The Best Case Scenario for the Right, Part 3: Jon Henke

This is the first of a two-day discussion between TheNextRight.com (Soren Dayton and Jon Henke) and Culture11.com (James Poulos and Conor Friedersdorf) about the Best Case and Worst Case scenario for the Right in 2008.  Conor Friedersdorf's contribution is hereJames Poulos contribution is hereJon Henke continues.

I had assumed that, in this exchange, I would be the cranky misanthrope who took the "better off fighting with Democrats than disappointed in Republicans (again)" approach; however, it seems Conor, James and I share some similar sentiments: the likelihood that we face an Obama presidency, the primary importance of rejuvenation.

The electoral outcome is, in some ways, almost irrelevant to the prospects for the Right. Sure, there are some very important things at stake in the next four years, but the best case scenario for the Right is not about tactical victory in the immediate fights, but about the long-term construction of a Movement.

You might object, “The Right already has a movement! Why do we need to build another one?” We need a major movement construction project because – as I wrote a few months ago – the Right’s movement is broken.

The Right made the “limited government” arguments, but never had the politically viable game plan for doing something about it; once elected, they were captive to the systemic incentives to distribute rewards to the rent-seeking interest groups.

It is not the ideology that has failed. Indeed, while the politicians themselves have failed, that is not even the root of the problem. What has really failed is the movement itself. A political movement’s support system is its destiny. The Right has a support system that ultimately supports the Republican Party, not the ideology. Rather than creating an infrastructure that develops and implements politically viable ideas for effectively limiting government, the Right has built an infrastructure for a political party that can appeal to the public’s range of “conservative” interests, but cannot implement them. The Right’s infrastructure is sustaining only half of the equation – the maintenance of power, without the implementation of the vision.

A half-vast right wing conspiracy is not enough.

The best case scenario for the Right is a fundamental reorientation of the movement toward (a) politically viable policy innovation that addresses the underlying political incentive problems, and (b) movement infrastructure that supports the ideology and agenda, rather than merely enabling the Party. In short, the Right will only win if the Right emerges with a better vision and a better support system to pursue that vision.

It’s not clear how the outcome of the 2008 election impacts this.  In fact, either an Obama or McCain victory could prove beneficial or detrimental and I don't think we can guess how the variables involved will play out.

  • If Obama wins, the Right has nothing left to fall back upon; Republicans will be forced to change. What’s more, Democratic consolidation of power – an Obama Presidency and Democratic control of the House and Senate – will give Republicans the unifying grievances they need to begin turning the political pendulum back to the Right. Of course, those “unifying grievances” are “Democratic victories”, so this isn’t exactly a painless scenario.
  • If McCain wins, Republicans get an opportunity to mitigate the short-term damage while reorienting the movement. But will the Republican Party make the fundamental changes it needs to make while still hanging onto power – however intangible, unsuccessful and unproductive that power is? That’s a less painful short term outcome, but the longer-term change is less certain.

Fighting against Democratic schemes to grow government and engineer society is what Republicans do best. Republicans are good as a minority party. Unfortunately, the Right has never figured out how to translate that limited government tendency into a governing agenda.

So, whatever the result of the 2008 election, the best result for the Right is to return to fighting Democrats and stop apologizing for Republicans.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

The right has no best case scenario

Hate to be a downer but the right faces a Dem Congress, Dem state governors (more often than not), Dem cities, a Dem news and entertainment industry, and a drift into pop culture (leftish) by its core constituencies (the military, Wall Street, suburbanites, rural folk). It faces a generally left judiciary and a liberal-left civil service.

We have not learned how to convert presidential incumbency into political transformation. Our elected executives govern as a layer over a thoroughly Democratic apparatus and are happy to do so.

On a political level, a presidential win could result in some party building and justice-appointing; on a practical level, we may get an enlarged military and reduced deficits. To expect more is imaginative. The right is very near checkmate.

As to the Republican Party, the fight must be all local, not national. Last summer my county party was completely energized by its rage towards moderate Repubs and it voted out incumbent Repubs in favor of primary challengers. (This work is about taking over local bodies as the Goldwaterites did prior to '64.)

However - and this really shocked me after an absence from street-level politics of  30 years - the people we would call conservative at the grass roots of the GOP are almost all talk radio listeners and Fox TV watchers. They are not readers and they have no background in the battle of ideas. No one has heard of Bill Buckley or any other foundational conservative intellectual. The approach is to "intuit" the truth. There is a huge leavening among this new draught of conservatives of what pollutes politics in general, the idea of using Leviathan to produce "conservative" outcomes. Many of them imagine themselves populists.  

And yet, these will be the people we'll need to topple the  Schwartzeneggers, the Grahams, and so on. 

As for a new right, this is impossible. The movements already exist and cater to their niches. Reagan did not represent a unified conservative movement, he was the head of a coalition of disparate political subcultures that came together behind him. Politicians who can pull that off are special - maybe Palin is one - and we should not fool ourselves by thinking that any kind of unified conservatism exists and awaits its call to action.

"In your heart you know its right"

You really hit one of our key problems with the party.  That being the lack of an aggressive curriculum aimed at teaching the core values of being a conservative.  It's not enough to have "major dittos", you can't use that when your trying to explain why a conservative government is best. 

I never heard of Buckley before 9 months ago.  If I wasn't watching book tv I doubt I would have ever heard of him.  And through book tv I learned about NRO and Spectator.  And if it wasn't for R.S. McCain in the spectator I would have never found this website.

If were expecting Book TV to be the driving force for the growth of the base you are mistaken (on many levels).  Its unfortunate that most radio conservatives talk about "moveon.org" more than the great conservative think tanks that are out there.  I'm pretty sure "moveon.org"  & huffington  gets more free publicity from conservatives then any conservative group.

The only conservative group you hear regularly is the Heritage Foundation on hannity but It seems like they are paying for that anyways.

AND SORRY FOR BAD QUALITY OF THIS POST, but I have no time now to clean it up now.

 

 

The paradox of professional conservatism

Jon,

Interesting post. It puts me in mind of what I would call the paradox of professional conservatism. Your post gets to this issue in an interesting way so I thought I would put the question to you.

Do you see "professional conservatism" as a paradox? That is, when we speak of movement-conservatism we are often speaking of a class of professionals and institutions that exist, it seems to me, very much at the center of power and having therefore an interest in ensuring that power remains at the center as opposed to being dispersed and made smaller.

I would be interested in hearing any thoughts you might have on this.

The New Right Going the Wrong Way

 

The best-case scenario for the Right is if the illuminati's who take office don't give them what they deserve-a life sentence in prison for theft and pretending to care!  The Right cannot emerge with better vision-they have no vision and a better support system to pursue a non-existant vision is useless as well.
 
The impact of this election cannot possibly be as volatile and vile as what has proceeded it-in or out of the White House.
 
And in conclusion: If Obama wins (?) we no longer carry the burden of one more day with Bush puppet politics!

look to other countries(!)

In a year or so, the US may have the most left-wing leader in the G8. Culture11 had a couple good pieces about the Canadian and British Tories recently; I think they may be the best examples to look towards.

At this rate, we might start to understand those left-wingers we made fun of for claiming they would flee to Canada.

after obama wins do repubs want

to particiapte in solving problems such as healthcare- rising costs that are going to bust the budget even more and 45 million uninsured. Do conservatives care about the uninsured? 

 I think dems will be a few senators short of 60. Will moderate GOP senators go along with obstructing everything?  Is trying to prevent progress while dems are in charge more important than addressing the huge challenges facing the country?

Do liberals care about the economy?

We did a whole lot of bipartisanship on the housing issue over the past eight years. Like the results?

 

as a relatively poor person the economy is of concern to me

and I agree that there is plenty of bipartisan blame for the current state of it.  Glen Greenwald  sums it up well:

"The Democratic Party structure in Washington, and particularly its leadership in Congress, is more corrupted and destructive than anything else there is -- with the exception of the right-wing faction that has been running (Ruining) the country for the last eight years.   Contrary to the inane conventional Beltway wisdom that bipartisanship is oh-so-tragically scarce, Democrats as an entity have, over and over, passively acquiesced to, and frequently actively enabled and participated in, many of the worst abuses of the last eight years.   Their leadership in Congress is corrupt and craven to the bone in many of the same ways the GOP leadership has been -- and they're about to be far more entrenched and their power far less checked. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/15/ruffini/

Greenwald also mocks P. Ruffini's views including his recent defense of Palin.  Ridicule is not my style, but I do enjoy seeing prominent bloggers raise same point as me.

Answering...

Do you see "professional conservatism" as a paradox? That is, when we speak of movement-conservatism we are often speaking of a class of professionals and institutions that exist, it seems to me, very much at the center of power and having therefore an interest in ensuring that power remains at the center as opposed to being dispersed and made smaller.

I think that becoming entrenched withing a bureaucracy is inimical to the limited government agenda, due to the Iron Law of Oligarchy (look it up).   That's not to say they are illegitimate, but that they have serious, innate flaws; they create perverse incentives.

When Reagan came into office in 1980, the Right was warning that an entrenched bureaucracy would resist change; that they would have their own agenda and prioritize it above the larger agenda.  They were right.   

In 2008, much of that Right has become an entrenched bureaucracy.