Photo

I see that David Brooks is lamenting the decline of conservatism as he defines it:

By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions.

OK, I guess, although Corey Robin would say that conservatism was never about that — that it was always about preserving power relations. But in any case, that kind of conservatism left the Republican Party a very long time ago. Remember, Ronald Reagan embraced supply-side economics, which was not only a radical doctrine but one rejected by virtually the entire economics profession; was that “intellectual humility”? And remember that Newt Gingrich tried to undermine the constitutional separation of powers with a government shutdown more than 20 years ago.

And on the other hand, by David’s definition Barack Obama is pretty conservative: the Affordable Care Act is a classic example of incremental change, building on the existing system rather than trying a complete overhaul.

My point is that if what you want is traditional conservatism, the only people with real influence with anything like that mindset are Democrats. Actually existing conservatism is a radical doctrine.