Conservatism in America - a report card

Tim Montgomerie writes:

My week in the USA has come to an end and I have just arrived in Ottawa to spend a few days with Canadian Conservatives.  It's then off to Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney to spend some time with Australian conservatives.  I then hope to write a few bird's eye essays on conservatism in the English-speaking world.  Here, in the meantime, are some headline observations about the conservatism in America...

The Bush legacy.  George W Bush's disapproval rating is now at 65%.  Only Nixon - a few days before he resigned - had a worse rating (66%).  The unpopularity of Bush cost the GOP control of the Senate and House last November.  His deep unpopularity is the main reason why the Democrats are expected to win the White House next year.  My own belief is that the Bush Presidency can still claim some big achievements...

• The tax cuts that have powered the American economy and proven 'Laffernomics' again.
• The appointments of Justice Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court and other conservative judges throughout the judicial system.  Appointing John Roberts as Chief Justice may be Bush's greatest legacy.  Scalia and other conservative judges are good at winning arguments but not at building majorities.  Roberts is almost worth two judges because of his gifts of persuasion.
• The cultural impact of the faith-based initiative.  Although the initiative can claim little to zero legislative success it has encouraged American churches and other social entrepreneurs to take their personal responsibilities to the poor more seriously.
• The liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Despite the enormous failures associated with both 'liberations' the world is still better off with the Taliban running Afghanistan and Saddam ruling Iraq.  The US military is better equipped than it has ever been.  A big increase in the recruitment of ground troops is underway.

...this is not to deny that there has been incompetence and failure but the Presidency is far from the disaster that its critics claim.

The conservative movement.  The Economist's Adrian Wooldridge worries that the movement has three main problems:

• Social conservatives are disproportionately strong.  There is a danger that culturally conservative issues that benefited the Republicans in the past - eg gay marriage - are going to be surpassed by new 'moral issues' that favour the Democrats.  GOP strategists, for example, fear that Christian conservatives' highly-principled opposition to embryonic stem cell research will be a vote loser when Democrats are promising to clear the obstacles to research that - it is controversially claimed - will cure terrible diseases like Alzheimers.  The Democrats are using more religious language and emphasising 'creation care' and justice issues to attract moderate Christians away from the Republican Party.
• There is an intellectual sluggishness.  Wooldridge is concerned that the right isn't currently matching the intellectual energy of the left.  He asks: "Where are the new ideas on the right? Where are the agenda changing books like Losing Ground?  Where are the young James Q Wilsons and Charles Murrays?  The first-rate books that have appeared—such as Robert Kagan’s Of Paradise and Power—tend to be as much diagnoses of a problem as prescriptions of a solution."
• The Ann Coulterisation of the right.  Tune in to Talk Radio or glance at some of the books that sell well within the American right and there is a worrying level of hysteria that repels mainstream voters.  This is not to say that the Left doesn't have equivalent problems.  Powered by the netroots there is also a Cindy Sheehanisation of the American left.  Ms Sheehan recently announced plans to challenge liberal Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi should the Speaker fail to to introduce articles of impeachment against George W Bush.

There are reasons to be more optimistic, however, about the conservative movement.  Movement organisations like the Heritage Foundation and Manhattan Institute - unlike the Republican Party - are winning record fundraising.

American conservatives - currently depressed by the immigration row, in particular - would do well to remember that most conservative movements around the world (and there aren't many of them) would love to have their movement's achievements.  The dynamism of the US economy, welfare reform and zero tolerance policing are worthy of special highlight. 

Conservatives and government.  One of the big aims of the Bush presidency was the attempt to end the anti-government rhetoric of the Republicans.  In 2000 he abandoned the long-standing Republican pledge, for example, to abolish the Department of Education.  During his Presidency George W Bush has allowed spending to rise considerably.  This has produced consternation among many diehard conservatives but it is far from clear that there is a big voter appetite for a smaller government.  Bush would almost certainly have lost the 2000 election if he had not produced his own prescription drug benefit to offset the Democrats' earlier and very popular commitment to do the same.  Whilst there was majority opposition to the big government of the sixties and its welfare dependents there is not necessarily opposition to a government that promotes middle America's interests.  Voters still dislike centralism, waste and fiscal ill-discipline but there are serious dangers to any Republican attempts to make big cuts in government programmes.

The 2008 field.  Conservatives are not as enthusiastic about their candidates as Democrats are about theirs.  65% of Republican supporters are happy with their choice of candidates (13% very satisfied) but 83% of Democrats are satisfied (33% very).  But the security issue may yet come to the Republicans' rescue.  In yesterday's Wall Street Journal a progressive commentator, Mark Ribbing, noted that Americans inevitably choose Republicans "in times of perceived peril".  Rudy Giuliani, in particular, has the capacity to polarise the 2008 choice as between a Republican - him - who will keep America safe and a Democrat who won't.  His record of competence and fiscal conservatism will also help him to be seen as an alternative to the weaknesses of George W Bush.  A socially conservative running mate and a promise to appoint judges in the mould of Robert and Alito may help him to overcome the suspicions of socially conservative Republicans but others worried about his personal life and harsh treatment of juniors will not easily support him.  Former White House chief speechwriter Mike Gerson has suggested that Giuliani's views are completely opposed to the Catholic social teaching championed by Bush: "Giuliani is not only pro-choice. He has supported embryonic stem cell research and public funding for abortion. He supports the death penalty. He supports "waterboarding" of terror suspects and seems convinced that the conduct of the war on terrorism has been too constrained. Individually, these issues are debatable. Taken together, they are the exact opposite of Catholic teaching, which calls for a "consistent ethic of life" rather than its consistent devaluation. No one inspired by the social priorities of Pope John Paul II can be encouraged by the political views of Rudy Giuliani."

Mike Gerson and another former Bush speechwriter - David Frum - will each publish major books on the future of conservatism towards the end of this year.   Frum's book is expected to emphasise security issues.  Gerson's book will focus on the conservative attitude to the scope of government and international justice.  The two books are eagerly awaited by an uncertain and demoralised conservative movement.

Comments

[Michael Veitch]

"My week in the USA has come to an end and I have just arrived in Ottawa to spend a few days with Canadian Conservatives. It's then off to Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney to spend some time with Australian conservatives."

You're a lucky man Tim. Beats recess in the Scottish Parliament!

[Simon Newman]

"Social conservatives are disproportionately strong."

LOL! :-O You can always trust The Economist these days...

Having just finished reading Pat Buchanan's The Death of the West (2002) I have to say that what America and the West needs is a lot more social conservatism, not less, if it's to survive another fifty years.

[Mark Ribbing]

Many thanks, first of all, for creating a place in the blogosphere where discussions of trans-Atlantic interests can proceed without the reflexive anti-Americanism that has become an all-too-prominent feature of European commentary. Churchill would have bookmarked you.

I just wanted to register a clarification about the article of mine that you cited. My piece did not state that Americans "inevitably" choose Republicans in times of peril. It is true that Americans have chosen the GOP consistently in such times over the past four decades, but my core argument is that such a choice is not inevitable -- it is within Democrats' power to win presidential elections in dangerous times, if they will only make a genuine, credible effort to convince the public of the party's capacity and willingness to defend it.

Americans turned to Democrats Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy in moments of acute crisis. There is no inherent reason why Democrats cannot reawaken this noble heritage and once again present the American people with a viable and trusted presidential option when the nation's security is at stake.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond. -- Mark Ribbing, Washington, D.C.

[Tony Hannon]

I'm sure you mean the world is better off WITHOUT the Taliban ruling Afghanistan and Saddam ruling Iraq.

We'd be far better off still if either of those campaigns were properly managed of if senior military advisers had not been fired for saying how many troops would actually be needed for Iraq.

[Tony Hannon]

Hang on a minute - I should've read the whoe thing before posting.

Tim, would you be happy with Rudy Giuliani becoming America's next president based on the "anti-terror credentials" he can't shut up about?

Rudy Giuliani is the guy who never said a word about counter terrorism as Mayor even after being elected eight months after the first attack on the WTC.

I was in USA for the attacks and I really don't know what this guy did in practical terms to earn any right to claim he's tough on terrorism. He can talk about it but what has he done? His unreadiness was incredibly exposed on the day itself - good speeches, poor organisation. He swore to New Yorkers (and those of us trapped in the city for 8 days) that the air was safe to breath. It wasn't.

He immediately called for a postponement of the mayoral elections. It was one of the most craven concessions to terrorists disrupting our way of life that I've ever seen.

If I was a conservative, and I very much am not, I'd hate this guy, not only because he's clearly not a conservative himself but simply because he's a bare faced opportunist.

[Simon Newman]

Re Giuliani, I think British Conservatives are generally happier with New York Republicans like Giuliani, than more socially conservative heartland types.

[Ron Paul for President]

Why is Montgomerie, supposedly an internet guru, ignoring Ron Paul? Paul, thanks to the internet, has more YouTube and Facebook supporters than any other candidate. He is supported by Andrew Sullivan and leading Paleos such as Lew Rockwell, Pat Buchanan, Taki and Paul Gottfried.

He should also note that the neo-cons, typified by Mike "bomb Syria" Gerson and David Frum, are the CAUSE of the demoralisation of the Conservative Movement.

Russell Kirk, who predicted the liklihood of Islamic "blowback" and attacked the dangerous policies of the neo-cons, must be rolling in his grave.

[atheling]

"The unpopularity of Bush cost the GOP control of the Senate and House last November"

Wrong. It was the lackluster and do-nothing Congress led by the Republicans that led to their defeat.

The Republicans in Congress have sorely disappointed conservative Americans because they had control of both Houses and DID NOTHING with it.

I have two questions about this blog. Shouldn't it be called "Britain ON America" rather than "Britain AND America"? There is a one-sidedness about the "examination" of the relationship between the two nations.

Secondly, why is the Daily Kos included in the links provided here? The Daily Kos is a disreputable, hate-filled leftist website which publishes obscene photos of the President. Surely this blog should attempt to keep the bar a little higher than that.

[Ron Paul for President]

Atheling, Montgomerie is no more than an ignorant neo-con groupie. He clearly has not read American conservative intellectuals such as Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver or Robert Nisbet. Don't expect more than this superficial nonsense.

[Ken Stevens]

atheling | July 27, 06:58 PM
"Shouldn't it be called "Britain ON America" rather than 'Britain AND America'? There is a one-sidedness about the 'examination' of the relationship between the two nations."

To my mind the value of this site lies as much in the comments as in the texts being commented upon. I am delighted to be learning more about US internal politics from Americans' contributions to debate.

[Simon Newman]

I think if I were American I'd be backing Ron Paul, but living in London, it seems unlikely that a Paul-led Presidency would save our limey butts from whatever Nazis-du-jour might pop up again, so we have a vested interest in getting a more invade-the-world type like Giuliani. >:)

[Ron Paul for President]

Simon, it is up to the British to have effective and independent (from the EU) defence, security and immigration controls. Surely a nation of over 60 million does not need to rely on the US.

[atheling]

Ron Paul for President:

You got that right. On the one hand they bitch and moan about being America's "lapdog", then they expect us to take care of their own domestic problems.

Grow up, Britain!

[Steevo]

I don't know what intellectual energy there is with the Left? Other than knowing how to avoid facts and true reality to manipulate the populace with their accomplices in the MSM.

I think you've got it right Tim to an extent, with the lack of desire within 'middle' America to cut government. And I do agree that Bush probably would have lost in 2000 if he didn't offset the Dems on prescription drug benefits.

As far as Giuliani, who cares what the Catholic church thinks of him? I'm a conservative and am in agreement with the death penalty for those who willfully take human life, waterboarding (and much, much more) for captured terrorists. This "ethic of life" has no political party in America.

[atheling]

Well, it looks like many Britons aren't going to wait around in Britain to see who their Big Daddy (or Mommy)in America will be.

From the Brussels Journal:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2269

"Increasing numbers of people are taking the decision to move overseas as a result of the UK’s current immigration policy, according to www.globalvisas.com, a specialist immigration consultancy that provides immigration advice and visa services. As numbers of immigrants to the UK from the new European Union Accession states continue to grow, more and more people in the UK are choosing to take their experience and skills overseas.

Director Liam Clifford says: “Since January 2007, we have recorded an 80% rise in British nationals applying to move overseas. As this rise continues, so does the number of enquiries we receive from people asking for help in migrating to a new country. In recent months, we have received as many as 4,000 requests in a single week from people who have had enough of Britain and want to get out.” He adds: “Ironically, the main reason for these people leaving the UK is the over-stretching of services caused by inbound immigration to the UK. We are aware of the issue of so-called ‘white flight’ from certain inner city areas to the suburbs but now people are increasingly seeking a better standard of living offered by other countries.”

The consultancy caters for immigrants to the UK as well as British people who wish to emigrate to the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa. After more than 12 years in its field, the company has recorded an increase in the number of non-EU and low skilled EU A8 citizens coming to the UK over recent years, and is now seeing a dramatic increase in British people applying to leave the UK."

I guess many Britons don't want to bother to stay and fight against the impending extinction of their culture. What a shame.

[Mary Fernandez]

It a little rough around here today.

Why not Ron Paul? Because he's a joke. Nobody takes him seriously. He is also typical of those isolationist Republicans which happily kept America from aiding Britain from 1939 to 1941. I can think of no reason why a site called, "Britain and America" should take Ron Paul seriously.

As for Rudy Giuliani, he's not socially conservative, but he was a very good mayor. Was he perfect, No. Is he head and shoulders above the rest? Yes. He knows how to compromise and get things down.

The Daily Kos is probably one of the most vile leftie-hate websites on the net. Quoting it doesn't lend to one's credibility.

The Economist is left-leaning, so I take what they say with advisement.

[Mary Fernandez]

"and get things down."

:-)

and get things DONE!

[Ami]

Seeing "The Daily Kos" listed as an "essential link" really put me off this site for a long time. The Daily Kos is one of the most rabidly leftist forums I have have ever read, although it does, on occasion, pale in comparison to Democrat Underground. Full body armor required for visiting either site.

[atheling]

Having a link to it says something about conservativism in Britain.

Report Card: C-

[bundyfan]

Ron Paul does not understand our common enemy. In the second debate he basically said that 9/11 was the West's fault. Guliani rightly called him out. Paul betrayed his leftist view of the most important issue in this race. The GOP will never nominate such a man.

[Simon Newman]

"Simon, it is up to the British to have effective and independent (from the EU) defence, security and immigration controls. Surely a nation of over 60 million does not need to rely on the US."

Yes, I agree. Re Ron Paul, it's just a dream, but if elected he would likely restore the real US Constitution, possibly the greatest document in history, that has been horribly trashed by the Supreme Court over the past 60 years, and I guess that's worth almost any price.

[atheling]

The Constitution doesn't need to be restored. The Supreme Court does.

[bundyfan]

Have you all watched Patton on the War on Terror? It is really good. There's even a nod to our British friends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

You may have to copy and paste this into your browser window.

[Mary Fernandez]

How would Ron Paul 'restore' the U.S. Constitution?! A bit OTT, Simon...

[Frogg, USA]

Relax. I'm a centrist conservative and am not anxious at all. American politics have a way of swinging back and forth. But, conservatism has made monumental movement over the past decades. Even today, with our big loss in the House in the 2006 elections we have the largest 'minority' we have ever had in the past. The Senate is so close that if Lieberman switched which party he caucuses with -- control would switch back to the Republicans.

Bush's poll numbers are low. But, a recent bi-partisan battleground poll also found that 57% of Americans still like Bush as a person. And, don't forget, the Dem led Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush (in fact it has the lowest Congressional rating in history and is lower than it was when the Repubs were in control of Congress).

I can't say why Americans have such low approval for their government. But, I think it has much to do with several factors:

1. Misinformed public due to media bias

2. Americans being torn apart by both the extreme left and extreme right (which is why a more centrist candidate like Guliani seems to be more popular)

3. War weary

4. Corruption weary

5. Tired of Dems and Repubs putting party before country and not working together to move issues forward with compromise

6. Bush (and, Repubs in general) have not been good at communicating their ideas. Repubs need a good communicator in 2008

As for Bush....

I think he has been a great President and that history will judge him very well. Don't forget, in the middle of our civil war President Lincoln was extremely disliked and unpopular (even more than Bush). It was not until historical perspective that Lincoln was a beloved President.

Why Bush Will Be A Winner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301709.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The Democrats are overplaying their hand in so many areas right now. I think the chances of a Repub winning the White House in 2008 are very good. House/Senate elections will still be tough because there will be more Repubs who have to defend their seat. But, look out for 2012! That's the year the Dems have to defend dozens of more seats than Repubs.

But, I caution you....Dems have the media trying to push their candidates through. And, polling is most often faulty. You will see the Dem with a lead in polling until about a month before elections (when their credibility is on the line) and then you will see the polls tighten. Happens every election.

Conservatism is alive and well in the US. Repubs may have lost some seats; but, conservative issues still won out in all of the state initiatives on the ballot that year. And, many of the Dems who won seats from Repubs were blue dog Dems and were even more conservative than some of the Repubs.