The Continuing Saga of the Conservative Crack-Up


Libertarian disaffection wtih Bush is all over the current New Republic. First there's Clay Risen's story about Cato staffers pulling for Kerry. This shouldn't actually be particularly surprising; mags on the right have been talking up the "crack-up" on the right for a while, Cato scholars have hardly been muted in their criticism of Bush, and it's not as though anyone there is ardently pro-Kerry (is anyone ardently pro-Kerry?) as opposed to pro–divided government. (Clay, incidentally, calls the divided government rationale "cynical," which seems a little odd, unless separation of powers is also "cynical." I suppose it is, in a sense, insofar as it follows from the assumption that the pure motives of people in power shouldn't be counted on, but that's a pretty mild form of cynicism, just over the border from naiveté.)

Then there's Franklin Foer's piece about grumbling conservative intellectuals. There seems to be an element of wishful thinking in this one. First, he's focusing distinctly on the libertarian wing of conservative punditry and activism—Steve Moore and the Club for Growth crowd mostly. Second, the kicker and early parts of the article make clear he's really talking about conservative intellectuals here, but the rest of the piece talks about "conservatives" (mostly, one assumes, to save space), which may make this sound more significant than it is. My own sense is that the rank and file find Bush appealing on personal as much as policy grounds: They see him, rightly or wrongly, as a resolute, straight-shooting guy, a man of conviction. The wonks may not be happy, but the wonks aren't a particularly hefty chunk of the electorate. The Club for Growth guys, moreover, seem to understand that their brand of small-government conservatism is now a minority position in the GOP. Not to say Foer doesn't himself get this—he's got the necessary qualifiers—but one could come away from the article with a sense that the phenomenon he's describing is broader than it is; I suspect it's largely a beltway thing.

NEXT: From My Cold, Dead Paw

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I have seen a couple of “Republicans for Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers around Chicago. That probably doesn’t mean much, but I’ve never seen anything quite like that before.

  2. Wouldn’t it be better to have a democratic congress and ush as president? Most poeple seem to like his foreign policy while detesting his domestic policy. The congress can easily put a lid on Bush’s goofier domestic agenda points while he has a freer hand internationally

    The way I see it, having Kerry as president would be the worst of both worlds, with a wishy washy foreign policy and a spend, spend, spend on junk domestic policy.

    Am I missing something?

  3. Curious-
    Not really since the guy has failed to VETO one damn thing.

  4. their brand of small-government conservatism is now a minority position in the GOP

    I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. The positions of most GOP members are different from those of the current “leaders.”

  5. Maybe these guys can spend next August in the hammock with Andrew Sullivan, bemoaning whatever it is they’re bemoaning by then.

  6. Sounds like the political equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. I don’t buy it; makes no sense to me.
    I’ll go with the Jack Aubrey view — Bush is the lesser of the two weevils, and he’ll get my vote.

  7. Julian–Anyway we can see that whole Franklin Foer piece without being a subscriber?

  8. I don’t have a passthrough link, though if any of our friends at TNR feel like supplying one…

  9. I think that the Lonewacko is correct; most GOP members are for small government conservatism regardless of what the prez thinks. Bush is not worth fighting for but many of the Republicans running for congress are.

    I bought the issue. In one of the articles, it’s pointed out how the Bushies are intolerant of dissension from the right. It’s speculated that we won’t be seeing a lot of Cato folks in advisory positions during a second term…punishment for having the audacity to speak out against the huge growth in non-defense spending, and for opposition to the war as well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.