by John
Andrew Sullivan links to a post by David Frum that confuses the respective fates of conservatism and the GOP in very much the way that James and I were complaining about last week. After quoting Rush Limbaugh - who, by the way, is not the exemplar of what a principled conservatism is supposed to look like - saying that Frum's approach in Comeback is that of
accepting the premises put forth by the left and then trying to monkey with them a little bit and change 'em so they're not quite as bad, add a little conservative touch to it
- in short, to "surrender", as Limbaugh so delicately puts it, Frum fires back with this:
It is Rush, not me, who has repeatedly mused that he would prefer to see Republicans lose this election if McCain were nominated. So who is the advocate of "surrender" here? And since Obama has pledged early and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, it’s not just an election that Limbaugh equably contemplates losing – it is a war.
Get it? Thinking that the just desserts for a party that has nominated for the presidency a man whom you think to be the embodiment of many things profoundly unconservative would be for that party to lose makes you an "advocate of surrender", notwithstanding the fact that the reason you are hoping for this is grounded in what you take to be the present unconservatism of that party. Never mind that a party as dysfunctional as the current GOP is not in much of a state to govern well, and never mind that it was the sweet stench of success, and all the trimmings that accrued thereto, that drove the GOP into that sorry state. The example of Iraq is illustrative here: Frum is insisting that no matter what it takes, no matter whether what lies on the other side, the thing we most need to do is make sure that we haven't lost. What matters is that conservatives - by which, of course, we mean Republicans - win in 2008:
What I am writing and thinking about – and also Bill [Kristol], and David [Brooks], and Alex Castellanos (about whom Rush also had some harsh words recently), and Tom Davis, and Newt Gingrich, and almost every Republican candidate in the country – is how to win, win in a new era in which the themes and issues with which Rush and I grew up are receding deeper and deeper into history. And not just win politically, but win substantively too – to deliver better results to American voters than they have had over the past 8 yearss [sic].
Obviously the last part of this is better than what precedes it. It does matter that the next president and congress "deliver better results" than their predecessors have - though it is hard to imagine results that could be much worse. And it is worth trying to get beyond the themes and issues of decades gone by. But very often the best perspective to take - on the matter of results as well as that of ideas - is one that focuses on the long term, and so the idea that we might let the GOP take a time out while everyone thinks things through and perhaps works to develop some unlikely friendships to help advance conservative policies down the line seems entirely in order.
Frum warns that Limbaugh's "learn-nothing, change-nothing approach ... risks exiling conservatism for a generation". I could not agree more with this first characterization, but it's crucial that the changes that are made be real and principled improvements, and not mere selling-points. (I'm not saying that Frum's book offers only the latter, though there does seem to be a good deal of it.) And if liberal government is really as bad as movement conservatives make it out to be, then its hold on things won't last nearly that long. In the meantime, let's get our heads straight and our houses in order. Comebacks can take a while, and any conservatism worth keeping will survive the demise of the Party of Bush.
Comments