American Republicans & Conservatives Honor Roll

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797): the father of conservatism in the post-French Revolution world

I've publicly admitted on various occasions that I was a teenage Republican, although I must sheepishly admit that this condition persisted well past my teen years. (However, I've never voted for the Republican nominee for president; i.e., no Nixon or later nominees). But this bout of Republicanism was something that I was born into; my parents were committed, active members of the Republican Party. By the time I was 16 years old, I'd attended two Republican national conventions (San Francisco and Miami) and had met numerous Republican officials and candidates and attended hours of meetings. I also hasten to add for the benefit of any younger readers, that the present-day manifestation of the Republican Party is a far cry from the party of my parents and my youth. The last Republican nominee for public office that I can remember voting for was Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA), which continued even after I affiliated myself with the Democratic Party back in the early 1980s.  Leach was a "moderate" Republican and received a lot of crossover votes until 2006 when the Democrats finally nominated a well-qualified candidate against him (Dave Loebsack), and it was clear that Leach wasn't appreciated by his own party in Congress. I thought of my vote for Loebsak as an act of mercy toward Leech as well as a vote in favor of Loebsack. (N.B. Leach later endorsed Obama for president against McCain, and he penned an editorial in 2021 in favor of the impeachment of Trump based on Trump's role in the attack on the Capital.)  And as mentioned, I've been registered as a Democrat since the early 1980s. That way I can honestly and accurately say that "I'm not a member of any organized political party--I'm a Democrat" (hat-tip to Will Rogers for coining that ditty). 

But while I was raised in the Republican Party, I was born with a cautious, conservative temperament. With age, however, I received a liberal (arts) education; I've lived through a wide-ranging set of experiences that have fostered a pragmatic frame of mind toward action; and I've cultivated a penchant for radical (as in "going to the root of things") perspective. But for all these additions, I am--at least in some ways--still a conservative at heart. 

So what does it mean to be a "conservative" at heart? From my perspective, it implies several things. It means preserving (conserving) what one has that is worth preserving. At the present moment, that would certainly entail democracy and the rule of law. This is not to suggest that either our democracy or our legal system are without flaws. Hardly. Indeed, as to democracy, I'm with Churchill: it's the worst form of political rule except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. And our legal system is too much governed by the Wizard of Id's golden rule: "them's that's got the gold make the rules," among other foibles. But, to continue my string of cliches and well-traveled quotes, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. So, having once been the owner of an old house, I'm all in favor of making repairs to maintain the (mostly) solid structure that we've come to know and value. So with our form of government; better imperfect democracy than authoritarianism and despotism. So, too, with the rule of law; our laws and judicial system are imperfect but far better than most and if laws and judicial system are trashed, we will suffer very ugly consequences. And, I might add, in what is admittedly a bit of a balancing act, I exercise my cautious, conservative impulses in concert with my liberal, pragmatic, and radical dispositions. Thus, of late I've taken to describing myself as a "Burkean radical" or, conversely, a "radical Burkean." An oxymoron? Perhaps, but I like to think of such a designation as a fruitful paradox; a form of "both/and" and not "either/or." Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I contain multitudes (hat-tip to the poet of American democracy, Walt Whitman). 

Thus, my conservative self wants slow, careful change. No storming the barricades. Instead, going to the meetings: talk, persuade, bargain, wheedle, and cajole to realize pragmatic results that benefit the society as a whole and that recognize the interests of all of those legitimately at the table. And yet--we need radical change. Or, rather, radical change is coming, it's only a matter of direction. Climate change and other instances of our "polycrisis" (hat-tip to Adam Tooze for this term) will require many and basic radical changes that will go to the root of our culture. The question won't be whether radical changes occur, but whether we will deliberately choose the changes we should desire (my conservative option) or whether radical changes will be foisted upon us by our failure to act soon enough to avoid the most radical and most disturbing changes. Nature, in some ways, is my model: it conserves life and it also allows--indeed, sometimes requires--radical changes in life. I want to conserve the Nature and the (best of ) the culture and society that we still have and not suffer a wholesale transformation into something utterly alien. 

So how does one make my honor roll of conservatives and Republicans? Simple: one speaks out for democracy and the rule of law; one speaks out in favor of dialectical and not eristic decision-making; in favor of speech and not force. One speaks out against Trump and Trumpism (the most un-conservative force ever to have held the presidency and Congress). One does not endorse Orban (Hungary) (as Trump just did), Boloansaro (Brazil), Duterte (Philippines), Erdogan (Turkey), or Putin (Russia), and other such faux-democrats, demagogues, and despots. “A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!” said the father of post-WWII American conservatism, William F. Buckley. But in our time the tides of history have largely shifted away from liberalism toward illiberalism; away from deliberation and toward force; and away from democracy and toward authoritarianism. The inherent flaw in conservatism is that it tends to leave the powerful in power; it defaults too easily to the status quo. But the strength of conservatism is that it puts principles before power; it seeks to protect the bedrock upon which societies can flourish. 

As we approach the first anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, and now one year past the Trump presidency, these individuals, all of whom (I believe) either self-identify as "conservative" or "Republican" (or both), have passed the test. Note that precious, precious few are elected officials (sad indeed). Note that I undoubtedly have some serious policy disagreements with them, but all have spoken out against the corruptions (pecuniary, personal, and institutional) of Trump and his ilk, which includes most current Republican elected officials. That these individuals chose democracy and the rule of law over personal gain and personal friendships speaks loudly indeed. I commend them to you. 

1. David Brooks, NYT & The Atlantic.
2. David Frum, The Atlantic & former W. Bush speechwriter. 
3. Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic & former WaPo columnist & historian of  the USSR & Eastern Europe
4. Max Boot, WaPo columnist, and historian
5. Bill Kristol, formerly of The Weekly Standard, The Bulwark founder & editor, and former chief-of-staff to Vice-President Quayle
6. Tom Nichols, a contributor to The Atlantic & former Naval War College prof
7. Andrew Sullivan, podcaster, blogger, & author
8. Charlie Sykes, podcaster and The Bulwark co-founder & contributor
9. George Conway, lawyer, and Republican official, & a Lincoln Project co-founder
10. Steve Schmidt, McCain campaign strategist & Republican political operative
11. Robert Kagan, foreign policy expert
12. Rick Wilson, former Republican political strategist & Lincoln Project co-founder
13. John Weaver, political strategist for McCain campaigns & Lincoln Project co-founder
14. Mona Charen, writer, podcaster, former Reagan administration official, and The Bulwark policy editor
15. Ross Douthat, NYT columnist 
16. David French, commentator, formerly with National Review, & now with The Dispatch
17. Jennifer Rubin, WaPo columnist
18. George Will, WaPo columnist
19. Christine Todd Whitman, former Republican gov NJ & former EPA director in W. Bush administration
20. Evan McMullin, former CIA operative, former House Republican caucus policy director, & now an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Utah
21. Brett Stephens, NYT columnist
22. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY and vice-chair the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack
23. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-IL was one of ten Republicans to vote in favor of Trump's second impeachment

Also, those associated with The Bulwark and The Lincoln Project whom I haven't mentioned above. 

I invite any nominations to the list or any criticisms of any selection. 

As we go into 2022 and toward 2024, crucial years for the future of democracy and the rule of law in the U.S., we need these folks and a whole lot more like them. 2020 was a success overall, but a large, strong, and perhaps growing cancer continues to infect the American polity, and we need courageous and patriotic Americans to do their part to preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution and the democratic and legal principles that have grown from it. We should not want the failure of the American experiment to fall upon our heads. 

N.B. The list is based on my random recall of whom I recognized and not necessarily in order of any particular merit.

Thoughts for the Day: Tuesday 9 March 2021

 

The Wedge

Scott Carney

How we resolve the tension between risk and reward defines who we are. And fear is a guidepost for how we use the Wedge. It is as much an involuntary response to a prediction of the future as it is a sensation that immobilizes our biology and stops us from taking action. Mastering fear doesn’t mean ignoring danger, but rather finding a reason that makes danger worth it—separating the stimulus from the response.

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

At present, a postindustrial hollowing out in society, a financial crash, failed wars, and geostrategic fears have shaken voters’ faith in the conservative claim to prudence and superior understanding. With increasing pace during the 2010s, a broadly liberal-minded center-right found itself on the defensive against a confident, disruptive hard right.

Crises of the Republic

Hannah Arendt

Freedom always implies freedom of dissent. No ruler before Stalin and Hitler contested the freedom to say yes—Hitler excluding Jews and gypsies from the right to consent and Stalin having been the only dictator who chopped off the heads of his most enthusiastic supporters, perhaps because he figured that whoever says yes can also say no. No tyrant before them went that far—and that did not pay off either.

Plato's Revenge

William Ophuls

Karl Polanyi’s description of modern political economy’s painful birth warns of the difficulty ahead as we try to create an ecological civilization.

Kinds of Power

James Hillman

In contrast with the simple notions [of power] are the difficult definitions proposed by philosophers, for instance: “Power is the compulsion of composition” (A. N. Whitehead); “[Power is] the production of intended effects” (B. Russell); “[Power is] the difference in probability of an event, given certain actions by A, and the probability of the event given no such actions by A” (R. A. Dahl); “Inherent in power, therefore, as opposed to force, is a certain extension in space and time” (E. Canetti); “By virtue and power I mean the same thing; that is, virtue, insofar as it is referred to man, is a man’s nature or essence” (Spinoza).

God's Debris

Scott Adams

Likewise, it is not belief to say God exists and then continue sinning and hoarding your wealth while innocent people die of starvation. When belief does not control your most important decisions, it is not belief in the underlying reality, it is belief in the usefulness of believing."

Thoughts of the Day: Saturday 27 February 2021

 

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

Against geopolitical threats made by nonliberal competitors and planetary threats created by liberal modernity itself, the intellectual complaints of the unreconciled right looked more like a local nuisance than a source of serious concern. It was replaying themes and postures familiar since the 1890s, ever revived, ever discredited: an apocalyptic vision of Western decline, a false contrast of people and elites, inattention to government or policy, and a bootstrapping attempt to break out of liberal orthodoxy that found itself back in despite grand-sounding projects such as the pursuit of “metapolitics.”

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

Was society one community or composed itself of subcommunities? That is, was society unicellular or multicellular? Gierke thought society was multicellular. Together with the modern state and its laws, a national society had emerged out of many independent and long-standing communities.

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

I argued with people; I am not particularly agreeable, nor am I very polite; I say what I think. But somehow things were set straight again with a lot of people.

The Price of Peace

Zachary D. Carter

Reactionary Keynesianism would dominate the governing philosophies of Harry Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan and inform successive campaigns of mass death that would outlast even the Cold War.

Thoughts for the Day: Wednesday 24 February 2021

 

1942 masterwork on political thought & crisis

The New Leviathan

R. G. Collingwood

26. 76. Historians to-day know that all history consists of changes, and that all these changes involve ‘reversals of fortune’. But the historical idea of a revolution implies that normally the course of history flows, as if by the Newtonian First Law of Motion, uniformly in a straight line: then it waggles, and you are surprised. This is how people really did think about history in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; it is one of the many signs that they did not know very much history.

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

Weimar’s collapse owed much to the weakness of a liberal-democratic conservatism.

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

Among the intellectual-made Utopian myths, none was weaker than the liberal myth of self-organizing market society. (Sorel might have added a later liberal myth, the myth of the end of myths.)

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

They [Nazi collaborators] felt (after they no longer needed to fear God, their conscience cleared through the bureaucratic organization of their acts) only the responsibility toward their own families. The transformation of the family man from a responsible member of society, interested in all public affairs, to a “bourgeois” concerned only with his private existence and knowing no civic virtue, is an international modern phenomenon.

Diplomacy

Henry Kissinger

Bismarck’s legacy was quite the opposite. Few statesmen have so altered the course of history. Before Bismarck took office, German unity was expected to occur through the kind of parliamentary, constitutional government which had been the thrust of the Revolution of 1848. Five years later, Bismarck was well on his way to solving the problem of German unification, which had confounded three generations of Germans, but he did so on the basis of the pre-eminence of Prussian power, not through a process of democratic constitutionalism. Bismarck’s solution had never been advocated by any significant constituency. Too democratic for conservatives, too authoritarian for liberals, too power-oriented for legitimists, the new Germany was tailored to a genius who proposed to direct the forces he had unleashed, both foreign and domestic, by manipulating their antagonisms—a task he mastered but which proved beyond the capacity of his successors.

Thoughts for the Day: Friday 29 January 2021

 

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

To survive, let alone flourish, liberal democracy needs the right’s support. It needs, that is, conservatives who accept liberal and democratic ground rules. Yet conservatism began life as an enemy of liberalism and never fully abandoned its reservations about democracy.

The Price of Peace

Zachary D. Carter

The great threat facing liberalism was not socialism but the thirst for military domination. “Soldiers and diplomatists—they are the permanent, the immortal foe.”

I disagree with Keynes, at least in part and regarding the U.S. military. I believe that most of the top brass have spoken out in commitment to democracy & the rule of law ("liberalism") and have remained committed to the American tradition of civilian control of the military and to non-interference in politics.

The Shape of Ancient Thought

Thomas McEvilley

The concept of Love (philia), in fact, figures large in Epicurean axiology. The noble nature devotes itself to wisdom and love, of which the first is a mortal god, the second immortal.

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

The peculiar political unreality and traditionalism among anti-Stalinists seems to be closely connected with the general political situation in this country. All totalitarian movements, but Bolshevism even more today than Nazism a decade ago, are completely absent from the American domestic scene. All that Bolshevism actually means today is a possible menace from abroad, helped by domestic espionage, with the result that anti-Stalinists think more and more exclusively in terms of foreign policy. Since they have no contact with and little lively interest in politics as the realm of the statesman, they have degenerated into armchair strategists who marshal the forces of the world for and against Stalin. The new emphasis on foreign policy is what chiefly distinguishes present-day anti-Stalinism from earlier forms of anti-totalitarianism like Trotskyism or anti-fascism. Although fascist groups in this country were never very strong, they existed nevertheless. The fact, moreover, that totalitarian and partially totalitarian dictatorships of the fascist brand had sometimes been helped to power by the native bourgeoisie (the significance of which was greatly overrated by all Marxists) led American anti-fascists, rightly or wrongly, to believe “it can happen here,” which naturally gave them a personal stake in the struggle and revealed to them certain possibilities for action at home.

How does Arendt's assessment of anti-Communists ("anti-Stalinists") and her assessment of U.S. politics written around 1949 compare with the current U.S. situation? It seems to me that we currently have a strong proto-fascist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal political movement at work in our country. It's a minority, but because of a variety of factors, it has an out-sized influence on policy and events.

The Wedge

Scott Carney

Focus lets us intentionally form and file symbols. With it, we temporarily hire the librarian to pull specific symbols from the paralimbic library and then escort them into the higher brain areas. Focus is a kind of wedge at the root of everything we do. It’s as easy as breathing. It allows us to take control of how we want to experience the world. However, we can’t focus all the time. Instead, we use focus to help give the limbic librarian new instructions for how to continue when we’re not paying attention.

Time of the Magicians

Wolfram Eilenberger

Against this image of continuous human progress, which inspired the whole Enlightenment, not least the philosophy of Kant, [Walter] Benjamin places the logic of disruptive intervention, later called “Chok” (shock). The quintessential Chok events, which both bring down extant entire images of the world and create new ones, are “origins” (Ur-Sprünge, literally “primal leaps”)...

Any chok about today?

Thoughts for the Day: Thursday 28 January 2021

 

Impeachment

Cass R. Sunstein

Madison pleaded that it was “indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community [against] the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient safeguard.” (There’s a lot there: incapacity, negligence, or perfidy.) He feared that the president “might lose his capacity after his appointment.” Madison was especially concerned that the president “might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.” And if the president were either corrupt or incapacitated, the situation might be “fatal to the republic” unless impeachment were available.

The Price of Peace

Zachary D. Carter

For Keynes, the soft underbelly of the classical theory was Say’s Law, which he summarized as the maxim that “supply creates its own demand.” Postulated by Jean-Baptiste Say, a French contemporary of Adam Smith, it linked together three problems Keynes saw in the classical story: the outdated focus on scarcity, the notion that markets self-correct, and the idea that involuntary unemployment is impossible.

Cf. The quoted reference to von Mises in yesterday's post.

Essays in Understanding, 1930-1954

Hannah Arendt

“Imagine only that these occurrences would become known to the other side and exploited by them. Most likely such propaganda would have no effect only because people who hear and read about it simply would not be ready to believe it.”

A Secret History of Consciousness

Gary Lachman

[Colin] Wilson argues that Pamela and the other novels that emerged in its wake were like a new kind of drug, but one without the horrific side effects of gin. The story kept readers interested—like all good novelists, Richardson instilled that itch to “see what happens.” But aside from the mild titillation of sex, what really attracted Richardson's readers was the sense of having stepped out of the confines of their lives.

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

Conservatives took society to be harmonious. They respected power and accepted customary authority. They did not believe in progress or in equality. Respect in their eyes was due not to everyone regardless but to merit and excellence.

Collingwood's the Idea of History

Peter Johnson

Collingwood argues that most theories of knowledge – knowledge as acquisition, description or correspondence – make history impossible because they neglect the work of the imagination in the way the world comes to be known.

Thoughts for the Day: Friday 22 January 2021

 

My current read. Fascinating & well-done

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

In party politics, for the hard right, the modern liberal status quo is not something to be proud of but something to be overturned. Outside party politics, among the right’s ethical and cultural critics, that same status quo is a wrong and ugly way to live.

Conservatism

Edmund Fawcett

In party politics, for the hard right, the modern liberal status quo is not something to be proud of but something to be overturned. Outside party politics, among the right’s ethical and cultural critics, that same status quo is a wrong and ugly way to live.

The Soul's Code

James Hillman

One major drawback to this concentration upon the worst [Hitler] is that lesser crooks and smoother murderers slip by. By looking closely at Hitler, we may miss the demon closer to home. Faceless corporate boards and political administrators make decisions that wreck communities, ruin families, and despoil nature. The successful psychopath pleases the crowd and wins elections. The thick glass of the TV tube and its chameleonlike versatility in displaying whatever is wanted favors distance, coldness, and the front of charm, as do many of the sleek accoutrements of high station in the political, legal, religious, and corporate structures. Anyone who rises in a world that worships success should be suspect, for this is an age of psychopathy. The psychopath today no longer slinks like a dirty rat through the dark alleys of black-and-white 1930s crime films, but parades through the boulevards in a bullet-proof limo on state visits, runs entire nations, and sends delegates to the U.N. Hitler is therefore old-style and can divert us from seeing through the mask worn by the demonic today, and tomorrow. The demonic that is timeless nonetheless enters the world disguised in contemporary fashion, dressed to kill.

An Autobiography

R. G. Collingwood

The ghost of a silly seventeenth-century squabble still haunts our classrooms, infecting teachers and pupils with the lunatic idea that studies must be either ‘classical’ or ‘modern’. I was equally well fitted to specialize in Greek and Latin, or in modern history and languages (I spoke and read French and German almost as easily as English), or in the natural sciences; and nothing would have afforded my mind its proper nourishment except to study equally all three; but my father’s teaching had given me a good deal more Greek and Latin than most boys of my age possessed; and since I had to specialize in something I specialized in these and became a ‘classical’ scholar.

Time of the Magicians

Wolfram Eilenberger

Davos, the debate of the century, the monad of a decade. Stretched to bursting from within, on March 26, 1929, it gave birth to two radically different answers to the same eternal question: Where can we find the essence of philosophizing? Or indeed: What is a human being?

The Price of Peace by Zachery D. Carter

But in truth the U.S. government simply had no interest in creating an international order that would diminish American power. The Roosevelt administration was clear-eyed about raw-power realpolitik considerations, but FDR and many of his top diplomats were also influenced by misunderstandings about the causes of the Great Depression and infused with a righteous Wilsonian sense of national destiny.