»» Columnists

David Klinghoffer: “What Has Become of Conservatism?”

by Jocelyn Rousey | 9:16 pm, August 2nd, 2010

» 31 comments

David Klinghoffer’s recent column in the LA Times has garnered a significant amount of attention from the blogosphere and even cable news. As a staunch conservative, Klinghoffer is turning heads for critiquing the state of conservatism in today’s society, namely the degree to which radical pundits have become the face of the conservative movement. But while some are (rightly) praising his bold critique, most are overlooking the problematic meat of his argument: he refutes one form of radical conservatism by appealing to another.

For Klinghoffer, the landscape of today’s political discourse is populated by “potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneurs” like Andrew Breitbard who fail mightily to live up to such “iconic figures” of the political right as William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol, and Father Richard John Neuhaus.

Buckley’s National Review, where I was the literary editor through the 1990s, remains as vital and interesting as ever. But more characteristic of conservative leadership are figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of “neocons” versus “palecons.” Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons.

Klinghoffer mourns the days when “conservatism wasn’t just a policy agenda, a set of partisan gripes or a football team seeking victory on the electoral field.” In that respect, Klinghoffer is articulating what is perhaps a growing sentiment among Americans that politics, fueled by a partisan media, has become too much of a game.

An LA Times blog post pits Klinghoffer as a Biblical David “nipping at the heels” of a Grand Old Party Goliath. And, indeed, Klinghoffer’s admission of frustration inspired conservative professor (and blogger) Stephen Banbridge to l ist off 10 reasons why he is ashamed to own up to the conservative name, or at the very least, why he wouldn’t support the Republican party. Among his reasons: Sarah Palin’s prominent position within the party; the irony of Republicans’ record with regards to the notion of fiscal conservatism; extreme Tea Party candidates botching Republican efforts to win seats in Congress; “birthers” and “nativists”; and “the substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate.”

On the left, Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly sees Klinghoffer’s critique as a positive sign that conservatives recognize what is happening on the political right:

I suspect I’m not the only one who hopes desperately that there are still some conservatives who see what’s become of the right — the radicalism, the lack of intellectual seriousness, the immaturity — and shake their heads in disgust. Even if most of these conservatives keep quiet, out of a sense of loyalty and/or fear of reprisals, it would be reassuring to know the discomfort actually exists.

As proof of what can result from such serious inter-party critiques, The Daily Rundown’s Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie pressed Republican Minority Whip Eric Cantor yesterday to respond to Klinghoffer’s article. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Cantor dodged the question, instead going on a lengthy partisan rant that had nothing to do with Klinghoffer’s concerns. That Cantor refused to comment is perhaps a sign of how just uncomfortable Klinghoffer’s line of questioning is.

In that respect, Klinghoffer should be commended for both his boldness and willingness to ask the uncomfortable questions. And to be fair, his critique of media partisanship can be easily extended to the other end of the political spectrum. That said, as much attention as his column gets for that boldness, the alternative he proposes is equally, if not more, uncomfortable, and yet it has received little comment.

The lengthy middle section of Klinghoffer’s column is devoted to arguing that conservatism is, in actuality, a reaction to what he purports is a centuries-long crusade of liberalism to undermine and rob us of what Klinghoffer sees as our divinely-granted purpose as human beings. He argues, through philosopher Richard Weaver, that liberalism is an “illness” that has made us bitter, purpose-less beings, and he asserts with absolute conviction that the goal of conservatism isn’t to win the game of politics, but “to save civilization.”

Klinghoffer is known for his strong religious convictions, and it would be naive to think that our country, steeped as it is in Judeo-Christian philosophy, could ever manage a true separation of church and state, and keep religious theologizing out of political rhetoric. Still, that Klinghoffer advances his own warped notion of what conservatism entails (to suggest that there is some liberal conspiracy carried out through the ages, or to deny the influence that religion has on both sides of American politics) is hypocritical. Moreover, it denies a legitimate political philosophy that can, in fact, stand on it’s own two legs without a religious association, even though the two do often come hand-in-hand in American politics. Ultimately, it is Klinghoffer’s own controversial conception of conservatism that undermines the legitimacy and validity of the critique which pushed Klinghoffer, however momentarily, into the spotlight of honest political debate.

Chuck Todd, conservative movement, David Klinghoffer, Eric Canton, LA Times, liberalism, Richard Weaver, Savannah Guthrie, Steve Benen, The Daily Rundown, Washington Monthly

felixw

To look to Time magazine for an assessment of conservatism is like walking into McDonald’s to find out about vegan meal options.
murf

The more conservatives press for answers and seek the truth, the more radical , unhinged, mean spirited , and potientally violent the Left will become. Then Americans will see the true ugly colors of the progressive movement . Do not listen to Klinghoffer.
Bootleghaircut

Well since vegans are insufferable morons your analogy works; conservatives are in big trouble.
http://apostrophejones.com Apostrophe jones

Deep concern from an irrelevant , soon to be gone , newsmagazine .
http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Potts/1051983836 Dave Potts

Klinghoffer is on the mark asking the question – but the correct answer is that it’s a fool’s errand to believe that respectable, honest conservatism (even if I personally disagree with it) can live under the same tent as batshit crazy, pandering, hucksterist conservatism. Schism is imminent.
Bootleghaircut

“but the correct answer is that it’s a fool’s errand to believe that respectable, honest conservatism (even if I personally disagree with it) can live under the same tent as batshit crazy, pandering, hucksterist conservatism. Schism is imminent.”

Ditto
Call_Me_Ishmael

felixw said:
To look to Time magazine for an assessment of conservatism is like walking into McDonald’s to find out about vegan meal options.

No matter who the author is and what his credentials might be.

This “Klinghoffer”, he must be a conservative in name only.
mockingbird1979

Just a few observations…

1. Eric Cantor probably didn’t respond to Chuck Todd’s/Savannah Guthrie’s questions about the Klinghoffer article b/c he probably hadn’t read it. He comes across as very “mimbo” to me, yes?

2. I respect Klinghoffer for taking a thoughtful and introspective look at “conservatism,” but I never understand this “morning after” type of political regret. For instance, Klinghoffer’s criticism of talk radio/cable news is quite hollow. The world of Glenn Beck is Crazy (literally). You don’t welcome in Crazy, bow down to Crazy, cater to Crazy and then lament on how Crazy has woefully brought down conservatism or the Republican party.
Pablo

Klinghoffer mourns the days when “conservatism wasn’t just a policy agenda, a set of partisan gripes or a football team seeking victory on the electoral field.” In that respect, Klinghoffer is articulating what is perhaps a growing sentiment among Americans that politics, fueled by a partisan media, has become too much of a game.

Which is another way of saying that people are figuring out that you can’t win the game if you don’t play offense. Lofty, principled rhetoric is a lovely ideal to aspire to, but it isn’t what wins elections. Obama did a nice job of selling such rhetoric, but he wouldn’t have won without people playing “by any means necessary” hardball on his behalf.
Pablo

Dave Potts said:
Klinghoffer is on the mark asking the question – but the correct answer is that it’s a fool’s errand to believe that respectable, honest conservatism (even if I personally disagree with it) can live under the same tent as batshit crazy, pandering, hucksterist conservatism.

Yeah. It’s a shame it doesn’t work that way on the left.
Cactus

felixw said:
To look to Time magazine for an assessment of conservatism is like walking into McDonald’s to find out about vegan meal options.

Apostrophe jones said:
Deep concern from an irrelevant , soon to be gone , newsmagazine .

None of you bothered reading the actual writeup, I gather. Too distracted by the shiny graphic?
WideAwakeNow

You have got to be kidding me. …..anyone smell a RHINO here?? …..The problem with conservatives over the past several decades is that they have catered and bowed to progressives and far left liberals in an attempt to be bi-partisan and to ‘get along’. ….This article proves that the left and the RHINOs are angry that true conservative constitutionalists are WAKING UP!…and STANDING UP for what we truly believe. ….They want us to go back to sleep.. ..go back to playing the game of letting the bullies in the school yard call all the shots while we conservatives in the interest of being ‘nice’ and making all ‘kissey-face’ ..let them get by with slowly but surely sneaking in their america-destroying agenda.

I’m for being AS GOOD TO PEOPLE AS THEY WILL LET YOU BE… ..But I truly hope that conservatives will keep up the fight for winning our country back ….no matter how much the bullies whine and lebel us as ‘insensitive’ and ‘racist’ and ‘immature’ …or have a ‘lack of intellectual seriousness’. …Give me a break. ..It’s about time Americans got ‘radical’ about defending our constitution.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

WideAwakeNow said:
for

Klinghoffer, the man that wrote ‘How Would God Vote: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative’, is a RINO? Really?

WideAwakeNow said:
he problem with conservatives over the past several decades is that they have catered and bowed to progressives and far left liberals in an attempt to be bi-partisan and to ‘get along’

That’s called compromise. That’s how a democracy works.
Bootleghaircut

‘Klinghoffer, the man that wrote ‘How Would God Vote: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative’, is a RINO? Really?”

I did not know that and now I’m speechless.
alamo2

Stephen Hogan said:
Klinghoffer, the man that wrote ‘How Would God Vote: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative’, is a RINO? Really? That’s called compromise. That’s how a democracy works.

Finally a voice of sanity, among all the disgusting hate-mongering garbaged spewed in these comments. “Politics” is the art of compromise. Without compromise, nothing gets down, and we sink into a cesspool of hate. Thank you, Stephen Hogan! And a pox on the far leftists and the far rightists who refuse to listen to each other.
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ GlennBeckReview

This critique of the crazies on the far right by a conservative is long overdue.

Alamo2, you’re right; there is a disconnect between the right and the left, but when the right is represented by someone like Glenn Beck, a pathological liar, hypocrite and charlatan, when can anyone on the left say but “Beck is crazy.”

Far leftists and far rightists suffer “cognitive dissonance” when they hear each other, and they are too ideologically set in their ways to hear “the other.” It’s the centrist left and the centrist right that need to engage while simultaneously attacking the extremists of both ends of the spectrum.

Finally a voice of sanity, but will real conservatives – not reactionaries – listen?
alamo2

GlennBeckReview said:
This critique of the crazies on the far right by a conservative is long overdue. Alamo2, you’re right; there is a disconnect between the right and the left, but when the right is represented by someone like Glenn Beck, a pathological liar, hypocrite and charlatan, when can anyone on the left say but “Beck is crazy.” Far leftists and far rightists suffer “cognitive dissonance” when they hear each other, and they are too ideologically set in their ways to hear “the other.” It’s the centrist left and the centrist right that need to engage while simultaneously attacking the extremists of both ends of the spectrum. Finally a voice of sanity, but will real conservatives – not reactionaries – listen?

Thanks for your comments. As to your question, I believe that the reactionaries on both extremes, as evidenced by their comments on this site, listen only to themselves. They don’t believe in, nor do they want, a reasoned argument, a method to help this country. They want blood.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

alamo2 said:
Finally a voice of sanity, among all the disgusting hate-mongering garbaged spewed in these comments. “Politics” is the art of compromise. Without compromise, nothing gets down, and we sink into a cesspool of hate. Thank you, Stephen Hogan! And a pox on the far leftists and the far rightists who refuse to listen to each other.

Thanks, Alamo. I find it very frustrating, as well. As was mentioned in the article, there are far too many people that see politics as a game, with too much focus on which ‘team’ is going to win the next election and less of a focus on actually running the damn country. Even though I’m very much on the left side of things, I appreciate and honor compromise when it happens in Congress. It’s an event that occurs with much less frequency these days.
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ GlennBeckReview

Pablo says: “Yeah. It’s a shame it doesn’t work that way on the left.”

What left, Pablo? Have you ever read “Crooks and Liars”? How much time, if any, have you watched The Rachel Maddow Show? Can you acknowledge a fact that goes against your believe system when you see it?

Glenn Beck is a liar. That’s a fact that I’ve documented many times over. Beck is a hypocrite, a fact documented 6 times in May alone. He is a hypocrite every time he claims to spout the “truth” including yesterday on his Fox show. It’s all documented on The Glenn Beck Review, Pablo. Are you open enough to read this unmasking and not experience cognitive dissonance?
MichelleF

Bootleghaircut says:

I did not know that and now I’m speechless.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!
http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Adkins/1585417987 Bill Adkins

What has happened to conservatism is that it has become something which would sicken the icon that is Ronald Reagan. Reagan would be disgusted with the Becknuts, with Hannity, with O’Reilly, and he’d seek out and kick Limbaugh’s ass. Conservatism today is a 1/4 inch deep and 5 miles wide and two Bush Administrations long resulting in the mess we have today. Heckuva job.
Rosey

Stephen Hogan says: “That’s called compromise. That’s how a democracy works.”

Exactly! That’s why Democracy’s don’t work and also why the founders created a REPUBLICAN form of gov’t. We are a REPUBLIC!!!
Rosey

GlennBeckReview said:
Pablo says: “Yeah. It’s a shame it doesn’t work that way on the left.” What left, Pablo? Have you ever read “Crooks and Liars”? How much time, if any, have you watched The Rachel Maddow Show? Can you acknowledge a fact that goes against your believe system when you see it? Glenn Beck is a liar. That’s a fact that I’ve documented many times over. Beck is a hypocrite, a fact documented 6 times in May alone. He is a hypocrite every time he claims to spout the “truth” including yesterday on his Fox show. It’s all documented on The Glenn Beck Review, Pablo. Are you open enough to read this unmasking and not experience cognitive dissonance?

I just read it and I found scant little “proof” to support your claim…may I ask, who do you work for? Sounds like a george soros troll to me. Is that who pays your bills, gbr?
DrFunke

They have become cowards who refuse to accept any sort of respect for others who don’t agree with their laughable, idiotic views.

They want deficit reductions yet put in numerous programs that sky-rocket the deficit….they claim to want to cut taxes and that this will increase revenue/jobs yet never show any sort of facts backing this up
Nachi

All in the bottom of the toilet together – where they’ve always resided. In need of a final flush.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Hogan/179500970 Stephen Hogan

Rosey said:
Stephen Hogan says: “That’s called compromise. That’s how a democracy works.”

Exactly! That’s why Democracy’s don’t work and also why the founders created a REPUBLICAN form of gov’t. We are a REPUBLIC!!!

Somewhat true. We have a representative republic. The reason why that is is because the founding fathers knew that a perfect democracy, which requires everyone to vote and for all votes to be counted, was numerically impossible. So, they set up a government in which we elect people to represent us in Congress. In turn, these representatives serve as our vote during the legislative process.

However, the House and the Senate vote on matters using the democratic process, which requires compromise.

Please do not confuse Democracy with Democrats and Republics with Republicans. The party names really have nothing to do with the two styles of governance.
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ GlennBeckReview

“As a staunch conservative, Klinghoffer is turning heads for critiquing the state of conservatism in today’s society, namely the degree to which radical pundits have become the face of the conservative movement. ”

Beck and Limbaugh are not “radical” or “pundits.” They are both reactionary uneducated charlatans.
felixw

Bootleghaircut said:
vegans are insufferable morons

Does that put them higher or lower than the “dumbfucks” and “jackasses” you mention in your other posts? Inquiring minds want to know.
WideAwakeNow

Stephen Hogan said:
Klinghoffer, the man that wrote ‘How Would God Vote: Why the Bible Commands You to Be a Conservative’, is a RINO? Really? That’s called compromise. That’s how a democracy works.

funny how it’s called ‘compromise’ and ‘how a democracy works’ as long as the liberal progressive agenda ultimately gets fulfilled. …..I guess the ramming down the collective throats of americans of the healtcare legislation was ‘compromise’ as well. ….seems like that democracy and compromise thing is supposed to only work one way. …when conservatives get to the table and want a piece of the pie for the other 2/3 of the country….we’re called racists, party of no, haters, etc etc etc. ……… Nah.. I’m sticking with my original opinion. ..any so called republican …even one who wrote about ‘why the Bible commands you to be a conservative’ ..who thinks the efforts of those of us who are trying to save the country makes us ‘immature’ or ‘radical’… well, they sure seem like RHINOs to me. ……..or at the very least.. misguided republicans and certainly not constitutionalists.
http://none pyrope

While Mr. Klinghoffer is astute in wondering what has happened to “conservatism,” his speculations are off the mark.

What has happened to conservatives is the same thing that has happened to the Republican Party: It has all but compromised itself out of existence. Here are my bona fides: Back in the early 70s, when I had just been granted US citizenship, there was a clear line in politics; those whom identified themselves as “Independents” was all but a nil set. By some accounts today, 35% of voters claim to be “Independents” or allegient to some minor 3rd party.

When I first began to notice this (after the Nixon resignation), I remarked to some friends that a 3rd political party was on the threshold of emergence. They hooted. Certainly, during the Reagan years, the Republican Party was suddenly again very strong by virtue of there being fewer of those “independents,” so I thought I had just witnessed “a flash in the pan.”

Now, what Mr. Klinghoffer is saying merely speaks to the symptom and not the root of the matter; the fact is, there are more “independents” today than I have been able to learn about in recent history, and the reason is that what “used to be” conservatives in political office have sold out their values on one issue to gain a consensus on another issue. The true conservatives in the electorate are tired of seeing their values sold down the river, and I believe more strongly than ever that the labor pains preceding the birth of a new party–a CONSERVATIVE party–is about to emerge from the womb of politics. The question is, whom will subscribe to this new conservative party?

OK, so I am not the Oracle of Delphi, but here’s my take: In short, it will be all those whom have been disenfranchised by their current political party. In the long version of the answer, it will be a combination of Democrats who have worked their asses off all their lives only to see what they’ve earned by the sweat of their brow confiscated from them and given to those who would not work as a taster in a pie factory. It will be those Democrats who look at what certain fringe components in their party are saying and doing and shake their heads in disgust. It will be those Democrats who believe there is a difference between a “hand up” and a “hand out,” and are tired of seeing the increasing trend to their party representatives inclinging toward the latter choice. It will be those Democrats who are fed up with the malfeasance of the miscreants–hell, let’s call them what they are “CRIMINALS”–in their party and say enough! But, you want to know what the funny thing is? The funny thing is it will be the Republicans who feel the same way about the members of their party who will quit and join the third option.

So, why am I correct? I am correct because I realize that the majority of people in this country are truly wonderful people: the vast majority have a strong work ethic, they also have a strong sense of ethics and fair play, they celebrate the rightful success of others, they are generous (sometimes to a fault) and kind, and they STILL have the “magical stuff” of those great men and women who gave us this country in the firs place. You know whom I am talking about, I’m talking about those people who cried “give me liberty or give me death” and they meant it! If I didn’t think I was correct about this country I never would have left Greece.
http://sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/ GlennBeckReview

pyrope, there are progressives who want liberty every bit as much as conservatives do. Many would argue that they want liberty for all, not just those whose living allows them the freedom of not having to choose between medicine and food.

Many of the “conservatives” you describe are in fact reactionaries. That’s the direction that your party would have the country move, backwards. Backwards in Beck’s nostalgic direction. Tim Wise addresses this notion on The Glenn Beck Review in “The avatar of amnesia.” http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/avatar-of-amnesia-glenn-beck-historical.html

Please share this URL http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/