Wilma Jennings Bryan
Great political speeches, like great political movements, own the past and the future. They successfully call upon the traditions and resources of a specific society to solve current problems. The prominent speakers at the Republican convention didn’t seem to me to manage this reconciliation. I’ll try to take them one at a time, and start with Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech because it was so interesting.
Despite its radically different policy conclusions, Palin’s speech reminded me of nothing more than William Jennings Bryan’s famous “Cross of Gold” address to the 1896 Democratic convention. It had, at root, the same wellspring of rhetorical power. We are an almost unimaginably wealthier country now, and our politics has therefore become somewhat more post-materialist. The source of Palin’s defiance is now as much psychological as purely monetary. But the impulse is the same: the small, the rural, the local, and the traditional are mocked when not ignored by the cosmopolitan, coastal mercantile elites. They demand a voice, and assert that they are the bedrock of the country.
As Bryan put it:
…our great cities rest upon our broad and great prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic; but destroy our farms, and the grass will grow in the streets of every city of the country.
As Palin put it:
A writer observed: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.” I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
And then:
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.
We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. …
I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I’ve learned quickly, these past few days, that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here’s a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
This argument is deeply moving; not to everyone exactly, but to lots of people, including me. Bryan lost three presidential elections, so the other guys got to write the history books. But of course losing three times means that he won the nomination three times, which is excellent evidence that he spoke for a good fraction of the American people of his time. But it was a shrinking part of the country. As one key indicator, when Jennings was becoming an adult in 1880, about 50% of the U.S. population was farming; by 1930, shortly after he died, it was down to about 25%. Today, it is about 2%.
Jennings was reacting to the industrial revolution occurring all around him. This sweeping technological / economic change produced enormous flux in social, political and family relationships, and his search for permanence was emotionally understandable. One of the most painful things about markets is that they often make fools of our fathers. Sharp operators with an eye for the main chance often outperform those who carefully learn a trade and continue a tradition. This is especially true in times of rapid change, such as those occurring a hundred years ago, and those occurring today.
In the end, though, accepting his broad program would have meant opting out of the modern world, and no real electorate would do that for long. With the exception of the self-consciously Progressive Woodrow Wilson, the Republicans owned the presidency for the 36 years from 1897 to 1933. It required the political genius of FDR to invent the modern farmer-labor coalition that delivered Democratic political dominance for the next 30 – 40 years. Note that this required reconciling two groups that had typically been seen as antagonistic: Jennings’s shrinking percentage of rural voters, and the growing constituency of industrial laborers. Reagan’s ability to achieve realignment in 1980 arose from the relative decline of these voting blocks and the changing economy and world position of the United States, combined with the commitments of the Democratic Party to the arrangements that had worked so well for them for decades.
Today, tens of millions of Americans are conservative traditionalists. These people form a huge block that can be a major component of a governing coalition. But like farmers a hundred years ago, this is a shrinking part of the population. While psychological and religious commitments can be maintained, at some level of abstraction, in a wide variety of circumstances, the occupational categories and other objective attributes of day-to-day life that tend to create political interests are changing as rapidly as they were a hundred years ago. We are as fully committed to the Information Revolution today as were to the Industrial Revolution in 1896.
I wish that some of the social, moral and political implications of this were not so, but it is usually wise to segregate our hopes from our expectations. I think this is why Peggy Noonan – who seems like the first person you would go to for intelligent analysis of a Republican political speech – said this about Palin’s address:
Which gets me to the most important element of the speech, and that is the startlingness of the content. It was not modern conservatism, or split the difference Conservative-ish-ism. It was not a conservatism that assumes the America of 2008 is very different from the America of 1980.
It was the old-time conservatism. Government is too big, Obama will “grow it”, Congress spends too much and he’ll spend “more.” It was for low taxes, for small business, for the private sector, for less regulation, for governing with “a servant’s heart”; it was pro-small town values, and implicitly but strongly pro-life.
This was so old it seemed new, and startling. The speech was, in its way, a call so tender it made grown-ups weep on the floor. The things she spoke of were the beating heart of the old America. But as I watched I thought, I know where the people in that room are, I know their heart, for it is my heart. But this election is a wild card, because America is a wild card. It is not as it was in ’80. I know where the Republican base is, but we do not know where this country that never stops changing is.
Conservative traditionalists require advocates within any party that would represent them, and if Sarah Palin plays this role, fair enough. But successful national political leaders need to synthesize disparate interests. This is why it always seemed so fatuous to me to criticize the Republican coalition of 1980 – 2000 as containing groups with sometimes conflicting interests. All governing coalitions manage this; it’s one reason why perceiving future trends, and then envisioning and creating a coalition that can manage them is an act of supreme statesmanship. Mistaking Sarah Palin, at least based on her convention address, for such a leader would be a terrible blunder.
It’s funny the extent to which the Palin nomination has and will continue to darken our political discourse. Ross Douthat has lost respect for many people given their negative reactions to Palin. Fair enough, given the extent to which some people who went more than a little overboard in their zeal to criticize what was, on almost every level, a truly appalling pick. OTOH, I’ve lost all respect for every one of her supporters. I think I can honestly say that I have no desire to enter into any political dialog of any sort with anybody who can actually support the Palin pick specifically and McCain generally. The gulf in world views is just too great.
One irony, here, though. Republicans generally, and Palin supporters in particular, should actually be thrilled at the media’s odious focus on her family issues last week. That focus:
(1) Obscured her other, very real, failings in the short run;
(2) Has created a narrative which will further obscure such issues going forward; and
(3) Has created a media dynamic which will allow the outrageous bullying tactics of the McCain campaign to succeed, thus cowing the media from (again) examination of Palin’s real record and limitations.
The simple fact is, that, ideology aside, and focusing only on her record of (mis)governance, her … penchant for telling untruths .. and her (lack of) preparation for the office, the Palin pick was and is a joke. Ancillary issues, family, church, culture, some of which are marginally relevant, most of which are not, only serve to obscure this basic and undeniable fact.
— LarryM · Sep 8, 04:26 PM · #
I once asked my grandfather (who has been dead for almost 30 years now) which presidential candidate he first voted for. I almost fell off my chair when he said, “William Jennings Bryan.” Ever since, I’ve wished I had asked him more questions about it. He spent some of his boyhood years on a farm, but was not a farmer. Maybe it was the effect you described here.
I’ve been having my ups and downs with Sarah Palin’s candidacy. It took several days, but by the time of her acceptance speech I decided I would vote for McCain/Palin after all. Ever since the Republicans flinched at putting a stop to ClintonCrime, I’ve voted for Libertarian candidates instead. I kind of got into the habit, and Republican fundraisers long ago took me off their lists, at my insistence. I could see coming back, if she is really the person she has been portrayed as being.
I very rarely watch televised speeches, but last night decided to watch Palin’s on YouTube. That plus some things I’ve read about her activities as mayor actually cooled me on the prospect. There needs to be more than what we got in that speech.
But over at LiveJournal on the Libertarian community, one person tells at 2nd hand about a time long ago: “Also, I had the opportunity to talk to a dude who met Palin when she was a councilwoman in Wasilla. He said to her “At leas you’re in a conservative state.” She look at him in shock and said “Alaska isn’t a conservative state. It’s a Republican Welfare state!” “
If that’s true, and if she recognizes it as a problem, then I would get more enthusiastic again.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 8, 04:29 PM · #
As before, Jim speaks compellingly from across the aisle that divides us.
But I think he is seriously remiss in not acknowledging the image versus the reality, the distinctions demanded between insubstantial projection and underlying substance.
All the cases in point are well-known; the first that comes to mind is her impressive mastery of the earmark art, rising to heights undreamed of elsewhere. Her stage being one in which a single resource oils the gears of government constitutes a sharp difference from her populist posture as she struts on that stage, is another disjuncture.
The pettiness that pervades her style of governing too closely resembles the current administration’s to allow other than unease; it is indeed populism, in its worst form.
Dare one add the issue of selfless sincerity, one thing that truly distinguishes Bryan and places the two of them poles apart?
— felix culpa · Sep 8, 04:52 PM · #
When Noonan writes “a call so tender it made grown-ups weep”; she knows, but fails to note, she is praising the script-writer’s art.
And, as implied in Spokesrider’s assessment, from reports (I haven’t yet been able to bring myself to watch it) her speech was anything in the world but tender.
Noonan knows whereof she speaks when it comes to speech-writing; shaping the words, the rhetoric, to fit the program. She exemplifies it here.
— felix culpa · Sep 8, 05:09 PM · #
There is a world-wide shift that that moves with what seems to us to be glacial slowness (though it seems to be speeding up recently) and it moves pretty inexorably from right to left, from rural to urban. A very small example: does anyone think the anti-gay marriage forces will win in the long run? This has nothing to do with who controls the white house.
I think there is a natural, rational role for conservativism in this situation and that is to be the wise shepards of inevitable change, instead of the resistors to inevitable change [McCain’s absurd new campaign slogan is not relevant here]. I know this is a level of abstraction above uniting disparate collalitions, but this is what came to mind. And I think that that would be a stance that some new voter sectors could come together under. For conservatives it would mean ditching the red-state blue-state nonsense. Although there seem something intrisic to the conservative psychology to the us vrs. them. Speaking in vast generalities. But us vrs them sure does come up a lot with conservatives.
What I would really like from a party or politcal movement would be a commitment to the idea of working towards a live and let live, equal opportunity society—understanding that you can probably never get all the way there—combined with a cold hearted, CONSERVATIVE, mindset as far as methods. In other words, a liberal vision and a conservative execution.
I think something like this is the stance of the future. I would vote for that party.
— cw · Sep 8, 05:51 PM · #
Larry: I think I can honestly say that I have no desire to enter into any political dialog of any sort with anybody who can actually support the Palin pick specifically and McCain generally.
My man.
CW: What I would really like from a party or politcal movement would be a commitment to the idea of working towards a live and let live, equal opportunity society—understanding that you can probably never get all the way there—combined with a cold hearted, CONSERVATIVE, mindset as far as methods. In other words, a liberal vision and a conservative execution.
Amen, brother. As Nietzsche wrote, “The most valuable insights are arrived at last; but the most valuable insights are methods.”
— JA · Sep 8, 06:12 PM · #
This article and Nick Carr’s “The Big Switch” should be read simultaneously. Related themes in more than one way. I’m a conservative traditionalist who will vote for McCain/Palin. Would also say I’m firmly committed to the Information Revolution. I like my toys as well as any 43-year old. I don’t know this was entirely the case 100 years ago, since embraceing the Industrial Rev. meant altering one’s trade and livelihood – and homestead, in many cases. Modern conserative traditionalists (oxymoron?) such as myself have co-opted our Info Revolution toys and trades to sustain our incomes and careers. This is the primary difference. If we’re guilty of anything, it’s pragmatism, and not a political ideological exodus as happend with Jennings’ generation.
— David Milton · Sep 8, 06:16 PM · #
Somehow a big chunk of my brilliant first paragraph didn’t make it on-line:
There is a world-wide shift that that moves at what seems to us to be glacial slowness and it moves pretty inexorably from right to left, from rural to urban, from religious-based understanding of the world to science-based understanding of the world. Conservativism is been forced by it’s nature to push against the glacier. But the glacier always wins. For instance, does anyone think the anti-gay marriage forces will win in the long run? This has nothing to do with who controls the white house.
— cw · Sep 8, 06:31 PM · #
Jim: But successful national political leaders need to synthesize disparate interests.
From what I know about Palin (a good amount!), she’s fine with merely symbolizing Christian values in speech and life-style, rather than using power to pursue a Christian-traditionalist agenda.
Most Christian conservatives I’ve talked to, and I’m up to my ears in them [*], are content with that. It’s not that they like her because she’ll represent their interests (this barely registers on their radar), they like her because she represents the excellence of their values.
[*] I’m not joking about this. When I lived in Detroit, my family started New Faith Chapel. Two uncles are preachers, and my dad is a gospel music singer. And I live in Chattanooga.
— JA · Sep 8, 06:31 PM · #
“In other words, a liberal vision and a conservative execution.”
I’m not going to pretend that the current Democratic party (with which I have my own problems) exemplifies this, but it is kind of interesting that this is basically the antithesis of the current GOP, which marries a conservative (or, at least, non-liberal) vision with an execution which is … decidedly non-conservative.
It’s also interesting that, at least in terms of his message, Obama is running very much a liberal vision/conservative execution campaign. I won’t get into whether the message meets the policy specifics,
— LarryM · Sep 8, 06:34 PM · #
Shit, my amazing closing graph got cut off. It was something about the disconnect between representing values as a person, on the one hand, and using government power to enforce those values. As CW observes, the battle against the religious right on the latter front is pretty much over. Most Christian-traditionalists have moved past enforcement — a lost cause — and are now primarily worried about preservation.
Insofar as Palin is representative of the excellence of Christian-conservative values, she’ll be a bulwark against the denuding of those values in our culture. That, more than any other reason, is why they like her.
— JA · Sep 8, 06:53 PM · #
“I think I can honestly say that I have no desire to enter into any political dialog of any sort with anybody who can actually support the Palin pick specifically and McCain generally.”
Back in the days when liberals roamed the earth, they would have known what to do with a statement like this. In fact, they would have turned it over to young liberals-in-training for something easy to practice on.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 8, 07:33 PM · #
I understand what you are getting at, but I think you miss the point.
First of all, I’m really not much of a “liberal” these days as the term is usually used. In some respects, I suppose I am moving toward a sort of classical liberalism, though perhaps on first glance that would make my my statement even more discordant.
But if there is one “liberal” nostrum that I have become increasingly disenchanted with, it is the notion that dialog between people of good faith can be productive in terms of solving problems.
It can’t, partly because there aren’t enough people (on both sides) of good faith, partly because basic assumptions differ so much, partly because most people (on both sides) don’t have the knowledge base and intelligence to make such a dialog fruitful..
Look at this site, for example. It is certainly more PLEASANT than the typical blog, because you do have people of good faith trying to understand each other. But is it at the end of the day going to lead to any REAL greater understanding or better policy decisions? No. In a sense, it makes things worse. From my perspective, Palin is such an absurd pick, even setting aside ideology and the less savory attacks on her. The fact that the (relatively) intelligent and reasonable conservatives here don’t see that is deeply concerning.
To put it another way, I DO understand Palin’s appeal, as articulated by some of the posters here and elsewhere. But to have her atavistic appeal (to many people) trump other issues – both in terms of her own deficiencies, as well as the problems at the top of the ticket, is beyond depressing.
Now, I can understand how a certain type of person can support McCain/Palin – a socially conservative extreme hawk who is more concerned about symbolism that action on social issues, who isn’t concerned with putting our nuclear arsenal in the hands of a 72 year old with serious anger issues or a person who is a complete neophyte with regards to foreign affairs, and who doesn’t really care much about REAL reform in the Republican party – but it’s clear that the ticket’s appeal goes well beyond such people.
I’d urge you all to check out Daniel Larison’s site. He has been making some of the same arguments from a traditional conservative perspective. Maybe he will be more persuasive to you than my left libertarian/overly angry manner of trying to raise some of the same points.
— LarryM · Sep 8, 07:58 PM · #
I also understand the desire of a lot of people to elect an “outsider.” Ironically, I think Palin’s “inexperience” has been a net plus for her. As someone who would like to see the nation governed by someone outside the elite Washington consensus (albeit someone very different from Palin), I am broadly sympathetic. But the fact is this: as much as many of us would like to see the United States take a smaller role in the world and shrink the size of government, until that happens (sometime in the next millennium, maybe?) the president runs an enormously powerful and complex bureaucracy, as well as the most powerful military the world has ever seen. McCain/Palin do not have the power of or the desire to change these twin facts.
It may be that United States government, confined to the smaller domestic and foreign roles originally contemplated by our forefathers, could be led by a person with little preparation for such role. But as long as the federal government is what it is, that is not the case.
And that doesn’t even address the extent to which Palin’s failure’s at governing in both previous offices severely question her abilities to do so nationally, even if she could somehow get a crash course on the national level issues.
Of course, even most of her intelligent supporters realize this – they just involve themselves in a bit of magical thinking regarding McCain’s health, and/or invoke fantasies wherein Palin selects an experienced VP if McCain dies in office, and then resigns in his favor.
— LarryM · Sep 8, 08:10 PM · #
cw: “There is a world-wide shift that that moves at what seems to us to be glacial slowness and it moves pretty inexorably from right to left, from rural to urban, from religious-based understanding of the world to science-based understanding of the world. Conservativism is been forced by it’s nature to push against the glacier. But the glacier always wins.”
Pathetically simplistic and self-serving! One hears this framing from Progressives and Modernists all the time. Indeed, it is the rationale for most kinds of Modernism and Progressivism. It deserves to be stamped down with urgency. Three objections, first two general, then one specific.
First, your parallel sliding scales are suspicious, and can be generalized as one grand two-dimensional scale against which conservatism vainly acts. I think you would grant that this an exceedingly simplified view, as most social indicators do not historically fit your model of “Conservatism and its opposites.” What do we make of Margarat Sanger’s racism? Woodrow Wilson’s hawkishness? Gorbachev’s reformism? Let us thank God that people more “conservative” that Sanger could slow her down as much as they were able.
Second, what guarantor is there for the “glacial shift” in social arrangements you describe? God? The Dao? The Zeitgeist? The historical dialectic? Manifest Destiny? Any such guarantor seems inherently suspect to me, and history backs me up, and yet without such a guarantor your axiom is mere assertion.
Third, even granting a two-dimensional scale, I can think of big counterexamples to your inexorable glacial shift against which conservatism vainly pushes. I already mentioned Sanger’s eugenicism. For much of the twentieth century the argument was not whether large-scale economic planning and collectivism should exist, but to what degree it should be executed. That trend was exhausted by conservatives who knew better than to suppose they were fruitlessly striving against inexorable change. Likewise with Modernism and the arts. To speak specifically to my own area, composers of art music in the 40’s and 50’s thought all new music should either be serialized a la Schoenberg, randomized a la Cage, or involve non-pitch electronics, or else it was “useless.” Now art music frequently evokes older styles and is taken quite seriously, making the firebreathers of yore look rather silly.
— Blar · Sep 8, 08:16 PM · #
Larry: I know I keep hounding you on this, but it would really help me and everyone understand you better if you stopped lobbing the same airy generalities about your distaste towards McCain/Palin and gave some specifics. What evidence is there for you to suppose McCain doesn’t care about action on social issues? On what grounds do you suggest that he doesn’t care about reform in the Republican party? What failures do you see in Palin’s administrations that we blinkered ideologues are perilously ignoring?
Also: “who isn’t concerned with putting our nuclear arsenal in the hands of a 72 year old with serious anger issues or a person who is a complete neophyte with regards to foreign affairs.” This smacks of base fearmongering and is unbecoming. I could make a similar argument with the Obama-Biden ticket, but I would like to think I can make the case against them without invoking an American nuclear holocaust.
— Blar · Sep 8, 08:38 PM · #
Blar: On the first point, Palin first, McCain later if we have time: (1) as mayor – her “signature issue,” the sports arena, was at the same time very un-conservative, fiscally profligate, and ineptly handled (in terms of the land ownership issue). What else did she do of note there to balance that? (2) As governor, as much as I like to stick it to the oil companies, the evidence seems to suggest that she did so in an irresponsible, and, again, very un-conservative manner; (3) in both offices, she managed to combine a love of earmarks and otherwise dependence on the federal tit with a vindictive, personal vendetta style of governing (see trooper gate).
Let me ask you – what were the positives?
On the second question, you know, some times alarmism really is justified. It would take me paragraphs to explain why I think it is in this case. See my prior posts; even if I could write a book on the issue, I doubt I could convince you, people being as they are. It doesn’t stop me from being appalled.
— LarryM · Sep 8, 08:52 PM · #
McCain, briefly,
On social issues – eh, I’m not exactly the right person to ask, but certainly social conservatives raised many issues about his sincerity, and I’m sure that you are aware of much of the basis of this. And I suppose this concern was just invalidated by his selection of Palin?
On reform – sincerity, while an issue, isn’t the main one. You accuse me of being vague, but advocates of “reform” use that term in a pretty loose fashion. What McCain has historically meant by reform (campaign finance reform, immigration) hasn’t exactly been embraced by the conservative base. What they mean by reform appears to be quite different, and it’s not at all clear to me how McCain all of the sudden became their avatar. Earmarks? Even if one assumes his sincerity, and ignores the selection of the earmark queen for VP, that’s ultimately pretty small potatoes. He certainly doesn’t have a problem with lobbyists, who permeate his campaign – I mean, if that isn’t your issue, you may have no problem with it, but still …
And look at the campaign he has run – long on vague talk of reform, but short on specifics. On the issues, he has basically run a very conventional Republican business as usual campaign. I mean, some people think that’s just fine, but if you think the Republican party has gone seriously astray …
Well, let me ask you – what about McCain, specifically, do you think make shim a real reformer?
Finally, I know that in the prior post and this post I’m doing more than sketching our positions. But who here has done more than that. You ask me for specifics – where are the specifics of Palin’s defenders? McCain’s defenders? I mean, I still haven’t seen a defense of her preparedness for the job that passes the laugh test.
— LarryM · Sep 8, 09:44 PM · #
“Second, what guarantor is there for the “glacial shift” in social arrangements you describe? God? The Dao? The Zeitgeist? The historical dialectic? Manifest Destiny? “
THe “guarantor” is that more people are better off and thus the pressure is in that direction.
— cw · Sep 8, 10:30 PM · #
Larry, I will respond to you, but you have given me a lot to digest, bless you.
cw: It sounds like you mean that conservatism always resists things that would make people better off. I hoped my post made it clear that is often not the case.
— Blar · Sep 9, 12:04 AM · #
“ … (1) as mayor – her “signature issue,” the sports arena, was at the same time very un-conservative, fiscally profligate, and ineptly handled (in terms of the land ownership issue). … (2) … stick it to the oil companies, the evidence seems to suggest that she did so in an irresponsible, and, again, very un-conservative manner; (3) in both offices, she managed to combine a love of earmarks and otherwise dependence on the federal tit with a vindictive, personal vendetta style of governing (see trooper gate).”
If LarryM keeps this up, he’ll soon have me believing Sarah Palin is no better than a Democrat.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 9, 01:04 AM · #
Oh Jim.
Palin is just Another Old White Guy in drag.
She believes in creationism, and what is evenmore emblematic of profound lack of intellect and flexibity of mind, she thinks creationism can be taught in public schools post Kitzmiller.
Bush:“Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about.”
Palin:“Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”
She simply isnt bright enough.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 01:18 AM · #
C’mon Jim, it is not hard to understand.
Its the cudlips versus the l33ts.
There are more cudlips, but Jefferson was a l33t.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 01:21 AM · #
Dammit, matoko, what did I just tell you?
— Blar · Sep 9, 01:23 AM · #
lol blar, she walked it back, just like she walked back the bridge to nowhere after intitially supporting it.
Doesnt that prove she is just another politician? say anything.
Like I said to Manzi on the last thread, it doesnt take a rocketscientist to figger it out Reihan.
Its the cudlips vs the l33ts.
Sure theres more cudlips.
But Thom Jefferson was a l33t.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 01:27 AM · #
Spokesrider,
Funny, but not really responsive.
I’m increasingly suspicious of big government, so I won’t get into a full throated defense of the Dems. Two points though:
My main point was that the conservative enthusiasm for Palin it was curious, and saddening. Joking that Palin “is no better than a Democrat” doesn’t undermine that point, but reinforces it.
Secondly, whatever one thinks about big government, I think we can agree that some big government programs/projects are better run than others. Not only is there reason to question Palin’s small government bona fides, but, as I pointed out, she will in fact (if she is elected and succeeds McCain) be running a very large government. That fact that she didn’t do a very good job of running small governments does not auger well for her running a much bigger government. I mean, I know you want a much smaller government (heck, in some respects so do I), but until that time comes, don’t you think we should run the government we have as efficiently as possible? Or are you into a kind of Marxian “heighten the contradictions” analysis? If so, maybe your support of Palin becomes more explicable.
Even more to the point, it seems to me that, if I was a small government conservative, one of my biggest complaints would be that the Republicans have institutionally become just as bad as the Dems on size of government issues. It seems odd that the response to such fact should be to name a VP candidate who, despite talking a good game, doesn’t exactly have a sterling record on such issues.
— LarryM · Sep 9, 01:40 AM · #
Matoko:
Kind of like William Jennings Bryan :)
— Jim Manzi · Sep 9, 01:52 AM · #
matoko: I guess my clarification is your dissembling. Do you have evidence for your interpretation, or is it just bad faith?
Alright, Larry, let’s do this.
I hadn’t heard of the Wasilla rec center fiasco, and I thank you for letting me know about it. Certainly it reflects badly on Palin, but while we may question the mayor’s savvy, I don’t think you can question her judgment. It’s not like the Palin administration made bad decisions, but that they were frankly cheated, first by a landowner that was making two deals at once, then by a federal judge who renegged on a decision in their favor. As to the charge that building a community center is “unconservative,” I invite you to read a little on the conservative case for localism.
I have nothing but respect for her handling of oil and corrupt Alaskan politicians. Your notion that her handling of the situation is irresponsible and unconservative is baseless and strange.
I have commented already that Palin’s history with earmarks is upsetting. Her hiring of Steven Silver is very odd. I feel that a few things are getting left out of the Palin-earmarks narrative, however. First, as governor, she had to continue fighting the corrupt regime of Stevens and Young. Second, nevertheless, earmarks requests in Alaska decreased precipitously during her two years as governor. Third, it is not clear that all the earmarks Wasilla received when Palin was mayor were the results of requests from her and Silver. In particular, $15 million of the nearly $27 million in earmarks that are said to have benefitted Wasilla went to the Alaska Railroad Corporation for a “commuter rail project between Girdwood and Wasilla.” At the very least, it is difficult to claim that Wasilla was the sole beneficiary of that $15 million, and it seems as likely that the railroad requested the earmarks. “In the six years form 1997 to 2002, the railroad received almost $300 million in federal cash, according to reports in the Anchorage Daily News.”
Troopergate? Isn’t that the partisan witch hunt that no one but Palin antagonists seem very upset over? A biased interpretation, perhaps, but the news that investigation overseer Hollis French, who has endorsed Obama’s candidacy, has promised a damaging “October Surprise” lends credence to the theory.
As to what Palin has actually done? Balanced the budget in both Wasilla and Alaska while overseeing the routing of most of the corrupt Alaskan Republican machine, to 80% approval ratings, all in two years.
Next up, Larry and Blar take on: McCain!
— Blar · Sep 9, 02:35 AM · #
“cw: It sounds like you mean that conservatism always resists things that would make people better off. I hoped my post made it clear that is often not the case.”
Sure. But conservativism often finds itself resisting changes that make society more just. In fact conservatives often mock the concept of trying to create a just society. But over a period of time, you will see that, in the west, at least, the the trend is towards more just societites. And conservatives have consistently resisted changes in thsi direction. Changes that we take for granted now as obvious, as pretty soon I believe we will see same sex marriage as obvious. That’s because that’s what conservativism does as a guide for political policy. Resist change. When I say conservativism I mean the conservativism that is apart from libertarian instincts, the basic psychological desire to conserve the status quo. For me these seem to be two separate things. One says “leave me alone,” the other says “I’m going to keep all my stuff.” The two get entwined because “leave me alone” can be a rationalization for “l’m going to keep all my stuff.” This is just basic human instict and the part of conservativism that has been losing (one step forward, two steps back) for a long time now. Maybe the cycle will turn and we’ll start becoming less free and less equal, but I sure hope not.
I see it as a never ending struggle between building up and breaking down societal structures that favor one group over the others, the groups consisting of friends and family, or tribal members or races or nationalities. It’s the movement from concentrated power and resources to diffused power and resources. The world has—in general—been getting more diffuse, though it could go a lot further. What this has to do with Jim Manzi’s post, I don’t know. He was talking about coalition building. This part of what I was saying was probably a digression, or at best a tangent.
ps. I believe that when Palin left office the budget in Wassilla was in deficit.
— cw · Sep 9, 02:51 AM · #
LarryM, Yes, I am concerned that Sarah Palin may be the 2nd coming of GWB. That’s what tempers my enthusiasm for her. Whether she made all sorts of hypocritical compromises and misjudgments in Alaska doesn’t in itself bother me a lot. She’s the one of the four candidates who has had executive experience, and that’s part of it. What I would like to know is what she has learned from those experiences, and what she would do if she were in the oval office. Unfortunately, we’re not going to get a very complete answer before election day. Voting for McCain/Palin will be a huge risk. Unfortunately, so far it looks like McCain could not have made a better choice.
Also unfortunately, voting for the other side would not be risky at all. We know that its administration will be one of non-stop corruption, ineptitude, and expansion. No question about it.
I still may end up voting Libertarian again, but at the moment I’m in the McCain/Palin camp. (Blech. How I hate to say a sentence like that with the word McCain in it.)
— The Spokesrider · Sep 9, 03:12 AM · #
Look…this is the first real post-American Idol presidential election.
The candidates are defined by visuals and soundbites.
Palin is a visually appealing candidate for the cudlips.
She is their rockstar, Obama is the rockstar of the l33ts.
Their policies are immaterial beside the Image.
I think a visual gaffe would break the deadlock, like the electorate seeing a height comparision, or possibly my demographic (the invisible-to-pollsters youth vote) if we actually vote.
— matoko_chan · Sep 9, 12:15 PM · #
I’m going to have to claim lack of time for a proper response again. Two very quick points:
Blar – I still haven’t seen anything like a positive case for either Palin or McCain from you. Yeah, sure, you like her and her story – is that enough? Should that be enough?
And troopergate – yes, that is certainly how it is being spun. But come on, the unvarnished facts are fairly damning, no? I mean, certainly she may have a valid explanation for the firing, but we haven’t heard it (and won’t, given her scorched earth strategy towards the investigation). In the absence of such an explanation, the undisputed facts – public official pressured to fire the trooper, public official refuses, public official is fired – should, I would think, at least raise some questions among supporters. Let me put it this way – your spin – is that what you REALLY think in your heart of hearts?
Spokesrider – while there is a lot I could say regarding your, essentially, “lesser of two evils” argument, it really doesn’t address my question – I’m not shocked at the lesser of two evils case, though I disagree with it; I’m surprised at the level of positive enthusiasm for the ticket from level headed conservatives.
— LarryM · Sep 9, 01:34 PM · #
LarryM — I don’t do lesser-of-two-evils. That’s why I didn’t vote for Bush over Gore or Kerry, even though a lesser-of-two-evils case was being urged on us. It just wasn’t worth it. I think there is a possibility that positive good can come out of McCain/Palin, or I wouldn’t vote for them. There is also a possibility of Bush-like disaster. But Obama/Biden will be unmitigated evil. That’s not a possibility. It’s a 100 percent certainty. (Which is not to say that there aren’t a few points on which I prefer Obama’s rhetoric to that of his opponents.)
— The Spokesrider · Sep 9, 01:48 PM · #
Jim, looking back over what you wrote, I agree with you a lot more than I did initially, especially this part:
The source of Palin’s defiance is now as much psychological as purely monetary. But the impulse is the same: the small, the rural, the local, and the traditional are mocked when not ignored by the cosmopolitan, coastal mercantile elites. They demand a voice, and assert that they are the bedrock of the country.
I was hung up on the (rather large) distinctions between them. Bryan had reduced his self-proclaimed “contest of principle” to a particular policy platform, a meaty, practical, tangible policy difference with the opposition — i.e., the money question. Up to now, Palin has been conspicuous in her lack of us/them, perspective-derived substance (some would say substance in general); even as Governor of Alaska, she quieted her Christian, rural beliefs when it came time to propose and execute policy. In the words of Sullivan, she’s a Christian person, not a Christianist politician.
But I do get what you’re saying, and think it was a great insight on your part to compare the two. The rhetoric, the buttons-pushed, the particular us-them dichotomies — these are very similar. Where I differ, where I can’t quite see what you’re seeing, is the “she’s not synthesizing disparate interests” part, and the “getting left behind” part.
Sarah Palin sells good government, energy aggressiveness, secular-Conservative economic policies, and herself. Only the latter emphasizes and borrows from her Christian traditionalism and smalltownishness. It’s the public-key encryption of her ethics-reform-cum-run-of-the-mill conservative platform.
So unless you’re saying that ethics reform and economic conservatism are being left behind . . . I just don’t get the substantive (as opposed to rhetorical) parallels.
P.S. In a game I like to play called “What if Oswald Spengler is right”, here’s something to think about:
Civilization is the victory of city over country, whereby it frees itself from the grip of the ground, but to its own ultimate ruin. Rootless, dead to the cosmic, irrevocably committed to stone and to intellectualism, its language is that of becomeness and completion, rather than becoming and growth. There arises an intellectual art of playing with expression, practised by the Alexandrines and the Romantics — by Theocritus and Brentano in lyric poetry, by Reger in Music, by Kierkegaard in religion. Finally, speech and truth exclude one another.
Pure Civilization, as a historical process, consists in a progressive taking-down of forms that have become inorganic or dead. From these periods onward the great intellectual decisions take place, not as in the days of the Orpheus-movement or the Reformation in the “whole world” where not a hamlet is too small to be unimportant, but in three or four world-cities that have absorbed into themselves the whole content of History, while the old wide landscape of the Culture, become merely provincial, serves only to feed the cities with what remains of its higher mankind. World-city and province — the two basic ideas of every civilization. In place of a world, there is a city, a point, in which the whole life of broad regions is collecting while the rest dries up.
It’s when “hatred wells up out of the village”, and “contempt flashes back from the castle”, that the period of Second Religiousness sweeps forth from the provinces and overwhelms the cities.
(tepidly) Heh.
— JA · Sep 9, 02:02 PM · #
Larry, I had to break my posting into parts, because I was dying of the plague. I think I can muster the wherewithal to continue. I wanted to address your points one by one, then make the larger case for McCain and Paling.
I’m going to be a little less link-happy here, because this is taking a lot of time already.
First, re Troopergate: There isn’t an excuse for the firing because there was no firing. Monegan was reassigned to the Alaskan equivalent of the ATF, a job which he refused and resigned from. The reason given for the reassignment was that he was failing to resolve budget issues and hiring shortages, but the Palin administration still wanted his expertise in dealing with alcohal issues. He must have taken the reassignment personally.
Your “heart of hearts” appeal is a little insulting, frankly. I’m sanguine because Palin actually seems very open and accomodating to the investigation, because it’s her political enemies that are spearheading the investigation, and because said enemies are practically crowing that they are going to get her. I’m not in some sort of deep denial because I can’t deal with the prospect that my new favorite politician might be a wolf. I just have no reason to believe she’s a wolf.
Let’s go to McCain.
On social conservatives, McCain doesn’t have much of a problem. In 2000 he said some things about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that many conservative evangelicals didn’t like (“agents of intolerance”), but that seems to be water under the bridge now. Even before the Palin selection, McCain was polling something like 60% of evangelicals, compared to, I think, 24% for Obama. Despite its push to appeal to evangelicals, the Obama campaign is doing no better with them than Kerry did in 2004. This is because evangelicals are a pragmatic lot, and that despite McCain’s harsh words, he has voted with them on their issues more than Obama has.
On reform, what do you want? He is the name behind Campaign Finance Reform, the champion of earmark reform, and was one of the louder voices denouncing the spectre of Jack Abramoff and his ilk. You will observe that CFR is a problem for conservatives, and you are right. I will get to that, but for now observe too that this is evidence McCain cares about this reform stuff more than kowtowing the party line.
So here is how I see the recent history of the Republican campaign, and how it makes the case for the strenght of McCain-Palin. Basically, conservatives thought the Republican brand stinked. There are two reasons for this. I already talked about the institutional corruption and complacency of the Republican in Washington. The other reason, not readily appreciated by non-conservatives, is that conservatives had reason to believe that national Republicans didn’t care about conservatism anymore. Fiscal conservatives noted that Republicans increased domestic irresponsibly. Social conservatives saw that Republicans were anemic on social issues, if not actually working against them, as with immigration reform. Mark Foley and Larry Craig did not help matters. Hawks, if you can believe it, thought Republicans had become too tepid in their execution of the war on terror. People fail to understand that a large amount of the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and the late Republican Congress was from the right. The attitude seems to be to throw the bums out, but for goodness sake, don’t let the Dems take over.
Hence the McCain nomination, who despite his weaknesses assuaged at least some of these concerns. Reformists had their man for the reasons described above. Hawks also liked McCain, who was advocating the surge when Rumsfeld was still insisting on his minimal warfare. But there were still concerns. Campaign Finance, immigration reform, and other heterodoxies, led to the impression that, while better than the alternative, McCain couldn’t be trusted to execute a cohesive conservative agenda. Hence websites like this.
It was an unenthusiastic conservative base that weakly supported McCain before the Palin selection. Now the base is energized. People like Larry wonder what happened. Simple. MCain picked the only politician in America (aside from Bobby Jindal, perhaps) who could at once bolster McCain’s strengths and provide assurance that his perceived weakness won’t be a problem. Reform? Stevens and Young are in chains. Hawkish? She’s certainly not Ron Paul, and is supportive of the armed forces, personified by her son. She complements McCain’s social conservatism, which remember is really not that heretical, not only with the right policies, but with a personal story that shows she is no hypocrite. There are still some concerns for fiscal conservatives (though they do like her energy policy), but otherwise there is not a single strenghth of his that she does not complement, and not a single weakness she does not relieve.
You say, “But this is mere symbolism!” It’s not. Really, on reform, on social issues, and on foreign policy, there is nothing McCain will now do that he would not have done if Palin were not on the ticket. If we are lucky she may suade him on energy issues, but that would be gravy. What the move does is show the conservative base that he is serious about his platform. He was already sold. He just needed to sell it to conservatives, and the Palin pick has done that.
And having spent a ridiculous amount of time on this, I am done, as much as I would like to continue. This is the conservative case for McCain-Palin. You can argue (I hope with someone else!) about the merits of the argument, but you cannot say there is not an arguement to be had.
— Blar · Sep 9, 05:57 PM · #
One more for cw: I’m not disputing that conservatives have never been against social changes for the better, but you seem to deny that conservatives have never been against social change for the worse. Surely you don’t believe that all social change goes from bad to better, so sweeping axioms about how conservatism=anti-good are at best useless and at worst disingenuously obscurant.
— Blar · Sep 9, 06:04 PM · #
Blar,
I don’t have the time, either, to take on your argument directly, though I certainly … well, let’s say your post at least gives rise to some interesting follow up questions, if I had the time. I will resist the urge to do so regardless, especially given your retirement from the field. But let me at least sketch out an argument that indirectly addresses some of those points. It also brings this discussion back to the original post.
I’m sure that you would agree with me that self identified conservatives are not monolithic. I think it’s fair to say that there is wide disagreement as to what various conservatives think is wrong with the current GOP establishment. I think your summary above papers over some real conflicts which are, if anything, brought into high relief by the Palin nomination.
I think one could argue that Palin governed as a populist, as opposed to a conservative. This is in some ways a favorable argument regarding Palin, one I don’t entirely buy (and, in any event, I would say she didn’t do a very good job of governing as a populist), but there is truth to it. Certainly she didn’t govern much as a small government/free market conservative. (I also can’t resist mentioning that your analysis, while, I’m sure, accurate as far as it goes, certainly as to your own thought process, seems to put hope ahead of cold hard facts on several fronts.)
And that gives rise to at least some of my curiosity regarding the pick. One can be a right populist or a left populist, and Palin is certainly the former, but populism of any strain (a) certainly isn’t very consistent with small government/free market conservatism, and (b) isn’t particularly conservative in any sense as the term is usually used. So I think there is some real strain between right populism and small government/free market conservatism.
Now, if one is a right populist, I can really understand the appeal of Palin. Even there, to the extent that McCain, whatever he is, certainly is not a populist, I’d question populist enthusiasm for the ticket as a whole, but, meh, given the options, I can see it.
But looking specifically at Palin, what, exactly, in terms of her speech and governing, is attractive to a small government/free market conservative? Sure, she threw them a few rhetorical bones, but her overall message and governance (and I wish I did have time to get into the oil company stuff, which, while certain populist, and warming to the heart of the drill, drill, drill crowd, really should give free market conservatives MAJOR problems).
Oh, and then there is the “not prepared” issue, which everyone on this site seems to be studiously avoiding.
Spokesrider,
For someone who claims that he isn’t merely choosing the lesser of two evils, your posts are notably lacking in the positive case for Palin/McCain. Blar attempted that from a conservative perspective; I’d be interested in seeing such an argument from a libertarian perspective. I have a difficult time imagining what it would look like, unless you are of the Glenn Reynolds “I’m a libertarian, except on issues of war, civil liberties, and presidential power” strain of “libertarian” thought. For the record, I understand why that strain of “libertarian” likes McCain, though I’m a little curious what Palin brings to the ticket from that perspective.
— LarryM · Sep 9, 06:55 PM · #
Sigh, I really am spending WAY too much time here. One last thing on the Blar/CW discussion. Blar, I think you are rather missing the point. Let’s stipulate that everything that you say is correct. Nonetheless, the long term trend, overall, is toward change, generally in a direction away from the kind of “traditional” society that social conservatives favor. That’s a value neutral statement. Now, CERTAINLY not all social change is good, and social conservatives can have a positive role in fighting the less desirable ones (though your examples were areas where the ideological lines were a bit more … complicated … than you suggest). But that doesn’t undermine CW’s basic point. ON THE WHOLE, society 40 years from now is (certainly) going to be wildly different this is now, and in a direction that would be regarded today as socially liberal.
That doesn’t mean that the social conservatives are going to lose all the battles (and heck, I’ll even agree that maybe they shouldn’t!), but, on a purely empirical basis, for better or worse, society has moved pretty consistently in a socially “liberal” direction OVERALL (in modern times, at least), and will continue to do so.
This analysis breaks down a little when we move from social mores to politics, though even there (and much to your chagrin, I’m sure), the current “conservative” elite in practice supports a level of government intervention in society that would have been unthinkable for conservatives say 50 years ago.
— LarryM · Sep 9, 07:09 PM · #
Sigh, a misplaced parenthetical disrupted the meaning of my 2:55 post to some extent. Let me summarize, though, my basic response to Blar’s defense of McCain/Palin: yes, I do understand the reasons why many conservatives enthusiastically support Palin in particular and the ticket generally. But – and I hate to sound harsh – I don’t RESPECT those reasons much, because I think they represent, at the end of the day, a tremendous amount of wishful thinking and willful blindness. Though to be charitable, I suppose a conservative who (a) is disenchanted with the current GOP establishment, but (b) can’t imagine voting for a Dem, is forced to grasp at straws, given the lousy choices out there.
I do wonder why there wasn’t more enthusiasm (either for president when he was running, or VP when the decision hadn’t been made yet) for Huckabee, who seems to have many of Palin’s strengths (from a social conservative/reformist perspective) with fewer disadvantages, and with a somewhat greater knowledge/understanding of national issues.
— LarryM · Sep 9, 07:34 PM · #
A most insightful piece, and I have to agree heartily, especially about sending the Republicans to the Wilderness of Not Having Any Power. That is aside from the same powers that ordinary citizens may share. It is time for truly right thinking people to come out of the woodwork and proclaim that “We Have Had Ehough, More Than Enough!” It is time to take this democratic republic back from the people, corporations and groups that have abused their powers of government and financial leverage and, worst of all, responsibility was thrown out the window. We have seen too much to just let it go this time, we must really use our minds and think about the choices for president, and what those choices really mean. We have seen how the Republican Party acts when they have full power over the Legislative and Executive branches of government and they were the very worst government for the poor and middle class people, for the environment, and for the image that we as a country have abroad. When the Democrats gained a bare majority in the House and achieved only parity with the Republicans in the Senate, the Republicans did everything they could to not allow the best of the Democratic programs to advance into law by use of filibuster and other administrative tactics. That is the reason that the Public’s view of the role Congress has been playing the past two years has been so low. We cannot afford to play the same old game of picking the president based on how much ‘entertainment’ they provide because their circus and hoopla is only there to try to divert attention from the bald fact that McCain is trying to usurp the mantle of the “Change Candidate”, but no one seems to have informed him that we already know that the Republican Party cannot “Change” from being the Republican Party! And it is a fact that they are the very ones that have, for the most part, caused the very problems that they are Finally admitting need fixed, but only because they have turned into full scale calamaties. We must not allow them back at the reigns of power, they must be taken from their hands, before they and their eneptness get us into WWIII . The only way that we are going to be able to change this government is to vote the Republicans, one and all, out of the Federal Government, at least as far as representing this Nation. If that should happen, then Obama is going to have to make good on his claim to really Change Washington, not just revert to the same kind of misuse of the governmental apparatus, however, I think that he is much above that, and truly, Truly wants to lead us into prosperity and freedom again. We need to get out from under the yoke of the Republican Machine’s corruption before it destroys us. I am hoping that enough people will see these things too, and take it to heart to make the very best choice for Everyone in this Country, we are, after all, One Nation Under God, and we are liberal, conservative, independent, green party, and all the various wonderous flavors and colors of culture and religions that exist! Because we ARE the hope of the World, and we need to remember that Everyone needs to be represented, Not just the white rich folks, mostly men, that have been Abusing their power for the past eight years. It is time for a Change, it is Past time for a Change.
Maybe we can be smart…for a Change— B. Honest, Portland Or · Sep 9, 10:21 PM · #
One final parting comment, then then I’m done with this blog for a while, because it’s a time suck, and because, even when people debate in good faith (as most people here do), it goes nowhere, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is lack of shared assumptions. But I want to amplify some prior comments, so maybe you guys can see better where I’m coming from.
Social conservatives – I can debate with, civilly and reasonably. I don’t think it leads anywhere good, but I can do it, and can generally respect, if not agree with their opinons. On size of government issues I’m actively sympathetic to some small government conservatives.
But the issue that matter most to me is foreign policy, and on that I consider the “hawks” my deadly enemies. With them, I really have no desire at all to have any civil dialog – even treating them civilly would make me feel complicit in their crimes. People often conclude that their political adversaries are “evil.” I try to guard against that feeling, which is one reason I tend to try to be respectful to social conservatives. But “hawks” – well, some of them aren’t evil in their intentions (many or even most are) but they are evil in the policies they support, including this nation’s many crimes against humanity.
My frustration with social conservatives who may be a little more reasonable on foreign affairs (and, let’s be honest, the overlap between the social conservatives and “hawks” is pretty large) isn’t so much their social conservatism per se, but the fact that they, through their voting patterns, have had a big role in electing the war criminals who govern our nation.
And Palin? Put everything else aside – the one thing that makes me hate her with the burning intensity of a thousand suns was her comments on the war and the national security state, which were right out of the neoconservative playbook.
— LarryM · Sep 9, 11:57 PM · #
JA:
I often think about exactly this scenario. In fact it was this that led to my prior post on The Icarus Syndrome, on which you made such an interesting and extended commentary.
— Jim Manzi · Sep 10, 03:19 PM · #