The New Republic

Arguments along the lines of  "conservatives were wrong on civil rights, so they're wrong on everything else" are pretty clearly flawed.  Still, it's worth considering *why* they were wrong.  If they just happened to have an unusually high proportion of racists, then it says very little about the movement.  On the other hand, it's possible that there were more systematic reasons that most conservatives ended up on the wrong side of the issue.  It's not about self-flagellation: it's about learning from where people in the past went wrong and trying to avoid going down a similar path.  One feature that sort of sticks out is that  conservatives have spent much of their recent history trying to fight cultural changes whenever they arise.  Thiis tendency to fight cultural changes helped drive many conservatives to the wrong side not only on civil rights for black people, but also on feminism, and I think that it's a part of what drives conservative opposition to gay rights (which I think will ultimately be viewed in a similar light). Again, this isn't meant to trash conservatism, but I do think that modern-day conservatives can learn something by looking at where their predecessors when wrong (same goes for the left)

- AlanSP

July 8, 2008 at 12:35am

AlanSP is right. The issue isn't "demand[ing] more historical self-flagellation" -- that's a bit of a straw man -- but assessing the credibility of present-day arguments when they're offered by the same movement, and founded on essentially the same philosophical premises, as discredited positions of the past. If someone has tried to steer you wrong on previous occasions, and obviously comes to his/her conclusions in some flawed way that causes this to keep happening, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why you should take that person's ideas seriously now. See: Charlie Brown, football; placekicking; Lucy holding. You don't do yourself any favors if you politely agree to overlook the previous errors and misleading claims. (For anyone who's interested, I discuss this principle further in conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com.)

- JSmith125

July 8, 2008 at 1:45am

The problem many of us who vote "conservative" have is that we agree with many, but not all, of your liberal views on civil rights, gay rights, feminism, abortion rights, etc., and yet, of necessity,  we are lumped into this "conservative" category and criticized because of views held by the other segment of the party.  Maybe some of us always  supported and even fought for "civil rights"  but we came to realize that there were some serious problems with affirmative action, with reducing standards on national tests, and in the classroom,   and with wellfare as we knew it; maybe some of us support abortion rights, but not partial birth abortion.  Maybe some liberals do, too.

Conservatism encompasses a lot more than social issues of this sort; it also describes a philosophy as to which economic, immigration,   tax, energy, military, and national security policies would most benefit the nation.   When the chips are down in a national election, some of us who call ourselves conservative will tend to place more emphasis on the latter issues than the former.  For example, even though I consider abortion rights an issue of major importance, I consider national security even more important. So, depending on the positions of the candidates in any election, as between the two, I will always consider national security and intelligence-gathering  the over-riding issues, because it those fail, all else fails.  

- elliesch

July 8, 2008 at 6:05am

elliesch,

There's nothing wrong with that.  Pretty much all discussion of "movements," blurs individual distinctions among the members of those movements.  So no, not all conservatives were against civil rights, nor are they all currently against gay rights, but when discussing conservatism as a movement, it makes sense to look at the prevailing views.  And my point about social issues was a rather limited one.  Opposition to cultural change doesn't really explain conservative views on things like taxes or national security.  But on some (but not all) issues, the attitudes that informed mistaken positions of the past still play a role today, and it's at least something worth being conscious of.

- AlanSP

July 8, 2008 at 9:10am

Agreed with JS and Alan.  When conservatives rail against "unelected activist judges" when it comes to gay rights, many liberals hear the same arguments made against Brown v Board of Education and think that the right is just trying to impede social progress.  And, when the left argues for more taxation of the rich, some on the right see arguments that were made for a socialist mass redistribution of wealth.

elliesch, I count myself as a liberal, and I support abortion rights but have serious issues with partial-birth abortions though I'm on the fence with its legality.  (You've found one!)

- bigfish

July 8, 2008 at 10:04am

elliesch, I'm also a temperamentally conservative guy but a progressive-leaning policy moderate who values national security first and foremost, and secondarily the practical issues of executive leadership -- appointments, basic managerial competence, judicial philosophy -- which is why I have never voted for a Republican in a national election. From Ronald Reagan's constant surrender to, negotiation with, support for, and appeasement of terrorists to George W. Bush's 2000 campaign pledge to underfund the military to his post-2001 failure to win two wars or to fulfill his promise to bring Bin Laden to justice or bring justice to Bin Laden, national-security voters have no excuse for voting Republican for president. Not anytime since 1988, and certainly not this year.

Anyway, with all arguments about "state's rights," the question must always be asked, "A state's right to do what?" When conservatives of old argued for state's rights, they were arguing for a state's right to discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race and to maintain one race as socially and politically servile to the other race. That's all; nothing more or less. Today, when conservatives argue against state's rights, they are arguing against a state's right to regulate commerce within the state more stringently than the federal government regulates similar commerce among the states. It's not, and has never been, about "state's rights" as an abstract principle. It's about the preference among potential outcomes. Which is why conservative intellectual arguments about state's rights are always nonsensical -- they are justifications created after the fact to support a slogan that is itself chosen because it happens to be a politically useful euphemism for the true policy. Substitute the phrase "free cake" for "state's rights" and conservative arguments for or against state's rights as such will make just as much sense. But ask the question, "A state's right to do what?" and you'll get to the heart of the matter, and back to substantively meaningful ground, instantly.

- rhubarbs

July 8, 2008 at 10:32am

A states' right to do anything it wants to as long as it remains within Constitutional bounds, nothing wrong with saying the Federal Gov't has too much power, there is no reason for a Department of Education for example. With the passing of Helms it is starting to get to the time where Republicans shouldn't automatically assumed to be, if not racists, people who turn a blind eye to racism. I think Republicans are basically greedy bastards but that is a far cry from the Helms crowd.

Josh, you sat around as a Freshman in college talking about Conservatives and Liberals? I used to smoke pot, get high, get drunk and tried to get...well, I was far more successful at getting high then in what I was really interested in.

- blackton

July 8, 2008 at 10:48am

Josh,

I want to challenge you on whether or not Buckley et al. made sound constitutional arguments.  I think they did, and so did quite a few Constitutional scholars and legal historians.  To me that points to a problem not with liberal arguments for racial equality, but with the Constitution itself.  (I largely agree with Sandy Levinson's arguments here on TNR, on Balkinzation, and in "Our Undemocratic Constitution")

First, your quote:  

"The Fourteenth Amendment means what it says, the Commerce Clause means what it says, and when even right-wing commentators today conclude that the interpretation pushed by conservatives had no basis in either the text or the history of the Constitution, it's a damning indictment."

Yes, the Constitution does mean what it says, but its open to debate about what it actually says, non-withstanding the views of some modern conservatives.  From an originalist standpoint, most historians agree Plessy was rightly decided:  the men who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of desegregating American life or schools or anything.  They kept the DC schools segregated as well as the galleries of Congress.  This is pretty widely acknowledged by legal historians, and its what makes Clarence Thomas's philosophy so idiotic, as he cites Harlan's Plessy dissent as his favorite opinion, even though it contradicts his own methodology.  

There can also be debate about what the words of the commerce clause actually allow the government to regulate.  Theoretically, EVERY contract and private sphere activity affects interstate commerce. (in theory every contract restrains trade, etc etc).  Does that mean that Congress can regulate every bit of commerce?  Its a matter of degree, and where you draw the line can always be disputed.  Certainly Ollie's BBQ Restaurant, which challenged the Civil Rights Act in the Katzenbach case, has a very minor effect on interstate commerce.  In Schecter Poultry in the 1930s, such a minor effect was not deemed to small to regulate by the reactionary Court.  But arguing that Congress had no right to regulate Ollie's BBQ under the Commerce clause is a sound constitutional argument, and if Congress does have such power, arguably that means theres basically no commerce Congress cannot regulate (I have no problem with such a result, but the Founders might).

Similar arguments can be made about the 14th Amendment.  What does "equal protection of the laws mean"?  Its not at all obvious that "Separate but equal" is inconsistent with it, at least from a textual or originalist viewpoint (as noted earlier).  Again, I disagree with that, and I firmly believe that we should not use such restrictive methods of Constitutional interpretation (I much prefer Dworkin to Textualism).  However, remember Josh that the men who argued against Civil Rights did make sound constitutional arguments, sound even if modern day conservative commentators have ditched them for political expediency (can anyone say "Borked"?)  To me, what that points to is the immorality of the methods of interpreting the Constitution in the ways Conservatives do.  Pretending that the Constitution's text and history support progressive positions when very sound arguments show otherwise is one reason that our outdated Constitution sticks around, and why the inevitable discussion for major reform keeps getting put off.  

- youngda44

July 8, 2008 at 11:17am

Well, Rhubs, for those of us who are old Cold Warriors, there would be no excuse for voting for a Dem.  Since the McGoverite takeover in '72, the Dems have been unreliable on nat'l security, during and after the Cold War.

Let's face it, neither party and no politician fully came to grips with the growing terrorist threat during the 90s.  Certainly Clinton did not, and I really can't blame him too much for it.  We were sleepwalking through history and woke up in our own blood.  BTW, we underfunded the military from the demise of the USSR forward - the peace dividend, remember?

Yeah, Blackie, I actually have the temerity to believe that I should keep more of my money, instead of p*ssing it down ratholes like the Dept. of Education, as you note.  If that makes me a greedy bastard, then I'm guilty as charged.

- butchie b

July 8, 2008 at 11:30am

butchie, if you're voting on the basis of either party's ability to fight international communism, then you're not voting on the basis of national security. I have no problem with people voting on the basis of fantasy like that, but let's not dignify such fictionalist policy judgments with euphemism like "national security." Since the end of the Cold War, Republican administrations have done significant material harm to America's national security. Say what you will about Bill Clinton insufficiently prosecuting terrorism, a few facts need to be borne in mind:

1. Republicans actively and universally criticized Clinton when he did use military force against al-Qaeda.

2. Bill Clinton never responded to a warning of imminent terrorist attacks against the United States by going outside to play for the rest of the day. George W. Bush did.

3. However much Bill Clinton may have underfunded the military in the 1990s, in 2000 George W. Bush ran for president on a promise to underfund the military to a greater degree than his Democratic opponent.

4. Speaking of things Bill Clinton never did, he never baked a cake and sent it as a present to the terror masterminds in Tehran as a goodwill gesture. Ronald Reagan did.

But hey, if you like losing wars, and if you think it's great sport to wreck the U.S. military to the point of effective unilateral disarmament, and if you think it's just grand to have bands of barbarian gangsters sacking our cities, then by all means, keep voting Republican.

- rhubarbs

July 8, 2008 at 12:06pm

Rhubs, it ain't so.

1.  Some did (too many) and some didn't (not enough).

2.  Bill Clinton rarely responded at all to terrorists attacks, like the attacks on Khobar Towers, attacks on our embassies in East Africa, which ARE American soil, and the attacks on the Cole.  Not "warnings of imminent attacks" - ACTUAL attacks.

3.  I simply disagree.

4.  Dumb move, no doubt.  But it did no damage to our nat'l security, for all its idiocy.

For the record, we have not and are not losing wars, the US military is not wrecked, although I admit the Army is stretched too thinly for my tastes, and as far as bands of barbarian gangsters go, well, I've got some jokes but won't tell them here.

But if you're into high-blown rhetoric combined with the finest in hand-wringing, to make sure nothing actually gets done, keep voting Democratic.

- butchie b

July 8, 2008 at 1:11pm

Rhubarbs:  Thanks for the kick-ass post.

I would only add, butchie, that you're living in the past to an embarrassing degree.  The Democratic Party, having been stung by the rise of Reagan's conservative movement, long ago abandoned its "McGovernite" platform -- by which I'll assume you mean a peacenik/lefty program.  (In what sense was Bill Clinton a "McGovernite"?)  Meanwhile, Republicans are dominated today by the conservative movement's most radical elements -- the Christian right on social issues (who, by the way, have ltitle time for the concept of state's rights), a fundamentalist ideological economic policy that is indifferent to and exacerbates widespread economic hardship, and the destructive and, at best, quixotic foreign policy of the neocons, who imagine the American project to be using military force to bring a new dawn of democracy throughout the world while engaging in counterproductive military posturing otherwise.  This package -- which is dangerous, extreme, exclusionary, and downright hostile to the interests of most Americans -- while relentlessly wrapped in the flag and accompanied by jingoistic gestures which appeal to Americans' worst instincts about each other and about the world, makes us less safe and less secure and ultimately less free.

By the way, the Department of Education is about 2 percent of the budget, provides about 10 percent of all education spending, and is not a bloated bureacracy.  The money goes to schools and students, including college grants and loans to make college more affordable.  Obviously, you can debate a given program, but I'm sure you have little idea what the Department of Education really does or how effective it is, other than the No Child Left Behind Act -- an unprecededented "intrusion" into local control of education, with an associated large increase in the department's budget, for which you can thank a Republican.

- jhildner

July 8, 2008 at 1:15pm

I was speaking specifically about Democratic foreign policy views since 1972.  Tis true, Clinton was no McGovern, but by then the Cold War was over, no thanks to the Left in the US.

Going forward, what did Clinton do about the gathering storm?  Well, damned near zip.  He failed to lead, to focus national attention on terrorism.

If the neocons, dat ol' bugaboo, were so in the saddle, where is our intervention in Darfur or Zimbabwe, places that richly deserve a butt-kicking?  So much for "using military force to bring about democracy."  look, your critique boils down to "I don't think we should have invaded Iraq."  Fair enough, but there's a whole world out there not named Iraq, and this administrationhas dealt with it, on the whole, pretty well.

The federal gov't has absolutely no business in the K-12 education arena.  It takes money from taxpayers, sends it to DC, sloshes it around the DoEd bureaucracy (bloated or not), and then sends about 80% it back to the states.  Great system, that.  gee, how didwe educate our kids when it was only HEW?  I oppose NCLB for precisely that reason.

As my spouse was a Dem staffer in the House for over 20 years, I know a fair bit about how the federal bureaucracy works.  Don't get all your exercise jumping to conclusions.

- butchie b

July 8, 2008 at 3:00pm

First of all, Iraq is a big deal.  Second of all, it's not just Iraq.  The administration's approach to Iran and North Korea and Pakistan and Afghanistan have mostly not been pretty well.  The administration has not, as you suggest, handled the world in a professional, efficient, and serious manner outside Iraq.  Rather, the administration's approach has been characterized by laughable "with us or against us" "axis of evil" style posturing that accomplishes nothing and incidentally and stupidly isolates us as the threats gather.  The only foreign policy success the administration can claim -- on North Korea -- came after years of *refusing* to pursue a diplomatic course.  In other words, good results only came after the administration abandoned what it purportedly stood for.

As for Africa, neocons don't care that much about it.  They were, however, motivated, at least in part, by dreams of remaking the Middle East into a happy, free, anti-terrorist security partner and oil-rich economic partner.  Various high-minded and conventional goals coalesced.  I think that that is thoroughly documented in contemporaneous accounts of the decision-making process.  It was just hopelessly unrealistic and has made the Iran situation worse.  The epithet "noecons" is not a "bugaboo."  It describes a pretty weird messianic agenda that has dictated foreign policy for the past 7 years, as the realistic voices of folks like Bush Sr. or Colin Powell or even Condi before she fell in love with Bush were squelched.  The administration has been characterized by ideological overreach with disasterous consequences, because the American people trusted a tough-talkin' Texan who thought with his gut -- precisely the appeal you hook into when you deride Democrats as soft on national security based on the views of some Democrats of 36 years ago and your obsessions with the Cold War, now over.  I have little confidence that McCain would stand against such forces, as he seems to have made himself an empty vessel, policy-wise, much like Bush.  (Except that he will probably be determined to prove Iraq-detractors wrong and hold out for an unrealstic standard of victory there.)

As for Clinton and bin Laden, I think it is fair to credit the Clinton administration with focusing on al Qaeda in a way the Bush administration, until 9/11, did not.  Meanwhile, you acknowledge that Republicans -- the party you trust -- vociferously criticized the responses Clinton did make.  Were Republicans generally calling for military responses to the events you describe?  No, they were not.  Indeed, they were actively opposed to anything Clinton did, just because he was a Democrat.  (If Clinton's CIA had succeeded in toppling Hussein from within without any war, which it was working on but got cold feet on, you can bet that Republicans would have condemned it.)  Now, you can criticize Clinton for not doing more anyway, but remember, you're writing a brief for Republicans not against Clinton.  When it was the Republicans' turn to take control, they totally ignored al Qaeda, not viewing it as a serious threat.  What's worse, they took their eye off the ball of terrorism *even after 9/11*, went to Iraq, and exacerbated the Islamic extremist threat.  There is absolutely no basis for trusting it on national security.

As for the Department of Education, according to its website, 2 percent, *not* 20 percent as you claim, of its budget goes to administrative costs, with the remainder going to the states, schools, and students.  It is by far the smallest department with a mere 4,000 employees.  (Its functions were handled by twice as many employees when it was "only HEW".)   In any event, your critique is breathtakingly non-specific, except that you are apparently opposed in principle to the very idea of any federal tax dollars going toward K-12 education -- something that, once again, happened when it was "only HEW."  Never mind that much of the budget goes to postsecondary education, which, for some reason, you do not seem to oppose.  I confess I can't conceive of any reason why no federal money for K-12 should be such a deeply held viewpoint.  Do you have any actual argument for it?

- jhildner

July 8, 2008 at 4:29pm

Oh, God, must I do a tour d'horizon?  Ok.  We tried diplomacy with the EU-3 with Iran, and the Iranians won't play ball.  They won't play with the next guy, either.  They want a nuke, they'll have one, and we'll deter them.  We tried.

We have played a bad hand in Pakistan fairly well.  Musharraf isn't Jefferson, but Bhuto wasn't either.  In Afghanistan, the insurgency is confined to the south, because they can run across the border.  Obama has mentioned bombing Pakistan - you tell me, how would that work?

This administration has done solid work in Africa, especially against AIDS and malaria.  But I guess that doesn't count.  Also, by ignoring (mostly) Chavez and standing by our ally Columbia, our position in Latin America is solid.  Notice we have wisely decided to work with countries like Brazil and others, regardless of their internal political orientation.

Our relations with India, Japan, and other Asian nations have been good throughout the administration's term.  We have a respectful relationship with China, who is neither our friend nor our enemy, more like our business partner.  Obama has once said he'd renegotiate MFN for China.  Or is that as inoperative as his vow to renegotiate NAFTA?

Our intelligence cooperation with our European allies continues to deepen against the terrorist threat. It remains a fact that there have been no further attacks in the US.  Something is working. And France, Germany and Italy have recently elected explicitly pro-American leaders.

I'm not going to rehash the runup to the Iraq war.  We had been at war the Saddam since 1990, and in the post-9/11 world many people, not just this President, judged that it was a large risk to leave him in power.  Tell me, when the CIA director tells you that Saddam has WMD, what do you say?  The intell community is full of it?

Clinton is not the issue, but he had 8 years and did little, Bush had 8 months and did little.  Given the state of the law at the time, with its restrictions against FBI/CIA cooperation, what should they have done?  The conspiracy had been in train for years by 1/20/2001.  They did not "totally ignore" al-Qaeda.  They did give it a lower priority than Richard Clarke thought it should have.  Hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20.

I simply do not see the world in the same terms you do.  This administration has made mistakes, as every one does, and I understand how angry many are over Iraq, and their record will be mixed.  Wait 20 years.

As for the Dept. of Education, I oppose federal involvement in K-12 education because it is contrary to our history and traditions, but more importantly, the federal effort has produced nothing of note.  Name one good educational idea that has come out of Washington.  Head Start?  Maybe, but that's from the 60s.  It's simply a waste of money.  There is much more historical involvement for the feds in post-secondary education. The Morrill Act establishing land grant colleges, for example.  K-12 should be left to the states and their governors.

- butchie b

July 8, 2008 at 5:30pm