Finally a ‘conservative’ book I will probably read:
It has red states and blond pundits; home schoolers and The Human Life Review; originalists, monetarists, federalists and evangelists; and no shortage of people named Kristol.
It is a big deal, in terms literal — 997 pages — and metaphorical. Few insults have stung the movement’s thinkers as much as the barb from Lionel Trilling, the literary critic, who said conservatives had no ideas, “just irritable mental gestures.”
A half-century later, 251 contributors have weighed in, not so irritably, with a four-pound response.
***Those people toiling in the capital trenches may not recognize the conservatism represented here. The book omits familiar names like Ann Coulter, Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove.
It includes the journals University Bookman, circulation 2,600, and First Things. It gives Willmoore Kendall, a political scientist who died in 1967, three times as much ink as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Those proportions are appropriate, said a former student of Mr. Kendall, William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of National Review, who called the reference book “terrific.”
“Newt came and went rather fast but didn’t leave hard fingerprints,” Mr. Buckley said. “The quote, unquote conservative politicians have a pretty short lifetime in encyclopedia usage.
And here’s to a shorter political lifetime for the current crop in charge. Although I will definitely buythis book, I am a little afraid to read it. It might make me weep with nostalgia and weary from the blown opportunities of the past ten years.
And not mentioning Coulter is a plus.
neil
There are a lot of things they wouldn’t want to mention in that book, I would think.
D. Mason
George Bush has destroyed Conservatism. There is no way Americans will trust future politicians who openly call themselves Conservative. This administration will be a stain on American history and the ideology they piggy-backed on to will be crippled for a generation.
Pb
Cool…
Yikes; it’s all yours. Sounds like it’s in the “if you only read one book this summer” category for you. Well, maybe over several summers.
Incidentally, does this conservative philosophy in the book have anything to do with the conservative agenda in this country, or do those two terms just have nothing to do with each other anymore. Amazing what can happen to a philosophy once you add in money, power, interest groups, and vote pandering into the mix. Well, not really; maybe more like inevitable.
Andrew
It’s sort of like an obituary for Ted Bundy that doesn’t mention the serial killing.
Ben
That is the most spot on and funny analysis of a book I’ve ever heard.
ppGaz
OMG, that’s a world class line.
PoTD, and any day.
SeesThroughIt
The fact that this quite literally made me laugh out loud makes it POTM to me.
McNulty
Maybe he should think about baseball.
fwiffo
It seems to me to be pretty weak to claim that the current crop of conservatives running things “aren’t really conservatives.” That sounds suspiciously like marxists who try to argue that “communism hasn’t really been tried yet.”
You put your guys in charge, and now we’re seeing the results. Call it the law of unintended consequences or whatever. I wouldn’t expect a conservative thinking to have anticipated that things would be so fucked, but here we are. If you’d like conservatism to, at some point in the future, be anything more than a sad joke, you’d better figure out what about conservatism caused modern Republicanism.
srv
Send the guy some B-day $ via Amazon so he can buy this book and review it for us. We’re all too busy posting to read it.
Punchy
Nice. As Johnny Cash would say…”a man comes around”…
ppGaz
Well, I tried to … but the Amazon thing crashed. So I don’t know if it went through or not.
John, let me know if you got it.
Mr Furious
Four pounds, eh? That ought to keep the raccoons out of the trash, maybe I’ll pick one up.
Pb
Mr Furious,
Just don’t hurt yourself…
tzs
Four pounds ain’t NOTHIN’ for raccoons.
Lead bricks, that’s the ticket. Preferably irradiated ones.
Back on topic–yeah, leaving out Coulter, Norquist et al. does sound suspiciously like the Marxists claiming that “Communism is great, we just haven’t really tried it yet!”
If you have these people running around claiming to Speak For Conservatives and they get a whopping part of the media time…well, then unless you disvow them publically and repeatedly, yes, you will be tarred with the same brush.
sglover
It’s certainly gratifying to see that right-wingers are as handy with the airbrush as old Joe Stalin’s “proofreaders” ever were…..
Mr Furious
Yeah. Maybe I’d have better luck scaring them off with a couple Coulter books…
p.lukasiak
not mentioning Coulter is understandable. Coulter will be nothing more than a footnote in history — all she does is promote herself, while making “conservative” synonymous with “idiot”
….but not mentioning Norquist? Or Delay? Those ommissions are inexcusable in a book of that is supposed to represent a comprehensive overview of American conservatism.
Buck
Did Johnny Cash ever explain what it is that a man comes around to?
What is it about liberalism that brought about modern Democratism?
Krista
I think they’d be scared to go near her. Raccoons DO contract rabies awfully easily. Why risk it?
Davebo
I think the idea was to present a comprehensive overview of what American conservatism should be.
But since it’s a safe bet that all 251 contributors supported Dubya in 2004 I’d say it’s more a case of overwhelming the reader with minutia to hide the fact that we’ve been there, done that, and learned nothing from it.
Davebo
And just to be helpful…
Drive a stake through the garbage can handle and into the ground, then latch the can lid and put a bungee cord across the top through the latches.
Krista
Or just keep your garbage in your locked shed, and only put it out the morning of garbage day. Seems a lot less complicated than all of this McGyver-esque rejiggering.
sglover
….but not mentioning Norquist? Or Delay? Those ommissions are inexcusable in a book of that is supposed to represent a comprehensive overview of American conservatism.
I guess it’s supposed to be kind of a “Greatest Hits” albums, like “Paul McCartney without ‘Wings'” or something.
In general, it’s pretty entertaining to watch the right-wingers frantically paddle away from the wreckage of the good ship Bush, eh? Doesn’t seem so long ago that they were all elbowing each other for a seat on the promenade deck….
Punchy
Ah….conservatism. The ideology of small fed gov’t and gov’t role (NSA wiretapping, DHS, Patriot Act), state’s rights (Amendment to ban gay marriage), fiscal responsibility (largest deficeit, debt, trade deficeit), and morality (DHS pedophilia, Abramoff, Delay, Safavian, Cunningham, Libby).
Someone needs to hit the cages, b/c y’all are batting 0.000 at the moment.
Alan
It’s laughable they say conservatism needs to get back to its “small government” roots. Laughable because “limited” has been replaced with “small” to accommodate social conservatism. Social conservatives by no stretch of the imagination believe in limited government. Oh, they may believe in smaller “liberal” government but love the idea of a powerful, intrusive, “moral” government.
Sixteen years to put this book together? That’s about how long it took social conservatives to take control of the GOP. Now it’s the dumbed down Party of God; again headed toward 40 years in the wilderness. The only issue the GOP has is the War on Terror. An issue the Democrats could steal away if they had anyone who was serious about national security. They don’t.
t. jasper parnell
For Cash the man coming around was Christ.
Alan
Oops, I meant to say Social Conservative do not believe in “limited” government.
t. jasper parnell
According to the NYT article George W Bush (#43 on your presidential greatest hit list) is included, while compassionate conservativism is not. Does this then mean that “real” “hard finger printed” conservativism includes an all mighty executive, low poll numbers, and Terry’s Law? GHWB (numer 41) is out. Odd list.
Also these gems: The book describes Strom Thurmond’s “courtesy and dignity” without mentioning his illegitimate black daughter or hard graft in segragation’s service and insists that “George C. Wallace . . . was ‘always more complicated than his critics allowed'” and “‘Southern conservativism’ pays tribute to the region’s ‘precious Anglo American continutiy’ and says nothing about Jim Crow.”
On the plus side: After agreeing that racism was poorly covered in the current edition editor Nelson admitted “Our forebears [sic[ made a mistake on the issue . . . [t]hey were just wrong. I don’t know how to say it more clearly than that.”
Andrew
I think another way to sum up this book is that if Jesus is real, this will be a useful Who’s Who guide to various denizens of the 8th Circle of Hell.
Perry Como
Punchy Says:
Typo or Freudian slip? You be the judge.
RSA
I had to laugh at this point at Nelson’s excuse. “I can’t be more clear about conservatives having been wrong on the race issue, except possibly by including a discussion in the book, which we didn’t do.” Maybe as editor he was feeling the heat of a deadline. . .after 16 years. “No time to go back and mention Jim Crow! We have to get this book out!”
sglover
Maybe the 2036 edition of this opus will contain an Editor’s Note saying something like, “Conservatives got a little bit carried away with their 2003 ‘Remake the Middle East’ project”.
Beej
Just a couple of points:
1. By the time modern conservatism came to be, Jim Crow as a system had largely been dismantled. Of course this does not excuse the “southern strategy” initiated by Nixon and carried on with such enthusiasm by his Republican predecessors.
2. Please don’t ever forget that before he was a third-party presidential candidate, George Wallace was a Democrat. Before he was a “Dixiecrat” Strom Thurmond was also a Democrat. In fact, once upon a time Republicans were scarce as hen’s teeth in the South. After all, Lincoln was a Republican. The blame for “Jim Crow” stretches far and wide, and we forget this at our peril.
t jasper parnell
Beej writes: George Wallace was a Democrat. Before he was a “Dixiecrat” Strom Thurmond was also a Democrat. In fact, once upon a time Republicans were scarce as hen’s teeth in the South.”
This is “argument” makes no sense at all. Conservativism is an ideology and not a political party; it is, thus, in fact possible to be a conservative Democrat. Joe Lieberman, for example, is a member of the Democratic party yet he is a very model of a modern bush-based conservative.
Thurman and Wallace inclusion in the big book of conservative thought indicates that for the editors they are conservatives regardless of their party. Plus and also they have the happy advantage of actually being conservatives so it makes sense. While it is no doubt possible to be or to have been a conservative and not support segragation these to shining exemplars of conservativism did and not pointing it out is intellectually dishonest as is refusing to include a discussion of racism and conservativism. Granted this last issue would perhaps be out of place in a “dictionary” that would seem to tend to the haigiographic but still one can hold out hope for a glimmer of intellectual honesty, can one not?
RSA
Good one, t jasper. I was wondering how long it would take someone to mention the Dixiecrats and be called on it, and the term “hagiography” crossed my mind as well.
And the review leaves no room for thinking that Jim Crow was left out because its time had passed; one of the figures covered in the book died in 1967, and of course modern “movement conservatives” have been left out. It’s apparently a selective account of conservative thought and history. I might pick up a copy, still, though. Sounds interesting.
sglover
Joe Lieberman, for example, is a member of the Democratic party yet he is a very model of a modern bush-based conservative.
I can’t let this pass. I want to see Lieberman get the boot from Lamont, but his voting record shows significant departures from the dogmas of the Bush coalition. For instance, he’s been more attentive to environmental and global warming issues than many senators, and practically all Republicans.
Ben
Lieberman is actually semi-libral on most things. It’s just that he’s completely beholden to those who have bought him out: Connecticut’s heavy defense industry… and to those who have bought him out and share his religious faith: Israel.
Fortunately he’s going to see how few actual votes in from his “base” this translates to in his home state.
t. jasper parnel
I don’t know, if we understand Bush conservativism as policies which result in low poll numbers, particularly support of the War, than JL would seem to share that; constant God bothering would also seem to be a JL standby; steadfast support for an all mighty president, isn’t JL the guy GB smootched? In terms of the enviroment, didn’t GBW give his brother some sort of a wetlands protection act? Wasn’t there some rescue of coral reefs somewhere? Who says and where is it written that EP is liberal or conservative?
t. jasper parnel
Joe L on the war, from crooksandliars.com, “I rise to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senator from Michigan and others and the other amendment introduced by the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin–I remember in that debate quoting the biblical wisdom in warning that ‘if the sound of the trumpet is uncertain-who will follow into battle.’ I suppose in our time we might amend that to say ‘if the sound of the trumpet is uncertain-who will stay in battle”
Thank god the Liberals are finally catching on to the importance of basing policy on “biblical wisdom,” all that thinking things through makes life so uncertain.
t. jasper parnell
I meant thank G-d
t. jasper parnell
“Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendments introduced by the Senator from Michigan and others and the other amendment introduced by the Senators from Massachusetts and Wisconsin–I remember in that debate quoting the biblical wisdom in warning that ‘if the sound of the trumpet is uncertain-who will follow into battle.’ I suppose in our time we might amend that to say ‘if the sound of the trumpet is uncertain-who will stay in battle”
I posted this, or thought I did, as evidence of JL’s god bothering, in the same post I made the point that JL’s policies led to equally bad polls and in general he acts a full fledged member of those whose support for GWB is uncondidtional or nearly so, environmental heresy aside, JL is or in any event acts like a paid up memeber of Bush “real” hard finger print” conservatives.
The Sanity Inspector
And so is mentioning First Things.