THE PERMANENT CAMPAIGN JULY 5, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Michele Bachmann really wants you to know she’s a “constitutional conservative.” The term is featured prominently on her web ads. She mentioned it three times in her announcement speech. It’s in the first sentence of her official bio. But what exactly does it mean? While the term can signify different things to different people, it turns out it’s especially important to Bachmann. As a candidate who doesn’t want to get confined to a social conservative ghetto in an election year that is revolving around fiscal and economic issues—and as someone with a well-earned reputation for extremism—her strong “constitutional conservative” stance indicates, but only to those who are trained to listen, a decidedly radical agenda that is at least as congenial to rabid social conservatives as it is to property-rights absolutists or anti-tax zealots. In short, it enables her to run as a middle-of-the-road conservative who just wants to get rid of ObamaCare and balance the budget, even as she lets the initiated know she has other, more ambitious, plans for the country.
Despite the growing ubiquity of the “constitutional conservative” identifier in the Tea Party movement and the right-wing blogosphere, there’s no authorized definition of the term and some who proudly wear the label doubtless disagree about its meaning. Adam J. White of the Weekly Standard attributes its recent emergence to an influential 2009 essay in the Wall Street Journal by the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz. The Berkowitz formulation did indeed focus on the need for Republicans to return to first principles, with “the constitutional order” providing the key optic. But he also called “moderation” in the pursuit of liberty an essential constitutional concept, which is not a term one would normally associate with Michele Bachmann or Constitution-brandishing Tea Party activists.
Among this crowd, it more commonly connotes an allegiance to a set of fixed—eternally fixed, for the more religiously inclined—ideas of how government should operate in every field. Constitutional conservatives want to distinguish themselves from the more tradition-bound type of conservatives who adapt to changing social and economic needs and, for that matter, to the perceived wants and needs of the populace. They rarely come right out and denounce democracy, of course, but it’s clear they think their liberties are endangered by people who, say, would like government-guaranteed access to affordable health care.
Conservative polemicist and radio host Mark Levin offered an exceptionally clear explanation of the connection between this kind of affinity for the Constitution as the sum of political wisdom and a degree of hostility to democracy:
[F]or the Founding Fathers, individual liberty was not possible without private property rights. For the Founding Fathers, the only legitimate government was not only one that was instituted with the consent of the people, but one that would preserve and protect the individual’s right to property. Jefferson talked about it, talked about ‘tyranny of the legislature.’ So the consent of the governed is only part of it.
Levin’s words are an appropriate reminder that constitutional conservatives think of America as a sort of ruined paradise, bestowed a perfect form of government by its wise Founders but gradually imperiled by the looting impulses of voters and politicians. In their backwards-looking vision, constitutional conservatives like to talk about the inalienable rights conferred by the Founders—not specifically in the Constitution, as a matter of fact, but in the Declaration of Independence, which is frequently and intentionally conflated with the Constitution as the part of the Founders’ design. It’s from the Declaration, for instance, that today’s conservatives derive their belief that “natural rights” (often interpreted to include quasi-absolute property rights or the prerogatives of the traditional family), as well as the “rights of the unborn,” were fundamental to the American political experiment and made immutable by their divine origin.
This Restorationist character of constitutional conservatism was nicely captured by The Economist’s pseudonymous American reporter w.w. in a commentary on Bachmann’s Iowa launch event:
[I]f one bothers to really think about it, constitutional conservativism, as construed by Ms Bachmann and her boosters, might be better labeled "constitutional restorationism", which I think more clearly conveys the idea of a return to the system of government laid out in the constitution, interpreted as the authors intended. But this idea, if taken really seriously, is staggeringly radical.
No kidding. But that’s where the dog whistle aspect of calling yourself a constitutional conservative comes into play. The obvious utility of the label is that it hints at a far more radical agenda than meets the untrained eye, all the while elevating the proud bearer above the factional disputes of the conservative movement’s economic and cultural factions.
On the economic side of the coin, most mainstream politicians are not going to publicly say that the monstrosities they associate with ObamaCare, “redistribution of wealth,” or Keynesian stimulus techniques are rooted in their desire to reverse the New Deal, as well as a long chain of Supreme Court decisions that also happened to make possible the abolition of segregation. But many conservative activists actually think that way, and have in mind as their goal nothing so modest as a mere rollback of federal social programs to the levels of the Bush or even the Reagan administration. Bachmann and other candidates can talk to most voters as though they are simply trying to defend America from a vast overreach by the 44th president. But to the radicalized conservative base that dominates contests like the Iowa Caucuses, the constitutional conservative label hints broadly at a more audacious agenda ultimately aimed at bringing back the lost American Eden of the 1920s, if not an earlier era.
On the religious side of the coin, meanwhile, the phrase is equally if not even more useful to Bachmann. The Christian Right, which is Bachmann’s authentic political home, has largely organized itself over the years around the proposition that activist judges have destroyed the true faith-based character of the Republic, along with unleashing a “holocaust” of legalized abortion and inflicting various indignities on the patriarchal family. Restoring the Founders’ design, in their eyes, means overturning Roe v. Wade and abandoning the idolatrous fiction of church-state separation. In this sense, it’s very handy that Bachmann can use the phrase to efficiently remind the faithful that she’s still in their camp by pledging allegiance to those God-fearing Founders, while avoiding the need to dwell on particular issues.
But will this gambit succeed in allowing Bachmann to seek to keep the base excited while simultaneously reaching out beyond its ranks? That’s hard to say. Bachmann’s own intimate connections to the more radical strains of conservative thinking, which long predate the Tea Party movement, are there for anyone to see. And there is only so much mileage she can gain from her so-far successful efforts to exceed the expectations of those who had the vague but erroneous impression that her extremist tendencies are the product of stupidity or indiscipline.
It is clear, though, that Bachmann’s task is made much easier by the tendency of observers unfamiliar with the code to dismiss constitutional conservatism as meaningless or banal. Those two words pack a lot of punch.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic.
18 comments
As progressives, as superior intellects, we can & should rebrand this phrase to expose its true extremist bent. Too easy: I hereby proclaim that "constitutional conservatism" is now "18th century conservatism." Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is an 18th century conservative.
- Konstantin
July 5, 2011 at 12:19am
Gee, do 18th century private property rights include slavery? Bachmann actually claims that the founding fathers fought slavery when in fact some were slave owners themselves and the mighty and noble Constitution provides for them and their value; we still have the anti-democratic institution of the Electoral College, which essentially votes the value of land and slaves. This kind of fundamentalism about any document reminds me of fundamentalist religion; it isn't healthy.
- Sophia
July 5, 2011 at 2:19am
Bachmann and those of her ilk are useful tools, capitalist running dogs. They are energetic because they genuinely believe they're doing God's work even if in reality they're working for Exxon and ADM.
- AaronW
July 5, 2011 at 3:17am
The world is changing. New powers are emerging, the earth is warming, the future of oil looks pretty bleak and as our oil supplies relative to our huge needs wither agriculture will no longer keep pace with hunger, the middle east is churning, Pakistan is half crazy and has plenty of nuclear weapons, we are broke, the Chinese make our underwear and socks,etc. etc. America is nervous. Republicans are loving it.
- paskunac
July 5, 2011 at 6:34am
Over time, wealth creates power and acquires more wealth. An American Revolution could not have occurred it if it was the perception at the time that its purpose was to develop and maintain the prosperity of a small percentage. So, when we talk about property rights under the constitution, the question is, property rights of whom<\em>?
- Nusholtz
July 5, 2011 at 7:57am
Coded language isn't limited to "the more radical strains of conservative thinking". Indeed, clarity in language is now considered passe, as evidenced by the intense criticism one often hears today of Strunk and White (Elements of Style) by many academics and writers (both left and right). But one does not need a copy of Elements of Style to appreciate the benefits of clarity of language, for one need only follow Orwell's six rules for writers. For Orwell and others of a bygone era, clarity of language was rooted in the fear of totalitarianism, and the selective use of language for a political (mostly right-wing) purpose. And so it goes.
- rayward
July 5, 2011 at 8:26am
Yes, Ray. So when the Right creates yet another Orwellian re-interpretation for those who can hear the dog-whistle, it's critically important that moderates and progressives understand what the dog-whistle REALLY means. Otherwise, you get fiasco's similar to those playing out in Minnisota and Wisconsin and New Jersey -- Republicans running as moderates, who once elected implement what the dog-whistle actually meant to them. They turn and become anti-Union, anti-Teacher dragons cutting right and left to balance their budget on the backs of services for the middle-class and the poor. If America doesn't know what the dog-whistle actually means, then their vote has been subverted into voting for something they don't really want.
- AllanL5
July 5, 2011 at 8:46am
Constitutional conservatism sprouts fully flowered from the right's need for simple and canonical answers to every question raised by the complex world in which they are forced to live. Reason and fact alike are anathema to them, as reason and fact lead inevitably to nuance and accommodation - facts being hard things to which true conservatives will (and I use the term in the sense of "Triumph of the Will" not in it's simple verb sense) not accommodate themselves, and nuance being symbolic of weakness. So "18th Century Conservatism" is right, but only in the sense that it tries to refer to something old and canonized. In reality, the 18th century thinkers to whom these folks pretend to hearken were modernists, relentlessly driven by a thirst for reason and knowledge, and consciously proposing to change the world order. Bachmann and her ilk are in reality the intellectual and political heirs of dogmatists from every century, and probably most certainly of the old Catholic regimes of the dark ages. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams alike would disown them in a trice.
- IowaBeauty
July 5, 2011 at 8:53am
Isn't this sort of overintellectualizing it? We're talking about someone (Bachmann) who very publicly lacks a knowledge of U.S. history in general--let alone the constitution. "Constitutional Conservativism" is one of those vague, coded political slogans--like "The Silent Majority" or "Compassionate Conservatism"--intended to appeal to white voters who are afraid that the country has become too liberal, black, or hispanic, etc. Anyone who would overlook Bachmann's constant historical and political gaffes either 1) will cynically elect any Republican no matter what; or 2) lacks a working knowledge of U.S. history. Or both. I point this out because anyone, conservative or liberal, who listens to Bachmann speak has to realize that she knows fairly little about the constitution and its inception. In other words, no one who knows any better would elect her for being a "Constitutional Conservative." So the phrase must mean something else to her demographic. Sounds like a poll waiting to happen.
- maxhencke
July 5, 2011 at 9:01am
Amongst the subtleties lost on modern day radical conservatives, none is more pervasive than the "property" trope. Surely the founders believed that rights of property were critical to the legal foundation they were building, but one never hears any discussion of why that was so. It is worth noting in this respect that in 17th Century American, property ownership was the only recognized path to prosperity. Property was not a condo or 1/2 acre in the 'burbs to these thinkers; it was farmland, and timber, and mines, and slaves - the engines, ownership of which, made them productive and set their class apart from the lower elements of society. Bachmann herself would barely qualify as propertied in this calculus, owning no farm or business, but only, as nearly as I can determine, residential property amongst her "real" holdings. Only her ownership of corporate shares (which I presume she has) would qualify her. But then, as she is a woman, she wouldn't have qualified to own property anyway in most of 17th century America.
- IowaBeauty
July 5, 2011 at 9:04am
Bachmann and her followers insist that the Founders were all devout Christians and that the United States was established as a Christian nation. That is absolutely false. The Founders were products of the Enlightenment, which was marked by a rejection of divine revelation and organized religion in favor of science and reason (which is why it's also called the Age of Reason). The Founders were mostly Deists and a few, notably Thomas Jefferson, may have been atheists or at least agnostics. Jefferson was often accused of atheism by his political opponents. Even George Washington avoided making references to God, preferring instead the vague term "Providence." None of the Founders wanted the United States to be any sort of theocratic state.
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
July 5, 2011 at 9:55am
Iowa - "Constitutional conservatism sprouts fully flowered from the right's need for simple and canonical answers to every question raised by the complex world in which they are forced to live." What an exceptionally well written pair of post. Two of your best, IMHO. Very nice.
- Tristan
July 5, 2011 at 10:16am
'Constitutional conservativism' is a well funded movement of the extreme right-wing. The concept receives its most powerful exposition by the John Birch Society and its allied network of front groups, youth movements, and academic sponsors (www.jbs.org). Ed Kilgore writes, "Bachmann’s own intimate connections to the more radical strains of conservative thinking, which long predate the Tea Party movement, are there for anyone to see." I would suggest that these so-called 'radical strains of conservative thinking' also imply support for and/or membership in the long established and well financed organizations of the radical right-wing, begining with the John Birch Society and its allies, among other notoreous groups and lobbies. The political ideals of Mmes. Bachmann, Palin and Angle are a 'close copy' of the John Birch Society's exposition of 'constitutional conservativism. ' The ties to political extremism, exhibited by Mmes. Bachman, Palin and Angle, need to be carefully exposed to the reading public. To cite that they "exist" is insufficient. What are the ties of Bachmann, Palin and Angle to actual groups, on the distant shores of the far right-wing? The electorate has a need to know whom are the 'political mentors' and what was the training ground for the 'so-called 'constitutional conservatives?' Stating that the candidates allegiances "are there for anyone to see" is insufficent and lazy. Allegiances are not there to see, they need to be discovered and communicated accurately. I want to know the details and the facts.
- LawrenceGulotta
July 5, 2011 at 10:18am
This comment thread is a microcosm for the current problem for progressives -- failure to label, failure to message. J. Chait has covered this phenomenon. The right wing is full of bumper sticker messages; even if smart people find them intellectually bankrupt & odious, they are effective. At the least, they pepper the news cycle in a way that guarantees that the label sticks and the message is distributed, which seems to tie in with the "There's no such thing as bad publicity" maxim that somehow helps Republican buffoons achieve elected office. I offer an imperfect but succinct rebuttal to Michele Bachmann's ridiculous self-imposed label, and everyone else dives into the historical & philosophical nuances of why my label is imperfect and will never stick. Republicans are better at remaining half-blind to such nuance, and somehow this impairment results in way more votes than they deserve. Progressives, when entering the sound bite arena or when posting an introductory paragraph to our congressperson's online bio, need to dumb down our message.
- Konstantin
July 5, 2011 at 11:32am
Yes, Konstantin, but the problem is, our message is inherently complex because we do see nuance and if we dumb that down, we're simply mirroring the blindness and stupidity of the "conservatives," actually radicals, who are content to delude people and play on their emotions.
- Sophia
July 5, 2011 at 3:07pm
IE, this is the very nature of "propaganda," isn't it? Just reducing everything to catch-phrases and repeating lies so often people start to believe them; it's the opposite of everything progressives want to do, isn't it?
- Sophia
July 5, 2011 at 3:08pm
Iowa...I agree with Tristan on the quality of your comments here. As an answer to your question in post #2, I would offer the answer that the Founders assumed the value of private property rights because they were trying to make a clear distinction between old European aristocracy that they were rebelling against and the new American model of democracy that they were establishing. In old Europe, a commoner could never even have hope of owning anything of value (like real estate) because it all belonged to the monarchy and the church. To say nothing of the judicial system that favored only the favored. That is why private property took on such a mystical, religious sort of meaning to the inhabitants of the new world......it was their ticket to self-determination and for the people who came here from Europe it didn't need to be stated overtly, it was just understood viscerally......to be free of the arbitrariness, capriciousness and unfairness of the system created by the old aristocracy and the Papacy. It's interesting to me to see how the self-appointed modern constitutionalists of America like Bachmann and her Tea Party patriots seem to be falling into the same trap that leads inevitably back to that old, reviled system, albeit with corporations and fundamentalist Christians in charge instead of monarchs and Roman Catholic popes. I guess they figure it'll be somehow different because THEY are th ones in charge.
- desertdog
July 5, 2011 at 4:24pm
desertdog, Nicely stated.
- IowaBeauty
July 5, 2011 at 6:34pm