The Cameron Critique
Yuval Levin, one of my Fourth Way comrades, is working on what is sure to be a very important piece on McCain’s domestic policy, and he made a very important point when I last saw him — conservatism, by its nature, is about reform. Reform, after all, is profoundly un-radical. It is about taking existing institutions that have strayed from their original purpose, that are failing to achieve the goals they set out to achieve, and revitalizing them. Is Social Security as it exists the best way to provide for older Americans? Did its creators anticipate the rise of two-earner households, increased longevity, and a decades-long wealth boom that has rightly raised expectations? Our patchwork healthcare regime is a byproduct of inflation-fighting efforts dating back at least to the second world war. It has grown strikingly inadequate as firms disaggregate, employment patterns shift, and the genomics revolution steadily advances. The same can be said of everything from education to policing and national defense. Hence the relevance of the Cameron project.
‘Labour has moved a lot of people from just below the poverty line to just above it and claimed success,’ says Mr Cameron. ‘The Left’s answer is to use lots of taxpayers’ money to change benefits and tax credits, so that you solve the symptom of poverty which is shortage of money. The cause of poverty is the drugs, alcohol, the crime, educational underachievement, family breakdown and worklessness.’ This distinction between causes and symptom lies at the heart of the new Tory analysis.
This is easier said than done. And that will be the true test — will Boris Johnson succeed in lowering the ideological temperature of urban politics, and he use the limited powers and resources of his office to shift the correlation of forces in favor of creative reformers in the boroughs and, most importantly, in civil society? We’ll see.
“conservatism, by its nature, is about reform.”
That’s funny — because liberalism is also about reform. In fact, my Continental friends tell me that U.S. politics as a whole is “profoundly un-radical.”
(I can’t speak for British politics, but on the surface it doesn’t seem too radical either.)
— Other Ezra · May 11, 10:22 PM · #
If Boris is at all successful, it might be in part due to his sense of humour. Not necessarily that he’s a hilarious guy (I did get a kick out of his “underneath the facade of a blithering idiot lies a…blithering idiot” shtick, though) but that he seems to take ideas, and not himself, seriously.
I think this might be a real strength for him. If he can’t cool down the ideological temperature, he can at least disarm some of his opponents or redirect their attacks. It’s quality that he may share to some degree with Obama.
On the Canadian scene, I’ve witnessed the inverse quality in both unlamented former Prime Minister Paul Martin (who came across as unbearably self-important) and Stephen Harper. (Who, BTW, is a genuinely normal guy – Tim Russert & Chris Matthews would love him – but he carries himself in the political-journalistic arena in such an icy and cutthroat manner that he makes Vlad Putin look like a relaxed, live-and-let-live kind of person.) I don’t know why, but way too many of our politicians are incredibly reluctant to use self-deprecation or irony to their advantage – it’s as if they’ve all adopted Tracy Flick as their role model.
— Tim · May 11, 10:35 PM · #
I should clarify that while Boris Johnson doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously, I’m pretty sure that the same can’t be said about Obama. The quality I think that they share isn’t self-deprecation but rather a certain kind of wryness, a cool knowing irony, that plays very well in a heated debate.
Of course, other than that they’re pretty much chalk and cheese.
— Tim · May 12, 01:58 AM · #