Decentralism
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
On a more serious note, there are several good articles in the new TAC that deserve your attention. In the first article from the issue now online, Jim Antle argues for a conservative revival with a paleo-friendly agenda that does not define itself with paleo labeling:
An objection is likely to enter even the minds of sympathetic readers. This sounds a lot like paleoconservatism, whose adherents are too quirky, too cantankerous, and too small in number to put together an effective political movement. But we needn’t call it “paleo” anything. It’s the ideas that matter. Not so long ago a platform along these lines—limited government, decentralism, a national interest-based foreign policy, and resistance to multiculturalism—would have been considered conservatism without the prefix [bold mine-DL]. And is it really that outlandish compared to the leading alternatives? Right now, Republicans are arguing about whether they want to remain the party that is in the minority now or go back to being the party that was in the minority for decades after the New Deal.
Broadly speaking, this is somewhat similar to what I was calling for last year, and obviously I agree with the agenda Jim is describing. I do think a paleo-populist direction makes more sense, I don’t much care what label we apply to it, and it is far more likely to meet with the approval of most conservatives than the agenda offered by the “reformers.” Over the last few months, I have annoyed quite a few readers (and Jim Antle) with my criticism of the mainstream conservative response to Obama’s agenda, because I have conceded the one key electoral insight that the “reformers” have, which is that voters do not respond to an agenda of reducing the size and scope of government in practice, however much they may claim to embrace its rhetoric and accept its slogans. One question I keep raising is this: are conservatives looking for an agenda that is going to be popular in the short to medium-term, or are they satisfied to advocate for policies that have limited appeal in the conviction that these are the right and necessary policies for the country? Is it really the case that it is the ideas that matter, or are we supposed to be concerned with producing electoral victories?
More to the point, how would such ideas win over an American public that has become steadily more dependent on the very policies and structures of government and corporations? To be brutally frank, what appeal do we really think political decentralism will have in a country in which people are conditioned to want to flee their homes and to adapt themselves to the demands of our megalopoleis? Toward what communities are we proposing to decentralize, and what political weight do they actually have? If people do not, or in some cases cannot, reject consolidation and centralism in everyday life and in economic affairs, why are they going to prefer it in government? In other words, having already lost much of the culture and actively collaborated in the economic dislocation ravaging many of these communities, what political remedy do conservatives think they can offer to counter the effects of all this? I am not saying this to be contrarian or difficult–these are the questions we have to be able to answer if we expect anyone to take our arguments seriously.
The conservatism Jim describes ought to serve Middle American interests, as these are the people who are its natural constituents. However, the social base for the conservatism Jim advocates has been weakening under the pressures of many of the policies that mainstream conservatives have supported. The point is not simply to repeat that mainstream conservatism is not serving the interests of its natural constituents, but to acknowledge that this has contributed to harming the social base on which any conservative political success has to be founded. Jeremy Beer reflects on the causes of Middle American decline, and identifies one of the most important ones:
And that is that fly-over country, by and large, has been hemorrhaging intellectual capital for decades. The most talented young men and women, the most able, the most intelligent and creative, have been leaving to go off to college — or have been lured off to college — only to return in ever-diminishing numbers.
Of course, it is not possible to isolate this drain of intellectual and social capital from the loss of economic capital (yet another reason why the dislocations of globalization are ruinous for local cultures and communities) from these regions of the country: poor states remain so because the most talented leave (indeed they are encouraged to leave and their ability to leave is celebrated), but these people leave because there are so few opportunities, and once-prosperous states begin to enter the same downward economic-demographic spiral as their local and regional economies are gutted in the name of efficiency and growth. Rather than a conservatism of place and stability, we have had the conservatism of meritocracy and opportunity, and partly as a result of this the places that have tended to produce conservative voters are dying off and their children are assimilating to the norms and adjusting to the realities of the megalopoleis. When people experience the effects of income inequality and social and economic stratification, they tend to be drawn to left-liberal politics and government remedies, and the conservative and neoliberal cry of solving these structural problems with more education and opportunity not only does not appeal to the megalopolitans, who see them as woefully lacking, but also adds insult to injury for those adversely affected by the upheaveals of rapid economic, technological and cultural change. More important than undermining the political prospects of the right, this pattern of upheaval and stratification is fundamentally unhealthy for the country and will create profound political instability and civil strife over the long term.
Responding to one of my posts on empire, James Poulos reasonably observed that there are many urban centers that absorb and concentrate Middle America’s intellectual and social capital and it is not the political center, Washington, that does this. That is largely true, but it also makes it that much more clear that focusing conservative efforts on the political center, while making few or no efforts to counteract centralizing and consolidating tendencies in the rest of the country, is rather futile if the goal is anything other than contesting for control over the central state as it exists. At the same time, to the extent that Middle Americans are sending any of their remaining most-talented people to Washington I submit that their time would be more productively spent back home.
One of the constants of much paleoconservative criticism of the pursuit of electoral victory is that the political path has been tried for decades and has in almost every respect failed to conserve much of anything that traditional conservatives want to conserve. Even though I enjoy political talk and strategizing as much as anyone, I find it hard to disagree with this. Part of what I proposed last year involved a practical decentralism, in which building up or shoring up local institutions and creating constituencies that then have a vested interest in devolving power take precedence over getting candidates elected who make the right noises about decentralization. Jim mentions that the agenda he describes would have been considered generic conservatism not that long ago. However, what that amounted to in practice domestically was that all of the rhetoric praising federalism and states’ rights, the demands for local control and condemnations of unfunded mandates had little or no meaningful effect, and before very long the GOP majority was offering up its own unfunded mandates with their intrusion into local and state education and doing nothing except to concentrate more power in Washington.
Filed under: culture, decentralism, economics, politics, populism
It’s questionable how much conservatives can even get on the de-centralism bandwagon culturally; as you pointed out in a post during the campaign that Nader, as any anti-war candidate running a futile third effort, will get more votes than all the conservative anti-war candidates, its indicative that the left has a far more substantial base for being anti-war. I think that same rule applies for favoring decentralism/localism.
One of the more absurd column’s by Douthat before he got on board the NYT was a post that mocked Whole Foods eating liberals in favor of sinewy, muscular farmers. He missed the point that both need each other far more than they need NASCAR watching movement conservatives, as its the yuppie liberals who purchase all the artisan cheeses small producers make, the local microbrewery beer, and the fresh, not farmed, seafood. The reasons for these consumer choices might be silly, or centered around environmentalism, etc etc., but the economics are there.
But the reality is that it takes effort to build community and culture, one that cannot be substituted by electoral politics, though it can be benefited or harmed by larger macro factors. While I live in a modest size Southern capital (Columbia, SC) we haven’t managed to avoid the bullet of absolute cultural destruction because of luck; its because people poured money and effort into small businesses, cultural and community organizations, and our city government has not totally wrecked things. If half of the blogs about localism actually talked about useful things about how to organize functions, meeting halls, etc., instead of weird philosophical ramblings, I think people would be far better off.
Great post. Relatedly; I’ve often wondered why the right-wing Interneterati talks so much about “place, limits, etc.” in cyberspace, probably sitting in a town they aren’t from, with a degree or six from a university in a state they’re not from. If place is so great, why are they communicating about it on the placeless Internet with their placeless Internet readers?
Well, this post nails it on the head; for all the talk of this stuff, there really is no constituency for it- not even these right-wing decentralists have “stayed put”. How many times have you moved, Larison? Lots of times, and you’re young… and you’re not the only one. I’d bet none of those “Front Porch Republic” folks are living where they grew up, with their folks down the block from them, and maybe their grandparents across the street. And until there are actual people living like this, creating actual local institutions that function, as you point out, this is all a bunch of wistful talk from the highly mobile, hyper-educated twenty-to-thirty-somethings who, presented with an opportunity to advance themselves in a think tank or university, etc., move cross-country and then proceed to say why that is bad.
I don’t want to name particular names, but reading posts on localism and “place” from various people on your blogroll who’ve attended multiple gigantic universities in different states and draw paychecks to this day from those HUGE corporate institutions that employ HUGE numbers of people makes me roll my eyes.
I loved this post. Thank you for pointing out the uncomfortable truth.
I think it well and good to focus on the local, but in the context of national politics, those of your persuassion need an actual strategy. We all acknowledge that applying the right amount of incompetence can have a disasterous impact on the nation and hence localites. Some things, like supporting the Employee Free Choice Act would help secure those lesser institutions. It is also something anathema on the right. I’m certainly not claiming unions are perfect by the way. Another option would be to seriously reduce the Department of Transportation. Finding a way to solve the medical problems, which isn’t a local issue but possibly a state one, would be another good start.
I wonder if you have ever read this piece by Patrick Deneen (via Rod Dreher) about his experiences visiting Germany, and encountering a kind of “big government paleo-conservatism):
http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-i-saw-in-europe.html
Deneen makes the point that Germans, despite have a large “socialist” government, have used it to create and preserve local communities in a fashion that is very “conservative” in the cultural and local sense. My thought is that, given your correct assessment that people do indeed want big government, health care, SS, and government help for many things, why not create a conservative party that steers all this inevitable big government towards conservtive ends, as seems to be the case in Germany.
Yes, this is throwing in the towel on one aspect of the “means” American conservatives have been advocating for acheiving their goals, but isn’t this a confusion of the means with the ends, and of overvaluing the means at the expense of the ends? If a conservatism of locality and culture can be acheived by big government, what really is the problem with supporting big government, so long as it is directed towards those ends? Shouldn’t conservatives be less dogmatically attached to their means (low taxes, small federal government, free trade, economic laissez-faire) than the actual ends they aim for – cultural preserveration and frreedom from hegemonic monoculture? If big government can be used to create or preserve human-sized communities that can actually promote conservative cultural values, shouldn’t big government be embraced, and directed towards this end, rather than anathematized and thus allowed to be used by others to promote a different and less conservative end?
This would take a big adjustment, I’m sure, but it seems to me to be the best way to combine paleo-conservative values with the incontraverible public desire for big government. And who knows, it could actually prove electorally practical. Any thoughts on this issue?
[...] A thoughtful examination of the future of conservative decentralism from Dan Larison (and his commentors) which relates pretty closely to several of the discussion threads from today and deserves some response from FPR. [...]
I’m quite glad to acknowledge and face up to the uncomfortable truths. The truth in my case is, however, not quite as straightforward as all that. After a few moves in very early years, I stayed in Albuquerque from first grade through high school graduation, and I have tried to return there as often and for as long as I can since then. Admittedly, I have been on something of an academic walkabout ever since, and this is only now coming to an end. But this is why I think I see the value and importance in remaining in a place perhaps more than people who have never ventured outside their home state more than a couple times, and it is why I intend to get back to my home soon. Someone has to combat the pernicious idea that mobility is liberating–it presents with another set of burdens and constraints. It exchanges one set of obligations for another, but perpetuates the fiction that to be displaced is to be free.
“If place is so great, why are they communicating about it on the placeless Internet with their placeless Internet readers?”
For one thing, the Internet may be placeless, but it allows relatively easy communication between likeminded people, who are offering their perspectives on how the places where they live shape them and define them. If a person believes that being rooted in a place is a vital and good thing, and he sees that most of his fellow citizens have lost or are losing that vital and good thing, doesn’t he have some responsibility as a citizen to say so? Do we mock the penitent and the reformed addict, or do we pay attention to what their experience can teach us?
I see what the meritocracy and the hyper-mobile society demand, and by and large I don’t find it edifying. No one who hasn’t lived it could fully appreciate Lasch’s indictment of the elite’s engaging with the world as tourists. Are people who have participated in the meritocracy forever required to pay it homage and ignore its flaws? Aren’t we especially obliged to draw on our own experience to identify what is wrong with it? This is why I always push back against the charge that our position is a weak or precarious one, or that ours is just another fad or choice in a multitude of choices. The conditions we are critiquing wouldn’t cease to exist if we stayed silent, and some recognition that constant mobility and the regular uprooting of people are not conducive to a stable, sane way of life ought to be regarded as being more significant coming from people who have nothing to gain by saying this. I don’t know what wealthy think tanks you think there are out there that reward preaching against “creative destruction,” globalization *and* individual autonomy from a conservative and/or religious perspective, but I can assure you that they have not yet contacted me.
“And until there are actual people living like this, creating actual local institutions that function, as you point out, this is all a bunch of wistful talk from the highly mobile, hyper-educated twenty-to-thirty-somethings who, presented with an opportunity to advance themselves in a think tank or university, etc., move cross-country and then proceed to say why that is bad.”
Well, there are actual people living like this, and some of them do write for FPR. Caleb Stegall lives on his farm in the same state settled by his ancestors over a century and a half ago. I don’t know the full story on everyone writing there, but my guess is that there are a fair few who walk the walk and who do so better than I do. Obviously, Bill Kauffman is a writer, and he writes for a living, but he does it from his ancestral home in upstate New York. Ditto, I believe, Kate Dalton. There are probably others. I suppose we could all be extremely localist and eschew all forms of communication other than letters delivered by hand, but then no doubt someone would say we are living in the dark ages and want to make everyone live in mud huts.
I have seen Deneen’s post. A Christian democratic synthesis of left-conservative and paleo arguments may be inevitable in the future, and I am more open to language and policies of social solidarity and support for the rights of labor than some of my friends, but I don’t know how sustainable such a synthesis would be.
An excellent post. In addition to being economically ruinous for America, globalization is helping to destroy the social base for conservatism in America.
Daniel, I don’t think you have anything to apoliogize for in your personal habits. The notion that supporting local community means never leaving home, or taking advantage of what the wider world has to offer, is just doctrinal nonsense. I think you are right that there’s a “left-conservative” future in the kind of politics which does not homogenize the local and the national, but doesn’t demonize them either, but instead protects and preserves the elements of each which are necessary for a viable and livable country.
One problem with American politics historically is its tendency towards imbalanced thought. To be consistent, people are expected to be all-one-thing or the other, with no cross communication, cross-polination, or respect for a balanced outlook. As Deneen’s article tries to make clear, it’s possible to have both a strong federal government with social democratic values, and a strong respect for local autonomy and the need to preserve local culture and values. It’s also possible for a conservative to support local unions and for a liberal to oppose federally imposed wide-open economic poliices that destroy local economies.
I see nothing wrong with leaving one’s locality to pursue a wider eduction and experience not possible at the local level. This doesn’t mean that one isn’t “walking the walk”. It means one is living in the real world. And like you say, it’s one of the best ways to learn that the rootless world of modern society is not all it’s cracked up to be.
What I would wish you’d address is the issue of larger government. Seeing as you acknowledge that larger government is coming regardless of what one says or does to oppose it, doesn’t it make more sense to yoke larger government to conservative, local values, the kinds of things that are actually more popular on the left these days than on the right, than to oppose large government with advocacy of the very economic laissez-faire which is destroying local culture and creating a monolithic homogenity throughout the country, and the world? Whether it succeeds electorally or not, at the very least it creates a political movement which can have a genuinely positive effect, and allow politicians from both parties to compete at hanging their hats on this set of values, which has far greater meaning than the tired, worn cliches of “secual liberalism” and “gay agenda”. Conservatives at this point are fighting cultural and political wars over empty symbolism, rather than actual meaningful realities that shape the world they live in.
“Do we mock the penitent and the reformed addict, or do we pay attention to what their experience can teach us?”
In my argument, the “addict” isn’t “reformed”. He talks about “smallness” and yet draws a check and health care from a gigantic, corporate, “cosmopolitan” university in a cosmopolitan center (not just you, but I’m not naming other names). He talks about “limits” of sustainability and geography and writes on an unlimited medium for an unlimited audience. He decries mobility and visits towns and cities near and far to spark interest in and sell his books. He talks about the value of “place” and earns his bread from writing, a profession that can be done from anywhere while castigating people who try to transcend their “place” to earn their living. So yeah; I would pay attention to a former alcoholic about not drinking so much, but not if the guy was higher than a Georgia pine when he was saying so.
The Internet is a “place” where “like-minded people can communicate easily” and discuss their like-minded ideas. And yet, like-minded college graduates and post-grads congregating in “cosmopolitan”, socially liberal cities where everybody likes Obama, gay marriage, and organic food instead of going back to the suburbs and small towns they came from is somehow different than this and should be decried. Except…it’s the same thing, see? These Obama-lovin’ young graduates want to be around “like-minded people” with whom they can “communicate easily”, so they move to the nearest “cosmopolitan” city upon graduation instead of going back to some broken down Rustbelt town where more than one person thinks Obama is a Muslim and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity are revered intellects. It makes a monoculture- so does the Internet, apparently, where “like-minded” people seem to congregate to like-minded blogs and their like-minded links.
“I don’t know what wealthy think tanks you think there are…”
None; but the point was that I suspect these folks would choose “advancement” over “place” if pressed. Given that some folks have moved states to attend more prestigious universities than existed in their local “place”, I’m guessing those folks would also move states if they could advance themselves through one of these non-local institutions (say, a major newspaper or major magazine), all the while saying how great “place” was and how unedifying upward mobility turned out to be. That’s speculation, of course, but I haven’t seen too many bios of right-wing-decentralizers that “stay put” rather than take news jobs/university positions in other states.
“Caleb Stegall lives on his farm in the same state settled by his ancestors over a century and a half ago.”
Yes, he is a tough case. Very tough, indeed. After reading Stegall’s “Tractor Pull” article a few weeks ago in which he publicly criticizes his neighborhood and his neighbors, one wonders if it really is “place” he’s loyal to…Hard to tell over the Internet, I guess. But yes; he’s a difficult case. Very difficult.
I suspect much of this hand-wringing is going to be moot. Both the gloom and doomers and end of history types have been proved wrong.
The current system is simply unsustainable. The electorate may want to get everything without paying anything, but they can’t have it. I doubt social security won’t cause multiple crises over the next decade.
There were and are one ancient class of elites that considered themselves tourists in this world: The Saints.
In the Philippines, Marcos fell to Nuns and the people.
We forget that – for all your breaks for Easter and iconic pictures – God is really in control, Christ is risen, and our first duty is to him, at least if we have no king but Jesus.
When the new towers of babel fall, honor and integrity will be back and only the honorable will be popular. When materialism is both operational and ascendant, people don’t care about cheating as they are benefiting. When a stab in the back becomes fatal instead of inconvenient, promises will need to be kept.
Go up on the hill, let the light shine, and wait for darkness to descend on the USA. Do the right thing and let the people see and decide for themselves (like the Ron Paul Campaign) that the only non-negotiable is honor.
I found this to be such a thoughtful post, I’ve blogrolled you. http://www.rightreturn.blogspot.com
I don’t think the correlation between the growth of megacities necessarily implies that people come to be liberal and wanting more goverment. It depends on how you define big city, but suburbs are a big part of that equation that you may have overlooked. In a lot of cases, the city proper is not always where people or usually settle. You would tend to live there in your 20’s but eventually you move out during the later seasons of life. When you’re younger you want a vibrant place with a lot of diversity. But the expense and lack of good schooling makes it harder to stay there. Suburban voters are not as interested in government intervention. Especially because as you get older and get a job with one of the dreaded corporations you tend to appreciate the salary they offer. You don’t want the yard, kids, and work situation to be mucked up by a liberal overzealous central government.