My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising.
I find no fault with many of Judge Posner's conclusions (although I disagree with much of his ideology). The Intel is severely lacking in much of what passes for conservative discourse. As some in the comments of the post suggest, it is not unique to conservatism, and the same claims can be made about those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I don't care about the liberal-fascist's house because it is not my house. I choose to live on the other side of the aisle and in another town with respect to fascism, and will restrain my comments to putting our own house in order.
There is a considerable affection for the everyman persona, never before so laudably glorified by anyone as well as Frank Capra; popularized in men like President Truman; his hopeless, downtrodden plight painfully detailed in fiction in the Jobes family and Willy Lohmax, and seen as the base of the conservative spectrum.
The everyman has always been at war with Oceania.
Americans have a unique regard and sympathy for the losing side, and have long been suspicious of too much success, while at a same time, desperate to achieve it (and believing it is possible for everyone to do it). Rocky was the ultimate, simplistic underdog and America likes the underdog. (If there was ever a simplistic explanation for John McCain's victory as the Republican candidate, there it is: The Underdog. He even resembled him.)
One of the interesting aspects of the discussion during Obama's candidacy was the positive spin it gave to Black children: the fascination with the idea that Black children could now be raised with the self-esteem booster of "you, too, could be President of the United States someday, if you work hard and apply yourself." Some of Obama's victory was tied to delivering that message to Black children.
The unspoken part of that discussion was the suggestion Black children had not been told that by their parents before, or that without proof, it was not a reasonable expectation. This was news to many people, including me. I could not fathom that the parents of Black children were not being given the same praise and encouragement being given by not-Black parents. Live and learn.
The reality is that not all children are capable of being President of the United States, regardless of race. In that sense, most parents are lying to their children when they say it, so what does reality matter in that sense. We know this in our hearts and our heads. That doesn't mean we don't and shouldn't use the same words to encourage children, regardless of their ethnicity or intelligence. What it does mean is that the pool from which to draw to develop great statesmen and leaders will always be small, having nothing to do with race or gender, and everything to do with the inherent capabilities of the individual, regardless of how hard they work or how well they apply themselves.
We can defer reality for a while and wait to see if a child demonstrates a keen intellect and other statesmen-like qualities. A reality-check can be performed only when we have data to determine what is real and possible, then we can tailor the message, and offer direction to more suitable and achievable pursuits.
Conservatism (and any other political ideology) requires a majority of voters to serve at its feet in order for the ideology to have political dominance. That does not mean that everyone will be capable of understanding it fully, or participating in heady-discussions of its roots and history, nor contribute in any meaningful way to the volumes of literature on the subject. In order to gain favor with the masses, sufficient to garner a majority, a dumbing-down of the message is required in order to reach people who would be just as vulnerable to the dumbing-down of any other political philosophy. There will always be a segment (large or small) of the population who are incapable of understanding or accepting anything other than a primer version, with simplistic platitudes to appeal to their sense of fairness and/or opportunism.
People, generally, do not like to be spoken down to, nor do they want masters. At the same time, there are obviously large segments of the population that buys into the liberal message, without any substantiation of fact or use of logic to validate their opinions. Memes work. Speaking down to people has worked for the other side, and despite this blatantly obvious fact, people like Judge Posner and those who make up the conservative intelligentsia are loath to do it.
Populists, however, have no such qualms about appealing to the everyman's baser instincts. We see evidence of this in the high audience ratings of people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and more recently, Glenn Beck. These men have not replaced the intellectual standard bearer, William Buckley. They never appealed widely to the same audience.
While Bill Buckley had a large following among a certain demographic, his popularity was never as vast as the audience that tuned into Lawrence Welk or Hee Haw. Other misconceptions about popular appeal and ad populum abound. The music rags were astounded when they learned just how popular country music was, when the datsets of top artists was changed to record sales, rather than call-in radio requests from large markets (generally Northern) radio stations. Country music was more popular than any of the non-country recording artists. Who knew?
Harry Truman knew. Harry Truman knew that messages such as "A chicken in every pot" would resonate with voters, without requiring any substantiation of policy directives that would make that a reality. Harry Truman also saw a surge in his popularity when he defended his ugly daughter's pitiful music skills. Even our ugly and miserable daughters were sacred and the lovely ideal of a father protecting his daughter's honor gained favor among the masses, even if they agreed that she was at best comely and should be kept far away from pianos.
Barack Obama knew. Barack Obama knew that messages such as "Hope and Change" and "Yes, We Can" would resonate with voters, again without any draft blueprints for bringing them about. Even when Obama's voting record and spotty history made it clear that his ideology was in direct conflict with the political leanings of most voters, he succeeded by reducing the message to the lowest common denominator.
Ronald Reagan knew, disguising well his intellectualism in his grandpa loves you and cares about you shtick. Even if his persona was genuine and his ideals sound, his ability to communicate and resonate with voters gave him an unmatched and unprecedented victory. Conservatives have been attempting to manufacture the Reagan persona, while men like Judge Posner squirm at the suggestion.
I will admit to a leaning to the squeamishness of appeals to popularity, but it is that squeamishness that limits the favor of conservative ideals.
The comedian Eddy Izzard shared that how you are perceived is 80% conviction, 15% of what you look like, and 5% of what you say. Extrapolating that to the political sphere, we can conclude that only 5% of the population care that what is said actually jives with reality and historical evidence, the bastion of the intellectual house. The remainder want platitudes, even if the 5% are loath to deliver them.
Conservative intellectualism doesn't sell or appeal to the everyman, nor can it be dumbed-down without the speaker losing some of his couth in doing so. Conservative intellectuals have resigned themselves to the losing side of history because it would be radical rather than prudent to do otherwise, and we're not radicals.
Conservatism as an intellectual realm of study was never popular because it can only be understood, appreciated, and championed by a small few, for a small few, and its popularity makes no difference in the grand scheme of history. Loosely-labeled conservative politics will return to favor when Obama cannot deliver on his platitudes. Then it will be time for another platitude messenger to give it try, and intellectuals, regardless of their sphere, will be chided for being elitists and out of touch. Ad nasuem. Ad infinitum.
Limiting our dialog to "what will actually work" and "what is realistic to achieve gradually, after careful study and reflection on the specific culture's moraes and habits," just doesn't appeal to the everyman. There's no shorthand version of that, Cliff Notes, or Conservatism for Dumbies that isn't an oxymoron of its intellectual point. There's no emotionalism involved, tugging at our heartstrings, our love of drama, or our desire for fairness and righteous retribution. There is no Hollywood ending in real life.
"Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this case by an 'orrible cunt... me."- Bricktop, Snatch, Guy Ritchie, 2000
Conservative intellectualism and discipline requires endless work, study, analysis, reflection, and truth to prepare oneself to decide a matter. Why go to all the the hassle of that when a chicken in every pot and Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. are so much more appealing. Why watch Bill Buckley when Gallagher is on, too?
[Society] is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.
- Edmund Burke, "Reflections on the Revolution in France," 1790
Posts
