Out Of Exile
Posted on July 22nd, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
The strange thing for me about the discussion surrounding this article is how completely centered on Washington it is, as if being a “think tanker” for the opposition party is really “going into the wilderness.” Yes, it’s a common phrase to refer to the party out of power as being in the political wilderness, but what this means in practice is being forced to work in slightly different parts of the same city and the same buildings and generally getting less press coverage in the process. The discussion about the article usually focuses on another Megan McArdle statement expressing some excitement at the prospect of new thinking that defeat will encourage. Ms. McArdle has made this sort of statement before and been chided about it in pretty much the same terms she is being chided now (my semi-defense of McArdle from before is here). As I have said before, I will just add that there is very little fundamental disagreement here, and the people who are “excited” to go into the wilderness want to do it mainly to develop better policy ideas and arguments that will then translate into political success and legislation. Those who would prefer to see the party they are allied with stay in power, if only in the White House, are worried that too much can happen if the GOP does not control the Presidency for just four years. I’m sure that’s because controlling it for eight years has worked out so well for all involved.
It seems to me that the real exile that conservatives have been enduring is their exile from their homes for the sake of going to Washington for one reason or another. My advice, as usual, is for conservatives to go home or make homes of the places where they are, stop the obsession with party politics and policy agendas and start creating the culture and the world they want to have. That is a long, slow work of cultivation, but an absolutely necessary one. Viewed this way, should McCain somehow squeak out a win, this will help to delay and discourage this necessary work and distract conservatives with another administration they will feel, for some reason, obliged to support and defend, or they may feel obliged to indulge in an equally consuming distraction of criticism and opposition.
Filed under: politics
“Republican thinkers plotted their revolution… in bars instead of in the Executive Office Building”
Let me, for one, endorse a reversion to this practice.
“Republican thinkers plotted their revolution… in bars instead of in the Executive Office Building”
Let me, for one, endorse a reversion to this practice.
(although i’m also willing to accept that it be an “and” rather than “either/or” proposition)
Note that Obama proves the point (to a point): After the close-but-no-cigar run of Gore and the liberal-posing-as-a-hawk disaster of Kerry, Democratic voters (and superdelegates, of course) changed course, nominating instead a liberal who’s not afraid to talk compromise (though, as Daniel so often points out, may or may not actually compromise), a person who’s intelligent and yet not exceedingly condescending, and who can enter a warzone and yet heed the better angels that say “Hey, maybe you should skip the flak jacket and the tour of the tank.”
I just finished reading Novak’s memoirs (brief review: bloated, somewhat interesting and quite egotistical), and at least appreciated his blunt take on the Gingrich revolution: Something about how the wheels came off before they’d gotten out of the driveway. Here’s hoping that one day, when a retro-conservative of the Ron Paul type manages to make it into a position of authority, there’s a little more staying power.
I have to admit that I am new to this reactionary viewpoint, and I’m trying to gather some clarification on at least some of the broad ideas. I have seen, in a couple of posts now (this one and another on the site called the Reactionary Imperative), advice given that one should resist the lure of participating or following national politics and elections as they exist in this foundationally flawed system. Instead we should withdraw to our homes, churches, and communities to focus on remaking culture slowly but surely in more meaningful and lasting ways through education, family, persuasion, and countercultural living. The point where I get confused is when comments like these are then surrounded by all sorts of commentary about the national elections. We are advised not to be destracted by the Right/Left debate because it is meaningless anyway, then we are invited to read a post about the thoughts of the latest right winger trying to stake out their current condition taking into account the latest developments in national party affairs.
In the above article, it was put forward that a win for John McCain would be a distraction for real conservatives as they would feel inclined to spend time defending him or criticizing him instead of rebuilding culture for the long haul starting at home. So what is a true conservative to do, vote for Obama so we can free up more time and avoid temptation of getting too invlolved? Refuse to vote, in defiance of the entire system? Spend time trying to get an alternative candidate off the ground? Is that a good use of time that could be otherwise spent running an aggressive Catholic homeschooling program with my kids? It seems like 3rd party efforts and anti-system candidates might take the most time commitment of all options. And if we were to do such a thing, we are still participating in the very system that we are spending the rest of our time criticizing as inherently inefficient at best and immoral at worst.
I ask these things with all due respect, not to just to be obnoxious. Like I said, I am just trying to get a handle on the school of thought that seems to be a trend here. I’m sure I’m missing something, but I truly am looking to become informed on the matter and hear some practical suggestions on how one might act consistently with such a viewpoint.
As in Caddyshack: “don’t you people have homes?”