Traditionalists vs. Reformers
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
There is little room for the intellectually sophisticated “traditionalist” in William Voegeli’s (and apparently David Brooks‘) taxonomy of conservatives:
For conservatives, the coming argument about core principles will pit “Traditionalists” against “Reformers,” according to David Brooks of the New York Times…The Traditionalists, Brooks says, include Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. They’re convinced the cure for the problems of conservatism is more conservatism: “Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.”
Reformers, by contrast, believing that “American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government,” recommend “new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety.”…The most prominent Reformers are writers. Brooks’s list includes: David Frum, author of Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again; Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, co-authors of Grand New Party; Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review; and Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
From Voegeli’s use of David Brooks’ categories of conservatives, a reader of this morning’s RealClearPolitics would conclude that most “traditionalists” are talk radio movement types, and that all the serious intellectuals are “reformers.” This is no less than a hijacking of the word “traditionalist,” which also describes those of a more Burkean sensibility; the real traditionalists are not against “reform,” but exercise a kind of prudence not found among Brooks’ (and presumably Voegeli’s) “reformers,” several of whom continue to push a hawkish foreign policy agenda that can hardly be described as conservative. Limbaugh and Hannity, primarily concerned with the next media cycle, should perhaps be called “movement” conservatives—but not “traditionalists.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
I think “movement” conservatives is right.
Some may say it was a boneheaded mistake for William Voegeli and Brooks to lump crass “movement” conservatives with those that have been traditionally called, well, traditionalists. But really? What is there to gain by lumping the movement types with those conservatives of a more Burkean bent?
Traditionalists vs. Reformers — it’s all good. Our wise leaders know Americans want the same things: Open Borders, security, and continuous war. And we all know those goals can only come from an energetic central government unconstrained by 18th century notions.
That makes voters’ choices all the more crucial. Should our omni-competent government grant amnesty to illegal aliens to boost the economy, or out of social justice? Should it use warrantless wiretaps and sneak-and-peak searches on potential Islamist, or Christianist terrorists? Is the economic security of government-provided health care more pressing than the personal security guaranteed by keeping Gitmo in business? Finally, it’s vital to determine where the bombs should fall. Will democracy be better served by dropping bombs on Islamo-Fascists in Tehran, or on white supremacists in Tennessee?
That’s the beauty of Democracy — the voice of the people is always demanding something new, and our leaders — who we know are actually our servants — have to keep pretty busy keeping up with what we want.
Barak Obama said, in Cairo, “So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people…”.
When William Voegeli used the word “traditionalist”, when he needed to divide the conservatives into those who would remain true to past ideals, and the word “reformers” to describe those who would adapt to new political realities, …
I am sure he didn’t consider that some splinter group felt they “owned” the term “traditional”, and it would seem that his points remain very valid, and valuable, whether or not you choose to allow yourself to be included with the “lowbrow” or “movement” conservatives.
Many of the TAC bloggers have only nasty things to say about what you call the “movement” conservatives, and their purpose seems to be the opposite of what Obama meant, when he said, “I have come here to seek a new beginning… …based upon mutual interest and mutual respect…”.
Consider, a well-read and well-educated conservative draws from the past, the great ideas of intellectual giants, with the possibility of adding his (or her) own thoughts.
A conservative “elite” might be tempted to forget, that while an entertainer or comedian may or may not be “well-read”, they do have each word they utter examined and weighed by literally millions of people, and millions of viewpoints, both from friend and foe.
Look at how many liberals will attack Bush, or Rush, or even a William Voegeli. But how many attacks against TAC will you read in the NYT or Huffpost?
Rather that attack the person, or the form or method, of other conservatives, let me invite you to come participate.
It is true that TAC is not generally enamoured with movement conservatives. Why would they be? It is really too rich to invite friends of TAC to participate in the conservative dialogue when they’ve been written out of the movement and called unpatriotic (see David Frum) by the mainstream right. Would they be allowed to air their critique of the intransigent bellicosity displayed on the right? Seeing how Ron Paul was treated by the “movement,” should we really believe that their view would get a fair hearing?
Certainly, at times, we’ve seen all too much criticism of the GOP while the Democrats continue to lay plans for radical harm to be done to the country. But, in truth, TAC has been very even-handed, devoting several cover stories and articles to the dangers of Obama’s policies. It’s always dangerous to define your convictions in reference to your enemies’ targets. Many on the right formed their opinion of the Iraq War in reference to those who opposed it (i.e. the radical left), which led them to neglect substantive critiques out there. It is truly unimaginative and intellectually lazy to make the act of being criticized in the NY Times or Huff Post the mark of “conservatism.”
Oskar C – you said, “truly unimaginative and intellectually lazy “.
William Voegeli had an article wherein he discussed the tension between those who wished to keep “the message pure”, and those who would advocate for a “wider tent” by being more accepting of political positions that we opposed in the past.
Could you point to anyplace in Lewis McCrary’s post, or the comments that followed, that contributed to this worthy subject? My point was simply that most of the TAC bloggers (that I see) seem more concerned with preventing any real discussion.
Lewis McCrary said, “There is little room for the intellectually sophisticated “traditionalist” in” (the popular conservative dialog). I tried to state my reasons for disagreeing. Should I be described by insults, for that attempt?
Pardon my frustration. My language was excessively harsh, but I am suggesting that defining oneself as a conservative in reference to the amount of vitriol one receives from the left, as many do, is not helpful. It automatically circumscribes the “acceptable” conservative movement. Voegeli’s article is a very balanced and interesting contrast between the “Reformers” and “Traditionalists” but it does deliberately ignore the part of the right wing that opposes foreign interventionism and globalism. Because “paleos” as a whole are not on the NY Times’ or Huffington Post’s radar, they don’t receive the same vitriol or conservative “street cred” as Limbaugh or Hannity, but one could argue they are the true “traditionalists.”
I myself formed many an opinion in the above manner — for instance, in originally supporting the Iraq war mostly by seeing the leftist radicals opposing it — and it really blinded me to the problems with that position. I now regret my initial support, now finding myself on the same side of the issue as Communists, anarchists, and “one-worlders” to my chagrin. I wish it weren’t so, but it shouldn’t invalidate my conclusion. Frum and company however would (or did) say the company I keep (unintentionally) damns me. Obviously, it’s easy and tempting to miss the forest for the trees — by attacking the mainstream conservatives while sparing the left — but it’s hard to believe that the invitation to participate in the conservative dialogue (at least on foreign policy) applies to those of the paleo persuasion.