Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Re: Why Is This Man Called a Conservative   [Jonah Goldberg]

I think I've got to second Mark Krikorian regarding Gerson. I think Joe Knippenberg puts his finger on the main problem. Gerson is providing a false choice between two things he calls "conservative" neither of which are fundamentally conservative (though I think Joe and I disagree as to why they aren't conservative). The ideological rift in conservatism isn't really between libertarianism and Catholic social thought (as Gerson defines it). It's been between classical liberalism and American traditionalism. Libertarianism isn't conservatism, as any libertarian and almost any conservative will tell you, including Gerson. It's a cousin of modern American conservatism.

And as for Catholic social thought, which Gerson surely knows more about that I do, it's worth recalling that it was a font of great inspiration for progressivism and various forms of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century. John A. Ryan was no conservative.

I'll wait until I see Gerson's book, but I suspect he's stealing a base when he talks about the influence of Catholic teaching on the Right. Obviously Catholic reasoning's influence is enormous (one need only look at the early years of NR for evidence of that). But, not on issues like income redistribution, welfare and the like. The rising — and welcome, by my lights — influence of Catholic intellectuals in the last two decades have been on life issues and related social questions. In 1994, when First Things issued its statement, "Evangelicals & Catholics Together," the co-signers included Richard John Neuhaus and Pat Robertson but they didn't tackle poverty, income redistribution or welfare (the words don't even appear in it). Rather they promised "to resist proposals for euthanasia, eugenics, and population control that ... betray the moral truths of our constitutional order." And on economics they proclaimed:

We affirm the importance of a free economy not only because it is more efficient but because it accords with a Christian understanding of human freedom. Economic freedom, while subject to grave abuse, makes possible the patterns of creativity, cooperation, and accountability that contribute to the common good.

That doesn't sound a whole lot like what Gerson's getting at.

As with Crunchy Conservatism, I remain pretty exasperated with the straw man claim that the conservative movement and Republican party are overrun with anarcho-capitalists. Any objective accounting of the last decade would find it hard to argue that "compassionate conservatives," the religious right and so-called neoconservatives have lacked in any influence over the direction of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

Indeed, as I try to argue today, there's really no silver bullet p.r. campaign or ideological abracadabra word out there. Conservatism will triumph via the long slog, and nothing else.

10/31 09:51 AMShare