Since his death two weeks ago, I've been reading a lot about William Buckley, considered by many to be the founder of the modern conservative political movement in America. Years ago when he did his weekly PBS show 'Firing Line', I found it virtually unwatchable. Buckley loved to show off his expansive knowledge of the English language, but it is hard to follow someone's argument when you find yourself reaching for the dictionary every third word. Buckley seemed to me to be a bit too erudite and elitist to be able to move masses, much less speak to them.
But as many now eulogize him, I'm beginning to realize just how large an influence he had. Ronald Reagan was a charter member of Buckley's conservative magazine "National Review." Reagan would become in time the pied piper of the conservative movement, using his ability as "the great communicator" to put many of Buckley's ideas into action. Buckley was also a conservative intellectual at a time when most all intellectuals were liberal, putting the conservative movement on equal footing when it came to the power of ideas.
But as Buckley is eulogized, the conservative movement he championed is clearly waning. 'Newsweek' columnist Fareed Zakaria went so far as to write an article on the "end of the conservative movement in America." Even here in Idaho, you see a packed Democratic caucus where people are turned away or a raucous Obama rally (where people were also turned away) and you ask yourself, "Am I really in Idaho?" Just one more sign that Buckley's conservative movement is fractured and a bit demoralized. We even have the bizarre scene of conservative commentators spitting their venom at the Republican nominee for President. What happened?
Zakaria makes the point that conservatism is on the wane not because it failed ... but because it succeeded. When Ronald Reagan took office, top marginal income tax rates were at 70%. They are now about half that. Conservative pushes on issues like crime and welfare reform brought real reform and real results, and of course, the Cold War was won.
There were failures. Conservatives who loathe abortion rights have not made much headway. Fiscal conservatives who want smaller government witnessed a huge increase in government spending by the Bush administration working with a Republican Congress for most of his time in office.
But overall, there were many, many successes. The problem as Zakaria sees it is the conservative message has not evolved as its movement changed a nation. Pushing more tax cuts doesn't have much resonance when people aren't paying excessive taxes anymore. New emerging issues like global warming, our addiction to oil and concerns over the loss of good jobs to globalization don't play well to conservatives' views on free markets and less business regulation. Many fear a philosophy of more tax cuts, less government regulation and more free markets would worsen ... not improve ... these modern day problems confronting America.
There are even studies that show the middle class in America has experienced a net loss of wealth during the Bush Administration while the fortunes of the rich have multiplied. That means when a Democratic candidate for President stands up and says "Are you better off that you were eight years ago?" ...there are many Americans who can truthfully answer 'no.' They will likely blame free market conservative policies that have hastened the movement of jobs and wealth overseas.
I think Zakaria may have a point, but I also suspect it is only half the story, because while liberalism has had its successes as well: We no longer debate civil rights, women's rights or the social safety net that were all liberal ideals ... the liberal ideal that government can solve the majority of problems in America is no more discredited than the conservative ideal that government solutions should always be the solution of absolute last resort. This election is so muddled and confusing because I think many Americans are searching for a 'third way.'
This would partly explain the success of McCain and Obama. Both are seen as having the ability to 'reach across the aisle.' It is likely each would have members of the other party in their cabinent if elected. Their attractiveness is their perceived ability to consider the full spectrum of ideas before them and then pick the one they felt worked best whether they be liberal, conservative or more likely somewhere in between. I'm not sure it is conservatism that is dead no more than liberlism is dead. I think it might be dogmatic ideology that is really on the decline.
Comments