Conservative Renewal: A View from the UK
Alex Massie has a characteristically interesting post on the idea that political doctrines inevitably become inflexible dogma, and that this has happened to Reagan Republicanism:
Like Thatcherism in Britain, the Reagan revolution began as an internal insurgency that caught the party grandees by surprise. …
But it is an iron truth of politics that prolonged success sows the seeds of future downfall. Revolutions run out of steam. They cannot be permanent. More damagingly still, what begins as an unorthodox and surprisingly successful approach calcifies into a stubborn orthodoxy that brooks no dissent, even as times and circumstances change. …
The difficulty is that the second (or third) generation is rarely as talented or adaptable as the trailblazers who won power in the first place. Instead of finding fresh ideas and solutions, they inherit positions and prejudices that, because they worked once before, are assumed to be eternal truths rather than particular answers to particular problems at a particular time.
I think there’s a lot to this (though I do think his criticisms of the Club for Growth are mostly misplaced – as I’ll argue in subsequent posts, I think a low-tax voice will be crucial in developing successful conservative policies in the Age of Obama).
I did a post a few weeks ago that describes this same basic process with respect to business improvement approaches:
It’s interesting that there appears to be a cyclical nature to these things. More-or-less the same, basically sensible, method for business operational improvement — carefully observe current work practices, think of them holistically and in light of the goals of the business, and then redesign work practices — keeps getting reinvented. Taylorism, “Goals and Methods”, factory statistical process control (SPC), Total Quality Management (TQM), reengineering, and so on are all just manifestations of this approach. Each is typically pioneered by innovators who have a fairly supple understanding of the often unarticulated complexity of the task. It drives clear profit gains, and many other people want to apply it. A group of experts are trained by the pioneers, who are also quite effective. There is an inevitable desire to scale up the activity and apply it as widely as possible. It becomes codified into some kind of a cookbook process that can be replicated. This process becomes a caricature of the original work, and the method is discredited by failure and ridicule. (Seeing this phase of reengineering at several companies in the 1990s, a close friend of mine once described it as “like the Planet of the Apes, but the monkeys have taken over from the humans”.) Within a few years, some new pioneers develop some new manifestation of the approach, and the cycle begins again.
So I don’t think this kind of degeneration is unique to politics, but is a function of human nature. It’s inevitable.
Of course, some things that were true in 1980 are still true today. If you’re a conservative, you probably even believe that lots of things that were true then are still true now. The crucial task is distinguishing between what’s changed, and what has not.
It’s conventional wisdom to say something to the effect of “we need to apply the timeless principles of conservatism to the challenges of today” or whatever. The instinct behind this – adapting to changing circumstances without sacrificing basic beliefs – is surely sound. But as operational advice, it seems quite misguided.
I think that we sometimes reason from political principles to specific policies, but much more typically we either react viscerally to proposals or conduct analysis of a given problem and reach a conclusion. Either the visceral reaction or assumptions made in the analysis are the locus where conservative or liberal beliefs manifest themselves. These beliefs are probably created through some combination of genetic hardwiring and individual experiences. One type of experience can be reading and rational conversation, and so political philosophy and persuasion are not empty exercises; but they are probably a lot less important that genetics plus all of the experiences of childhood, work, family and so on. In effect, our political philosophy is more revealed by our choices than something which dictates them. (If anything, this ought to be truer for conservatives than anybody else.)
So, I’d worry a lot less about trying to distill the “essence of conservatism” or whatever than just trying to identify the problems of the day, and figuring out practical solutions to them. Obviously, I’ve packed a lot into the assumptions of what we define as a problem, how we decide what makes a good solution, and so on. This isn’t an argument that we don’t need political philosophy, but rather an argument about the primary methodology for developing, or perhaps more properly, specifying, one in our current situation. It strikes me that the most effective way for conservatives to apply a conservative worldview and develop the next manifestation of conservative ideology right now is, ironically, not to be self-consciously ideological, but rather to attempt to be pragmatic., i.e., empirical and practical.
In other words, there are diminishing marginal returns to policies. The first time you cut taxes is more likely to give you a good result than the fifth time you cut taxes.
Similarly, Reagan brought needed optimism, after Carter Era malaise, about what Americans could achieve. In contrast, Bush’s optimism, coming after 20 years of successes by Americans, was largely, for want of more plausible targets, directed not toward Americans but toward Iraqis abroad and Mexicans at home. Unfortunately, the Iraqis in Baghdad proved not so hot at democracy and the Mexicans in California proved not so hot at paying off the zero down payment mortgages that Bush had campaigned for them getting.
So, here we are…
— Steve Sailer · Jan 12, 10:48 AM · #
Steve:
In other words, there are diminishing marginal returns to policies.
I think there are diminsihing marginal returns to just about everything, that eventually become apparent (though many response functions follow as S-curve in which you get increasing marginal returns for a while); but is also independently true that policy X may work well in one situation, but be poorly suited to another situation.
— Jim Manzi · Jan 12, 02:39 PM · #
Like most conservative writers today, Massie and Manzi are both massively overanalyzing the last two elections. (Note that, based on election results, all the “hardening” of Reaganism into “unpopular” dogma must have happened between 2004 and 2008, which seems like strange timing.)
Here are two rules for winning elections: don’t start wars that become unpopular, and don’t be in power during a financial panic. Admittedly both of these rules have a vague Will Rogers flavor (“If the stock goes down, don’t buy that stock in the first place”). But both rules are a lot more useful than the rather bizarre belief that Americans were shocked by the breach of the separation of powers doctrine in the Terri Schiavo case.
— y81 · Jan 12, 03:32 PM · #
“But both rules are a lot more useful than the rather bizarre belief that Americans were shocked by the breach of the separation of powers doctrine in the Terri Schiavo case.”
Americans were shocked at Republican senators involving themselves in a families private tradgedy for blatantly political reasons. This is what Jim Manzi didn’t cover above. The main purpose for ideology in the day to day political sphere is to rev up the troops. It didn’t matter if Hitler and his crew believed that the germans were the master race, it only mattered if the mob did. It doesn’t matter if GW Bush believes that cutting taxes raises revenues, it only matters if the voting pubic does. And to take it to another level, it doesnt even matter if the mob or the voter really beilive in supply side economics or tutonic superiority, it only matters if they use these precepts as an excuse to act as the political elite want them to act: to vote against the godless liberals or to smash Jewish windows. And the ideological excuse could be anti coroprate or development or some other liberal shiboleth. It’s all about moving the masses and thde masses are rarely moved by reason.
The only viable counter to motivating by predjudice or preconception is motivating by self-interest. IF you can show that your policies will make the masses better off, then you have a chance of getting their votes. So I agree with Jim’s perscription for the republican party: abandond what is called the southern strategy, which is basically a program of using predjudices and preconceptions to motivate a certain type of voter, and start developing policies that actually make americans better off. What is the purpose of government in a democracy after all, if you don’t benefit from all those tax dollers you pay?
— cw · Jan 12, 05:01 PM · #
It didn’t take long for CW to leap over the Godwin threshold, did it?
Jim, it took me a while, but I think I figured out what bugged me about your post, even though I think there is good stuff there. You say conservatives today should “not to be self-consciously ideological, but rather to attempt to be pragmatic., i.e., empirical and practical.” We just elect a president who promised to be a pragmatic, post-ideologue. Doubtless you have encountered Obama’s recent speech on the economy. I need not say anything about his proposed solutions except that I am certain they are very different from yours. Both you and the president-elect claim the mantle of non-ideological pragmatism, yet what else could account for your differences except for ideology?
I have come to think that contemporary appeals to pragmatism are really fig leafs for advocating policies based on one’s own subconscious ideological presumptions. This happens to relate nicely to my recent ranting on first principles and public policy.
Anyway, I realize that you don’t dismiss ideology entirely, but I am not sure I see the place for ideology in your recommendation. I guess it would be helpful to compare an ideologically fiscal conservative with your pragmatic conservative and look at their differing responses to economic policy questions.
— Blar · Jan 12, 05:51 PM · #
If I read correctly, the core hypothesis is that subsequent generations are less skilled at the previously “revolutionary ideas”. That would be the “policy” slant on things. I’d suggest the political slant on things, the “new idea” attached to the “big tent” leads to electoral success. Each clan under the “big tent” claims its their faction (and their ideas) that lead to the success and so there push harder on their agendas. Unintentionally (or otherwise) this lead to division and, yes, some extremism. So the question is: “Do we need new ideas, or a renewed desire to enlarge the tent, or simple some more electoral success?”
— Chris · Jan 12, 09:28 PM · #
I see a lot of people at this point in time wanting to hold on to their ideology. Conservatives don’t want to abandon core principals and liberals don’t want Obama to move to the center. But it seems to me that many of these people care more about the victory of their ideology than they do good government. It’s like the fricken soviet union, year after year of applying ideological driven soloutions to problems, which year after year yield dismal results, and year after year the same response: double up on the ideology. It’s like ideology is a team or tribe.
But ideology is really only a tool. It’s a set of principals to guide one in response to events or in the creation of policy. It is not an end in itself. If some of those principals prove to be wrong, then change them. Better yet, look at the problem without principals. This world is so complicated and so dynamic that there are really very very few things you can know for sure.
— cw · Jan 13, 01:03 AM · #
Does it really matter all that much what Republicans say or do over the next four years? I doubt it; I suspect that if Obama fails to fix the economy, the Republicans will win no matter what they do- if he succeeds, not so much.
— Michael Lewyn · Jan 13, 04:10 AM · #
cw, Isn’t the notion of “good government” itself somewhat ideological? It assumes a certain set of tasks for government to do and posits that that politics should only be about how to do them best (the Cass Sunstein model, perhaps). But what are those tasks? Where is government relevant.
Certainly, ideology provides blinders, if it leads one to diagnose problems using a set of pre-established models (i.e. “the problem was caused by big government,” or theproblem was caused by a lack of regulation.”).
But the construct of pragmatic good government to solve problems employs the assumption that goverment can solve all problems. That’s ideological. Now, of course, most advocates of good government don’t actually think government solves all problems. For example, the problem “many people are jerks” isn’t something most people would expect goverment to address (although people being jerks to minorities is a problem many expect government to address). But why is that a problem outside the scope of government but “people aren’t saving enough” and “not everyone has acquired the little boxes to let them watch digital TV” are considered issues that can be resolved through the pragmatic application of good government.
Blar has already addressed this point somewhat, but it seemed necessary to echo it in my own incoherent way.
— Zak · Jan 13, 04:35 PM · #
A few quick things to all commenters:
Thanks for the great comments.
I agree that sometimes the “solution” is “do nothing”.
What I was trying to describe was not the lack of an ideology, or at least assumptions. I was trying to say that starting with, say, a list of principles like “Small givernment is better”, “Free markets should be allowed to operate relatively unfettered”, “Families are central to social health” or whatever, and then reasoning from these principles to answer questions like “Should we have a stimulus package?” or “Should we allow the tax cuts to expire next year?” or whatever is always problematic, and is even more so now for conservatives. We should do our best, in my view, to try to analyze problems and force the inevitable assumptions / value judgments that we make to be only made when we face a truly non-analyzable step in the thought process.
— Jim Manzi · Jan 13, 09:53 PM · #
First of all, Jim, I want to say that I always think it’s great how you engage with the commentors here.
I’m still going to press you. You say…
Do any conservatives actually do this? For example, I’m thinking of the conservative opponents to the initial financial bailout. They argued that it would do more harm to the economy than if the crisis ran its course, that it would create incentives for failure, and that it would lead to further bailouts and government managing of the economy. The first is of course debatable but supportable, the second strikes me as unassailable, and the third has already happened. Again, I accept that it is contentious, and I imagine that despite all this the bailout was probably necessary. But the point is these were arguments to be advanced, not stubborn cleaving to axioms.
So what place is there for ideology? Again, look at Obama, who like you says that he is pragmatic, yet has an entirely different and incompatible agenda for the economy than you do. Maybe you and he are just looking at different data, but I don’t think that is it. The ideology of a free-marketer (and forgive me for speaking for you) is to see the benefits that the market provides and decide that they are worth their downsides. The ideology of someone like Obama is that curtailing those downsides is worth losing some of those benefits. Frankly, both positions are beyond reason. I think Obama and you, Jim, are actually just as empirical and rational, but because you operate from diametric premises you reach very different conclusions. Ideology matters.
If conservatives want to see their vision for the economy realized, they must of course be empirical as Jim says, but they must also be sure and articulate about their principles.
BTW, Zak put very well something else I was sort of thinking but didn’t express. So, what he said.
— Blar · Jan 13, 11:49 PM · #
Blar-
First, I don’t think Jim Manzi’s prefered soloutions and Obama’s are that far appart. Obama has said exactly the same thing Jim jsut did. Something like: I don’t care if it’s a conservative soloution or a liberal soloution. You show me something that works and I’ll do it.
Second, Jim is saying that concervatives should abandon “premises” so how can he and Obama be opperating from “diametric premises?”
— cw · Jan 14, 12:25 AM · #
Bringing an ideology or set of premises with you when you attmept to solve a problem or respond to a situation is one of the main reason enterprises fail. Ideology is just another word for constraints. Why handcuff yourself before you start? And clinging to failed premises is one of the main reason enterprises fail over and over.
Conservatives should just focus on designing and implementing successful policy, not as they have been for years now, attempting to achieve political dominence. Remember the permanent republican majority? That was not about benefiting the public but about gathering power. It the same with all the us real americans against them degenerate city folk BS. That has nothing to do with governing well. just winning elections and gathering power. Then they get in power and they have no idea what to do and they screw everything up. Do a good job and you will be rewarded.
— cw · Jan 14, 12:46 AM · #
youll have to come up with a better stradegy,no?
It’s always interesting to see how the right wing deals with its inherent racism. They used to wear it proudly and openly, but since we have managed to make some progress in the last 40 years or so, they have had to become much more creative in the way they convey their solidarity with the racist among us. The patron saint of Republican operatives (and Karl Rove’s
Godfather) Lee Atwater discussed the GOP’s dilemma way back in 1980:
‘‘You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
‘‘And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.’‘’
I dont think this one will work any more,huh?
— truthynesslover · Jan 14, 10:25 AM · #
cw: Jim would have to speak for himself, but I am pretty sure that when you look at what Jim would propose* and what Obama proposes, there would be almost no similarity. I don’t imagine Jim supports, say, massive government investment in green tech or health care. You are confusing the statement “abandon principle in favor of what works” for policy. It’s not; it’s a framework for developing policy.
And I am arguing that it is an impossible framework. To the extent that Jim (and Obama) are saying they are abandoning premises, I don’t believe them. I look at how very different their proposed policies would be* and conclude that they can only come from different premises, which is to say different ideologies. You take their claims about abandoning premises at face value and conclude in the face of evidence* that they must agree with each other! It is really quite remarkable.
*Again, Jim will have to speak for himself, but reading stuff like this and this is where I am coming from when I say that he and Obama do not in fact agree on economic policy.
— Blar · Jan 14, 05:03 PM · #
Blar:
I agree with you that there is no “abandoning premises” – they’re always there, sometimes we just don;t see them clearly.
What I was trrying to argue is that conservatives right now should minimize premises and maxmize data and analysis when considering policy. That is, try hard to resolve issues by analyzing them, and only whenyou come to truly intractable analytical probelms where assumptions are required, employ ideology to make the assumptions of your choice.
Conservatives would still end up disagreeing with Obama most of the time, but there are many, many policies that “disagree with Obama’s” and are mutually contradictory. Some of these mutually contradictory policies might be smarter than others.
— Jim Manzi · Jan 15, 01:46 AM · #
That’s fair, Jim. My problem is still that I feel you want to devalue premises too much. It is not impossible to provide the data-driven analyses and proposals you advocate while also robustly defending conservative economic principles in equal measure. Indeed, I think they should be inseparable and mutually supportive. Both-and, not either-or and all that.
Also implicit in your proposal is that it is antidotal to what economic conservatives have lately been doing, relying too much on unsupported principle. I still don’t see that this has happened.
— Blar · Jan 15, 05:31 AM · #
Blar-
Thanks for your response. What are some conservative economic premises that go beyond truisms such as: government should be small, taxes should be low, the market should be free. I don’t see any real guiding value in these.
It’s pretty easy to agree that government should be small, except when it needs to be big. Like after 9/11, it was good we had the massive military to invade Afghanistan. And right now most economist believe it is good to have this big huge government that can borrow all this money to bail out these banks.
So, while I hope there are some more specific conservative economic premises—probably held by conservative economists—I don’t think those are the premises that form the foundation of most conservative legislators thought, the guys that actually effect policy. I think they rely more on the government should be small type premises, which to me are totally useless.
I think this is one big reason why conservatives are in such bad shape right now: they have been relying way too much on these types generic fuzzy useless premises (when they cared about actual governing at all) and the results show.
— cw · Jan 15, 06:25 AM · #
Blar:
Here’s another try at expressing myself.
If a fair-minded, informed conservative and a fair-minded informed liberal attempp to develop a policy (including the possibly of “no action” as a possible policy) in reaction to some situation, each honestly attempting to be practical and empricial, they will often end up with different proposals. The leakage of “ideology” or “worldview” or “premises” or whatever you want to call this general concept into the thought process is virtually inevitable.
Sometimes it is helpful to (1) make the premises explicit, and (2) more or less reason directly from them to conclusions. At other times it is more helpful to attempt to be more “premise-free” (recognizing that you won’t ever really be actually premise-free) in thinking through a problem. That is, minimize the constraints that these premises have on your eventual proposal.
If you apply this method to a series of political issues, you can then look back at your proposals and induce the common themes of the kinds of policies that your worldview generates in response to contemporary problems.
This is obviously a more applicable approach in an era when you think that chnages in the environment mean that such themes derived (through this general approach or some other) in a prior era are no longer as useful as they once were.
I think that, for conservatives right now are exactly this situation.
— Jim Manzi · Jan 15, 04:17 PM · #
Cw, I could perhaps see your point if conservatives were actually bound up in some doctrinaire, small-government weltanschauung, though even there it seems that what you want is not less doctrine but less conservative doctrine. Anyway, I think that the last eight years show that this has not been the case. Fiscal conservatives are actually very upset with the Bush administration, which has been very happy to spend all kinds of money on all kinds of things. Compassionate conservatism is not fiscal conservatism at all.
This actually points to part of my frustration with your argument, Jim. You imply that fiscal conservatism has been a reigning political philosophy, but that in this time of economic flux it is inappropriate. To me the past administration and Republican Congress have been remarkably wishy-washy in their economic approach, and this constitutes a large part of our current troubles. It is not the time to weaken those principles further but to invigorate them after an era of somnolence.
You say
The antipodes seem here to be patent premises and latent premises, since as you say it is impossible to truly be premise-free. But I don’t see why it should matter. For political reasons it might be worthwhile to keep your principles a secret, but if these premises are actually operating then it shouldn’t matter if you are keeping them under a bushel or not. The advantage of making your premises patent is that it ensures clarity, by making sure that the premises are actually operating. Latent premises can lead to muddled policies like, say, compassionate conservatism.
— Blar · Jan 15, 06:04 PM · #
Blar:
Basically because the “Platonic principles”, if you will, are always unkown to us, and the actual principles that we employ are always half-truths at best that glimpse true principles through a glass darkly. The operational premises that we will employ if we consciously attempt to minimize their use will likely be different than if we attempt to maximize their use.
— Jim Manzi · Jan 15, 06:12 PM · #
Blar-
Republicans have been very doctrinare about being guided by some of their premises in the last eight years. They have constantly tried to undermine any regulation and they instututed a massive tax cut most of which went to a few rich folks. I would argue that both of these instances contributed to the very negative postion that this country is in at the moment.
They did go off the rails regarding other traditional principals, especially the spend less, keep government small, and invade coountries only if it’s in our national interst, but those pricipals have been violated more often than not by republicans. Which takes me back to my first point: ideology is most usful as a tool to engage voters.
— cw · Jan 15, 08:13 PM · #
As I recall, Jim, Plato was not content to stay in the cave, nor did he think mankind need be trapped there in life.
— Blar · Jan 15, 11:42 PM · #