The Death of Conservatism

Tanenhaus has written a brief, yet powerful analysis of the origins and evolution of conservatism in America. His analysis focuses not on conservative "issues" but on the philosophical underpinnings of conservative politics and how these have been expressed over the ages-from Edmund Bruke, to Benjamin Disraeli, Willian F Buckley, Nixon, Reagan, and George W Bush. The point is, of course, to understand and explain the rise (and presumptive fall) of what Tanenhaus calls Movement Conservatism. In the end, the author succeeds in presenting a detailed and convincing thesis on where conservatism must go if it is to survive as a conserving, not destroying, force in American politics. This book is a must-read for anyone interested in political theory, political philosophy, or contemporary American politics.

This book reflects the very best and worst of 'The New York Times' where Tanenhaus is an editor; it is brilliant and concise in summing up the history of American conservative politics and utterly clueless in assessing the future. It is a gem of how conservatism grew from the rantings of Joseph McCarthy and his ilk into the elegant thoughts and principles of William F. Buckley and his ilk. Unfortunately, Tanenhaus stumbles over his obvious insights and carries on as if they have no meaning. Let's start with the obvious. Every society is roughly 50 percent conservative, 50 percent liberal. Like boom and bust in the free markets, society oscillates between liberals and conservatives. This book eloquently traces the conservative politics from the New Deal to the New World Order of George W. Bush. Good politics crafts compromises between the two ideologies; Ronald Reagan was a master at it, George W. Bush a genius at confrontation. Every society builds its greatest monuments just before its collapse; in politics, every great ideology gorges on "political capital" and a "mandate" before it self-destructs by reaching for too much too soon with too little support. This was the fate of Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society, as with Bush and his ambition to impose democracy on Arabs. Entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Colter and Sarah Palin are reincarnations of McCarthy, bobble-headed cheerleaders with little more than cute ideas for a losing team. But, in politics as in football, great teams always recover from fumbles; the need is for a new quarterback and some new plays, not a new team. The conservative mindset won't vanish. It simply needs new ideas for new times -- or, to quote a source on which so many rely, "new bottles for new wine." The first step on the road to recovery is an accurate assessment of how a person, a society or an ideology got into its present state. This book adroitly shows how conservative zeal gave a freshman senator a watershed election victory. It may yet be that Barack Obama is trying to do too much too soon with too little support; this book may also be read as a blueprint outlining the potential self-destruction of the Obama administration. Until then, it is superb in terms of a concise American conservative history and the dangers of too much ambition for people who prefer the status quo. When conservatives return to conservative values and learn to respect the status quo, they'll be feisty, roaring, innovative and again relevant. Then we'll get Progressive Tories instead of Regressive Conservatives. This book will be one of the signposts along the way.

Sam Tanenhaus has written a thoughtful, important book about the demise of traditional conservative thought and its preemption by movement conservativism.. Over the past two decades I've increasingly lamented the death of genuine conservative thought and its replacement by a shrill, judgmental anti-politics. I am a liberal, but I have read extensively in the works of many important conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke, John Adams, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Peter Viereck, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, Roger Scruton, Paul Johnson, and others. I've also read several biographies of prominent conservatives such as Winston Churchill. But there is a huge difference between these thinkers and politically nihilistic media personalities like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and their ilk. For these TV personalities (it isn't possible to dub them "thinkers") the only good government is no government. Political activists dream of turning the clock back to the time of McKinley, before Teddy Roosevelt started the series of federal reforms that has made life tolerable for hundreds of millions of Americans. For the new movement conservatives there are simply no constructive Sam Tanenhaus has written a thoughtful, important book about the demise of traditional conservative thought and its preemption by movement conservativism.. Over the past two decades I've increasingly lamented the death of genuine conservative thought and its replacement by a shrill, judgmental anti-politics. I am a liberal, but I have read extensively in the works of many important conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke, John Adams, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Peter Viereck, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, Roger Scruton, Paul Johnson, and others. I've also read several biographies of prominent conservatives such as Winston Churchill. But there is a huge difference between these thinkers and politically nihilistic media personalities like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and their ilk. For these TV personalities (it isn't possible to dub them "thinkers") the only good government is no government. Political activists dream of turning the clock back to the time of McKinley, before Teddy Roosevelt started the series of federal reforms that has made life tolerable for hundreds of millions of Americans. For the new movement conservatives there are simply no constructive roles for the federal government to undertake. While the unregulated private sector has not produced a first rate healthcare system in any country in the world, these people against all evidence insist on the superiority of a free market healthcare system to meet the nation's needs. Contrast this with the great conservative icon Winston Churchill. Although he embraced the philosophy of the classic conservatives he also believed that government had an important role to play in making people's lives better. He led the reform of the reform of English prisons as a member of p

In reading The Death of Conservatism, I've become convinced that this slender little volume is going to have a huge impact on politics over the next few years--everyone is going to have something to say about it. Distilled to its essence (hardly needed in that it is a very quick read), Tanenhaus' argument is that the two great pillars of American society are its political institutions and what Tanenhaus would call its patrimonial or traditional social institutions such as schools, churches, corporations, unions, etc. Although liberals and conservatives may disagree on which pillar is more important, the fact is BOTH are required for the county's stability. Tanenhaus goes on to argue that when the conservative movement was most dynamic and effective, it produced great intellectual figures such as Burke or Buckley who could articulate their positions and formulate policies that took into account both these foundational pillars, and pragmatic politicians such as Regan who could work with both their allies and enemies to put these ideas into place. He notes that that this cooperation between the "thinkers" and the "do-ers" wasn't a marriage of convenience, it was absolutely essential to moving the agenda forward...the intellectuals were keen on developing rationales that made sense to the broader public, which paved the way for the politicians to actually implement conservative policies. Tanenhaus goes on to strongly emphasize that the great conservative thinkers and politicians were above all practical, not blindly ideological--Buckley strongly denounced extremists such as the John Birch Society, and Regan made clear he was a fan of the New Deal. Tanenhaus argues that conservatism is dying today because the right has abandoned this whole apparatus from the ground up: politicians are forced to be ideological instead of practical, they have divorced themselves from rigorous thinkers and locked themselves in a media echo chamber, and scorn the very idea of government institutions as having relevance. Collectively, this has led conservatism to be irrelevant as a political or social force--it does not offer solutions to the problems Americans face. Moreover, it doesn't have the ability to state that there ARE problems Americans face. He notes that in their desperation to hand Obama a defeat on health care reform, conservatives risk marginalizing themselves for a generation as a party of obstructionists with no agenda of their own. He warns that Americans instinctively want both political AND social institutions to thrive and clearly want a strong civil society; the party that delivers these things will be the party in power. Tanenhaus's remedy is that conservatives need to look back on their history, and rebuild the movement from the ground up if they are to be successful again. For starters, the movement needs to develop and pay attention to a new generation of thinkers--writers outside the echo chamber who once again develop arguments

This compact volume traces the current incarnation of the American movement conservatives who first began taking form during the New Deal years under FDR. These new thinkers crystallized during the 1950's under the watchful eye of William F. Buckley. 1968 marked the beginning of their ascent to power. With a brief dip in the ashes (the fall of Nixon), conservatism reached an apogee during the Reagan years. Then, according to the author, things began to fall apart. He claims that the movement has been co-opted by "revanchist" activists who have driven away many of the true conservatives. These neo-conservatives are slashers and burners of the Rush Limbaugh ilk. They are not willing to work within the existing framework like a Barry Goldwater or a Whittaker Chambers, these revanchists are decidedly non-conservative in their attitude. For example, the spoken desire for Barack Obama's failure is a wish for this nation's failure and that is certainly an attitude that a classical conservative, a true conservative, would abhor. Tanenhaus thinks conservatives must rebuild their strength and their focus to counterbalance the forces of resurgent liberalism. While the movement seems to be on life support as the "leaders" get more shrill and divisive while polarizing and disenfranchising the electorate, Tanenhaus sees a silver lining here; as the movement has faltered, the average American seems to be getting more conservative. Fresh vision and leadership could right the ship.