, mean-spirited, hyper partisan, McCarthyesque ideologues like Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage. These entertainers aren’t fit to shine the shoes of thoughtful figures like George Will, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan—the heirs of intellectual conservative giants like Buckley and Walter Lippmann.
If conservatism is to make a comeback, its leaders must go back to its roots in Burke’s foundational philosophy and Buckley’s brilliant rhetoric. Re-establishing conservatism’s intellectual integrity may be the first step towards finding its next Ronald Reagan.
With the exceptions of fundamentalists and senior citizens, the Republican Party is losing adherents across the board, but especially among the college-educated.
With a childish clown (and college dropout) like Rush Limbaugh as its most prominent voice, is it any wonder?
May 20, 2009 at 8:25 am |
Walter Lippmann, a founding editor of The New Republic, a president of the Socialist Club at Harvard, a man who consistently advocated a strong central government and a strong, imperial president — a conservative? You’re joking, right?
May 20, 2009 at 10:35 am |
Let’s ask Mr. Lippmann himself:
“I am a conservative. I think I always have been. But that doesn’t mean I’m a conservative who agrees with William Buckley. I hope and trust I’m a conservative who agrees with Edmund Burke. I believe in certain fundamental things in philosophy and constitutional law which are conservative…”
The young Lippmann was definitely a liberal, but the mature Lippmann opposed the New Deal and harshly condemned collectivism. He wasn’t the kind of exclusionary and shallow ideologue that dominates conservatism today. In fact, he despised McCarthyism, which has made quite a comeback in the last few years.
It makes no sense to kick Lippmann or Colin Powell to the curb because they didn’t or don’t pass the litmus tests of the Limbaugh wing of what’s left of American conservatism.
So no, I’m not joking, Mr. Owens. Are you going to tell Lippmann himself that he didn’t know his own political philosophy?
May 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for… So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.” – GOP Chairman Michael Steele
Hmmm… The GOP’s attempt to rally anti-gay sentiment with healthcare is repugnant. Almost all businesses providing healthcare only pay a portion of employee coverage and no part of dependent coverage, spouse or children. A spouse, male or female, makes absolutely no difference!
May 22, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
Having read five of his books and five about him, I stand by my statement. As one of his biographers said, a guy named Adams (forget first name at the moment), “There’s a red thread running through all of his work.”
There’s no doubt that Lippmann was always (even considered so among his socialist and progressive (liberal wouldn’t quite be the right word) peers) conservative in temperament (much like Obama), but he never lost his overweening appreciation for a large Federal government. His position on the New Deal can’t be boiled down to “against it.” He opposed some parts, approved others. He remained a fan of the Soviet Union, while deploring Stalanism. He found Eisenhower a disappointment. He supported aspirations of The Great Society while detesting Johnson and opposing the Vietnam War and supporting Civil Rights. He couldn’t stand Richard Nixon. In other words, his politics were complex and leaning more toward the pragmatic (which is a conservative impulse) rather than ideological.
Lippmann deserves no more of a place in the conservative pantheon than John Dewey.
And I would never identify Rush as a conservative. He’s a right-wing hack, more entertainer than pundit, who will say anything for ratings.
May 22, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
Maybe we can agree that Lippmann belongs somewhere between the reactionary Limbaugh and the progressive Dewey. I’ve read some of the back-and-forth between Lippmann and Dewey, in which Lippmann certainly comes off as the conservative foil to Dewey’s progressivism. I agree that “pragmatist” is an accurate label for Lippmann.
Two thoughts:
1. It’s a very good sign when one’s politics can’t be summed up with a simplistic dichotomy like lib/com. That speaks well of Lippmann’s intellectual depth.
2. The ideological debate these days looks more like professional wrestling (contrived confrontation, bifurcated and polarized, and dramatized/emotionalized for consumption) than an honest engagement on important public issues. Back when print was the dominant medium, thoughtful reflection backed the arguments of Lippmann and Dewey; these days, we get Sean Hannity yelling at (make that past) Michael Moore.
Good to have your input. Your blog (www.howardowens.com) is good reading for anyone interested in print journalism.
May 22, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
I steadfastly refuse to belong to any political party because of today’s level of partisanship, and the degree to which the major parties have been captured by nationalism and empire.
I’ve some philosophical differences with Lippmann on journalism (but mostly he’s been misunderstood and misrepresented both in journalism schools and by those who play up a non-existent Dewey vs. Lippmann debate), but chiefly I disagree with his own anti-local, nationalists views, his strong executive (read: imperial president) and willingness to let the Constitution mean whatever was expedient. He is really the godfather of today’s east coast liberal elite media.