Brooksie, Where Art Thou?

Via Matt Yglesias I see that David Brooks has moved away from the movement:

In the eighties, when he was a young movement journalist, the attacks on regulation and the Soviet Union seemed "true." Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government. Perhaps for that reason, Brooks left movement journalism and, in 2003, became a moderately conservative columnist for the Times.

The central issues of our moment do not include either education or immigration reform?  And I assume the context was domestic public policy, or else the omission of national security is utterly bizarre.

The underlying New Yorker article by George Packer is about the death of the conservative movement.  A snippet:

In its final year, the Bush Administration is seen by many conservatives (along with seventy per cent of Americans) to be a failure. Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles. Buchanan said, “The conservatives need to, in Maoist terms, go back to Yenan.”

The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems. Instead of heading back to Yenan to regroup, conservatives will have to spend some years or even decades wandering across a bleak political landscape of losing campaigns and rebranding efforts and earnest policy retreats, much as liberals did after 1968, before they can hope to reëstablish dominance.

Here's a bit from William Buckley:

Sam Tanenhaus, the editor of the Times Book Review and the Week in Review section, who is working on a biography of Buckley, said that in his final years Buckley understood that his movement was cracking up. “He told me, ‘The conservative movement lost its raison d’être with the end of Communism and never got it back.’ ”

I will add that the Iraq war allowed the Democrats to paper over a lot of their other differences and unite around one issue.

WORTH READING:  Packer tackles the question of how Obama might deal with the elitism issue and develop some white working class appeal, then offers a contrast with McCain, who is speaking in a coal-mining town in Kentucky:

McCain appeared to a warm reception. I had seen him in New Hampshire, where he gave off-the-cuff remarks with vigor; when he is stuck with a script, however, he is a terrible campaigner. Looking pallid, he sounded flat, and stumbled over his lines—and yet they were effective lines, ones that Obama would do well to study. “I can’t claim we come from the same background,” McCain began. “I’m not the son of a coal miner. I wasn’t raised by a family that made its living from the land or toiled in a mill or worked in the local schools or health clinic. I was raised in the United States Navy, and, after my own naval career, I became a politician. My work isn’t as hard as yours—it isn’t nearly as hard as yours. I had an easier start.” He paused and went on, “But you are my compatriots, my fellow-Americans, and that kinship means more to me than almost any other association.”

Obama has enough skill and composure to deliver those lines while keeping a straight face; Michelle never could.

Well, if conservatism is dead anyway, what about a McCain-Bloomberg ticket in 2008?  Bloomberg might agree, since it gives him an eventual path to the White House, and it surely solves McCain's money problem.  McCain and Bloomberg would almost be running as an independent centrist third party, but with no formal Republican candidate taking votes from the right.  Wouldn't Republicans simply stay home?  Not if the vaunted Republican Attack Machine can paint a sufficiently unappealing portrait of Obama.  Groan.  Let me hear a "Yes We Can", or at least a "Here We Go Again".

Al Hunt had Bloomberg on the VP short list just yesterday, with analysis that included this:

For McCain, 71, there are two prerequisites: someone who isn't identified with the Bush administration -- if the McCain mantra will be inexperience, the Obama drum will beat about a third Bush term -- and who has some credibility on economic and domestic issues, not among the Arizona senator's strengths.

Fits Bloomberg to a 'T'.  However, I should add that Mr. Hunt put Bloomberg on Obama's suggested short list.  Well, I am keeping hope alive.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

Any "movement" that has global warming as one of it's central tenants, is gonna get kneecapped.

[Pofarmer]

rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion,

Does that include John Kerry?

[Gmax]

OT but breaking news. Teddy Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Its the cause of the seizure like symptoms. As much as I dislike the man and his policies, I find myself feeling sorry for him right now.

[Mike Huggins]

Bloomburg? Oh God, no!

[Donald]

Why Gmax? He's one of the most evil men in the federal goverment's history.

[Gmax]

I guess I was schooled to hate the sin and forgive the sinner. Not even my worst enemy would I wish a brain tumor on.

[Ken]

“He told me, ‘The conservative movement lost its raison d’être with the end of Communism and never got it back.’ ”

Possible, but that doesn't explain the '94 election and the Contract With America. The combination of losing focus on those precepts and focusing too much on Clinton hastened an end to standing for anything.

[Cecil Turner]

Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming.

Pure idiocy. As if government interference helped wage stagnation (though it certainly can fix the inequality part . . . by taxing us all to the same level of poverty); or that health care was a major problem in this country (as opposed to cost of health care, which the do-gooders are again industriously making worse); or that environmental issues trumped energy production (though that mental disease is rapidly becoming bipartisan). The problem with his "movement" is that it's entirely lacking in common sense. The most pressing issue of the moment (other than the War on Terror), is energy production. The evil conservatives gave the answers the better part of a decade ago, and the leftist idiots, improperly prioritizing environment over production, argued about who attended the meetings. So now we have $4 a gallon gasoline and climbing. Who'd a thunk it? Just an example, but it epitomizes the larger problem.

Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists . . .

Oh, please. If he's even suggesting Democrats aren't the biggest part of the spending/pork problem, then he's not channeling any conservative I've ever spoken with. The reason the GOP lost it as an issue is that they're no longer obviously better (or at least not much) . . . and then there's the (mostly fallacious) hypocrisy charge, that seems to fascinate the small-minded.

[kim]

More likely metastatic than primary.
=====================

[Fat Man]

The conservative movement isn't dead, it has just fled the DC metro area in horror.

I love GW Bush, for his courage in prosecuting the Iraq war and for his support of Israel, but anybody who has NCLB and Medicare Part D as his signature domestic achievements, cannot plausibly claim to be a thoroughgoing conservative. The tax cuts, John Roberts, and Sam Alito are to his credit, but they do not outweigh the detriments of out of control Federal spending, failure to double the size of Defense budget, and failure to veto a single bill in his first term.

[narciso]

I've lost respect for George Packer, since it was discovered his insight rely on Juan
Cole, whose early scholarship on Shia culture was first rate; however as a blogger
is Kos with a Ph.d. and Col. Kwiatkowki, the
LLewelyn Rockwell, Larouchite defamer of the OSP. I've made other comments by Packer
about the kindness of Bill Ayers, and a whole series of issues. The GOP survived Watergate, the Depression, it will make through this rough patch.

[LindaK]

Please not Bloomberg. His main accomplishments are not unraveling Guiliani's accomplishments, a city-wide ban on transfats, and a ban on smoking in bars. He also has some major sexual harrasment suits lingering in the background that occasionally erupt in the NY press. Having said that, he would certainly lend a note of gravitas and by comparison, major achievements in public life.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Why Gmax? He's one of the most evil men in the federal goverment's history.

Donald, I watched a girl with whom I was discussing marriage die of a brain tumor. That you would not see the horror of it suggests you haven't. You might want to think a bit more deeply on this.

[kim]

It is indeed a triumph of the human spirit for n to remain optimistic despite his encyclopedia of crime.
====================

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Matt Yglesias thinks the core issues of our generation are any issues he thinks help the Democrats win.

[Fat Man]

If we accept George Packer's definition of the issues: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming, then we will lean towards accepting the liberal definition of the solution. If we define the issues differently, we will define the solutions differently.

I note that Packer ignores the most intractable problem of our time -- islamo-fascism and its state supporters.

Wage stagnation is a fake issue, the real problem is uncontrolled illegal immigration.

Inequality is a non-issue. It is never mentioned by people who are not liberal academics.

Health care is an issue of government. The medical system, like the educations system, is a creature of government -- over half the money spent on health care comes from the government, and the system, such as it is constructed by government and its regulations. "Fixing" the health care system requires less government, not more.

Global warming, since it either does not exist, or is far beyond human control, is not a political issue, but gaia worship is. Gaia worship stops us from engaging in sensible energy policies like off-shore and Alaska drilling, and dramatic expansion of nuclear power.

The conservative movement has not failed, it has not yet had a chance to govern.

[Neo]

Global Warming doesn't make hime a movement journalist ?

Didn't hear about it? Oh, that's right — the media can't be bothered to report on something that challenges their narrative. They're too busy saving the world from imagined risks and ignoring the real threats we all share.

[Fat Man]

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for her comment on Senator Kennedy's brain tumor.

Divine justice can be unsatisfactorily slow to human eyes. Blessed is our True Judge.

[Thomas Jackson]

Yeah the conservative movement is dead, we are told this by the Left while they click their heels together and say, "I wish this were Moscow, I wish I could have a gulag."

The conservative movement is so dead that the Liberals can't even admit they're Liberals and have to call themselves progressives to avoid the hated Liberal label.

The Founding Fathers wanted limited government and freedom for individuals to persue their interests and fortunes. This is the basis of conservativism. If it is dead so is the USA.

[sbw]

Please not Bloomberg.

"Please not Slytherin."

[MayBee]

sbw, Ha!

[Great Banana]

I would argue that it is a little of both. Bush did squander opportunities to actually govern as a conservative.

At the same time, there are issues on which the GOP is losing /w public perception - such as wage stagnation, health care costs, and "global warming". that doesn't mean that the left's answers are correct as to those things, just that the left has managed to somehow persuade Americans that it has answers and that those answers might work.

Add to that the publics attitude toward the Iraq war (which, I would argue is not, and should not, be a left - right issue), and the GOP is in the dog-house w/ the electorate.

The idea that this is all a problem of conservatism is really just a liberal's dream though. this is a GOP problem. Unfortunately, the GOP is not predominantly conservative. Moreover, many of the problems can be cured w/ a better sales pitch by conservatives (which probably won't happen in time for this election)

Liberals love to trot the death of conservativims out b/c it makes them think that socialism will finally win the day in america.

The truth is, even if the GOP gets trounced this election, conservatism won't be dead. Indeed, since there is not going to be any conservative running this election for president, it is difficult to see how anyone can make that claim.

[Great Banana]

Put another way, if McCaine were to win this election, would all of these reporters out there claim that conservatism won?

I, as a conservative, certainly would not.

Or, when Bill Clinton ran as a moderate "new democrat" and pretended he was not liberal and then was forced to govern that way after 1994, did all of these people claim that progressivism was dead?

these people need to get a grip.

[jimmyk]

since there is not going to be any conservative running this election for president, it is difficult to see how anyone can make that claim.

While agreeing with much of what you said, this seems to beg the question of "Why?" Why have conservatives lost their place in the GOP? To the extent there were conservative presidential candidates (very limited), why did they fade out with barely a whimper?

One can say it's a GOP problem, but I think it's also a lack of articulate, principled leadership in the conservative wing of the party. Where's the Reagan, Goldwater, even Jack Kemp, of today?

[sbw]

GOP is losing /w public perception - such as wage stagnation, health care costs, and 'global warming'

Sorry. I don't buy into all this. You have a win-by-any-means Democratic Party that is willing to alarm people with such shibboleths and a press unwilling to call them on it.

On top of that, conservatism is misrepresented as something that looks backwards, as if trying to save what was, whether worthwhile or not. Conservatism tries to recognize from experience what principles are worth living by today and tomorrow. Interestingly, that is the core of classical liberalism, too.

Meanwhile, with both classical liberalism and conservatism to choose from, one wonders why American liberals insist on the unreachable free lunch of governmental paternalism.

All this is the underlying wash painted on the canvas before painting specific issues on top. When one actually gets to those issues that are mentioned, American liberals and the press don't have the attention span to parse them into options for substantive improvement that might actually work.

Interestingly, this plaintiff cry about GOP losing w/ public perception, itself misses the issues.

[Hoosierhoops]

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for her comment on Senator Kennedy's brain tumor.

Divine justice can be unsatisfactorily slow to human eyes. Blessed is our True Judge.

I think your comment borders on distasteful.
Do you really think the big guy sits upstairs and says ' well this guy had a car accident and a young lady died so in 50 years I'll give him brain cancer..that will teach him'
We all are going to die..100% of us, I think judgement comes after that. I'm not a religious guy but i just don't see a god that uses diseases to punish pols or anyone else. Well that was my one and only post about god this year.. although i prayed for Jordan to be safe a whole lot this year while in Iraq, I understood that if something did happen it wouldn't be god's fault but a terrorists to blame.
so in closing and not to be snide..But Fat Man if you don't start jogging and eating right Maybe God will strike you down with a heart attack....divine judgement and all.
Sorry i don't really mean that..
OK no more talk about god's judgement from the hoopster

[cathyf]

Amen, HH.

[Tom Maguire]

I guess I was schooled to hate the sin and forgive the sinner. Not even my worst enemy would I wish a brain tumor on.

I think that is an admirable impulse, and I am going to stop right there on that topic.

[JM Hanes]

What's with Yglesias' popularity? He has always struck me as one of the most overrated bloggers around (along with the fatuous boy wonder whose name escapes me at the moment -- Ezra something?). and consistently leaves me asking "Where's the meat?" He mostly stands out on the left for being relatively civil and not entirely senseless, but beyond dressing up some pretty standard talking points a little, he's about as substance free as any self-respecting blogger can afford to get. After reading his take on McCain & Iran (the NIE says they're not building nukes!), I'm not even sure he's doing all that well on the senseless front.

[hit and run]

JMH:
along with the fatuous boy wonder whose name escapes me at the moment -- Ezra something?).

You mean Ezra Klein

[JM Hanes]

Hit:

Yep, Klein it is! First came across him when he was agonizing over the mere possibility of succumbing to temptation, abandoning all principle & degrading himself with the kind of vicious indulgences known only to Republicans -- but mostly over whether he would have to hate himself in the morning. IIRC, Election '06 was implicated in some fashion. With your kind assist on the name, I tried googling up that puerile post, but it appears his pre-Prospect maunderings have been disappeared. I suspect the modest improvements in the interim owe more to a mature editorial presence of some kind than to an evolving intellect. The Obamoration you hotlinked was a tellingly rapturous relapse. When the guy's Pantheon of Great Orators consists of Howard Dean, Bill Clinton and John Edwards, we're not exactly talking depth. To paraphrase Hitchens, if Klein's brain exploded, it wouldn't muss his hair.

It's not obvious that I find him seriously annoying, is it? I think I may need therapy.

[clarice]

JMH, I've always turned down the idea of therapy, figuring that buying very expensive clothes was more therapeutic.

[bgates]

JMH - don't you think part of that is the Dems are victims of their own success? Yglesias and Klein may not have the level of sophistication of previous party mouthpieces, but they can't all be a Streisand or an O'Donnell (Laurence or Rosie).

And why not focus on the positives? Sure, neither of them are funny, or original, or insightful, or capable of convincing a skeptical reader of their point of view; but their spelling is absolutely first-rate.

[bgates]

(That last wasn't a shot at any commenter here, of course.)

[JM Hanes]

Of coarse not, bgates!

Excellent choice, Clarice, and soooo much more convenient. I plan to get right on it. I used to have avoid eye contact whenever anyone brought up Imelda Marcos' shoes...

[BOATBUILDER]

It is an article of faith among the partisans of the media tha "income inequality" is the grave crisis of our time, and a huge problem.
On the front page of the Wall St. Journal, of all places, there was an article last week about the earthquakes in China--with the central concern being that because of China's increasing income inequality, poor, rural cities were much harder hit than the newer, wealthier cities (apparently the preference would be for those greedy Chinese yuppies to be crushed in equal proportion to the rural poor).
Do they teach anything but Marxism in J-schools these days?
Whenever some liberal partisan--or just the average ill-informed consumer of the MSM--brings up the "income inequality crisis"--ask them whether they would feel better about things if: a)Bill Gates' made $100 Billion this year and they made $1 Million, or b) Bill Gates made $1 Million and they made $100,000; or c) Bill Gates made $50,000 and they made $50,000.
Ther are some who will say b) or c), but they will be lying.

[Den]

http://www.fotolog.com/exploited_black>exploited black teens
http://www.fotolog.com/demi_moore_nude>demi moore nude
http://www.fotolog.com/2_girls_one_cup>2 girls one cup

[Den]

http://www.fotolog.com/twogirls_one_cup>two girls one cup
http://www.fotolog.com/2_girls_1_guy>2 girls 1 guy

[Den]

http://www.fotolog.com/twogirls_one_cup>two girls one cup
http://www.fotolog.com/2_girls_1_guy>2 girls 1 guy