Conservatives as a species are generally not inclined toward the sort of navel-gazing introspection that characterizes the Left’s response to electoral setbacks. Rather than indulging in such New Age nonsense, we prefer to bear our hardship with Old World Stoicism. This attitude might be summarized as “what’s done is done, let’s make sure to do better next time.” The historical record suggests that this strategy is usually fruitful. Devastating Republican losses tend to be followed by astonishing comebacks, as was the case in 1994, 1978, 1966, 1950, 1946, 1938, 1918, 1894… you get the drift.
But something about 2008 seemed to shake the entire conservative edifice to its very foundations. In spite of our best efforts to find a nominee with broad appeal to centrist voters, the McCain-Palin ticket suffered a crushing defeat, as the Democrats won a greater share of the popular vote than in any presidential contest since 1964. Even as conventional wisdom increasingly indicates that 2010 should be a banner year for Republican efforts to regain congressional seats and governor’s mansions across the country, a nagging pessimism persists among the ranks of conservative punditry, who fear this triumph could be nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory.
It is in this context that a vast array of scholars and commentators has set about attempting to diagnose where the right went wrong and suggest a path to revival. Four of the most prominent among these figures– Ross Douthat, David Frum, Daniel Larison, and Virginia Postrel– were present on campus Monday for an illuminating panel discussion on this very topic. Representing a wide range of perspectives, none of them offered panaceas, but rather indicated that a series of difficult decisions loom ahead for the conservative movement.
Douthat, a New York Times columnist, was the first speaker. He had relatively little to say about his own beliefs, which David Frum later portrayed as a combination of social conservatism and fiscal moderation designed on the model of European Christian Democrat parties. (Having read Douthat’s weekly articles religiously throughout his tenure at the Times, I found this interpretation rather surprising, as I had always seen him as a vigorous defender of the free market.) Instead, he focused on describing the current state of the conservative movement. Speaking with tempered optimism, he noted that the public has shifted substantially to the right on major issues in reaction to the overreach of Barack Obama and his allies. However, he expressed a fear that Republican officeholders will miss this opportunity, obsessing over ideological purity and adhering to the rigid dictates of talk radio and cable news hosts (and frequent liberal punching bags) such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. He advocated increased regionalism in the party’s branding, accepting candidates who break the traditional conservative mold if they can capture states and districts long held by Democrats. This compromise seems to me like an excellent formula for winning elections, but could prove challenging as this unwieldy coalition attempts to actually govern. Just look at how much trouble Nancy Pelosi is having as she seeks to navigate between the Blue Dogs and the Progressive Caucus on a range of contentious topics.
David Frum sounded like a counselor from Alcoholics Anonymous as he chastised conservatives for remaining in denial about the grim prospects they face. Like Douthat, he cited the frequently voiced assertion that Republicans lost in recent elections because they betrayed their limited government principles (Medicare prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind, pork, etc.), and labeled this viewpoint as folly. Examining demographic trends, he observed that college-educated whites, a natural Republican constituency, having been drifting toward the Democrats, even as this group continues to expand. Combined with the growth of secularism and increased diversity, Frum judges that, without radical reform, conservatism as we know it will slowly become extinct in the coming decades. After solving the problems that defined its infancy– crime, welfare dependency, rampant inflation, oppressive taxes and regulations, and the specter of Soviet communism– conservatism must deal with a host of new issues on which is has often remained silent in the past, such as health care and the environment. Frum’s proposals are interesting, but raise a crucial question– if conservatives heed his advice, will they in any meaningful sense provide an alternative to, rather than merely an echo of, liberal statism?
Daniel Larison’s ideas are, in my opinion, the easiest to dismiss. His Pat Buchannan-style compilation of isolationism and protectionism represents the discredited mantra of the past. There is nothing to be gained by rejecting the manifest inevitability of globalization, or minimizing the serious threats posed to our national security by Islamic terrorists and rogue states. Supporters of Larison might be better suited to ally with the Democrats, form a third party, or, preferably, drop off the face of the Earth altogether.
Virginia Postrel eschewed high-minded talk about ideology and instead sought to illustrate how the excesses of the Left can be related to everyday situations. She used the example of Congress’ ban on incandescent light bulbs, enacted in a fit of environmentalist hypochondria that mirrors the moral crusading of the Religious Right. Political elites might dismiss such tactics as gimmicky and distracting, but they have a record of effectiveness. For instance, in 1946, Republicans swept the midterm elections in large part by campaigning against President Truman’s price control policies, which had resulted in shortages of meat and other vital consumer goods. An emphasis on micro issues could rally opposition to the Obama agenda, but, without an overarching framework to unify disparate concerns, would be futile in the long run.
Overall, this event served to stimulate conservatives to think critically about the future of their movement even as it lacked clear and definitive answers. If ever we grow despondent of our prospects for redemption, we should remember the brilliant public intellectuals that our side boasts, as well as the vibrant conservative scene on the Princeton campus, both of which were on display at Monday’s lecture. Obama may have campaigned on the promise of hope, but he by no means holds a monopoly on that concept.