The Strange Death of Movement Conservatism…

By 1989, William F. Buckley was more of a cold warrior than conservative. Once the Soviet Union had collapsed he found himself short of ideas and energy. Assuming, perhaps, that he should remould the conservative movement for the post-communist age he attempted to force out Pat Buchanan and his paleoconservative associates for alleged anti-semitism.

There is something to be said for Buckley’s famous, and notorious, policing of the borders of his tribe. There did have to be distance between, say, Ayn Rand’s objectivists and the conservative movement because, frankly, they were anti-conservative. Nonetheless, Buckley at best misjudged four decades later. Paleoconservatives were forced into exile and neoconservatives moved in and flourished.

“Neocon” has become such an idle slur that one can overlook how damaging this curious phenomenon has been. The neoconservatives had already attacked such pillars of the right as Mel Bradford and Russell Kirk and carried on assaulting traditionalists, nationalists and anti-interventionists up to and beyond David Frum’s infamous “Unpatriotic Conservatives” essay. (Frum appears to rethought his progressive imperialism, which gives hope to all who feel that humans can be saved.)

What did the neocons achieve in their preeminence? By the mid-90s they had lost the cultural conservatism that their sympathisers recall from their humbler beginnings. William Kristol, scion of the neoconservative theorist Irving, united with Robert Kagan to found the Project for the New American Century – a think tank that promoted an “elevated vision of America’s international role”, which entailed the invasion of Iraq. Along with future members of the Bush administration, such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, the neoconservatives brought this idea to fruition and ensured that thousands died and trillions of dollars were squandered.

Meanwhile, so preoccupied was movement conservativism with events halfway around the globe that domestic policy was granted too little attention. The government created debt and failed to oversee the banks before the financial crisis. Millions of immigrants crossed America’s fragile borders while the state clamped down on the liberties of Americans. Conservatives supported John McCain as the successor to George Bush – a man who had opposed almost nothing the president had done. His failure was inevitable. Obama triumphed.

Once in opposition, the Republicans were remarkably ineffective. Neocons, having learned nothing, cheered on Obama’s intervention into Libya, which, almost four years on, is still a violent and chaotic place. Americans had grown tired of war by then. Republicans in the Gang of 8 united with their Democratic colleagues to devise an extremely liberal immigration reform bill – to the left of the left, never the mind the right. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney came and went with little fuss.

All of this is why Donald Trump enjoys success today. Right-leaning, largely lower-to-class Americans look on the job Conservatives have done with scorn. Their interests, to their minds, have been not represented but ignored by elitist ideologues and social climbers. The National Review has published an edition which aims to present a united front against the Donald, for his populism and his demagogeury, but only manages to illustrate the cluelessness of their senior staff. As Republican voters defy the Conservative establishment for being out of touch and narcissistic why does the cover look like the guest list of a dinner club? It is as fantastic a misreading of the times as if Marie Antoinette had thrown cakes from the balconies of Versailles.

I am less than thrilled by the prospect of Trump. His unapologetic combination of social conservatism and economic protectionism is appealing but I wish it was spoken by somebody more like Pat Buchanan. If anyone looks across the career of the Donald and finds a record of sagacity, honesty and decency, good luck to them, but they will have to point it out to me. Nonetheless, popular backlash was inevitable and, indeed, justifiable.

“Populism” is, to some extent, acknowledgement of the interests and ambitions of the common citizen. Would anyone like to claim that these have been well-represented? Such is the belated recognition of the fact that the Republican base is outraged at its representatives that someone like Bill Kristol has the audacity to suggest that Trump is a figure of the Republican establishment. If anyone is fooled by this, I have a bridge to sell to them. Several, in fact, from London to San Francisco.

Populism is not bad, then, but it is dangerous. People want to be told what is pleasant more than what is true, a fact that opportunists never tire of exploiting. One hopes, for states, that the desires of common men inform what should be done and the wisdom of great men determines what can be done. Great men can ignore the opinions of the masses if their wisdom is so keen that they can please them anyway. National Review Conservatives have failed on every count and have no one more than themselves to blame for the possible Trump triumph, and whatever such bizarre events might entail.

About bsixsmith

I am a writer of stories and poems - published by Every Day Fiction, The London Journal of Fiction, 365 Tomorrows and Det Poetiske Bureau - and a columnist for Quillette, Areo and Bombs & Dollars.
This entry was posted in Conservatism, Ideology, Politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Strange Death of Movement Conservatism…

  1. septicisle says:

    With very little adaptation, you could apply much the same analysis to the left in this country, only those in favour of constant war without end tend to describe themselves as “internationalists”, viz. Bloodworth and friends rather than neo-cons, which is without doubt what they are. It’s not the main reason for the rise of UKIP/Corbyn, but it certainly is there in the background.


  2. bsixsmith says:

    You’re absolutely right. Trump appeals to Republicans for the same reasons Corbyn appeals to Labourites, and the “centrists” have done as bad a job of addressing this in both cases. I think Trump is more significant because his platform has a broader appeal beyond party loyalists but it’s surprising how much an American nationalist and a British socialist have had in common.


  3. Pingback: Boot in Mouth… | Wandering Near Sawtry

  4. Galatea says:

    I’ve been flicking through some of your blog posts. Some interesting stuff here, but I was curious about your defense of economic protectionism? The Obama administration raised tariffs on the import of tires. This saved 1200 jobs, but cost the US population an estimated 1.1 billion dollars, or 900 thousand dollars a job. Would you say that is good policy?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s