..out of the dark

Here's Michael Gerson, for instance, speechwriter at the White House and the emotional equivalent of a bag of cats beaten into a brief silence, explaining what he thinks is the new, new way. He names the label, "Heroic conservatism".



I think he can do better than that. What about "Exceptional Conservatism"? Or "Awesome Conservatism"? "Heroic does reflect the stalwart warrior battling the liberal and muslim hordes, though, so he's probably on to something. But will it sway joe six- pack as well as the joe with the six- shooter? No, there will have to be something else included in the package that makes the weakling white race want to aspire to greatness by kicking other weaklings in the teeth - and that's not heroic - that's "Courageous".

So I give you "Courageous Conservatism"! (And when the Grand old party adopts it, be sure to tell me so I can have a good laugh).


Anyway. Meanwhile, Kamiya over at salon.com has another theory about what conservativism.. sorry, conservatism should now be (we're still talking about American conservatism, obviously. Which is not the same as conservatism in general, and so on, which is just a political term, like "radical rabid extremist").
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/10/30/new_conservatism/index.html

In response, a number of readers argued that since no conservative president has ever lived up to those conservative principles, they're basically irrelevant. These readers maintained that in the real world, as opposed to my vaporous and too-charitable musings, conservatism is about nothing but power (or tribalism, or selfishness, or resentment, or xenophobia). The Bush presidency thus does not represent a perversion of American conservatism but its logical culmination.

I think these readers are right about American conservatism in practice. Bush is indeed the natural heir of the ideology that runs through Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan. But I think they're wrong that the conservative movement is foreordained to remain in its current debased form.

Now he really /is/ a liberal. But the main flaw in his analysis is simply how conservatism in the United States of A is not about political organisation, it's not about ideals, and it's not about government. It's a movement and a set of principles about appearance of government, and on selling ideals to the public. Conservatism doesn't come into the rest. And until we're clear on that there is, in fact, a difference between selling appearances and selling actual government - it's perfectly impossible to have any sort of discussion on what conservatism should be. In fact, it's futile to have a discussion on what politics should look like, on the left or right, or in the middle for that matter.

Because what Kamiya and his friends in spirit(if not in political persuasion) does is simply to articulate as obvious and apparent that if only ideals are tied to a government - even if it's an imperial one so out of touch it starts to fight constitutional and parliamentary mechanisms they feel obstructs their crusade for greatness - they will translate into actions based on those ideals.

Seriously - this is exceptionally simple wisdom very young children grow out of, and look back at with shame. For example, my six- year old niece is perfectly capable of understanding that even though she hopes no one will find out she lied about how many popsicles she took in the freezer, she certainly understands she did not pursue her ideals about being trustworthy when she took them. She might try to explain it away by saying she really, really, wanted another and just had to have one. Or she might say that the first one had the wrong colour, so she was entitled to another one. Or just make some sort of compromise about less chocolate the next weekend. But even then, or even if she feels grievously wronged for being told off - she understands perfectly that this is not what the deal was. One goddamn popsicle!

So how mature do I have to be to buy the idea that if we now move on to "Heroic Conservatism", and suggest there needs to be a clearly disjunctive gap between domestic and international policies, and then further move on to explain how fiscal responsibility is a matter of morals in various contexts and conveniences not yet to be clarified, if it ever will - we can stuff ourselves silly with ice- cream. Really - it's still just one goddamn popsickle.

I would have to hazard that you will have to be so mature that you understand, philosophically, that there are so many injustices in the world that doing something about them is detrimental to your own popsickle- gorging. While also being mature enough to understand that it's clearly not necessary for political activists and strategists to have any grasp of economics, political organisation or otherwise having logic or reason.

Because that does not matter - what matters in all of this is semantic proof of conviction and belief. And that is absolutely all. Meanwhile, the grand and all- powerful leaders make things happen so the rest can keep the industry going. And everyone is happy - at least the ones that matter, of course. Until things start to get so fucked up again that a new great name for the movement will have to be reinvented.


next: my dictionary is out of date, and the useful vocabulary is perfectly pronounced by moans and grunts in different strengths. Abstract thinking is reduced to two states - furrowed brows for skepticism, and open mouth and eyes for mild shock. ...hm. Hold on.