John Holbo (2008): Douthat on Conservatism: "This has to be a complete failure.... Take out the parenthetical bit and you have something that is much closer to a definition of ‘liberalism’ than ‘conservatism’, at least in the American context...
...I’ll just quote Douthat himself, who obviously agrees with me about this:
his “revolution or bust” tendency has defined traditionalist conservatism for some time now, with an alienation from actual-existing American politics coexisting with sweeping visions for what American politicians ought to be doing with themselves instead.... You start by telling yourself that retrenchment – whether to the age of Gingrich or Reagan or Robert Taft–is the path to victory, and you end, when victory doesn’t materialize, by embracing defeat as a badge of honor, and pining for either the barricades or the monastery...
Liberals are more resistant to “Revolution or Bust” because they tend to be more attached to “the particular habits, mores and institutions of the United States against those socioeconomic trends that threaten to undermine them.” I don’t expect Douthat simply to agree to that. But the fact that there is considerable truth to it means that just saying the opposite will never do as a definition of ‘conservatism’. Being as generous as I can be: Douthat’s definition, minus the parenthetical, is a statement of something liberals and conservatives have in common, rather than what separates them. What does Douthat’s parenthetical add?... [Either] the false claim that ideologically-driven desire for radical change is more a feature of the American left than the right... [or] that... ‘conservative’ must mean 'right-winger with a bad conscience'. As a liberal, I’m half inclined to say my suspicions are confirmed...
#shouldread
