Posner on the Conservative Movement

Posted on May 14, 2009
Filed Under Politics | 22 Comments

Posner has a great post on the conservative movement:

“My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings.”

While I don’t really agree with Posner’s style of conservative pragmatism it’s hard to dispute the basic take on the movement. At one time ideas were debated in conservatism. And there was serious engagement with competing ideas both on the philosophical level as well as in terms of practical and empirical matters. You just don’t see that much anymore. Rather there is constant engagement with strawmen and appeal to vague ideas outside of context.

I don’t think the conservatives are quite to where the Marxists were. But they are getting close. Interestingly the few intellectual arguments I see tend to come from the more libertarian oriented conservatives. I’m no libertarian (beyond a pragmatic belief that small, simple and vigorously enforced regulations are best). I do find it sad that wishful thinking and unthinking skepticism replaced serious inquiry.

That said, I think a lot of the movements problems ultimately trace back to George Bush. Democrats were for a while flailing around nearly as bad off. And frankly many (especially in the political classes) still aren’t much better. However Democrats found a kind of unity in opposing Bush – sometimes fairly, often not. But it did mean that thoughtful critics were frequently quoted and rose in prominence. Then at a critical mass the movement reinvigorated itself.

Given that I think deficits will come to be Obama’s Iraq I think the same might happen with conservatism. The problem is that there really are few thoughtful conservatives writing. And most that are tend to be closer to the libertarian side of things.

Related posts:

  1. What went wrong with conservativism
  2. Conservatism and the Academy (Again)
  3. Posner on Conservatism
  4. Experts on a Conservative Stimulus
  5. Postmodern Conservative
  6. Utah Republicans Becoming Liberal

Comments

22 Responses to “Posner on the Conservative Movement”

Great thoughts on a great article. Thanks.

What do you have against Posner’s pragmatic, all-American conservatism?

I think GWBush’s compassionate conservatism ended the Reagan era of smaller federal government. He grew government faster than Clinton, and spent much faster, as well.

The term “conservative” now seems to be a moniker for anyone screaming “tax cuts!” Yet there are no solutions to the debt, the wars, the economic crises, etc. Imagine my disgust, as a Republican, when I heard both Bush and McCain state the economy was “sound.” I agree they aren’t Marxists, but they definitely are progressive. And they are not true conservatives, as nothing is being conserved.

I find my way almost out of the Republican party. My only hope are the few libertarian-oriented conservatives in the party. No one else has an idea, except to win back the Congress and White House, so they can push forward their progressive ideas again.

Hopefully in 2012, people will be ready for such a person to come in, clean house, and solve the big issues that are conveniently ignored. We still haven’t fixed Social Security, Medicare, Education, or immigration. I’d just as soon give these back to the States, and let them try things to actually fix them. As it is, No child left behind, has left many children behind and just added undue costs to states. Allowing states to have voucher programs would be cheaper and more effective in fixing schools, for instance. But progressives aren’t going to do that.

Well I’m not sure Posner is actually that conservative. I also find that the way he interprets the constitution is pragmatic in the fashion closer to say Olver Wendall Holmes whereas I think it ought be closer to say Peirce’s view on interpreting ancient texts.

Rameumptom, I think that’s the problem. People are crying “tax cuts” without being able to explain clearly why that is good or would be successful. That is some positions have been divorced from context and become a battle cry with no idea why they were important.

One thing I suspect is that there are some issues that can only be reformed by Democrats just as there are for Republicans. That’s because of the historic “framing” (how I hate that term) of each party. Realistically if Republicans tried to reform Social Security or Medicare the Democrats would be unable to pass up the opportunity to paint the Republicans as evil cold and heartless. That’s why only Bill Clinton could really offer Welfare Reform. Likewise if a Democrat tried to seriously reform the military they’d get tarred and feathered.

I agree No Child Left Behind was a mess as was the prescription drug program. There are starting to be progressives behind vouchers though.

Problem with populism is that the constituency isn’t stable.

For instance, most of the GOP’s anti-global warming constituency will be dead in twenty years.

5 Rich Knapton on May 15th, 2009 3:42 pm

Rameumptom, I think that’s the problem. People are crying “tax cuts” without being able to explain clearly why that is good or would be successful. That is some positions have been divorced from context and become a battle cry with no idea why they were important.”

You and I certainly listen to different kinds of conservatives. The ones I know can clearly articulate the function of lower taxes with regards to economic stimulation.

“That’s why only Bill Clinton could really offer Welfare Reform.”

I don’t believe Clinton ever offered a welfare reform plan. The plan he signed was a Republican plan which he had earlier tried to defeat. However, 1996 was an election year and by signing the Republican plan he could appeal to the center-right.

Posner’s view of the Constitution as a living document is hardly a conservative position. Scalia is much closer to conservative sentiments with his strict constructionist views.

What kind of conservative laments lower taxes, smaller government and a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. I don’t see Posner as a conservative at all. His thoughts are clearly liberal. And on that point, where are the great liberal intellectuals of our time? I’m afraid I take Posner’s views with a grain of salt.

Rameumptom you might keep an eye on Senator John Thune from South Dakota.

Rich

Rich

Seth, good point. Ditto about gay marriage. Like it or not most young people don’t see what the big deal is. The GOP has to realize that it has two problems. One is that its success on many issues means they aren’t relevant. (i.e. the cold war) The other is that some key social concerns from the counterculture movement of the 60′s that fueled Republicans in the 70′s and 80′s now are so mainstream that no one cares much.

As I said though I think fiscal conservativism will make a big comeback and will probably reinvigorate Republicans much like Bush’s missteps in Iraq and Afghanistan refueled Democrats. I just think it’ll be a few years before the costs of what Obama does this year sink in to the electorate.

Rich, the fact is that Clinton supported welfare reform and I’m not sure a Republican could have done it as easily. Clinton got a lot of necessary Democratic support on board. You are right that it was largely pushed by Republicans. (It was part of the Contract With America that sadly far too few Republicans supported – welfare reform was one of the few successes although I think Clinton had a lot to do with that) While Clinton criticized portions (mainly the food stamps as I recall) he also bragged about ending welfare as we know it. I don’t think he gets enough credit honestly. One can be cynical and say this was part of his political strategy of triangulation. But honestly Clinton did a lot of reforms that were fairly conservative that I wish Bush had carried forward. I know many conservatives hate Clinton, but he definitely was a blue dog democrat. Clinton was talking welfare reform as far back as 91 – long before the Contract with America.

I guess I am more aligned politically with Posner than I previously thought. For example, this paragraph resonated with me (a person who voted for the GOP in every presidential from 1976 through 2000):

“[At the end of the Clinton administration], I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of ‘originalism,’ the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded.”

I agree with Clark, that deficits will be an albatross for the democrats without some dramatic steps taken to get them under control.

But I think it is ridiculous for the GOP to argue that the way to solve the economic problems of this country is to cut income taxes and eliminate the estate tax.

I think the problem is, David, that no one knows how to really fix the economic problems. I was panicked last fall like everyone else. I figure let Obama try the method he believes in. (Keynesianism) That said after listening to a lot of economists of various stripes, listen to their predictions and so forth I decided that most of them were full of hot air with little science behind them. Might as well let the guy who won the election try his method and suffer the consequences if it doesn’t work.

9 Rich Knapton on May 16th, 2009 7:40 pm

Clark, go back into the records. You will find Clinton talked welfare reform. But his first legislation on welfare reform was to expand welfare. In 1995 the Republications pushed forward welfare reform and at the time it was called the Republican welfare reform. At that time the Republicans were in control of Congress. They didn’t need the Democrats. However, their strength was not veto proof. Clinton, it turns out, vetoed welfare reform twice. However 1996 was an election year and to appeal to the center-right he signed the legislation. He had his own people quitting their staff positions because he did that. All people remember is that he signed the bill and latter took unwarranted credit for it.

Rich

Rich, I don’t deny that a lot of why Clinton did what he did was a policy of triangulation. (Which is also why Bush did some of the things he did) In 1994 Welfare reform was polling as the highest priority for voters. (Interestingly heath care reform was #2)

That said, it simply was a campaign promise of Clinton in 1991 to end welfare. And his rhetoric and frankly high charisma really set the stage for events in 1995. I don’t think the Republicans could have taken the issue as they did had Clinton not made it acceptable by having a high profile Democrat for welfare reform even if Republicans and Democrats disagreed on the details.

11 Rich Knapton on May 17th, 2009 11:12 pm

That said, it simply was a campaign promise of Clinton in 1991 to end welfare. And his rhetoric and frankly high charisma really set the stage for events in 1995.

Again, I must disagree. It was the Republic revolution led by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America that set the stage for the passage of the Republican welfare bill.

Rich

12 Rich Knapton on May 17th, 2009 11:19 pm

But I think it is ridiculous for the GOP to argue that the way to solve the economic problems of this country is to cut income taxes and eliminate the estate tax.

I think this is a misstatement of the GOP position. What they are saying is, if one wants to stimulate the economy, it can best be done through tax cuts.

The Keynesian approach, to recovery, is to lower interest rates and spend on building infrastructure. Under the Keynesian approach the government goes into debt in order to spend on infrastructure. The resulting new jobs will stimulate the economy that will then generate tax income to pay off the debt.

The supply-siders take the approach that only the private sector can stimulate the economy. Therefore, the best way to stimulate the economy is through tax-cuts. This allows taxpayers to increase spending and investments. This, in turn, creates new jobs.

The problem is neither works out as planned. Both involve increasing the Federal debt. Both Keynesians and supply-siders insist that the stimulated economy will pay of the accumulated debt. But it won’t.

The reason why the Federal government cannot stimulate the economy is that it has no money of its own. In order to pay for someone to work on the infrastructure, it must take money out of the economy in order to pay for that job. Say someone wants to have a new pool. The owner hires someone to build the pool. This has created a new job. However, the Federal government comes along and takes that money in order to pay for a new person to work on infrastructure. The result is one lost job and one new job. In other words, no expansion of jobs. That translates into no stimulated economy. But is does result in a huge increase in the national debt.

The problem with the supply-siders is that the economy is stimulated but at the cost of huge debts incurred from lost income. Their statement that the stimulated income will offset the lost income is bogus. At best it will offset some of the lost income.

Keynesian approach will fail to stimulate the economy. Roosevelt tried this approach but could not get the US out of its depression. It took WWII to do that. Supply-side approach can stimulate the economy but at a cost. Supply-side approach has a better chance than the Keynesian approach but not by itself. Bush’s failure was that he didn’t cut real Federal expenditures. He tried to keep one foot in both the Keynesian camp and the supply-side camp. When the government finds itself in a deep recession it must cut expenditures while at the same time cutting taxes. This seems to me to make the most sense. If you don’t, you just pile debt on top of debt. This is what both Reagan and Bush did. Reagan does have a bit of an excuse because control of the purse strings is held by Congress which was Democratic. Bush has no excuse. He and the Republicans simply let the debt pile up.

Rich

Rich, as I said, the public saw it as their #1 priority before the Contract with America. Likewise I’d simply note most of the Contract with America (sadly) didn’t come remotely close to getting passed.

Regarding tax cuts, one problem I think the GOP faces is that it’s fine with cutting income taxes but really doesn’t do much for corporate taxes. I’d prefer a situation like Europe with lower corporate taxes (which are largely hidden to the public) and income taxes the public can see. I think this makes it easier on small businesses as well. Frankly under Bush the taxes on small business got worse. (Think the way depreciation changed)

Right now it’s just too easy for Congress to have “hidden” taxes. While I’m against a flat tax the one big benefit is that everyone would see and understand what was being paid and have a share in worrying about how the money is spent.

Regarding Keynesian economics I think the big problem is that you can’t really use the Great Depression as evidence of much. At least that I’ve seen. Keynesian proponents will just say Rosevelt didn’t stimulate enough and that his biggest failure was inconsistency which kept the markets jittery thus extending the depression. Even the role of WWII in a Keynesian explanation is much more controversial than it typically appears. Although it is the typical historical canard. I looked a lot at the arguments from all sides the past months and I came away pretty convinced that there’s a reason why economics is called the “dismal science.” With a single data point you can argue for almost anything. What’s surprising is the lack of humility by most economists in all this. (BusinessWeek recently had a whole issue on this that was quite good – although I’d reached that basic conclusion long before)

I wonder if a Palin nomination in 2012 will end up fracturing the GOP…

Personally I doubt she’ll run.

The conservative problem is that no one is really making the case for conservativism. Most of those yelling the loudest are more concerned with preaching to the choir rather than expanding the ranks.

The chance of a Palin nomination in 2012 is next to nil. She simply isn’t articulate enough. Whether the GOP goes left or right, I think enough of the party is fed up with populist conservatism enough to prevent both Palin and Huckabee from making any significant headway.

As far as the conservative movement is concerned, the problem is that without a natural political leader, movement conservatism does not naturally command a majority within the GOP, let alone with the public at large. Neither does establishment conservatism – and the latter tends to be much more of a ho hum proposition. Huntsman would be a great candidate if everything were going swimmingly. I don’t think he has much of a chance until then.

17 Rich Knapton on May 22nd, 2009 10:37 am

Rich, as I said, the public saw it as their #1 priority before the Contract with America.

Clark, I don’t disagree. Clinton jumped on the bandwagon and pandered (as in what all politicians do) to the public. But when he was elected and had Democratic congress for two years he didn’t do anything. It wasn’t until after the Republications took control of congress that that they developed a plan. Clinton vetoed it twice. Bob Dole didn’t want the Republicans to present the plan yet another time. He wanted to use it to attack Clinton. The Republicans best chance to get it passed was shortly before the election. They were right. Clinton signed rather than give Dole ammunition with which to attack him. After all, Clinton had been in for four years and had yet to honor his pledge of welfare reform.

As to the next Republican presidential candidate, I think you can forget Huntsman. He has the Romney disease. He’s LDS. Until a Mormon can get elected to high office in the South, I doubt any Mormon can get elected to the Presidency.

Someone to look at is South Dakota’s Senator John Thune (aka The Giant Killer for defeating Senate majority leader Tom Daschle). He’s young, has a nice family, slender like Obama, and a great speaker. I think the conservatives’ best hope is with Thune.

Rich

Mark, I think the problem of no leader is apt. After his loss in 76 I think Reagan managed to make himself a leader. Right now though we don’t have any figure like that. Gingrich is trying to set himself up as the Republican leader. (And surprisingly so is Cheyney) But the party really is a mess. Of course so was the Democrats not too long ago and Clinton and Obama brought the party back – partially in opposition to Bush. If Obama fails (and trust me – for the country’s sake I hope he doesn’t) then we may see new leaders emerge. But I think the party will remain a mess for the next 3 years at least.

Rich, that’s a good point. And no doubt what we got wasn’t the “ideal case” for how Republicans wanted things. Your point about the battle between Clinton and the Republicans is also apt.

While I don’t think Huntsman has a chance at the Presidency I think Romney simply ran a bad campaign and his apparent flip flopping and the way he ran his campaign made it seem like he was opportunistic. While Evangelical distrust of his Mormonism was a factor I think it was a secondary one.

If Romney had a much longer track record as a conservative governor of a good size moderate to conservative state he would have had a much easier time.

I think that’s right.

I think a key reason why the moneys spent so far to get us out of this slump aren’t working, is because they are targeted in the wrong places, with too many strings attached.

I have no problem with a Keynesian effort, IF it is worked right. Eisenhower’s spending to build the national highway system transformed our daily lives and economies throughout the country, for instance.

Instead of blowing $13T all over the place, had we spent $3-4Trillion on paying off the first $100-200,000 on everyone’s home mortgages, we would already be pulling out of this slump. Suddenly, middle class mortgages would either be paid off, or greatly reduced, allowing individuals to refinance at a better rate. Most of those losing their homes can now keep them. We would also establish that no one would need to pay on their remaining mortgages for a period of 6-12 months. The invested money would instantly flow back into the economy via the banks, who no longer have bad assets. Banks can now loan out to GM and other corporations, without government strings attached. Homeowners would have thousands of dollars at their disposal for at least a year in which to purchase items (cars, etc), as well as save.

What about creating a debt for our children? Individuals would have possession of their homes to pass on to their kids. Those homes will eventually regain value, which the kids can use to improve their own lifestyle and use to pay down the debts incurred now.

Anyone see any flaws in this that make it worse than things we’re getting from Congress and the Whitehouse now? I’ve studied it, and see few potential problems with it. I just don’t know why the Republicans couldn’t have come up with such an easy thing. They would have restored confidence quickly in their party, as all people (not just those people and companies that have created toxic debt), would be benefited, and it would have shown everyone that the Republicans could come up with a valid solution. “Tax cuts” alone does not fix a broken economy.

The biggest reason is that most of the money hasn’t really reached the economy yet. Even if one was a Keynsian the way Obama pushed it doesn’t make much sense to me.

I also agree that “tax cuts” as an answer to everything was a big mistake.

Leave a Reply