Conservative INC.
There are several good posts and articles recently written that provide a peek inside the conservative establishment and how it operates, whether its fundraising, or talk radio, and who it consists of and what they are thinking . Many do not like the establishment and posture themselves against it but establishments, like the poor, you will always have with you and they are inevitable because when the centers of government, finance, media and entertainment are concentrated in one place instead of many, it thus requires one to live at or near them to be of some use. When that many people are at the centers of power, then establishments are born. There’s no way around this. The ascendancy of the right from 1981-2008 was bound to create a conservative establishment with all those people descending upon Washington D.C. since the mid-1970s and onward whether it was to staff think tanks, foundations or Administrations.
However, what we’re dealing with here is an establishment that has split itself in two. In the majority is what I like to call Conservative INC. It has become a money-grubbing scam as the Boston Phoenix article shows and one that is totalitarian in the way it operates and disseminates ideas. This was at the heart of Austin Bramwell’s AmCon article “Good-Bye To All That”:
“By ideology, I mean precisely what Orwell depicted in 1984. I do not mean, of course, that conservatism is totalitarian. Taken as prophecy, 1984 has little merit. Taken as a description of the world we actually live in, however, it is indispensable. 1984 reveals not the horrors of the future but the quotidian realities of ideology in mass democracy. Conservatism exemplifies them all.
First, like Ingsoc, conservatism has a hierarchical structure. Like Orwell’s “Inner Party,” those at the top of the movement have almost perfect freedom to decide what opinions count as official conservatism. The Iraq War furnishes a telling example. In the run-up to the invasion, leading conservatives announced that conservatism now meant spreading global democratic revolution. This forthright radicalism—this embrace of the sanative powers of violence—became quickly accepted as the ineluctable meaning of conservatism in foreign policy. Those who dissented risked ostracism and harsh rebuke. Had conservative leaders instead argued that global democratic revolution would not cure our woes but increase them, the rest of the movement would have accepted this position no less quickly. Millions of conservative epigones believe nothing less than what the movement’s established organs tell them to believe. Rarely does a man recognize, like Winston Smith, his own ideology as such.”
It is this situation that has created a minority of dissenters within said establishment including messrs. Frum, Brooks, Parker, Noonan and Buckley and so forth who are appalled at what Conservative INC. has done or is doing or how it operates. Conservative INC. responds in kind by attacking such dissent as viciously as Big Brother once attacked Goldstein:
“The movement’s leaders may be better informed, but they have no clearer idea of what they actually think. What they need is analysis: the skeptical tradition extending from Machiavelli to Hobbes, Hamilton, and Burnham that seeks to understand the world as it is rather than as we might like it to be. Analysis, however, requires intellect, but the movement’s mainstream, perhaps to avoid embarrassment (some mainstream figures favorably compared Bush not just to Ronald Reagan but to Abraham Lincoln), has increasingly ostracized its brightest minds.”
Whatever you may think of the Establishment dissenters (and we will deal with them later) they are right in decrying these trends and Conservative INC. debasement into a rank, demagogic populism. Indeed, one could argue that the anti-intellectualism that is currently in vogue within Conservative INC., may turn into the kind of anti-education posture one finds in ghettos where “keeping it real,” “street cred” and “authenticity” are more important or is perceived as being more important than brains to the target audience. This is not to denigrate those who are street smart as compared to book smart, but it’s still an open question whether Sarah Palin has even sidewalk-level intelligence. When you abandon the field of education and let its institutions become leftist enclaves, it only feeds the intuition of those who feel listening to talk radio or watching Fox News is the only education they truly need and anything else is simply “elitist.”
It is to the “target audience” that Conservative INC. responds to or better yet “the base”. At least it thinks it is responding to the base or perhaps they are fully cynical enough (as Bill Kristol and the writers of the Weekly Standard seem to be) to believe the base will respond to whatever they tell them to respond to. This is why Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, Laura Inghram, Michael Savage and Dick Morris and company sell best selling books (assuming they actually wrote them) and or have talk shows. This why fundraising appeals are written in the apocalyptic.
Given the current state of things, the base is quite naturally feeling mad, upset, besieged, disillusioned, bewildered and betrayed. This is why the Tea Parties take place. This is why the “Birther” movement has taken off among them (as opposed to say the “Truther” movement which was condemned by the Conservative INC. as being radical and conspiracy theory. Who knows, maybe the base might start looking to the 9-11 Truth movement and perhaps Rush Limbaugh will start calling for an investigation of Building 7. So long as it gets ratings….). It’s not surprising that some persons will latch on to anything that expresses these emotions when their own so-called “leaders” have either been beaten, disgraced, made to look incompetent or are completely clueless. If they have no answers, others will be glad to provide them. Conservative INC. (of which Fox News is a big part of). isn’t going to mind if Glenn Beck passes out literature from W. Cleon Skousen, much to Frum’s dismay, because Beck’s hot in the ratings and draws viewers and can pretty much do whatever he wants and anyone who objects is an “elitist” who has let the base down and betrayed it to the Left and is no longer entitled to their attention or wallets for that matter. It’s all about entertainment:
“Fourth, conservatism is entertaining. Understanding the world, though rewarding, provides nothing like the pleasures of a “Two Minute Hate,” a focused, ritualized denunciation of enemies. To induce its own Two Minute Hates, conservatism, like Ingsoc in 1984, manufactures bogeymen such as “judicial activists,” “so-called realists,” or “moral relativists” that become symbolic representations of detested outsiders. Meanwhile, like the Inner Party in 1984, conservative leaders tolerate the more vulgar, angry purveyors of ideology—think talk-show hosts or authors of bestselling political books. The most vicious attacks, meanwhile, are reserved for turncoats, like Goldstein in 1984. (Of course, as many paleoconservatives could attest, the hatred is usually mutual.) Rooting for conservative ideology is as engrossing to its partisans as rooting for the local football team is to its fans.”
The dissenters can dissent all they want but they’re none too popular right now. Nor are they very pure either. As Larison pointed out, Brooks was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush II during his term and Frum even wrote a book about his experience as a cheerleader. Parker too. They have neither recanted their support nor have explained where they have gone wrong, particularly on the war in Iraq, or other such abominations given down to us by Bush II. Frum has never apologized for his smears of war opponents even thought they turned out to be right and himself wrong and no amount bitching about Donald Rumsfeld can absolve any war supporter because many of the people around Rumsfeld in the DOD were members of the same establishment and close allies and friends. One is tempted to say to them “You lead us down the road to defeat!” ala Ev Dirksen, No doubt many in the base have probably said this.
Which is too bad because such people, given their establishment credentials and connections, were in a position to give the alt-right some needed attention because (and like it or not) we agree on the problem with Conservative INC., just not the solution. The establishment dissenters, as we may call them, believe that you basically need a brand new base to appeal to. I and I’m sure others would argue that you need to expand the “base” rather than recreate it and you need new ideas and new issues that can capture popular support amongst intellectuals and non-intellectuals alike along with serious introspection as to what went wrong from the top down. If this happened, then maybe the base would rally their energy to things like “End the Fed” instead of preparing to be led down the dreary path of Obama bashing, the same lost way as Clinton bashing in the 1990s which ended up with Clinton winning two terms, Hillary Clinton as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State and her allies holding key positions in the Obama White House, David Brock becoming a leftist and Christopher Ruddy becoming a FOB. Given the establishment’s hierarchical nature, such change would flow from the “inner party” to its media outlets and then down to the “base” which would in turn change the way Conservative INC. sold its wares to them.
However, this would require a lot of people owning up to and being responsible for their mistakes, for others to quit referring to Ron Paul and his supporters as “wicked idiots” and for others to stop peddling “no” as public policy or rehash ideas relevant 30 years ago. Don’t hold your breath right now:
“Worse, no reckoning will be made: they hope in vain who expect conservatives to take responsibility for the actual consequences of their actions. Conservatives have no use for the ethic of responsibility; they seek only to “see to it that the flame of pure intention is not quelched.”
And keep money coming in apparently.
…it’s still an open question whether Sarah Palin has even sidewalk-level intelligence.
Now, dadgummit, that’s just rude–completely and unnecessarily rude. You may not like the woman or her positions, or the depth of her education, but dadgummit, she’s at least got enough intelligence to graduate from college and govern a state.
Think what you like of certain popular icons and whether or not they are conservative in precisely the fashion you prefer, but when you get to the point of suggesting that Ann Coulter is insufficiently intelligent to write her own books (whatever you think of them), it makes it impossible to take your words as in any sense objective.
What’s New? I mean this has been the case since the begining of political parties. You’ll always have an establishment that will push certain ideas, and beliefs that will suit its purposes. And you’ll always have those who are considered outsiders/dissenters, who are of the same ideology, but tend to disagree on some issues. Whether it be abortion or foreign policy, that just the way it is. Now if you want a more non-interventionist/limited Gov’t ideology, well join the Libertarian Party. Otherwise if you vote Republican, unless the candidate is Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, then it’s likely his/her ideology will be the exact opposite of limit Gov’t.
Re: Man of the West
Concur. Your comment about Palin’s intelligence ironically validates her arguments about snobby elites.
Welcome to the club…
Another excellent essay by Mr. Scallon. I think we’d do well to spend time considering what we actually think. Are we anti-government, pro-small-government, or interested in a rationally sized government where we expect some things accomplished by government, allow some intervention including in some liberties and expect to debate not the scope of government as a whole but particular programs and proposals?
Do we expect government to be amoral? Do we expect the federal government to legislate morality, nobody to legislate morality, or the states to regulate some moral issues?
Are tax rates principled? Should they be a focus?
CONINC seems unlikely to feature such a dialogue, but, as Mr. Scallon points out, CONINC isn’t composed of very many of us.
http://perezhilton.com/2009-07-21-gop-goes-gaga
Does Perez Hilton use the same ghostwriter as you?
Are you, and Perez Hilton and Ann Coulter, actually all 3 the same person?
What about Michelle Malkin? Does she like Ron Paul?
=========================================
Sean says, “When you abandon the field of education and let its institutions become leftist enclaves, it only feeds the intuition of those who feel listening to talk radio or watching Fox News is the only education they truly need and anything else is simply “elitist.” ”
If we forget what a Liberal is, then we forget why Mass Media, Hollywood, Newspapers, and College “Campi” tend to BECOME liberal.
Someone reports on WHAT WAS. Someone opines on what WILL BE. Someone suggests what SHOULD BE. Add dishonesty, and you have a liberal figuring out a way to FORCE THAT ON PEOPLE. Simple as that.
=========================================
For as long as “intellectual center of gravity” is too advanced a concept, one will fail to see how “elitists” can fit within the Conservative movement.
In a classroom, any good teacher knows that the intellectual center of gravity is in the middle of the room. When a “Bill OReilly” forgets that, his appeal to conservatives begins to wane. Then some Perez Hilton comes along, and begins to attack conservatives by attacking the “Bill OReillys and Sean Hannities”.
Then one finds similar shell casings next to the dead reputations of the “Joe Wurzelbachers and Sarah Palins”. Some of those shell casings have the name “Perez Hilton” on them, along with a little note that says, “This person, and indeed all America, caused the attacks on them.”
Sean Scallon wrote:
“However, what we’re dealing with here is an establishment that has split itself in two. In the majority is what I like to call Conservative INC. It has become….”
Excellent post Mr. Scallon. Simply excellent. The Republican Party has just simply arrived at the point where the “organized interests” that support it (the money interests, the ideological interests and etc.) have so completely taken it over that it has utterly divorced it from the influence of the unorganized popular interests that might otherwise support it. And the hilarity is that it’s the unorganized popular interests that determines its fate.
While the Dems have their organized interests too, at least they haven’t forgotten who actually pulls the voting levers.
Cheers,
“those at the top of the movement have almost perfect freedom to decide what opinions count as official conservatism.”
I don’t know if they have “almost perfect freedom,” but they do have a lot of leeway. But this may be a somewhat hopeful thing. A few defections at the top, especially on foreign policy, and the base might come with them. I don’t know if they could credibly switch overnight, but they could start trending our way.
perhaps somebody is waking up to the truth that When Republicans grow up, the become Libertarians. Too bad that the left never groes up and becomes anything of value…..
I have a lot of trouble with all the Tea party stuff I really want to be part of, but the people running it act like we were in the guttenberg press and handmade paper era (the Expense of it all!!! (send cash) .Are they related to a certain Nigerian King I read so much about?)
But then its not just the right who has this particular flu thats going around. The radical right, the markets, the media, the corporations all have the hand out, the cup extended. Its the new American Dream so it seems some days.
And Please, don’t call the left Liberals. They are anything but. Call them Illiberals if you must, but, to give them the word is to turn against the enlightenment and somne of the best it had to offer us. Don’t back up, don’t allow nespeak to colonize your dictionary
From Washington, one of these several, united states….
Thanks to all who have commented and my appreciation for the compliments as well.
To Man of the West all I can say is “Department of Law?” in the White House? Come on! I’ve been very fair Mrs. Palin but this is ridiculous.
To waltinseattle I agree, I will try to refrain from calling leftists “Liberals” and Rightists “conservatives”. Let’s stop the preversity of these terms.
[...] the conservative equivalent of YearlyKos. It is a gathering of what my friend Sean Scallon calls Conservative Inc. This is odd because if any convention of rightists should incorporate Ron Paulites, libertarians, [...]
[...] because, like Beck, they have become part of what Sean Scallon at the American Conservative calls “Conservative, Inc.”–the business of conservatism. (Plus Glenn Beck is a safer personality to defend. They view [...]
More pseudo-elitist drivel from AC. Sean, you merely want to keep your creds as some sort of “Serious Conservative Intellectual;”, or, rather, keep you self-delusions of such. You “amen chorus” here, comically mincing around about their “reservations” about joining the Tea Parting movement, looking down their noses at Palin or grousing about “the intellectual center of gravity” are not far behind you, though they, even more hilariously, have even less real claim to their pretensions of “sober analysis” and “serious leadership” than do you.
You all are just the GOP equivalent of the Democrat’s Nomenkaltura, the only real difference being the locus of you “funding”. The whole lot of you are even more out of touch with the political reality of this nation than the DNC.
You idiotic Bush bashing, most especially at this juncture, is all the proof one needs of this. The Tea Party folks and real and pragmatic conservative flee from the likes of you as from the plague. All they need hear , beside the signal Bush bashing cant, is pompous nonsense like this:
“Whatever you may think of the Establishment dissenters (and we will deal with them later) they are right in decrying these trends and Conservative INC. debasement into a rank, demagogic populism
.”
You could not be more obtuse.
Sean, you are part of the “opportunistic Establishment GOP,” you decry. though a extremely small part of it, and the only reason you keep grousing about that bunch is that they are adult enough not to take you seriously.
Speaking of adulthood, what a comic formulation that “libertarians” are some how “grown up Conservatives”.
Of course, it is the exact opposite that is true. Libertarianism is an even loopier a political construct than is Socialism–and, amazingly, even more improbable, irrational and ahistorical. In fact, Libertarianism attracts the same sort of noxious mixture of obtuse and puerile economic determinists, materialists, positivists, cynical opportunist and reflexive cultural marxists as does Socialism. They merely want to keep their “own” money, which. most likely, comes from a lifetime of of smalp time political hustles in some corporation somewhere rather than any real contribution. “Libertarian Man” is an even more elusive and rare of a beast than is “Socialist Man”, and, like the Socialists, the Libertarians will lead us all to darkness whilst they seek him out.
None of any reflection and quality is a libertarian after 24 unless they are ether particularly pig-headed or stayed to long in grad school. No one with any decency or common sense at all, or even a thimbleful of real world experience or basic and real education, believes this gobbledygook after the after 30. They realize that they are a very small part of a great and noble civilization and do not imagine that they have “earned” all they have inherited nor are they childish enough to think that self-indulgence is the path to self-awareness.
It is Western Civilization that must be preserved, not some sort of bizarre and radical political abstraction that confuses license with liberty, contribution with inheritance, self-awareness with self-absorption and narcissism, and God with the Self.
Libertarianism is the faith of those Boomer who have made a little cash, but have little understanding how they came by it. I have yet to meet a self proclaimed Boomer Libertarian who was not a “sputnik brat”, whose education was in some measure supported by the state and whose major accomplishment has been that of deftly handling corporate politic–and little else. Most of these boomers made it by virtue of the nation and civilization they happened to find themselves in and not on their own contributions too it. They corrode and corrupt our values just as much as the left.
Libertarianism is the Socialism of the Right, or more accurately the Socialism of the Center Right. It is, paradoxical, the collectivism of unexamined self-indulgent and and the myopic narcissist.
[...] back to what’s really at stake: millions of dollars in contributions to what writer Sean Scallon rightly called Conservative [...]
[...] If Ron Paul runs for President in 2012 his campaign may want to consider skipping the Florida primary altogether and save itself the expense of competing in what would be a very difficult state for him. Not only was it his worst state in 2008 primaries, but the ascension of state House Speaker Marco Rubio to be it’s nominee for the U.S. Senate means that the state’s GOP has become a branch office for Conservative Inc. [...]
[...] Even little kids got in on the act. Indeed, Manzi’s target may not be Levin at all but at Conservative Inc., the machine that puts out book after book and markets them to a base that by now have collections [...]