Sullivan digs a deeper hole for Sullivan & Friends

Sullivan not surprisingly rejects Frum's endorsement of Romney's cynicism, only to endorse, in turn, a kind of meaninglessness:

I too want a more vibrant and sane conservatism that can indeed reform Obamacare, scour government for waste, tackle Medicare's costs, radically reform taxes, and focus on inequality as a scourge of democracy. But that conservatism no longer exists in the GOP. And, in my view, only a thorough thumping of the extremists at the polls can bring it back.

The passage exposes a central difficulty in contemporary philosophical conservatism. Of course ObamaCare will require reform; even its "liberal" friends concede that--in fact, they encourage it. And who, left or right, wishes not to scour government for waste? Tackling Medicare's costs? Count me in--count us all in. Finally, the tax code is universally regarded as a wretched joke; and as for democratic scourges--with wealth inequality leading the pack--defenders are really, really hard to find.

Yet Sullivan plucks these desiderata as a kind of Great Targets of Conservative Values. Why conservative? Why call them conservative when liberals and progressives and centrists are all on board? Why not call them liberal? Or progressive? Or centrist?

My point being, just what does authentic "conservatism" mean these days? Before old-school liberals (and now, even many progressives) chose out of bombarded necessity the defense of the Established Faith--i.e., New Dealism--as their principal political occupation, one could reasonably define conservatism for what it was philosophically meant to be: an advocate of traditionalism and slow, incremental change. Now, though, that's the job of liberals--liberals have supplanted conservatives in philosophical conservatism's function; or, if you prefer, liberals are today's authentic conservatives--but they're called liberals.

So where does that leave those who still call themselves conservatives, such as Sullivan? Utterly adrift. For real conservatism has been utterly subsumed by contemporary liberalism.

Comments

[Turgidson]

Sullivan is hard-wired to believe that the caricature of liberalism that arose out of McGovern's defeat and took hold during the Reagan era, which was never actually a true representation IMO, is still kicking around in the shadows, waiting to subsume the Democratic party and plunge the country into stagflation on purpose. As a Reagan/Thatcher fanboy, he simply must believe that.

The fact that he thinks he's saying interesting when he says "let's cut waste!" is the tell. Conservatives, even ones with functioning synapses like Sullivan has, truly seem to believe that there is a bloc of liberalism and Democrats that believe as a first principle that "taxes, regulation and government spending = GOOD!" regardless of context or result. Because the GOP believes the opposite. (taxes, govt, regs = BAD!) Aside from a handful of full blown socialists, who might exist, somewhere, maybe, there aren't any liberals I know of who actually believe that. But the myth persists, even among those who ought to know better like Sullivan. I won't include Frum because I still consider him to be an insufferable hack, and will continue to until he apologizes for coining "Axis of Evil" among other greatest hits.

[Robert Lipscomb]

If Edmund Burke is the philosophical founder of modern conservatism and also a representative of classical liberalism, why can the Democratic Party not be the party of both while embracing democratic-socialism?

The Republican Party can then embrace what it truly comprises, corporatism and libertarianism. I hold it is an open question whether they will continue to be cultural warriors very much longer.

Seriously, is this not where the two parties are headed - or where they already are?

[Chad]

@Turgudson: HEAR, HEAR! After nearly a three-year love affair, I think it's safe to say that I am *definitively* over Andrew.

(All of my friends, whether on the progressive left or independent right, have already warned me of my folly in being a "Dishhead"--they having observed his utterly inconsistent dilettantism when it comes to Iraq--yet I stubbornly persisted. No longer.)

[Peter G]

That is as concise and accurate assessment of the political situation in the US as I have ever seen in print. Why aren't you famous?