By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
The tension between conservatives and radicals has always
been at the Republican Party’s heart, which has just been torn out.
Writing almost a century before National Review
described the mission of organized political conservatism as to “stand athwart
History, yelling ‘Stop!’,” the
Republican journalist James Redpath, a radical abolitionist, chastised his
party for doing just that: When confronted with the monstrosity of slavery, he
wrote, the most that could be said of that grand new party was, “The
Republicans said, Halt.” It was for this reason, Redpath reported, that the
abolitionist hero John Brown loathed the Republican Party even as he cooperated
with its members out of necessity:
It has been asserted that he was a
member of the Republican Party. It is false. He despised the Republican Party .
. . . He was too earnest a man, and too devout a Christian, to rest satisfied
with the only action against slavery consistent with one’s duties as a citizen,
according to the usual Republican interpretation of the Federal Constitution. .
. . Where the Republicans said, Halt, John Brown shouted, Forward! to the
rescue! The old man distrusted the Republican leaders. He thought that their
success in 1860 would be a serious check to the anti-slavery cause. His reason
was that the people had confidence in these leaders and would believe that by
their action in Congress they would peacefully and speedily abolish slavery.
That the people would be deceived; that the Republicans would become as
conservative of slavery as the Democrats themselves, he sincerely and
prophetically believed.
The 19th-century Republican party was home both to
radical abolitionists and to conservative businessmen. Among its founders was
Francis Preston Blair, an influential conservative journalist and Democrat who
opposed the expansion of slavery and supported Martin Van Buren and Charles
Francis Adams on the Free Soil ticket in 1848 before quitting the Democrats
entirely — although, as it turns out, only temporarily — over the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, which undid the Missouri Compromise and renewed the
possibility of slavery’s geographic and political expansion beyond the South.
Blair was typical of mainstream Republicans in opposing the expansion of
slavery but not, at least as an immediate matter, slavery as such. He himself
was a Kentucky slaveholder.
Abraham Lincoln, later the Great Emancipator, came into
office with the Republican Party’s radical abolitionist wing as his enemy.
Unlike many of those who have appropriated the term in
our time, Lincoln was a genuine constitutional conservative. As my colleague
Richard Brookhiser writes in Founders’ Son, Lincoln saw in the Northwest
Ordinance specific hostility to slavery and read in the Declaration of
Independence the moral case against slavery: “If the Negro is a man, why then
my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal,’ and there can be
no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.” But in
the Constitution, Lincoln saw documented and enshrined the practical political
compromise with slavery. Brookhiser writes:
The Constitution gave slavery
certain guarantees: Lincoln mentioned the protection of the slave trade for
twenty years, the obligation to return fugitive slaves, and the three-fifths
rule, whereby slaves were counted in the apportionment of the House of
Representatives. These had been necessary concessions to get slave states to
accept the Constitution, and Lincoln accepted them in that spirit. “[They are]
in the constitution; and I do not . . . propose to destroy, or alter, or
disregard the constitution. I stand to it, fairly, fully, and firmly.”
In 1860, Lincoln assured a correspondent in Georgia that
he had no interest in upending the constitutional compromise over slavery: “The
South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of
Washington,” he wrote. It is easy to forget that the Emancipation Proclamation
was a wartime measure that freed slaves only as a military exigency and only in
those states in rebellion against the Union. If the Civil War had not dragged
on long enough for the 13th Amendment to finally escape the House of
Representatives, many of those men and women set free by Lincoln’s proclamation
might very well have been forced back into manacles.
It is easy to sniff at the compromisers, the half-a-loaf
men, the letter-of-the-law men. It is easy to sneer at the conservatives who
stand in the way of doing the right thing with their quaint concerns about
process and order. But we can turn that around, too: It wasn’t Chief Justice
Earl Warren who desegregated the schools: It was President Dwight Eisenhower,
who deployed the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to get it done. But Eisenhower
thought Brown was a bad decision and came to regard his appointment of
Warren as chief justice one of the great blunders of his presidency. That
skepticism about Brown was superseded by his conviction that it is the
duty of the executive to enforce the law rather than to make it unilaterally,
as a dictator.
Should we regard Eisenhower as a moral laggard who failed
to grasp the moral urgency of desegregation? Or should we understand him as the
responsible and competent executive who saw to it that the orderly operation of
government made possible, in the real world, what Brown imagined and,
eventually and imperfectly, what justice demanded? A third possibility: Should
we regard him, as many right-wing radicals did at the time, as a moral coward
who enforced a Supreme Court decision he believed to be mistaken? The first of
these is certainly possible: Eisenhower pressed for and signed an important
civil-rights bill in 1957, but, like Preston Blair a century before him, had no
interest in immediate radical social change. The second option is more
attractive but commits us to a species of consequentialism that has troubling
implications. The third may be dismissed in the particular — by which I mean to
say that the many conservatives who opposed civil-rights action for good-faith
reasons were nonetheless wrong in their opposition — but the principle must be
confronted as a general constitutional question: We have three branches of
government and other checks and balances because any one branch can get
it wrong at times and will get it wrong from time to time. When it is
doing its job, the Supreme Court checks wayward presidents and Congresses, but
the Supreme Court goes wrong from time to time as well — e.g, Dred Scott
— and the other branches must challenge it. When should a president or a
representative accept a Supreme Court decision he believes to be wrong, and
when — and how — should he fight a Supreme Court decision he believes to be
wrong? Unless the Court is to be a “nine-headed Caesar,” in Antonin Scalia’s
evocative phrase, that question must be answered, if only provisionally and ad
hoc. It isn’t an easy question: Many progressives who once embraced the expansive
view of the Supreme Court championed by Warren et al. must currently be
rethinking that stance. In a similar way, it is easy to imagine that even many
of those who believe that Barry Goldwater took the wrong view of the Civil
Rights Act in 1964 might concede that his criticism of the
public-accommodations doctrine and its lack of a limiting principle was
justified.
(William F. Buckley Jr. at first opposed Brown,
and he recoiled from the thuggish segregationist George Wallace even as he
insisted that local school boards had a legitimate right to decide to impose
segregation if they chose. Buckley was horrified by the bombing in Birmingham,
Ala., but he also insisted that it was in part the result of “revolutionary
assaults on the status quo, and contempt for the law, which are traceable to
the Supreme Court’s manifest contempt for the settled traditions of constitutional
practice,” placing the blame partly at Earl Warren’s feet, clever as rhetoric
but unconvincing as analysis. Buckley’s racial views — at that time; Buckley’s
mind was not preserved in amber in 1955 — were distinctive in that they
were subordinate to his anti-majoritarianism and his practically Federalist
contempt for rank democracy: Considering the political situation of blacks in
the South disenfranchised on the pretext of their being uneducated, he argued
that the prudent solution would be the rigorous disenfranchisement of
uneducated people of all races both in the South and beyond. Buckley’s famous
line about preferring to be governed by the first 2,000 names in the Boston
telephone book rather than by the faculty of Harvard has given some people a mistaken
view of his attitudes respecting populism and elitism.)
The distinction between the prudent choice of making a
compromise and the blameworthy eventuality of being compromised is a
very fine one. It is complicated by the fact that it so often is the case that
one party (most often the radicals) may be right as a matter of moral principle
while the other party (most often the conservatives) is right as a matter of
practical politics — and, until quite recently in our history, there was a
world of difference between the attitudes of those who actually hold power and
bear responsibility for its use and those who have a public platform but no
power. In Lincoln’s time, and especially in the period immediately after his
assassination, abolitionist clergy in the North were far more radical than even
the most radical Republicans in Congress, demanding mass executions in the
South. Lincoln, for his part, bitterly noted that if he had listened to the
radicals in the early days of the Civil War or in the lead-up to it, then the
war almost certainly would have been lost with the defection of the border
states. The result would have been the preservation not of the Union but of
slavery — and not merely its preservation but almost certainly its expansion.
As a moral question, we might be with John Brown, even while we concede that as
a political question Abraham Lincoln had the better case.
To understand that, as conservatives must, is to put
yourself into the intolerable position of looking into the face of a man suffering
the worst kind of injustice and tyranny and then explaining: “It’s horrible, of
course, but it just isn’t practical at the moment to relieve your
inhuman suffering. Maybe in four years, after the next election.” Like the
debate over slavery, the debate over abortion is predicated on the question of
who counts as human. Like the slavers of old, the abortionists of our time
insist there is no human question here at all, only a question of property and
self-determination in disposing of it. Like the abolitionists of old, the
anti-abortion movement has violent partisans who insist that we whose lives are
not at stake cannot in good conscience wait patiently as the process of
political reform plays out at a majestic, glacial pace, that there is no tolerable
compromise with so great an evil as this. Some of them have carried out
assassinations, bombings, and other acts of terrorism.
John Brown or Abraham Lincoln? I keep portraits of both
in the rooms where I work.
John Brown was hanged for treason by a government born of
treason. The United States is a nation founded in revolution — that’s what treason
is called when you win — with a long history of resistance, sometimes
violent, to duly constituted authority. The danger in the permanently
revolutionary American ethic, as I wrote
some years ago in the matter of Cliven Bundy, is that every Timothy McVeigh
thinks he is Paul Revere. It is not very difficult to trace a reasonably
straight American line from John Brown to the Unabomber. If we did not have a
national soft spot for radicals with guns, we wouldn’t be naming high schools
after Malcolm X.
*****
I hope you will forgive this excess of prologue, offered
to put into context my subject here, which is the Republican Party.
I left that party a long time ago but never found
another. I’d voted for the Libertarian Party in the 1992 presidential election
and for a few lower offices over the years, but for most of my career as a
voter, I was a Republican voter. In many elections, I followed the example of
Susan B. Anthony, who boasted to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she had
“positively voted the straight Republican ticket.” (She was arrested for that,
and ultimately convicted for illegal voting.) As long as I have had political
ideas, I have never been anything but a conservative. I have at times leaned
more pronouncedly into classical liberalism and at other times more into the
businessmen’s conservatism that largely dominated the Republican Party for most
of its post–Civil War history. I sympathize with the radicalism of Albert Jay
Nock but have come to believe that the most radical thing you can be in our
time is an Eisenhower Republican.
And Dwight Eisenhower represents the one thing the modern
Republican Party hates most of all: the Establishment.
The modern GOP hates the Establishment so intensely that the party
establishment works overtime to establish its anti-establishment credentials.
Eisenhower was a general, true, but he wasn’t a swaggering oaf such as George
Patton or a sneering kook such as Curtis LeMay — he was, first and foremost, a
bureaucrat, and an excellent one. He had beliefs but little or no ideology.
To the great irritation of the founders of this magazine, he accepted the New
Deal as settled policy, and at that time he might as easily have run for office
as a Democrat. On top of all that, he had been — impossible to imagine for a
modern Republican — the president of an Ivy League university. That last one
alone would brand him an untrustworthy Establishment
man, a Deep State man, in today’s
Republican Party, which has only one tedious story to tell, over and over: “We the People!” vs. the (evil, elitist) Establishment.
I have met the people,
I know them well. And if this country has any future, it is with the Establishment. The People are insane. Meet the People:
With apologies to Bill Buckley, our choice isn’t between
the Harvard faculty on the one hand and Mr. Aaberg of Beacon Hill and Mr.
Aaarumugam of Roxbury on the other, but between the Harvard class of 1997 or so
— and an awful lot of people who will remind you an awful lot of the Harvard
class of 1997 or so — and that jackass criminal in the photo above.
“Just so,” you may be thinking. “But what does all this
have to do with abolitionists and John Brown and Abraham Lincoln?”
The original tension in the Republican Party, between radicals
and conservatives, between ideologue-crusaders and cautious businessmen,
defined the party for a remarkably long time, really from the party’s founding
through the first year of the 21st century. And for most of that time — from
the end of Reconstruction through 9/11 — the businessmen’s conservatism was the
party’s predominating current and its default position. There were eruptions —
Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich — but those were largely reabsorbed
by the party as a whole and subsumed by the Chamber of Commerce–style
conservatism that came naturally to a country that experienced the remarkable
economic growth and innovation this country enjoyed in the second half of the
20th century. And if there is a faint whiff of heresy in that, it is because
when ground down to a predigested pabulum for mass consumption, that philosophy
amounts to a secular version of the “prosperity gospel,” with a thousand
pinstriped Joel Osteen impersonators telling you that capitalism wants nothing
more than for you to be living your best life now. Even in a society enjoying
the kind of prosperity the United States did in the second half of the 20th
century, that vision must be finally unsatisfying.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, upended that
radical-conservative dynamic in the Republican Party, but that binary system
already had been disintegrating. For one thing, the vital centers of American
business life were no longer Midwestern manufacturing concerns and banks but
technology companies in California and esoteric financial operations in New
York City, and the commanding heights of American business were — as they are
still — occupied by Democrat-affiliated progressives. With the nearly singular
exception of Charles Koch, who clearly would prefer to wear antiseptic gloves
when shaking hands with many of the Republicans he supported for all those
years (a habit of which he has lately
partly repented), it is difficult to think of an A-list American businessman
who is an out-and-open Republican of long standing: The largest U.S.
corporations by market capitalization are firms such as Apple, Microsoft,
Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, and Tesla; by revenue, the top of the list
comprises Walmart, Amazon, ExxonMobil, Apple, CVS, and Berkshire Hathaway.
Which of those firms is led or owned by Republican-friendly,
conservative-leaning activists? Jeff Bezos is said to be something of a Reason
magazine–style libertarian, and he obviously despises Donald Trump; Elon Musk is
an eccentric who chafed under California’s conformist culture and relocated to
Texas but would clearly prefer to be on Mars; people associated with ExxonMobil
lean heavily Republican in their political donations, although they gave more
to the DNC in 2016 than to any candidate or committee. Tim Cook? He attempted
to cultivate Trump for obviously self-interested reasons and got burned. Not as
badly as Rex Tillerson, the former ExxonMobil CEO who served for a time as
Trump’s secretary of state and will never recover his reputation. Peter Thiel
was all in for Trump in 2016 but has since cooled. Mark Zuckerberg? Warren
Buffet? Even the Walton family has had enough of the GOP, as the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette attests: “A thorough search of Federal Election Commission
records didn’t turn up any direct Walton support for Trump, either in 2016 or
2020.”
As businessman conservatism was on the wane, the
seemingly contradictory character identified by Bill Buckley in 1955 — the
“radical conservative” — was waxing. “Radical” describes a posture, and
radicalism is a vessel into which almost anything can be poured, including its
notional opposite, conservatism. The radical conservatives described by Buckley
were “those who have not made their peace with the New Deal,” as he put it in
1955, unlike Eisenhower and his clique. And Buckley’s 1955 assessment will
sound entirely familiar to contemporary ears: “Radical conservatives in this
country have an interesting time of it, for when they are not being suppressed
or mutilated by the liberals, they are being ignored or humiliated by a great
many of those of the well-fed right, whose ignorance and amorality have never
been exaggerated for the same reason that one cannot exaggerate infinity.”
Radical conservatives were not “conservative” in the sense of cautious and
slow-going but conservative in the sense of right-wing. They had a program for
radical social change, and it was not merely a revanchist push for a pre–New
Deal status quo ante (at which point they would presumably shout, Stop!) but something more like a
reversion of the welfare state to its pre-Depression footprint, combined with a
revival of Christian piety and demonstrative patriotism — with all of it
fortified by the presence and example of a military that would be kept at or
near its wartime state of readiness with a national attitude to match. Buckley
rejected the label “nationalist,” as befit a restless cosmopolitan who spent
part of every year in Switzerland and differed with Ronald Reagan on such
nationalism-inflected issues as the Panama Canal, but there was something of
the spirit of nationalism in those “radical conservatives” from the beginning.
As I have argued before, Donald Trump is the candidate of
the 9/11 Republicans, whose politics is Kulturkampf and whose style is
paranoid. (It is not for nothing that the worst and most embarrassing of his
sycophants described 2016 as the “Flight 93 election.”) Trump is, of course, a
New Yorker, one who tried to make some bizarre hay out of 9/11, boasting — and
lying — that with the fall of the World Trade Center one of his buildings had
become the tallest in downtown Manhattan, and then lying about helping with the
rescue effort, and then lying some more about seeing “thousands” of Muslims
cheering the destruction of the Twin Towers. Conspiracy theory has been part of
the American political character from the very beginning (see Bernard Bailyn’s The
Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, “A Note on Conspiracy”) and
it was a kind of national pastime by the middle of the 20th century (see Irving
Wallace’s lurid novel The Plot), but 9/11 and the subsequent events
unleashed a new and particularly virulent mutant strain of it, from 9/11 Truthers
to the cranks convinced Halliburton was secretly running the world from behind
the scenes. Donald Trump, an avid conspiracy buff — 9/11, vaccines, Barack
Obama’s place of birth, etc. — found himself in a petri dish practically
tailored to his cultural DNA. And he found himself there just as the right-wing
radicals were abandoning the policy debate, with the radical posture becoming
its own raison d’être — “radical conservatives” ceased being part of a
political movement and became part of a tribe, one half of a symbiotic dyad
whose identity is defined by — and limited to — not being part of the other
tribe, hating and despising the other half of the dyad. It did not matter
that Trump had been, until five minutes before seeking the Republican
nomination, pro-abortion and pro-gun control. It did not matter that he was a
Democrat who had donated a six-figure sum to the Clinton Foundation. It
certainly did not matter that, as a Republican candidate, he remained vocally
in favor of raising taxes on investment — the people who cared intensely about
investment taxes had either left the Republican Party already or were
thoroughly marginalized within it.
Buckley’s “radical conservatism” was constrained: by a
deep and orthodox Christian belief, to begin with, but also by intelligence and
cultivation, by an understanding of hierarchy and its social necessity, and by
a patriotism that amounted to something more than a treacly Lee Greenwood tune.
In Buckley himself, it also was constrained by catholic friendships with people
such as Norman Mailer and John Kenneth Galbraith, who did not share his
political sensibilities, as well as a revulsion at bigots and kooks. Michael
Lind limns the politics of such complications:
The embittered libertarians and
far-right “paleoconservatives” who were the subjects of these purges denounced
Buckley as an opportunistic social climber who had abandoned his earlier
principles to hobnob with Truman Capote, Bill Blass, and David Bowie. My own
judgment is that Buckley’s gradual, lifelong move to the center was sincere.
Referring to National Review’s subscription base, he complained to me: “Half
of our readers seem to live in Arkansas.” He told me confidentially that he had
angered his friend President Reagan by arguing that the Reagan budget cut too
many benefits for the poor. He supported the decriminalization of marijuana. He
made a juvenile joke about tattooing gay men with AIDS to warn their partners,
but he also hosted civil debates about gay rights on Firing Line. In
2004 he conceded that “federal intervention” had been necessary to destroy Jim
Crow. He opposed the Iraq War. Many on the right believed that the older
Buckley, like his friend Barry Goldwater in his old age, had gone soft and
betrayed the cause. By the standards of today’s radical right, they had.
Funny phrase: “by the standards of today’s radical
right.” Standards? Surely not intellectual standards in the age of Donald
Trump’s aphasic stroke-victim public speaking and bottomless imbecility. Moral
standards? I have it on good authority that if Donald Trump ever speaks three
true sentences in a row the Statue of Liberty will sprout wings and fly off to
Mar-a-Lago. Standards of competency? The coronavirus numbers are moving in the
wrong direction, and so are the jobs numbers. Patriotism? He is a funny kind of
patriot who cheers the sacking of the seat of government by barbarians carrying
enemy flags. Republican radicals once stood for resistance to the worst kind of
tyranny. Today’s Republican radicals stand for tyranny itself, for junta
government, and they march under the banner of the very tyranny the Republican
Party originally was constituted to oppose.
Like its financial counterpart, moral bankruptcy happens two ways: gradually, then suddenly. In 2016, I wrote that the likely outcome of a Trump presidency would be the end of the Republican Party as we had known it. And so it ends for the Grand Old Party: From abolition to anarchy, from republicans to rabble, a bloody-minded, homicidal gang in thrall to the very democracy John Adams warned us about. A dog in this condition would be put to sleep. It would be a piece of mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment