Puttin’ Yer Dukes Up

The decision by Arlen Specter to “cross the aisle” and become a Democrat has drawn a pretty broad array of reactions from a variety of interested parties. Some folks like Rush Limbaugh and Ross Douthat have deemed the defection good riddance to bad rubbish. While others like Olympia Snowe have tended to see the move as an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party.

Specter himself seemed to assess the situation as equal parts realpolitik and principles. In part he acknowledged that he had taken a good hard look at the polling data and the hospitality he’d been receiving from the Party and saw the writing on the wall. On the flip side, he has spent a good deal of time pointing the finger folks like the Club for Growth, whose hard line stances he says have been steadily and surely pushing Republican moderates out of the Party for some time now.

In turning the various factors over in my own mind, I found that I encountered a surprising amount of contradiction in my own thinking.

I’ve made no bones about my own distaste for the direction in which the Republican Party seems to be headed; as much as I might be interested in the potential applications of conservative ideology as a piece to our every expanding political puzzle, I, along with pretty much everyone on this site, find the current formulation of movement conservatism to be simply unpalatable. In that regard, I suppose it is true that we don’t cover ever single inch of the political spectrum.

And so, on some level I can’t fault Specter for jumping from that sinking ship, from a particular angle it would appear the only sane thing to do. And, of course, I have spent no small amount of time on this site bemoaning the trappings of an overtly ideological perspective. I have also refused to articulate my own placement in a particular political camp for fear of short circuiting a process of political discourse that I see as not only important, but in many regards as vital to the functioning of any democracy. So one might expect that upon hearing news of Arlen Specter’s decision to jump ranks I could hardly contain the urge to jump to my feet and shout, “Yeah! You go boy!”

One would be wrong in that assumption.

Again, I can’t fault Specter for doing what he did, per se. But Specter’s decision doesn’t strike me as the right move, primarily because, laden with formalities and generating a firestorm of debate as it might have been and done, it strikes me as the easy move. In fact, jumping ship seems to be the popular thing to do right now as heterodox conservatives make the decision to air their frustrations and dischordant views about the Party by polling with their feet. Even Andrew Sullivan has given up the ghost and stopped calling himself a conservative, a move that to some might seem like a melodramatic afterthought, but to others sounds distinctly like the cutting short of Boromir’s war horn.

As John Schwenkler notes of those sobering numbers,

These are trying times that call for serious dialogue and a responsible opposition, and a rigidly doctrinaire* party that hemorrhages independents and screams treason at the slightest sign of intra-party criticism is not going to be able to provide any of that.

Indeed, I too am convinced of the need for the strengthening balance of oppositional views in government and desire to see a strong conservative party exert its due influence over the political process. But the other reason why this head-for-the-hills attitude is troubling to my mind is that by choosing flight over fight, so-called moderate and/or reformist conservatives are basically giving up and going… well I’m not sure where.

The battle for the hearts and minds of conservatism in America was never going to be the kind of anti-septic trigger-pulling that everyone perhaps wanted it to be. Things such as they are, this war always promised to be fourth generation in nature. But my condemnation of political labels and overt ideological rigidity notwithstanding, I’m more than prepared to suggest that it is still a battle worth having. And insofar as that is the case, reformist conservatives need to get off the bench and get in the game, messied and bloodied though they might become for that decision.

Now it might seem a touch rich to said conservatives to be receiving said indictments from a guy who remains explicitly unwilling to pick sides, and that is a criticism to which I can bring some empathy. Sure, look, I remain undecided in terms of my particular allegiance, and as Michael Drew suggested in the comments of my challenge to his continued requests that I get off the fence, the reasons for this have their roots, in part, squarely planted in conflict.

While I haven’t made any gestures publicly, I have privately engaged in a variety of mental and emotional gymnastics around which side of the sand my feet ought to finally touch down. I’ve even made decisions about that question! But invariably I come back to a point where I have to acknowledge that I’m not comfortable bedding down any particular team ad infinitum. But instead of cyclically pogo-sticking from one side to the other, as our friend Senator Specter seems destined to do, I’ve removed myself from the wax and wane altogether with the hopes of assuming the posture of a chirping bird who spends equal time singing the praises and squawking the faults of each side as I see them.

My hope in assuming that posture is to provide a critical eye and in so doing it remains my concern that the independence of my thought is compromised by a strict ideological affiliation. Now, I think the fulfillment of that role is important, if not perhaps a touch convenient on the face of it. But, I should be clear, striking such a pose has its drawbacks, not the least of which can be a sense of isolation, not only not batting for any particular team, but not having the support and certainty of a team on which to rely.

But as the case is, I happen to come by this disposition honestly. My inability to commit to a particular team is not based on cold political maneuvering, but rather on a sincere appreciation and dissatisfaction with elements of both sides.

And let me be clear, if others are interested in joining me in this  want to come join me I’d be happy to have them — the company would be nice.

But this is not the posture that reformists and moderates are affecting. Most reformists and moderates still identify as conservatives and so there remains an obligation to find meaningful ways of articulating that ideological persuasion in such a way as to positively influence the direction of the country. In so doing, reformists and moderates need to be willing to fight for their avenues of effecting change and for what the word conservatism means, especially as those battles become bloody and urgent moving into the twenty-first century.

Commenting on the Specter situation, Mike at The Big Stick notes,

If there is a more damning case against ‘moderation’ I don’t haven’t heard it. When I think ‘moderate’ I also think of inaction, fear and apathy. I think of someone whose primary goal is to not rock the boat and let change happen at a snail’s pace.

As I’ve noted in the past, this is not an uncommon perception around the position of moderation and it is one that moderates need to work to change. One of the ways of generating that change is by demonstrating a willingness to stand up in this moment and fight for the future of their chosen ideological wheelhouse.

Later in the same post, Mike spends some time envisioning what he takes to be the idea situation,

At the end of the day I think that this addresses a point I’ve discussed before which is that maybe the best thing would be if we moved away from labeling people and more towards labeling issues. Then there wouldn’t be the danger of being stigmatized on one’s voting record.

I am sympathetic to what Mike is articulating here, but at the end of the day I am not confident about the ability to leave labels in political discourse behind altogether anytime soon,  as per an old post around the intersection of idealism and realism. Like Mike, I am committed to cultivating and encouraging a political discourse that doesn’t use political labels in a “McPolitical” way, but I also recognize that, for the time being, political labels are an active element of political discourse and that, more importantly, the battle for the meaning of conservatism in the twenty-first century is precisely the kind of grounded and important discourse for which I have been calling.

Of course, I have made some suggestions about the ways in which reformists might attempt to formulate a conservatism that would both make more room for folks like Arlen Specter, as well as articulate a conservatism that is more relevant to a greater porportion of the American electorate.  The common refrain to tha piece was that my ideas were good ones, bt that they would alienate the conservative base, and so remained unrealistic. But in fact, I think it is unrealistic to think that conservatism has a future in American politics without its forward thinking reformist advocates being willing to challenge the base in a repsectful, but full-throated way.

Let’s face it, as the poll linked above indicates, the current conservative  base is an ever shrinking minority. And beyond the fact that conservatives won’t be able to exert any kind of significant influence over the political process by remaining unwilling to challenge their base, the best elements of a movement that draws its momentum from an ideology is to challenge people to rethink what the implications of their ideology suggest given shifting contexts. Here I think that reformist and moderate conservatives don’t just have an obligation, they have what amounts to a real opportunity on their hands.

I would remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that, naturally, there have been some extremely vocal and articulate dissenters within the conservative community. David Frum, with his New Majority site, has, even on this issue, been one of the most upfront and intelligent advocates for a reformed conservatism. One step further, Conor Friedersdorf’s call for a re-evaluation of conservatism dates back even further than Frum’s, and bloggers like John Schwenkler and Daniel Larison have often placed themselves on the front line of this battle. And while it is true that in some regards these conservative thinkers represent only the tip of the iceberg in dissenting views, there remains a need for a broad and courageous push back to the litmus test reactionism of contemporary conservatism.

And while it might also be true that reforming the GOP doesn’t represent the only avenue for a renewed conservative impulse, any third-party impulses that reformists might entertain means readying themselves for what could be an even more daunting challenge. Building a true third-party movement in a country that has been dominated by two parties almost since its inception is, despite its potential allure, is a battle that takes place on bridge even further than the current fight.

Arlen Specter said, upon his departure, that he hoped the decision would prove a wake-up call for the Republican Party, but as comments by RNC Chairman Michael Steele  have indicated this seems distinctly not to be the case. The wake-up call will, I think, be when reformists and moderates declare their intent to engage in a full-throated and much needed debate with movement conservatives about the future of one of the country’s oldest and most valued traditions.

(Images in order of appearnace by: dj whelan, The Big Stick urban mixer)

Tagged as: Arlen Specter, dissent, McPolitics, Movement Conservatism, twenty-first century conservatism