Looking For Excuses
Peter Suderman discusses the lack of self-criticism on the right:
But still, the problem is real: the mechanisms for acceptable self-criticism on the right aren’t very good, especially in election years. Any institution, even very good ones, that dedicates itself to simple self-preservation without the added step of self-monitoring is bound to face corruption, disarray, and discontent.
This is one reason why I find the Republican and mainstream conservative turn in the last month or so to little more than excuse-making to be rather troubling, because it repeats the same errors that were made before and after the 2006 election. The GOP lesson from the ’06 defeat was apparently nothing more than this: we really need to get a handle on earmarks! After the election this time we are likely to hear about how the right should have combated voter fraud more assiduously.
On the financial crisis, we hear endlessly from most voices on the right about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which did contribute to the larger problem by securitizing mortgage loans, which created a market for banks to pass off loans of all kinds and the attendant risk to someone else, but we hear nothing about active Republican complicity in promoting “the ownership society,” nor is there very much serious criticism of Greenspan and the cult of Greenspan that was bipartisan but strongest among Republicans. Because McCain reflexively, more or less randomly targeted the SEC for criticism early on, party regulars seem to feel compelled to ignore the SEC’s failures. There is some awareness of the significant problem created by FASB Rule 157, and there have been calls to change the rule, but this cannot have a prominent place in most conservative discussions of the current crisis because it cannot readily be pinned on Democrats. To listen to mainstream conservative responses to the crisis, you might think that Mitt Romney’s convention speech was repeating on a loop, as you would never know that Republicans and their appointees were in charge of the relevant institutions and agencies responsible for the appropriate oversight up through the start of 2007. There is very little willingness to accept responsibility at any level.
We see this same refusal to take responsibility in criticism of media bias and the preoccupation with charges of voter fraud. If public opinion of Palin has soured, it is because of unfair and unbalanced media coverage; it cannot be because she is not prepared. To entertain the possibility she is unprepared, or to say positively that she is not suited to the job she is seeking, is to be considered a rat-fink and a turncoat and proof that you are a snooty elitist with no connection to the real America we keep hearing about. Many seem to find it hard to believe that Obama could have such massive small-donor fundraising and massive voter registration, so there must be wrongdoing. I don’t rule out that there might be some wrongdoing, but we are beginning to hear warnings about stolen elections, as if the projections of an almost 200 electoral vote margin in Obama’s favor did not indicate a huge shift in voting patterns and the absurdity of talking about stealing the election. To say that many mainstream conservatives are beginning to sound a bit conspiratorial and paranoid is to put a positive spin on things. Media bias obviously exists, as it has in every previous cycle for decades, and it is more intense this time, but it is not as if media bias is what is causing the enormous drag on the Republican ticket and Republicans in Congress.
The public mood soured on the President’s party a long time ago because of the GOP’s failures over the last several years, and so long as Republicans do not want to accept their share of responsibility for the financial crisis that is destroying them, among other things, they will not understand why most of the public has turned against them. If they do not understand this, they will not be able to make the needed corrections, and so this playing at being the victim of menacing and unjust forces is simply delaying the needed reassessment and reform that will have to come if the public is ever going to put their trust in Republicans again. While some have proposed that a devastating defeat for the GOP is necessary to teach the party needed lessons, there is no reason to believe from what I am seeing right now that there is much of an inclination to learn.
Very well put.
It’s seemed to me for quite some time that GOP ideologues have come to believe what in the beginning was no more than a huckster’s winning pitch to the rubes. Or to take it from another angle, if you believe that you can create reality, then you are in essence denying the existence of accountability.
And if there’s no accountability, then – it’s party time! now and forever.
Or in your words, “delaying the needed reassessment and reform.”
(reconstructing from memory a comment that seems to have been eated)
Very well put.
I’ve thought for some time that GOP ideologues have come to believe their own (admittedly very successful until now) sales pitches to the rubes.
Or to put it in different terms – “creating reality” – if you believe that you can create reality, you’re denying the possibility of accountability.
If there’s no accountability – then it’s party time, now and forever!
A conceptual framework which could “delay[] the reassessment” even after a devastating rebuke at the polls.
After all, there wasn’t much of a reassessment after November 2006.
Excellent comment. The obsession with the Community Reinvestment Act (which was maybe .05% of the mortgage market), the paranoia regarding voter fraud, and the total lack of any policy proposals from McCain reveal a party without a heart and soul, lashing out at phantom demons that it blames for its loss of power. In Texas, the Republican AG just used a $1.5 million grant from the Department of Justice to investigate “widespread” voter fraud and turned up a handful of prosecutable cases involving maybe a dozen votes. Despite this, and against all evidence, Republican partisans insist that there is widespread voter fraud, with thousands of illegal immigrants flooding to the polls to vote Democratic.
I am a Democrat, but I respect the philosophy of limited government conservatism. It is sad to see it die. Today’s Republican party has more in common with European nationalist parties than with any true party of limited government.
Daniel:
Do you believe that, if the GOP as a party had taken the right lessons to heart after its 2006 losses, then the party might be poised to win the White House and regain its Congressional majority in 2008? I do not believe it. I believe that the GOP is losing in 2008 for almost purely cyclical reasons.
Political cycles exist, they are real, they are inevitable, and they have consequences.
I want the Republican party to learn the same lessons you want it to learn, with little variation; but I see no reason to believe that its failure to learn these lessons is what may cost it this election.
Howard
I’m a little surprised that you haven’t, as far as I know, applied the analogy to the Blue and Green chariot fans of the Eastern Roman (or, if you prefer, Byzantine) Empire. As time went on, each team supposedly became associated with various political and even theological tenets….but these tenets were less important than the mere matter of association with one of the two factions. Given the recent spate of web conversation as to what might constitute tribalism in the Republican party, the relevance seems to me to be compelling. The reason I bring it up is that the Republicans seem to have abdicated their positions on matters that I had previously thought were non-negotiable….the scope of the odious B bailouts and the prescription drug benefit being two representative issues. Though marginal income tax rates don’t have the doctrinal salience they once did, I expect that to be the next leg of the stool to go. The last to go will be the militarism….not real militarism, as we will not long be able to afford that, but the jingoistic huffing and puffing that substitutes for confidence. Yet in spite of these heresies, the rank-and-file Republicans seem unwilling to stand athwart of history and cry”Holy F***”!
Now, I am a least a nominal democrat so these issues don’t cause me to be as elfshot as some (though having gone down the drug benefit road the Republicans should have just swallowed the whole enchilada). But I am quite sure they are eroding the ties that many used to feel to the Republican sect. Every day brings either another defection or another exile…..yesterday, Kathleen Parker got exiled (A. Sullivan had a very good post on this) and Charles Fried defected. Charles Fried. Is anyone -anyone! – going to say that his conservative credentials aren’t in order? It’s like having Trotsky say he’d got it all wrong and was going to start a necktie factory in Ossining. When Fried splits and Larison, Frum, Sullivan, Dreher, Will, Douthat, et al start looking at the lifeboats out of the corners of their eyes, it’s supposed to be warning sign saying “This Way Whigs”. Instead, the party faithful react with denial, inarticulate rage, and the purge instinct. On their current track, unless the so-called elites prevail, I suspect that the Republican party will end up a pitifully regional party, based in those regions with the lowest education, the worst health care, and the least number of electoral votes. I’m from Oklahoma, so I know wherof I speak.
Now, I am old enough to remember the currently non-existent Civil Liberty wing of the Democratic party (hard to believe that Bush The First ever accused a Democratic opponent of being “a card carrying member of the ACLU” .I don’t think we’ll see that again). The Democrats died as a coherent entity in the wake of the Vietnam debacle (yes, there were other reasons as well, but that was the proximate cause). They never came back, not even now, which is one reason why McCain’s ludicrous “socialist” attack isn’t hitting paydirt. This can happen to the Republicans too, as you are all about to see. With no real Demmycrats and no real Republicans where do we all go? These are serious times, and some real debates are in order regarding core assumptions of our various idealogues. But how can that debate occur in this Versailles-like hothouse of courtiers?
Sorry for the screed.
Oh, and the overuse of the word “now’” is my form of throat -clearing. Like a teenager says “like”.
My husband and I were discussing last night the possibility that the Republicans might become the party of the south–that the final outcome of the Southern Strategy would be to limit them to those very states they first thought to exploit by playing the race card. Sure, they’ll hang on to a few outposts here and there outside the south, but it appears a divorce is coming between the moderate wing of the party and the anti-intellectual Palin wing.
I haven’t really noticed mainstream conservatism turning in the last month or so. They’ve been conspiratorial for a while. Even when ascendant, a lot of mainstream conservative pundits whined about liberal media bias, political correctness, election fraud, and so on. The recent spate of yelping is nothing new. My bet is that they nurse their sense of victimhood for the next few years, looking to place blame on external forces rather than own up to the paucity of their own philosophies, such as they are.
I can’t say that I consider mainstream “conservatives” to be conservative in any real sense of the word, as most are not willing to take a serious look at the either destructive side of the “free” market forces they allegedly celebrate or the pernicious effects of global capitalism and the concentration of so much economic power in so few hands. Any conservatism worthy of its name has to deal realistically with these forces and the dead end culture of consumption they promote to offer a genuine alternative worthy of consideration.
mbtogut- (has anyone mentioned that your screen name sounds like the heroic chieftan in an H. Rider Haggard book?)
I agree with everything you just said. Wow. Be afraid. However, I do detect a certain increased hysteria to what we will still humorously call “mainstream conservatism”….For instance if you, like I, enjoy reading Teh Corner I think you will find a sudden interest in Hawaiian birth certificates and bizarre conspiracy theories that wasn’t there 30 days ago. As goes the frontal lobe, so too the cerebellum. But it is really quite tragic to see NR go down. Or any once great mag, for that matter.
As someone who has an immense interest in IP law, I certainly wish the Republicans would address the uglier side of “creative destruction”.Oddly, Obama is the only one who has acknowledged it, at least to the extent of using using copyright gadfly Lawrence Lessig as an advisor.
The GOP had to work hard to find the losing formula, but they did it!
1. A stupid and unpopular war.
2. Excessive sub-prime mortgagees
3. Unregulated derivatives market.
4. Running Bob Dole against a young, charismatic opponent.
The relentless harping on voter fraud is the last, poisoned gift of the GOP as they head towards a crushing defeat. The unwarranted complaints serve only to undermine the very underpinnings of our democratic system, and diminish (in the eyes of the faithful) the legitimacy of the victor.
In addition, yet another excuse for defeat will only defer the much needed reassessment of the party goals and future.
jetan–nope, never heard that about my screen name, nor had I heard of Mr. Haggard.
I read Teh Corner occasionally, for comic relief, so I hadn’t really noticed the change in tone. But, as I’ve often had a hard time distinguishing some of their writers from charlatans like Coulter or Hannity, this is no surprise.
I didn’t realize Lessing was an Obama advisor. Interesting.
As a socially liberal, fiscally conservative registered independent, I shed no tears for the GOP in 2008. People should have stopped using ‘GOP’ and ‘conservative’ as synonyms quite some time ago. This implosion has been building for quite some time. I’m prompted to comment by One Lazy Dog, above.
The relentless harping on voter fraud is definitely negatively affecting the GOP this year. This is the one lesson the GOP should be taking to heart. All the leading voices of the GOP decry the situation, and by tone, inflection, implication and inference, the mainstream of the electorate in the U.S. takes away the message that the people targeted by ACORN, et. al. for registration should not be given the opportunity to vote. That is the crux of the problem for the GOP. Their very talking points lead the bulk of America to believe that we don’t deserve the vote. The GOP will continue to be seen as the party of old white men until they resolve this. I read a comment thread on RedState (less nutjob and more mainstream than freerupublic) talking about how McCain has a chance in California because Hispanics don’t like African-Americans. Several posts were made in support of this. The inference to be drawn is that the GOP is more interested in the Dems not getting the Hispanic vote than they are in getting it themselves.
Sorry to ramble. I now return you to your regulalry scheduled commentary…
The decline of the National Review has been a long, ongoing process, but it was obvious by the 90s that the tone and style of the magazine had changed noticeably from its early days. NR, once upon a time, boasted among its regular contributors Garry Wills, Joan Didion, Guy Davenport and John Leonard. By the time Rich “little starbursts” Lowry took over the editorial reins from WFB Jr., there was clearly very little of that magazine left. The half-mad ravings at the Corner over the past few weeks are just the climax to a tragedy whose ending we could see coming years ago.
Daniel’s prediction about the GOP repeating their 2006 mistake may be proven right, I just wouldn’t look for signs of educability before Nov. 4. For all their ill, many have committed to McCain (whom they didn’t like), and they’re going to stick by him for now and save the post-mortem for, well, post mortem.
In a way it’s going to be hard to decide which way to go until you see what it is the electorate really wants. Are they going to accept the Demcrats’ agenda? If so, then the argument’s going to be much different than if the public sours on what the left offers up in the next year or two.
Politics is the art of the possible, and I don’t think anyone knows what possible with the public, especially the public.
Unsound pet theory: I think P.J. O’Rourke killed National Review.
Not intentionally, of course, but through his success. His flip style not only caught on, but it was COOL, so every conservative youngster aspired to be the next O’Rourke instead of another Kirk or Weaver, because that involves a lot of hard work and won’t get you chicks. Those who did manage to work, could never quite master O’Rourke’s flexibility and light touch (at least in his earlier works), so they came out sounding shrill or oafish. I have to say I was guilty of all this until I figured out that I’d never make a living writing.
Politics is the art of the possible, and I don’t think anyone knows what possible with the public, especially the public.
Line.
Are they going to accept the Demcrats’ [sic] agenda?
I expect Obama to be far more disciplined and cautious than Clinton 1993-1994 (admittedly a pretty low bar for discipline and caution), and I expect the Congressional Democrats to defer to him far more than they did to Clinton.
However, Clinton inherited a pretty well running country all in all, and not anyway near as polarized an environment (credit to Perot for doing a lot to make it a fairly grown up election), for all that a significant chunk of the right had him in their sights from day one.
I have pretty high regard for Obama and have voted for him, but I expect most of his agenda will be overcome by events, namely at least a severe recession and quite possibly one or more internaltional events.
So while no doubt there will be a Democratic agenda at any given moment between now and 2010, I really question how much they’ll be able to implement. Strange as it may sound, I really do think who loses (and in what manner) in the upcoming GOP purge will matter nearly as much to the correlation of forces come Nov 2010 as whatever the Dmeocrats have pushed or are pushing. I’ll be very happy to be wrong in that prediction, but it’s too qualitative to bet tacos on.
Your O’Rourke theory is interesting. I don’t really buy it, but it does have a good air of plausibility. Nice work.
[...] In October, a shift in tone fro irritated to disgusted: [...]