The Education of Bruce Bartlett

In a grim, elegiac, must-read essay written for The American Conservative, Bruce Bartlett universalizes movement conservatism's catastrophic decline by relating his early experiences within it; then, his experiences on its wary edges; then, on its paranoid periphery; and finally, now, utterly outside of it, in forced exile. It's a riveting, historical synopsis of what should bluntly be called American intellectual fascism, which is why I despair of any "reform" of it. Unmeditative goons, sworn ideologues and ruthless enforcers don't tend to the epiphanic.

Bartlett at least partially shares my prognosis: "I am disinclined," he writes, "to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy." (Hence the horror of attempting to negotiate a budget deal with these throwbacks; their sinister strategies are always piously veiled and their philosophy is as corrupt as it is electorally repudiated. So screw 'em.)

Bartlett's political maturity went to full throttle when he began to appreciate George W. Bush's immutable "stupidity, cockiness, arrogance, ignorance, and general cluelessness" as president. That would do it--especially since his "conservative" friends, rather than appreciating same, went to full W.-defense mode. They simply closed the door to any objective analysis of contemporary conservatism's chronic degeneration.

Later, Bartlett "came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s"--and beyond. Thus Bartlett also had to cut his intellectual allegiance to the magical thinking of supply-side theory. His "final line ... to cross in complete alienation from the right," though? "[M]y recognition that Obama is not a leftist":

In fact, he’s barely a liberal—and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right.

At this point, I lost every last friend I had on the right.

Not much, as they say, of a loss.

Bartlett protests that he's "not a liberal or a Democrat," which is peculiar for anyone who's in thorough accord with Keynesian economics, detests modern Republicans, and, most of all, seems to broadly endorse Obama's Democratic conservative progressivism. But, whatever. I've come to accept such Bartlett-like protests as a shrewd marketing tool--a kind of politico-philosophical "positioning" that draws readers' attention which wouldn't otherwise exist, were Bartlett et al. to simply confess their rather conspicuous conversion.

But, I'll end where I started. Bartlett's essay is a must read. Go read it.

Comments

[shsavage]

It's a remarkable essay, which I've already posted to my FB page. Let us hope, for the sake of a rational political dialogue, that others in the GOP will see the light.

[AnneJ]

Excellent essay by Mr. Bartlett. And it seems republicans stubbornly remain in their bubble and refuse to come out thinking it will bring them electoral success next time around. Right after the election, when it turns out that almost sixty per cent of the population believes abortion should remain legal, Ohio state republicans pass anti-abortion legislation. And they think they will win any converts this way? Or what about congressional republicans whose party lost, whose presidential candidate lost, because the country couldn't stomach even more wealthfare handouts to the ultra wealthy, insist that the president go along with their losing candidate's economic policy ideas. To say they have a long way to go would be false, considering they don't seem to see the need to make a journey in the first place.

[Turgidson]

Bartlett proves in more ways than one the epistemic closure phenomenon. He proves that he was a victim of it until only VERY recently, and that most of the right wingers are burrowed far deeper in their hole of willful ignorance than he ever was.

Bartlett only recently realized that Obama's not a leftist? That right there shows how far gone he himself was. Until this election cycle, I thought the "intellectuals" (HA) on the right were just saying that to scare voters into voting Obama out, but realized he was utterly mainstream in reality. Bartlett believing otherwise until midway into Obama's first term is an eye-opener - they DO believe he's a leftist socialist monster, don't they?

I am glad Bartlett has kicked his Kool-aid habit and is comfortable telling unpleasant truths now. And I believe he's thought himself to be intellectually honest all along. So kudos for all of that. But the long, tortured path one of the redeemable people had to travel to leave the disinformation bubble...terrifies me. It'll take decades to draw the right wing poison from the country's bloodstream at this rate.

[Peter G]

In the course of his journey to Damascus I note that he did not shy from trying to use the history of the Democratic party, which had changed, to help his party, which would not and will not. And all because Obama became the candidate instead of Hillary Clinton. It certainly is a fascinating evolution and, as you say, well worth reading.

[priscianus jr]

On Bartlett protesting he's "not a liberal or a Democrat". Nixon was supposed to have said in 1965, "We are all Keynesians now." That doesn't make any sense to a Tea Party Republicab, but it makes sense to Bartlett.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now

[priscianus jr]

Obama is not a leftist, true, but as a moderate he is so far to the left of where the Republicans have gotten to over the past 40 years that he might as well be one. As a moderate he will be more effective in moving this country back to sensible policies both foreign and domestic.