The Conservative Mind By DAVID BROOKS September 24, 2012
When I joined the
staff of National Review as a lowly associate in 1984, the magazine, and the
conservative movement itself, was a fusion of two different mentalities.
On the one side, there
were the economic conservatives.
These were people that anybody following contemporary Republican politics would
be familiar with. They spent a lot of time worrying about the way government
intrudes upon economic liberty. They upheld freedom as their highest
political value. They admired risk-takers. They worried that excessive
government would create a sclerotic nation with a dependent populace.
But there was another
sort of conservative, who would be less familiar now. This was the traditional conservative,
intellectual heir to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, Clinton Rossiter and Catholic
social teaching. This sort of conservative didn’t see society as a battleground
between government and the private sector. Instead, the traditionalist wanted
to preserve a society that functioned as a harmonious ecosystem, in
which the different layers were nestled upon each other: individual,
family, company, neighborhood, religion, city government and national
government.
Because they were
conservative, they tended to believe that power should be devolved down to the
lower levels of this chain. They believed that people should lead disciplined,
orderly lives, but doubted that individuals have the ability to do this alone,
unaided by social custom and by God. So they were intensely interested in
creating the sort of social, economic and political order that would encourage
people to work hard, finish school and postpone childbearing until marriage.
Recently the blogger
Rod Dreher linked to Kirk’s essay, “Ten Conservative Principles,” which
gives the flavor of this brand of traditional conservatism. This kind of
conservative cherishes custom, believing that the individual is foolish but the
species is wise. It is usually best to be guided by precedent.
This conservative
believes in prudence on the grounds that society is complicated and it’s
generally best to reform it steadily but cautiously. Providence moves slowly
but the devil hurries.
The two conservative
tendencies lived in tension. But together they embodied a truth that was put
into words by the child psychologist John Bowlby, that life is best
organized as a series of daring ventures from a secure base.
The economic
conservatives were in charge of the daring ventures that produced economic
growth. The traditionalists were in charge of establishing the secure base — a
society in which families are intact, self-discipline is the rule, children are
secure and government provides a subtle hand.
Ronald Reagan embodied
both sides of this fusion, and George W. Bush tried to recreate it with his
compassionate conservatism. But that effort was doomed because in the ensuing
years, conservatism changed.
In the polarized
political conflict with liberalism, shrinking government has become the
organizing conservative principle. Economic conservatives have the money and
the institutions. They have taken control. Traditional conservatism has gone
into eclipse. These days, speakers at Republican gatherings almost always use
the language of market conservatism — getting government off our backs,
enhancing economic freedom. Even Mitt Romney, who subscribes to a faith that
knows a lot about social capital, relies exclusively on the language of market
conservatism.
It’s not so much that
today’s Republican politicians reject traditional, one-nation conservatism.
They don’t even know it exists. There are few people on the conservative side
who’d be willing to raise taxes on the affluent to fund mobility programs for
the working class. There are very few willing to use government to actively
intervene in chaotic neighborhoods, even when 40 percent of American kids are
born out of wedlock. There are very few Republicans who protest against a House
Republican budget proposal that cuts domestic discretionary spending to
absurdly low levels.
The results have been
unfortunate. Since they no longer speak in the language of social order,
Republicans have very little to offer the less educated half of this country.
Republicans have very little to say to Hispanic voters, who often come from
cultures that place high value on communal solidarity.
Republicans repeat
formulas — government support equals dependency — that make sense according to
free-market ideology, but oversimplify the real world. Republicans like Romney
often rely on an economic language that seems corporate and alien to people who
do not define themselves in economic terms. No wonder Romney has trouble
relating.
Some people blame bad
campaign managers for Romney’s underperforming campaign, but the problem is
deeper. Conservatism has lost the balance between economic and traditional
conservatism. The Republican Party has abandoned half of its intellectual
ammunition. It appeals to people as potential business owners, but not as
parents, neighbors and citizens.
