David Klinghoffer: “What Has Become of Conservatism?”

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 list 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.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.