The New Republic

This is a thoughtful piece, Mr. Bacevich. You are writing within the belly of the beast, given that TNR is the most august journal in the tradition of Wilsonian internationalism. I call myself a quasi-internationalist but I dissent from TNR quite a bit on foreign policy. As to values and debt, you have captured the reigning ethos of both of these subjects extremely well. I suppose that my own erotic orientation is faintly radical but I think that I am unusual on the left in arguing for a responsible erotics. As for red ink, we need to pull back from our credit card way of life, to some extent. Our casino-like personal spending habits and economic pursuits have left us with record personal and corporate debt and near-record federal government debt (as a percentage of GDP). I recall Jack Kemp arguing against "root canal economics" thirty years ago, as he touted supply-side economics. And Irving Kristol contended for a "conservative welfare state". Your ideas are likely not the path to power for conservatives but they also are not without merit. As for R. Reagan being a faux conservative because he didn't reign in spending - this seems a bit eccentric. Real ( as opposed to rhetorical) budget hawks are rare on the right, at least when they are in power. Lastly, I forever have loved TNR's policy of printing dissenting pieces from the right to the left. I want to read Andrew Bacevich and Ronald Steel, as well as Leon Wieseltier and Martin Peretz.

- liberal reformer

February 9, 2009 at 4:34pm

Andrew:

....by and large, the proper place for genuine conservatives today is in opposition, advancing a principled critique of the status quo with the hope--however quixotic--of persuading Americans to mend their ways.

george:

So, tell me: When does a "principled critique" morph into an unbending dogma?

Give us some concrete examples of conservatives who have been both principled and effective in the day to day transactions up on the political stage.

Finally, what constitutes a principled position for conservatives when describing the ideal relationship between economics and government?

george walton

- iambiguous

February 9, 2009 at 4:39pm

Having 14 kids is a reflection of genuine conservative values, though.  Birth rate declines with the passage of time and the advance of liberalism; religion and conservativism preach big families.  The author is confusing his distaste for a "genuinely conservative critique"

- Simon Greenwood

February 9, 2009 at 4:48pm

With all due respect to the truly inspiring Mr. Bacevich, what's worth conserving includes the kind of principled individualism connected to responsibility that served as a bedrock assumption of The Founders when they drew up the blueprints for what remains to this day the single greatest force for good on the planet. We can't afford to save the world, but we can't afford not to be an example.

- Robert Powell

February 9, 2009 at 5:28pm

Having 14 children by mating with a laboratory is no more an indication of cultural dissonance than lodging 87 cats in a one-bedroom bungalow.  If it can be done, someone, somewhere will do it.  Human behavior, I think it's called.  Been going on for a long time.

Dan

- dbuck

February 9, 2009 at 5:32pm

Simon: Andrew Bacevich means - and says - that the woman has had 14 children "because she feels like it"; she has no husband or male partner. She is not in and of a beloved (by most conservatives) nuclear family and pretty obviously has not been operating off of conservative family values. This is a post-60's kind of thing. That is what Mr. Bacevich meant.

- liberal reformer

February 9, 2009 at 5:33pm

Bacevich's characterization of the advances in personal freedom and decency won by "the cultural left" (sic) is singularly grimy.  As anyone with a gay brother, sister, cousin, friend, etc., could tell him.  Who among us does he think is eager to license license?

On American profligacy and its self-defeating self-indulgence, I couldn't agree with him more.  At some level Pogo/Walt Kelly seems to have been right about that.  But is it so impossible to agree and still think that a revived Keynesianism is the most plausible route away from the cliff of economic collapse?  What exactly are our options at this juncture?

- mjhollerich

February 9, 2009 at 6:13pm

simon:

Having 14 kids is a reflection of genuine conservative values, though. Birth rate declines with the passage of time and the advance of liberalism; religion and conservativism preach big families. The author is confusing his distaste for a "genuinely conservative critique"

george:

We have actually reached the point now where conservatives can be credited with championing large broods?

What's next? Will Rush Limbaugh be blaming liberals for pushing America ever so much closer to the day when WASPs are in the minority? Is that on principle a "bad thing"?

And given China's strict one child per family rule, they could not be more liberal, right?

Besides, if there is one thing we can count on with conservsatives it is their absolutely abysmal disregard for children after they come into the world. Like Barney Frank said, "Republicans believe that human life begins at conception and ends at birth?" At least regarding those kids foolish enough to be born on the wrong side of the tracks.

george

- iambiguous

February 9, 2009 at 6:24pm

MJ: Note that A. Bachevich said not a word about gay sex. He used the neutral term "fornicate". For all I know, Mr. Bacevich might support gay marriage like David Brooks. I am no conservative but I think that people have turned freedom into license and many cherish rights without adequately the consequences and exercising responsibilities. I do not wish the state to ever lecture its citizens on such matters. This is a matter for the culture to work out; the civic sphere is the proper realm to relegate such concerns to.

- liberal reformer

February 9, 2009 at 6:25pm

Walton: Jesse Helms was one such conservative. I loathed his principles but he was effective. That is why the moniker "Senator No" was affixed to him. You need some remedial education, gw.

- liberal reformer

February 9, 2009 at 6:42pm

Much as I admire Bacevich's books and commentaries, especially on the military, I think the above cuts some dubious corners, and that applies in particular to the pronouncement that "[i]n social relations, the right to choose trumps all other considerations: to fornicate, marry, breed, abort, divorce, and abandon."  What exactly is being said here?  [Parenthetically, the colon is a bad choice of punctuation, as it makes the sentence read oddly at first, until one realizes that the list of verbs relates to choices rather than considerations.]  In any case, the verbs seem related, but on closer inspection they are not easy to get under the same umbrella.

The right to fornicate -- I think that "fornicate" has more than the echo of religious damnation, and it's unclear whether sex in general is one of the negative aspects of the right to choose, or only certain kinds of sex, or all sex but only in certain situations.  

The right to marry -- this appears to relate to gay or lesbian unions, but as the right to marry a same-sex partner is hardly available in any real sense in the U.S., it's not clear what exactly the problem is with this right -- and indeed it seems to undercut the fornication issue, which has traditionally been solved by marriage.

The right to breed -- is that a right?  If it isn't, how do you stop someone?

The right to abort a pregnancy -- yes, this is a problematic legal/constitutional right.  But it was called into being 40 years ago by the Supreme Court; it's not a product of the "culture wars."

The right to divorce -- one can certainly argue convincingly that divorce shouldn't be encouraged in a society, but it's difficult to imagine how doing without that procedure would be a benefit.

The right to abandon -- there's a right to abandon, what?  Spouses, children, subscriptions?  I hadn't heard.

It is indeed the case that a fetish can be made of "choice," and that has happened to some extent.  But it seems reasonable to argue that choice is a part of American popular culture now, and thus difficult to put in reverse.  And the list of verbs is most of all misleading because it assumes a logical or at least plotted relationship between them.  But there is no rule or evidence suggesting that those who e.g. "fornicate" also abandon their children.  No doubt some do, but people who have been inside rigildly proper marriages do so also, and for a range of different motives.  Some reasonable differentiation is needed to make the distinction clear between a genuine social problem, e.g. people marrying too young and not being able to handle it, and something that's not a social problem, e.g. same-sex partners wanting to marry.

- ironyroad

February 9, 2009 at 7:19pm

robert powell:

With all due respect to the truly inspiring Mr. Bacevich, what's worth conserving includes the kind of principled individualism connected to responsibility that served as a bedrock assumption of The Founders when they drew up the blueprints for what remains to this day the single greatest force for good on the planet. We can't afford to save the world, but we can't afford not to be an example.

george:

Where oh where to begin...

You speak of a "principled individualism" as though in considering the relationship between "I" and "We", "I" is always the preferable starting point. Historically, however, this is bullshit.

If you look back at the evolution of human relationships the continuity and the tensions that flowed back and forth between the individual and the family or the community, or the state etc. has always vacillated to and fro. Sure, some cultures clearly stressed one over the other. But there is no way in which to demonstrate [either a priori or a posterori] that one is more rational or "principled" than another.    

And embracing "indiviudualism" as the highest state of mind men and women can strive to achieve reflects the metaphysical claptrap of the Ayn Randroids [and their libertarian ilk]. Alas, it is a common delusion that many homo sapien communities down through the ages have swallowed hook line and sinker. They all looked around them and duly concluded, "WE have reached the apogee of human relationships."

Right.

Benighted folk like this today can't even imagine how, a 1000 years from now, our progeny will look back at, say, the 2008 economic crisis and be dumbfounded that there were actually people "back then" who believed unregulated qua crony capitalism could ever lead to any other result.

True, the Founding Fathers were partial to individualism. But the only individuals that counted were white males embedded in the crafts or the propertied class. For the rest it was genocide [Native Americans] and slavery [African Americans] and pathriarchy [women].

In any event, their political philosophy basically reflected the manner in which they were on the historical cusp between mercantilism and capitalism. But this is still just a historical juncture not a Biblical [or metaphysical] narrative.

As for the Founders "[drawing] up the blueprints for what remains to this day the single greatest force for good on the planet".....again, you take you own assumptions about human relationships and blow them up into blustering bombast. "Good" from the vantage point of...who? You're description of human relationships reads more like a liturgy [or a Gospel] than a historical account of an extremely complex and ever evolving and changing set of human interactions.

As for America "saving" the world!!! This is absurd. There are millions upon millions of people around the globe who see American foreign policy for what it really is instead: the Monroe Doctrine writ large.

george walton

- iambiguous

February 9, 2009 at 7:20pm

So the weird behavior of the woman the New York Post tactfully refers to as “Loony Octomom” is a result of liberalism?  Gee, I thought all feminists disdained motherhood and all conservatives were “pronatalists.”  Bacevich is afflicted with a mental disorder common among elderly right-wing males:  fear of women, fear of gays, fear of human sexuality, fear of foreigners, fear of change, just plain fear.  Go see a shrink.

- connieboyd

February 10, 2009 at 9:08am

So the weird behavior of the woman the New York Post tactfully refers to as “Loony Octomom” is a result of liberalism?  Gee, I thought all feminists disdained motherhood and all conservatives were “pronatalists.”  Bacevich is afflicted with a mental disorder common among elderly right-wing males:  fear of women, fear of gays, fear of human sexuality, fear of foreigners, fear of change, just plain fear.  Go see a shrink.

- connieboyd

February 10, 2009 at 9:11am

Obama's Stimulus Rope-A-Dope: How He Stole Back The Narrative & Tricked the GOP Into Looking

- Anonymous

February 10, 2009 at 10:14am

I thought conservatives worshipped the ability of each man (or woman) to choose their own path in life with a minimum of government intrusion?  This piece conflates the interests of the state with the interests of individual responsibility.  

Government is not, and should not, be in the business of judging private conduct or accountability.   That role is reserved for religious organizations.  The role of government is to make sure every person and religious organization's rights are respected and given equal treatment under the law.  Even those who beleive in no God.  The genius of liberal democracy is that it tries to find a peaceful consensus among all interests.

- desertdog

February 10, 2009 at 10:30am

Andrew J. Bacevich's response to Sam Tanenhaus's essay on the end of conservatism is welcome

- Anonymous

February 10, 2009 at 11:34am

On his blog, Damon Linker responds to Andrew Bacevich's critique of conservatism . Money quote: Andrew

- Anonymous

February 10, 2009 at 12:00pm

Any douche that titles his book "The End of American Exceptionalism" deserves zero press.  How many doomsday prophets have there been throughout history? I personally know of 5 books between 1950 and today that have predicted the end of the American empire.  Dumb jerks like that just want countervailing opinions to sell their worthless screeds.

- jwl2672

February 10, 2009 at 12:57pm

Perhaps we are dead: Not God, nor morality nor virtue but that thing which we have collectively created and is inside us all. This realization strikes me like the mighty oak, which has stood for three hundred years as a testament to lasting strength; that which can be depended upon to provide perspective in the shifting sands of our determinations, but which has rotted from the inside out and has toppled in grotesque ruin. I peer into the hulk and where I thought there was strength I note decay and emptiness. When I look inside this corpse I see us all. We are dead.

But what of hopes and dreams for ordered society and individual fulfillment? I say this is an illusion, no it is a cruel joke. If I sound bitter it is because at the moment I am; that it has taken so much of my time on earth to reach the understanding that life, as we would be led to believe it is, is a sham. There is no truth, nor right or wrong. There is only free will and a desire to be happy.

Look in the mirror, do you see confusion and fear? I say we should all be afraid and confused, for that which we have helped to construct is tottering high above us. We see this monstrosity of our own making and it makes us feel sick inside. Watch it sway. Watch it crumble. We know that it must fall but the exact hour escapes our reason.

Where has the competence gone, as if there ever was any? We are a mediocre people becoming more so, as if mediocrity was our desired outcome-- the fruit of our labors to be savored. And how do our actions square with what we teach our children? Apply yourself. Be honest and brave; grow up to be strong so that one day you might take your place as a functioning, productive member of society. But then we hide from our children our own private turning away, our corruption of those ideals; our hollowing out. We hold ourselves out to our children, as if we are that mighty oak tree but we are rotten inside. We are hollow. We are dead.

It seems to me that we should teach our children that it is okay to be happy, that it is their right. And once achieved they should not willingly surrender their happiness for the sake of another. We should teach them not to feel guilty at this desire, for in the end it is all there is. But we can not teach them these things, for we are dead. When was the last time that you were happy? Do we even know what happiness is anymore, if we ever knew?

But what of the selfless sacrifices made by prior generations, do my words belittle their accomplishments? To this I would reply, look at that towering monstrosity of mediocrity. Feel the ache in your hearts. That dream is dead and we have died along with it.

The good news is that even though in a given moment we might be dead to ourselves, it seems to me that by virtue of free will we can choose otherwise. For in the end our lives are ours to make of them what we will-- a tapestry of continuous change and possibility. And as regards the death of this "thing" referenced above- that, which we have collectively created, I remain optimistic. For even if this current model is dead, by virtue of free will we can create anew. But I fear that this shift will not occur without a price, perhaps a terrible one.

As I have previously noted, it is my belief that we are social creatures with a need to belong. And history has demonstrated that we seem to be compelled to organize ourselves into greater and greater-sized units. In addition, we have and will continue to experiment with various political philosophies and some will work better for some of us than others. And therein lies the rub: we are existential beings, in some respects utterly alone, yet as social animals we are intimately connected to one another, players in a strange paradox.

Based on the accomplishments of the past I look down the long road ahead of us and see the potential for great promise. I see an actualized race, where the needs of the many are reconciled against the needs of the few. Where the individual is free to reap the rewards of her effort but where no one has been truly left behind. I see a place and time where the great issues of our day have been resolved, and new challenges unimagined are being met. I also sense a bittersweet undercurrent, an expression of pride of accomplishment but also of regret for the cost that had to be paid during the tribulations of our time.

- wbakervt

February 10, 2009 at 1:20pm

Bacevich is more intellectually honest than those on the American right who ascribe the electorate's rejection of conservatism to factors like Bush's incompetence, etc.  The electorate would never vote for Bachevich's brand of conservatism, which - as he himself implicitly admits - could only be imposed forcibly through a program of police state authoritarianism.

- WayneJM

February 10, 2009 at 1:34pm

baker:

But what of hopes and dreams for ordered society and individual fulfillment? I say this is an illusion, no it is a cruel joke. If I sound bitter it is because at the moment I am; that it has taken so much of my time on earth to reach the understanding that life, as we would be led to believe it is, is a sham. There is no truth, nor right or wrong. There is only free will and a desire to be happy.

george:

You don't really touch bottom until you come to recognize how, in the context of an essentially absurd and meaningless world, all of our reactions to it are equally fungible.

All you've got left then is your capacity to use that free will [though even this might be an illusion] to find any and all distractions able to divert your attention to things that do make you happy.

And then you die. And from that point on it is as though you never even existend at all.

Given how, say, your point of view is obliterated for all of eternity.

george walton

- iambiguous

February 10, 2009 at 10:42pm

I'm delighted that Patrick Deneen has taken the time to craft a vigorous response to my post about

- Anonymous

February 11, 2009 at 5:07pm

I cannot find a single thing to disagree with in Andrew Bacevich's view of the kind of conservatism we need right now. Excerpt: Given our current predicament, what exactly should principled conservatives view as worth conserving? Let's take a quick..

- Anonymous

February 11, 2009 at 10:22pm

George writes:

"Give us some concrete examples of conservatives who have been both principled and effective in the day to day transactions up on the political stage."

Dwight D. Eisenhower?

- cleavet

February 14, 2009 at 9:17pm