Which kind of conservatism?

Which kind of conservatism? October 25, 2016

Matthew Continetti has written an essay that is sure to get attention, as the Republican party tries to put itself back together.  Entitled “Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual,” the piece traces the longtime conflict between “conservatism” (that is, the classic version that seeks to preserve institutions and that opposes modernity’s love of change) and “populism” (which opposes existing institutions and wants to change society).

This has come to a head in Donald Trump’s candidacy, which opposes the “establishment,” including the Republican establishment.

Continetti’s essay takes a historical look at this conflict, as well as the times when the two philosophies worked together, for example, to elect Ronald Reagan.  In the course of doing so, he also talks about other competing versions of what conservatism is, such as the New Right, neoconservatives, social conservatives, the the religious right (which, he says, combined populism with the institution-conserving conservatism of the William F. Buckleys).

Excerpted and linked after the jump.

From Matthew Continetti, Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual:

Since founding National Review in 1955, Buckley and his colleagues had been the spokesmen of an intellectual and philosophical critique of democratic mass society as well as the domestic and foreign policies of American liberalism. Beginning with the Republican nomination of Barry Goldwater (whom Buckley supported) in 1964, however, and accelerating in the tumultuous 1970s, the National Review crowd found itself challenged by a group of activists, journalists, and politicians whose criticism of the elite was populist, vehement, bipartisan, and anti-corporate. The question of how these anti-Establishment newcomers from the south and West fit into the conservative movement and the Republican Party, the question of where to strike the balance between populism and conservatism, has bedeviled conservative intellectuals and pro-business GOP officials ever since.

It is noteworthy, for example, that Reagan sided with Buchanan and the populists in the debate over the Panama Canal. If he hadn’t done so he would have alienated an increasingly important Republican constituency. “I think, ironically, that Reagan would not have been nominated [in 1980] if he had favored the Panama Canal Treaty, and that he wouldn’t have been elected if it hadn’t passed,” Buckley wrote in Overdrive. “He’d have lost the conservatives if he had backed the treaty, and lost the election if we’d subsequently faced, in Panama, insurrection, as in my opinion we would have.”

Republicans have walked this tightrope for decades. When the party has integrated the issues, goals, and tactics of the New Right into its campaigns, it has been remarkably successful. Think 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1994, 2010, and 2014. But there also have been signs, on the presidential level most clearly, that the alliance with populism is bringing diminishing returns. The GOP is on the brink of losing the popular vote in six out of seven presidential elections despite its current nominee running precisely the type of campaign the New Right has wanted to see for years. And this election is likely to return to office a Republican House majority that is more anti-Establishment, more hostile to compromise, more suspicious of institutions and elites than the one we have today.

[Keep reading. . .] 

You should read all of this essay.  Though they may fit into Continetti’s broader categories, it’s worth mentioning some other kinds of conservatism:  libertarianism, paleoconservatism, localism, the alt-right, Christian democracy (culturally & morally conservative, but fine with the welfare state).  Any others you know of?

Is there a common thread that makes all of these, in some sense, conservatives?  And, if so, what is the sense?

Should any of these factions be purged from the movement?  Which ones can best work together?

Are there any prospects for success, or are these all doomed to be swept away by the progressives?

"The same spirit? The very worst way to understand much of scripture is with a ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"No it's not. First of all the framework approach goes back to Augustine as I ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"I think Tom overstates Dr. Maye's analysis a tad bit. Mayes points out that Sasse ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”
"Of course. The program's guests have been right about some things and wrong about others. ..."

Sasse’s “This Is My Body”

Browse Our Archives