Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
hegel
"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Links - weblogs
Links - Political Rationalities
Links - Resources: Philosophy
Public Discussion
Resources
Cafe Philosophy
Philosophy Centres
Links - Resources: Other
Links - Web Connections
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx

conservative governance « Previous | |Next »
July 5, 2006

An article by Alan Wolfe entitled Why Conservatives Can't Govern in the Washington Monthly magazine courtesy of Cameron Riley at South Seas Republic. Wolfe says:

Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation. It stems, rather, from the libertarian conviction, repeated endlessly by George W. Bush, that the money government collects in order to carry out its business properly belongs to the people themselves. One thought, and one thought only, guided Bush and his Republican allies since they assumed power in the wake of Bush vs. Gore: taxes must be cut, and the more they are cut--especially in ways benefiting the rich--the better.

This strikes me as confused --it equates conservatism with liberalism instead of recognizing that they are two different things. It is classical liberals who argue for small government so as to preserve individual freedom. Conservative are about the authority of the state and the governing class. They stand for a critique of American liberalism since upholding the authority of the state is more important than individual freedom. Hence conservatism is opposed to libertarianism (of a Nozick) that aims to reshape society in line with the requirements of free market forces as it puts the goals determined through the activity of politics itself.

This confusion between conservativsm and liberalism leads Wolfe to say:

But like all politicians, conservatives, once in office, find themselves under constant pressure from constituents to use government to improve their lives. This puts conservatives in the awkward position of managing government agencies whose missions--indeed, whose very existence--they believe to be illegitimate. Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.

Conservatives are in favour of big government and the competitive capitalist market. They do not disdain the authority of the state and they wish to preserve a certain kind of orderd and stable society--one based on tradition, hierarchy, custom and a common culture.

When Wolfe writes that 'Because liberals have historically welcomed government while conservatives have resisted it' he is arguing between two forms of liberalism is he not? As he says if yesterday's conservative was a liberal mugged by reality, today's is a free-marketer fattened by pork. Yet Wolfe knows the differences between liberals and conservatives as political philosophies:

Historically and philosophically, liberals and conservatives have disagreed with each other, not only over the ends political systems should serve, but over the means chosen to serve those ends. Whether through the ideas of James Madison, Immanuel Kant, or John Stuart Mill, liberals have viewed violent conflict as regrettable and the use of political institutions as the best way to contain it. Conservatives, from the days of Machiavelli to such twentieth-century figures as Germany's Carl Schmitt, have, by contrast, viewed politics as an extension of war, complete with no-holds-barred treatment of the enemy, iron-clad discipline in the ranks, cries of treason against those who do not support the effort with full-throated vigor, and total control over any spoils won. From a conservative point of view, separation of powers is divisive, tolerance a luxury, fairness another word for weakness, and cooperation unnecessary. If conservatives will not use government to tame Hobbes' state of nature, they will use it to strengthen Hobbes' state of nature. Victory is the only thing that matters, and any tactic more likely to produce victory is justified.

You can see the liberal (political philosophy) animus against conservatism (political philsophy). Schmitt's conception of politics as a conflict between friends and enemies is viewed 'as an extension of war, complete with no-holds-barred treatment of the enemy.' But conservatives do not aim strengthen Hobbes' state of nature --they aim to strengthen Leviathen.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 7:35 PM | | Comments (4)
Comments

Comments

I think he is arguing from a tribal point of view, conservatives==republicans and liberals==democrats. As you pointed out it is the Schmitt view of partisanship.

I am sure there have been successful republican governors (tribally conservative) who have governed successfully.

Bush is excellent at getting elected, his record on governance is poor though. Same with the Delay/Hastert Congress. The line item veto that they are trying to give the President (which was previously judged unconstitutional) is congress saying, "we cant be trusted with money".

Not cool if the same party dominates the legislative and executive.

I think the problem stems from messy labelling within politics.

Let's not forget it is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that North Korea officially calls itself.

So whilst terms like conservatism and liberalism are clearly muddled in everyday usage, what's most important is that the writer is consistent in the one document he is writing.

From what I can tell, Wolfe has been consistent in his one document and the actual meanings of the terms such as conservatism and liberalism that he's using in his piece can be gleaned reasonably easily.

And Bush and his cohorts, including Howard, do call themselves conservatives, even though historically speaking it means something else.

Cameron,

I agree with that you that the subtext of Wolfe's article is, as you say, conservatives==republicans and liberals==democrats. It is a typical American reduction and one that is often made by liberals to highlight the Bush administration's poor governance. It is the Republicans he detests, and he gives good reasons for his position.

I concur that the Bush administration is an example of bad governance, but I'm not convinced that the cause of this is conservatism as a political philosophy

But Wolfe has another narrative running in the text ---one about conservatism and liberalism as political philosophies. He mentions the names ---Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, John C. Calhoun--- and then stops--- thereby characterising conservatism as a historical relic defending what history has left behind as it has embraced an enlightened liberalism.

What is missing from this liberal narrative is why conservatism in American is strong and has mounted a critique of liberalism in the latter part of the 20th century. Wolfe evades this with his conservatism is bad and liberalism is good duality. It is all very implausible.

Why not come out and acknowledge the conservative criticisms of liberalism and deal with them.


Antonios,
yes consistency is one criteria to evaluate a textand a good one. But there are others, eg, how persuasive is the argument. It is a legitimate criteria given Wolfe's references to philosophy.

Wolfe's argument is not persuasive.The reduction of liberal=Democrat misses out those conservatives who are Democrats.Not all Democrats are liberals.

Secondly, Wolfe characterises Anglo-American conservatism as a political philosophy as something belonging to, and defending the past, when it is very much alive an well in its vigourous criticism of liberalism--eg., Kristol's (and Scruton's) critique of an economic liberalism that makes individual choice/right the cornerstone of its system about how people should their lives and what choices they should make.

Many economic liberals are like Hayek,in that they want to restrict the operation of individual choice or right to the economic sphere and to remove all controls and regulations from individual behavour. As Kristol argues this is not possible--the principle of freedom extends to all spheres of social life as does the demand to remove controls and regulations on all aspects of individual social activity.

Something like this would help us to make sense of the conservatism underpinning the Bush Administration's mode of governance and biopolitics.

Thsi kind of account is what is lacking in Wolfe's article.