The ‘politics of and’ understands that tender policies don’t require an abandonment of tough policies. ~ConservativeHome

Via Reihan

This is something that bothers me about Tory modernisers, Cameroons and domestic comp-cons, such as Sam Brownback.  First of all, these are the sort who use such words as ‘tender’ in the context of public policy (kisses are tender, but policies are clumsy, blunt-force instruments wielded by government).  Here in America they refer to themselves, as Brownback does, as “compassionate conservatives” and “bleeding-heart conservatives,” as if there were anything conservative about a bleeding heart.  A heart that bleeds will do an unusually poor job of conserving sufficient blood supply to function properly!  Bleeding hearts are not normally good secular images for the defense of life.  The other thing that bothers me is the desire to create unified themes that supposedly bridge all areas of policy (thus being pro-life has something to do with art programs or Darfur) or the tendency to imagine that it is possible to ‘have it all’.  Hence the “and” in “And” conservatism. 

I remember how a few years ago Stoiber ran on a program of “capitalism and solidarity,” which sounds good at first and has a certain tradition in Christian Democratic circles of the past few decades.  Ultimately, it does not convince many.  This “and” talk is supposed to be an attempt at balance, but it always translates into an inability to make decisions, set priorities or gauge the importance of different policies (or, worse, it is the lamest and most transparent pandering to the other side’s constituents with cheap buzzwords).  Worst of all, it is intrinsically optimistic in its assumption that it is possible to address one set of problems effectively while simultaneously addressing all other sets of problems with the same vigour.  Man is finite, time is limited, resources are scarce and choices have to be made. 

“And” theories tell the thinking person that the “And” theorist is incapable of real leadership because he refuses to face up to the real costs and trade-offs of this or that policy.  Worse still is the apparent inability of “And” conservatives to recognise inherent contradictions in their proposed combinations:

A willingness to confront the Islamic roots of global terrorism and and more opportunities for mainstream British Muslims to set up state-funded schools.     

Perhaps the thinking here is that if the Treasury funds madrassahs there will be fewer openings for Saudi and Pakistani money and ideas, but if the “And” theorists are recognising the generically “Islamic roots” of global terrorism it seems downright stupid to devote state resources to funding Islamic schools, be they “mainstream” or not.

The “And” conservatives seem to enjoy rebelling against existing establishments, whether or not the establishments are pursuing obviously bad policies.  This would have some merit, if the alternative foreign policy opposed by the establishment figures was any good.  Another item from ConservativeHome identifies the flaws of the ‘triangulation’ approach (from which the “and” approach is supposedly distinct) and the vested interests that benefit from it:

Such voices include the public sector unions who oppose radical reform of schools and hospitals and the foreign office establishment that favours multilateralism and stability over pre-emption and regime change.

In other words, insofar as it is entirely unlike this ‘triangulation’ approach, “And” conservatism here is a sort of hybrid between the policy views of Mickey Kaus and Michael Ledeen: fight the bureaucrats/revolution in everything!  Elsewhere in foreign policy Cameron himself shows that “And” conservatism means a sort of oceanic attempt to care about everything equally, which will lead to being equally inattentive to all:

And when the Conservative Party talks about foreign affairs it can’t just be Gibraltar and Zimbabwe.  We have got to show as much passion about Darfur and the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in sub-Saharan African who are getting poorer while we are getting richer.

To which the sensible Tory might reply, “Why?”