Tocqueville’s skepticism has been shared by modern conservatives, including Barry Goldwater, who had declared that “true Conservatism has been at war equally with autocrats and with ‘democratic’ Jacobins.” In 1960, he wrote in The Conscience of a Conservative:
Was it then a Democracy the framers created? Hardly. The system of restraints, on the face of it, was directed not only against individual tyrants, but also against a tyranny of the masses. The framers were well aware of the danger posed by self-seeking demagogues—that they might persuade a majority of the people to confer on government vast powers in return for deceptive promises of economic gain.
Our tendency to concentrate power in the hands of a few men deeply concerns me. We can be conquered by bombs or by subversion; but we can also be conquered by neglect—by ignoring the Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government.3
Since the sixties, conservatives have recognized the need for that careful balancing of their opposition to both elitist autocracy and populist demagoguery, because both pose a danger to constitutional balance and individual freedom. Even in the nineteenth century, Tocqueville blamed what he called the despotism of the majority in America for the small number of “distinguished men in political life.” Nowadays, Tocqueville would be accused of “elitism,” but he celebrated the small number of men “who displayed that manly candor and masculine independence of opinion which frequently distinguished the Americans in former times, and which constitutes the leading feature in distinguished characters wherever they may be found.”4
At the risk of using sexist language, that is precisely what we need now, conservatives with a “manly candor and masculine independence of opinion,” or, in other words, contrarians. As isolated as they are now, that small band of brothers and sisters will play a vital role in the looming political confrontations.
CAN CONSERVATIVES SAVE AMERICA?
A Venn diagram of conservatism and modern liberalism would show only a small overlap; but, however limited, a handful of commentators have noticed that common ground does exist and that it is crucial. “Unfortunately, few people properly understand conservatives,” Conor Friedersdorf admitted after the election. “In fact, many erroneously conflate them with authoritarians. And that is a very dangerous mistake.”5
Imagining that all conservatives share a common vision is especially dangerous because it precludes the sort of ad hoc alliance that may be urgently needed in the new political era. As previously noted, political scientist Karen Stenner has stated that, “If properly understood and marshaled,” conservatives “can be a liberal democracy’s strongest bulwark against the dangers posed by intolerant social movements.” Stenner urged critics on the Left to get over their belief “that distaste for change implies distaste for other races, or that commitment to economic freedom somehow suggests an interest in moral regulation and political repression.”6
Clinging to cartoon images of conservatives has “significant implications,” she wrote. “It can drive those who are merely averse to change into unnatural and unnecessary political alliances with the hateful and intolerant, when they could be rallied behind tolerance and respect for difference under the right conditions.” Those “right conditions” include a respect for the rule of law and a sense of stability and responsibility. She further noted:
It is no secret that liberal democracy is most secure when individual freedom and diversity are pursued in a relatively orderly fashion, in a well-established institutional framework, under responsible leadership, within the bounds set by entrenched and consensually accepted “rules of the game.”7
She draws the key distinction: “[The] prospect of some wholesale overthrow of the system in pursuit of greater unity should be appealing, even exciting, to authoritarians, but appalling to conservatives.”8
Admittedly, it seems naïve to suggest that there is any meaningful Left-Right common ground left, but it is also worth noting that Trumpism will only succeed if both the Right and the Left fail to understand the tenuous relationship between conservatism and the nativist authoritarianism with which it has become temporarily allied.
What possible common ground could they find? We could start with a renewed appreciation for a reality-based politics, truth, ethics, checks and balances, civil liberties, and the constitutional limits on executive power. However tenuous, there should also be a mutual acknowledgment of the importance of diversity (of ideas as well as identity), tolerance (which needs to go both ways), and a commitment to America as an idea rather than a walled and isolated city.
But this will also require a period of serious introspection for conservatives, especially as they deal with the temptations, compromises, and challenges of the Age of Trump.
A CONSERVATIVE EXORCISM
After the defeat in the 2012 presidential election, GOP leaders commissioned what became known as an “autopsy” of the failed campaign. In victory, however, conservatives will need something very different—an exorcism of the forces that have possessed and, ultimately, distorted, conservativism. Conservatives need to:
1. Address the legitimate grievances that buoyed Trump with the white working class, but find a way to separate them from the toxic elements of Trumpism, including its authoritarianism, racism, misogyny, and isolationism.
2. Return to first principles and revive classical liberalism as an alternative to progressivism on the Left and authoritarian nationalism on the Right.
3. Revitalize a policy agenda that has grown tired and nostalgic. While conservatives need to reclaim the optimism of Reagan, simply repeating the mantras of the Reagan years is no longer enough, and demanding ideological purity is a self-defeating strategy. The alternative may include taking a fresh look at what so-called Reformicons and others have been saying for the last decade.
4. Be willing to tell hard truths, about the importance of limited government (even if it means we don’t get everything we want), free markets (and why governments should not pick winners and losers), and the need for American leadership in the world (despite the siren call of the new isolationism).
5. Break free from the toxic thrall of corporate cronyism and K Street lobbyists. Recognize that being pro-business is not the same thing as being pro–free market if it means handing out favors and goodies to special-interest moochers. The 2016 election was a revolt against this kind of rigged, insider-dealing culture, and the GOP had it coming.
6. Realize the demographic bomb that Trump has planted in the GOP. The appeasement of Trump may have alienated Hispanics, Asian Americans, Muslim Americans, African Americans, and women for a generation. Restoring the party’s ability to appeal to those groups will require more than a cosmetic makeover, but failure to do so will consign the party to political oblivion.
7. Drain their own swamp, starting with the Alt Right and its bigoted, anti-Semitic minions. Lines must be drawn, lest the GOP morph into a European-style National Front party.
8. Confront the conservative media that boosted and enabled Trumpism and created a toxic alternative reality bubble that threatens the credibility and sanity of the conservative movement. Conservatives cannot continue to outsource their message to the drunk at the end of the bar or the cynical propagandists on the internet.
SOME MODEST ADVICE FOR FELLOW CONSERVATIVES
Finally, let me offer some free counsel for perplexed conservatives who are struggling to navigate their way through the brave new political age:
*Be worthy of the movement but make sure the movement is worthy of you. The conservative movement is (or ought to be) about ideas. When the movement ceases to be about those things, question your allegiances.
*As the Psalmist reminds us, “Put not your faith in princes.” Don’t sacrifice your principles on the altar of other people’s individual ambitions. Ultimately, our politics cannot simply be about politicians; they come and go, dissemble, flip-flop. There is a fundamental difference between movements based on ideas and cults of personalities. Prin
ces will inevitably let you down. This is not a glitch, it’s a feature.
*You should care about what other people think, but only those people whose opinions you respect. The troll who writes in ALL CAPS, not so much. A corollary (one that applies to our lives outside of politics as well): The loudest voice in the room is not always the one you want to listen to; the most extreme opinion is not always the most honest and cogent.
*Opposing bad ideas is absolutely essential, but being opposed to bad ideas is not the same thing as having good ideas. We have to have better ideas than the other side, which is why policy and principles matter, even in campaigns. Conservatives can be anti-elitist without being anti-intellectual or worse, anti-intelligent.
*Develop a well-honed BS meter. To be effective, you need to know what is real, because your credibility is one of your most important and precious assets. But it is also essential in this brave new world where we are inundated with “facts” and information that are often completely bogus. Ask questions: What is the source? How do we know this? Is it credible? Do not suffer crackpots lightly. Do not forward chain emails.
*Be willing to step out of the bubble. Our politics have become increasingly tribal, with each tribe having his own facts and its own reality. But if we are to succeed politically we need to reach beyond those tribal loyalties. The sad truth is that it is easy to get trapped in the alternative reality silos that we have created. If you take your view of reality and your facts from Infowars or Breitbart or the other alternative reality sites, you will eventually find yourself in a corner, isolated from the people you need to persuade. (P.S. If your Facebook feed is your primary source of news/opinion, you need to reexamine your life choices.)
*Fight against political correctness, but recognize what the term actually means. Sometimes boorishness and vulgarity are just boorishness and vulgarity.
*Don’t become what we despise. If the other side abandons all pretense of ethics and values, that is not an excuse for us to do the same. Otherwise we become indistinguishable from what we fight against.
*Be willing to be unpopular. You know this because you are conservatives, so you know what it is to be marginalized, despised, and unpopular in the broader culture. But I mean something more: be prepared to lose friends—on our side. Be willing to challenge the conventional wisdom, even among your friends. Stand up for what you believe and decide whether what you believe is worth the price you sometimes have to pay.
*Politics is a team sport, but you are still an individual who can think for yourself. Of all of the areas of American life, politics may be one of the very few where you can get booed for saying that people should follow their conscience. Any movement that tells you to ignore your conscience is a movement that should be met with skepticism.
*Be willing to take the long view. In the end it will be far more important that you preserve your personal integrity, and fight for what you believe, than that you win this or that specific election. Every used car salesman, every fund-raising pitch tries to convince you that you have to make the deal right now; politicians insist that the apocalypse is upon on us. Be willing to step back. As unfashionable as it may be to say these days, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats. Which leads to …
*Winning is great, but weigh the cost. My father always used to say that sometimes the only fights worth fighting for were the lost causes. I never really understood that, but as I’ve gotten older and seen more, I’ve come to appreciate it. There is nothing dishonorable about losing, but there is something shameful about abandoning your principles. After all, what profits it a man to win the whole world, if he loses his soul? But for an election? Any election?
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity,” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once wrote. “Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
When you look back on your life and on your career in politics, you will want to know whether you made a difference. You will also want to know whether you stood for what you believe to be right. You will win some elections and you will lose some elections. But what you will find most important is whether you stood firm in the truth.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am, as always, indebted to others for their insight, encouragement, and inspiration. But I am especially grateful for the handful of courageous voices who served as beacons of sanity. They provided me with both moral and intellectual support and, perhaps most important, reassured me throughout this tumultuous period that we were not the ones who were losing our minds. We are, indeed, a rather small band of brothers and sisters. I am especially grateful to principled conservatives like George Will, Stephen Hayes, Max Boot, Bret Stephens, David Frum, Rich Lowry, Kevin Williamson, Ross Douthat, Peter Wehner, Jonah Goldberg, Noah Rothman, David French, Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Charles Krauthammer, Charles Murray, Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, Rick Wilson, and John Podhoretz for their often eloquent commentaries and dissents from the new orthodoxies. They reminded me that integrity is in shorter supply than ambition. I’m also indebted to Matthew Continetti for his discussions of the history of the conservative movement and to Conor Friedersdorf for his insightful commentaries on the conservative movement. Historian Nicole Hemmer provided invaluable insights into the development of conservative media. Russell Moore, of the Southern Baptist Convention, helped me understand what happened to evangelical Christian leaders and voters in the last campaign. As readers will notice, I am also indebted to commentators on the left, like E. J. Dionne, who helped me look at the last few years from a different perspective. WNYC radio, MSNBC, and the editors of Politico and the New York Times also provided me forums in which to work out some of the themes and arguments that appear in this book. As always, I’m grateful for the trust and support of my editor George Witte and the team at St. Martin’s Press. Finally, a special thanks to all of the members of my family, especially my wife Janet, who endured the last two years with patience and fortitude. I’ll try to make it up to you.
NOTES
INTRODUCTION
1. John Hood, “What Bill Bennett Used to Understand, National Review, August 25, 2016, www.nationalreview.com/corner/439360/bill-bennett-donald-trump-wrong.
2. Larry O’Connor, “Bennett: #NeverTrump-ers Put Vanity Above Country; ‘Terrible Case of Moral Superiority,’” Hotair.com, August 19, 2016, hotair.com/archives/2016/08/19/bennett-nevertrump-ers-put-vanity-above-country-terrible-case-of-moral-superiority.
3. William Bennett, “What a Clinton Supreme Court Would Mean for America,” RealClearPolitics.com, August 23, 2016, www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/23/what_a_clinton_supreme_court_would_mean_for_america_131586.html.
4. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Vintage Books, 2013), 342.
I. HOW THE RIGHT LOST ITS MIND
1. DID WE CREATE THIS MONSTER?
1. Stephen King, Tweet, March 2, 2016; twitter.com/stephenking/status/705228758840643584?lang=en.
2. Tim Alberta, “The Conservative Movement Is Donald Trump: Trump’s Takeover of Conservatism Is Faster and More Decisive Than Anyone Expected,” Politico, February 26, 2017.
3. Joel Kotkin, “Trump’s Choice: Populism or Corporatism,” Orange County Register, April 17, 2017.
4. Peter Wehner, “The Party of Reagan Is No More,” Time, March 10, 2016.
5. David Wasserman, “Introducing the 2017 Cook Political Report Partisan Voter Index,” Cook Political Report, April 7, 2017.
6. Mike Allen, “1 Big Thing: Why Washington Is Broken,” Axios, April 9, 2017, www.axios.com/axios-am-2352154986.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam.
7. Bill Bishop, “Caught in a Landslide—County-level Voting Shows Increased Sorting,” Daily Yonder, November 21, 2016, www.dailyyonder.com/caught-in-a-landslide-county-level-voting-shows-increased-sorting/2016/11/21/16361.
8. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, 363.
<
br /> 9. Conor Friedersdorf, “How the Conservative Movement Enabled the Rise of Trump,” Atlantic, February 25, 2016, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/how-the-conservative-movement-enabled-donald-trumps-rise/470727.
10. Charles J. Sykes interview with George Will, December 15, 2016, www.rightwisconsin.com/shows/charlie-sykes/charlie-sykes-podcast/george-will-salutes-charlies-radio-career-12-15-2016.
11. For a full discussion, see Kimberley Strassel, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2016), ff.
12. “Video Shows NYC Protesters Chanting for ‘Dead Cops,’” NBC New York, December 15, 2014, www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Eric-Garner-Manhattan-Dead-Cops-Video-Millions-March-Protest-285805731.html.
13. “Black Lives Matter Protesters Chant: ‘Pigs in a Blanket, Fry ’Em Like Bacon,’” Daily Caller, August 29, 2015 (Video), dailycaller.com/2015/08/29/black-lives-matter-protesters-chant-pigs-in-a-blanket-fry-em-like-bacon-video.
14. Karen Stenner, The Authoritarian Dynamic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
15. Ibid., p. 178.
16. Conor Friedersdorf, “How Conservatives Can Save America,” Atlantic, February 2, 2017.
How the Right Lost Its Mind Page 22