It's getting to be embarrassing to be a conservative

These days it's getting increasingly embarrassing to publicly identify oneself as a conservative. It was bad enough when George Bush 43, the K Street Gang, and the neo-cons were running up spending, fighting an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq, incurring massive deficits, expanding entitlements, and all the rest of the nonsense I cataloged over the years in posts like Bush 43 has been a disaster for conservatives.

These days, however, the most prominent so-called conservatives are increasingly fit only to be cast for the next Dumb and Dumber sequel. They're dumb and crazy. 

Conservative pundit David Kilnghoffer has a great op-ed in today's LA Times that nicely captures what I'm on about:

Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions — like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, whose news and opinion website, Breitbart.com, is read by millions. In his most recent triumph, Breitbart got a U.S. Department of Agriculture official pushed out of her job after he released a deceptively edited video clip of her supposedly endorsing racism against white people.

What has become of conservatism? ... With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of "neocons" versus "paleocons." Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons. ...

Conservatism wasn't just a policy agenda, a set of partisan gripes or a football team seeking victory on the electoral field. Above all, it was a satisfying, sophisticated critique of modern, materialist culture, pointing a way out and up from liberalism.

Let's tick off ten things that make this conservative embarrassed by the modern conservative movement:

1. A poorly educated ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship is prominently featured as a -- if not the -- leading prospect for the GOP's 2012 Presidential nomination.
2. Tom Tancredo calling President Obama “the greatest threat to the United States today" and arguing that he be impeached. Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and the casual assertion that pursuing liberal policies--however misguided--is an impeachable offense is just nuts.
3. Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins, who IBD column was, as Doug Marconis observed, "a wildly exaggerated attack on President Obama’s record in office." Actually, it's more foaming at the mouth.
4. As Doug also observed, "The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine." Indeed, "when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, and the White House in 2000, the desire to use the levers of power to create “compassionate conservatism” won our over any semblance of fiscal conservatism. Instead of tax cuts and spending cuts, we got tax cuts along with a trillion dollar entitlement program, a massive expansion of the Federal Government’s role in education, and two wars. That’s not fiscal conservatism it is, as others have said, fiscal insanity." Yet, today's GOP still has not articulated a message of real fiscal conservatism.
5. Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to out=st Harry Reid. See also Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?
6. The anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.
7. Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama's war.
8. Birthers.
9. Nativists.
10. The substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate. Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and even Rush Limbaugh are not exactly putting on Firing Line. Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan?

Update: Patterico says the foregoing are "reasons that conservatives should not support the Republican party," not reasons for being embarrassed about being a conservative. Fair enough. I'd accept that as a friendly amendment, but we're not friends.

I am reminded of Russell Kirk's great essay on Republican errors, in which he wrote that "in my lamenting of the present state of Republican leadership in Washington, I am more moved by sorrow than by wrath." Unfortunately, the present GOP leadership in Washington continues making many of the same errors of which Kirk complained 20 years ago. As such, sorrow begins to give way to wrath.

Comments

[bailey]

How about "conservative" law profs who likely didn't watch "Firing Line" when it was on being more worried about what embarrassments are in the conservative movement than what incompetents are currently doing to the country? I guess if you went to Harvard, your competence doesn't matter.

[Dan]

Uhm, latest poll in Kentucky: Paul up 51-43% over Conway. A long way to go, but still . . . things are looking pretty good in Kentucky.

Reid leads in Nevada now, but it's within the margin of error.

Birthers are now on the fringe of the fringe.

If by "nativism" he means opposition to legal immigration, he's misguided. If he means opposition to illegal immigration, I suppose he's correct.

Lumping Beck and Limbaugh in with Savage is tacit admission by the writer that he either lacks discernment or is thoroughly unfamiliar with Beck and Limbaugh.

Decrying the absence of an icon such as Irving Kristol while properly blaming GOP neocons for budgetary malpractice is ridiculous. The writer should become familiar with a work by Irving Kristol entitled "Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea." If you're going to properly blame neocons for pre-Obama overspending, at least give Kristol an "assist" in the stats.

[dirc]

Got it. You don't like the GOP or the Tea Party, because they embarrass you when you tell your friends that you are a conservative. If there is a non-liberal group that is good enough for you, you haven't found it yet.

Like you, I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of a pro-science, pro-intellectual group of sophisticates to form the perfect conservative political party. A party that will include everyone except extremists, the poorly educated, and rabble-rousers.

Until that glorious day arrives, I'll just have to swallow my pride and associate myself with the positions and candidates I think are best, without regard for the derision of others.

As a wise man wrote on this site, "Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?"

[steve]

Have to agree with you. Medicare part D and the Iraq war convinced me it was time to leave. I see no signs that it is getting any better. I suspect that Palin will win the nomination and that will make for a difficult decision for many people.

Steve

[Keith Waters]

I agree with just about everything but am puzzled by the nativist inclusion. Are you taking potshots at those of us who are against open borders?

[Mike S]

While I appreciate your concerns, I have to take exception to some of them.

For one thing, imagine what you could have said about Ronald Reagan in 1979, if you were inclined to be pissy (Bedtime for Bonzo, anyone?).

Also, you tend to elevate marginal figures, like Tom Tancredo, to spokesperson status. Does anyone outside of Colorado even know his name?

Finally, you mistake political entertainers, like Rush or Hugh or Glenn, for actual politicians. These people are the Keith Olbermanns and Chris Matthews of the Right, not its leadership. Yes, they are important from a branding perspective, but don't lose sight of the bigger picture. The power structure of Democratic Party is dominated by people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel fer chrissake! Nobody thinks about leaving the Democratic Party because Keith O is a moron because they know where the real power lies. Please keep that in mind when critiquing the Right.

[Stacy]

I'd say all but #8 and 9, and maybe #1, are fairly overwrought. I remember Firing Line, and honestly Rush Limbaugh (though not, say, Sean Hannity) is more interesting.

Also, you're conflating conservative and Republican. There's nothing embarrassing about the Tea Party from an ideological standpoint, unless you're David Brooks trying to appease your inside-the-Beltway friends. On the other hand, the GOP of the Dubya years is at least as intellectually bankrupt as the Pelosi faction, and doesn't deserve to carry the opposition flag.

The reason Republicans have pissed away election opportunities is this kind of Pecksniffian disdain for Tea Party conservatives, and a deference to the MSM narrative that's rather inexplicable, especially in the post-JournoList world.

[Cornellian]

"Reid leads in Nevada now, but it's within the margin of error."

He's within the margin of error only because he's running against Angle. He'd be 20 points behind running against anyone else. If Reid gets re-elected, he's got the tea party wing of the Republican party to thank for it.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

"These days, however, the most prominent so-called conservatives are increasingly fit only to be cast for the next Dumb and Dumber sequel. They're dumb and crazy. "

And you're an asshole.

Don't like lumping your elite self with us conservatives then don't let the door hit you in the ass.

"What has become of conservatism? ... With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims"

So you think that applies to us conservatives huh? Looks like you're incapable of basic math. Why don't you get off your fat ass and think about what kind of impact legalizing tens of millions of illegal aliens would do to this country.

In short: fuck you and the donkey your rode in on.

[Dave Hester]

T. Coddington van Vorhees VII, is that you?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/03/i-daresay-it-is-time-we-deal-with-the-mutineers-aboard-the-ss-conservatism.html

[Mike Lorrey]

Those for legal immigration and against illegal immigration are not "nativists".
Those who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming theory, esp in light of climategate and exposure of extensive green propaganda treated as peer-reviewed science in the IPCC report, are not "anti-science".
Those who would like academia to stop discriminating against conservative and libertarian students and faculty, to stop propagandizing to students and foaming at the mouth over every conservative speaker who visits campus, are not "anti-intellectual".
Nor does coming from a flyover state and speaking in an accent that is not Mid-Atlantic Ivy League define one as "anti-intellectual".

Obama IS the greatest threat to the United States in its history. He is intentionally destroying the idea of American exceptionalism, dismantling any part of our nation that has ever made us great, and pandering to international groups that would seek to reduce the US to minor power status (islamists, eurosocialists, china, etc).

If you don't get any of this, then you really aren't any sort of conservative or libertarian. However there is hope for you. It is unfortunate, though, that you feel the need to work and socialize in academia. Thats really your main problem. You live in an environment in which you are bombed by leftist propaganda constantly and have few if any fellow conservatives to associate with. You should really get off campus and spend some time learning to appreciate the common man again.

[Serr8d]

My dear good Professor, surely you jest. Have you not noted that the 'liberals' you see as worthy adversaries are now very far-Left; so far-gone Left that this very Republic is somewhat threatened? You've failed to notice that we, as a nation, have moved past the normal range of motion of the political pendulum, to a near-perilous crash? Can you not see that these very elements you decry, the Teapartiers for example, are in existence only because there needs to be some strong, effective opposition to those forces who've thrown us this far off-kilter?

Sorry your feelings are hurt, your dignity challenged. If we can't right by election some of the wrongs we've had propagated against this nation in November, I suggest you trade your dinner jacket and pipe for a fainting couch.

Read Dr. Jack Wheeler for a much-needed wake up call, whilst you're reclining.

http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d18-Amputate-or-Die-by-Dr-Jack-Wheeler

Good day, sir.

[Matt]

Yes, one of the reasons I am embarrassed to be a conservative these days is he faddish tendency of conservative professorial types to ostentatiously dissociate themselves from all those people with, you know, day jobs--people whom the faddish professorial types are just *certain* must be motivated by all kinds of horrible bigotry and whose any pretense to thought can easily be vaporized with that single magic word, 'nativist,' despite the fact that said faddish professorial types don't actually know any of the accused bigots or interact with them at all. No rights for the accused among the fashionable members of the blogosphere.

Oh, and "baiting blacks and Mexicans." Please.

(And by the way, the fact that I teased you for being professorial doesn't mean that I'm anti-intellectual. Though you might flatter yourself to think so.)

[gabe]

Interesting that you mention "anti-science and anti-intellectualism" in the same post you praise Klinghoffer. He's a prominent advocate for intelligent design, you know.

[Matt]

And, also, isn't it ironic that you are quoting Klinghoffer, the intelligent design guy?

[Bonnie]

Just... thank you. I've been a Republican for over 30 years and, lately, I don't even like to admit it. Palin, Rand Paul, Tancredo -- they're all leading us the wrong direction. But, good luck on getting any traction with intelligent, reasoned arguments. I feel like we're being led off a cliff.

(And, Dan, he is apparently familiar with Beck and Limbaugh or he wouldn't have appropriately lumped them in with Savage.)

[DomBologna]

Perhaps the first time I've read a list of ten political items and agreed with every one. I've voted for the GOP in every election since I could vote ('98), and each time, I've regretted it. I've nearly given up on the party as is, but Palin '12 would surely push me to either a third party or even my first Dem vote.

I'm in Michigan, and if the candidates I support don't win in next week's GOP primary, I'll be voting for third party candidates come November.

[Dan M.]

Yeah, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good and let's elect some more big spending "compassionate conservatives." The same ones who ruined conservatism are the ones that you'd rather have over a solid Tea Party candidate. Shouldn't you be joining the Tea Party and driving off the super wackos in that movement rather than telling them they should be settling for Charlie f**king Crist? If you weren't a moron perhaps you'd see that the choice is going to be between Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist in the general election, anyway. If Charlie Crist is "good," why not be happy with him as an independent?

[Matt Lister]

(First, I note that while I sometimes comment here under just my first name, I'm not the person commenting as "matt" above.)

I'm curious if you think that Beck and Savage are serious. (I suspect that Hewitt is, and that Rush mostly believes what he says, though I don't know.) I think there's pretty convincing reason to think that Savage, as appalling as he is, is mostly performance art and con-man behavior. Beck is also a bit of a con-man and artists, though I sometimes think he's unstable enough that he might buy his own stitch sometimes. I'm not sure. But it is sad when two fairly obvious performance artists and/or con-men are taken seriously as real commenters.

[Blogdiva]

Dear Prof. Bainbridge :

Gracias.

Sincerely,
Liza Sabater, Publisher
culturekitche.com

[SM]

"The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine."

Tsk tsk. There you go, letting the perfect be the enemy of the good again.

I'm sure that Crist and the rest of those non-rabid non-nativist non-mouth-breathers you approve of will stand like a rock against government spending. Heck, lets bring back Trent Lott while we're at it!

[Aaron Worthing]

Let’s fisk your list a little, here:

First, I assume this is about Palin:

> A poorly educated

Do I detect a little anti-state-school snobbery?

> ex-sportwriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship

I don’t know. Alaska is a pretty important state.

> Tom Tancredo calling President Obama “the greatest threat to the United States today" and arguing that he be impeached.

Obama is so spectacularly bad at his job it is actually pretty rational to think he might be doing it on purpose. Doing it on purpose would amount to an impeachable offense.

Mind you, I don’t believe he is doing it on purpose. I believe incompetence is the best explanation. But I can’t fault someone for taking the opposite view. Its really hard to believe he is this idiotic on basic economics.

> Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins

First, who and who? Second, calling for a new “American Revolution” is nothing new. It has literally been done since Jefferson won the presidency, known at the time as the Revolution of 1800. Another notable example is the election of 1860, which many republicans called the Second American Revolution. Presuming the Democrats get a righteous drubbing between now and 2012, this would be our third “second” revolution, if you count the other two.

> The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine.

Yeah, in 2008 republicans and conservatives thought that the democrats couldn’t do worse on spending. Obama, Reid and Pelosi apparently were bound and determined to prove them wrong.

> Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to [oust] Harry Reid.

Probably? Aren’t we a little too soon on this? Especially since some polls have her up?

> See also Charlie Crist in Florida,

You wanted to oust Charlie Crist? Well, that couldn’t even have been possible but for the Tea Party.

> Rand Paul in Kentucky

And you want to oust him, too? What are you saying, man?

> The anti-science

What? Because we don’t have slack jawed belief in global warming? A good conservative should understand precisely what has happened there. It used to be that science was a private endeavor. People learned about the universe out of curiosity, or to make inventions to sell. Then at some point we decided to make science a government sponsored operation. And what do you know? Science has become corrupted by it. who could have seen that coming?

> and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.

I guess that was designed to preempt people’s criticism of your claim that Palin is poorly educated. Well, bluntly Mr. Bainbridge, I have a legal education from a school regularly ranked number one in prestige. And I say it is unfair to call her poorly educated. The difference between an ivy league school and a state school is a game of inches, not miles.

> Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama's war.

Well, strictly it is, now. The democrats have the government so victory or defeat is wholly a matter of their efforts. I do hope it can be a republican war, soon, however.

But I assume you are referring to Michael steele’s idiocy. So? And?

> Birthers.

Barely exist. You are more likely to see bigfoot.

> Nativists

Which is your way of saying what? We shouldn’t control our border at all? I mean, my God, there are parts of Arizona where the Federal Government has said that American citizens shouldn’t even go. I would go as far as to say that the Arizona laws should have been upheld under the clauses allowing a state to defend itself in case of invasion.

> The substitution of ... talk radio

Who the hell even listens to talk radio anyway? Most of us are too busy working when they are on. Now, maybe if there was a radio equivalent of tivo I might check out rush Limbaugh, but I have actually only listened to the man once. My suspicion is that the majority of most of these men’s audiences consist of liberals who are recording it of rmedia matters and similar organizations.

[SM]

"Palin, Rand Paul, Tancredo -- they're all leading us the wrong direction."

Paul and Tancredo are and were two of the most fiscally conservative members of the entire GOP House delegation. They opposed both NCLB and the Medicare expansion.

When I see them attacked here its obvious that the attackers have zero interest in curing the size of government.

[JPFreire]

This is silly. What you're saying is that you dislike mass politics. Join the club. Look at what's on either side. Look at the principles you hold dear and figure out who shares them most. Line up on that side and quibble all you like. That's how it works. When you write a post talking about, my God, how stupid Sarah Palin must be, and how stupid people are to support her, you're still falling victim to writing about Sarah Palin. To paraphrase Havel, the best way to protest is to live as though the obstructions to your desires don't exist.

I really don't get the group identity thing. I'm a conservative, I'm proud of the intellectual tradition, and I think the media hacks are a distraction (or an entertainment). In any case, why does anyone have to write a post about how no one serious can like these people? What's the point but to say: I, sir, am thoughtful?

[JakeG]

You sound more like a liberal than a conservative. Maybe you do need a new home?