Why are the Presidential Debates so Boring and Awful?

As I was watching the Democratic debates this week I found myself asking, why are presidential debates boring and hard to sit through? Was it always this way? While political pundits will be dissecting and analyzing the candidates’ responses for days to come, I’d like to offer some observations on the state of presidential debates themselves.

Last I checked, the New York Times has identified twenty-four candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president. At least, that’s the total number of Democratic candidates you might have actually heard of (the actual number of Democrats running for president is closer to 260).

Does anyone think the sheer volume of candidates is a good thing? Take a look at the image above of the faces of those running. The magnitude of faces almost assaults the senses and feels like staring at one of those magic eye illusions where you’re expecting some clarity to eventually emerge. Worse still, the brain is forced to reduce each face down to a simple-word-association game: Bernie = socialist; Yang = UBI; Harris = black female; Booker black male; Buttigieg = gay mayor; Biden = former VP; Tulsi = anti-war; and so on. There’s little room for truly contemplating any nuance between candidates or their positions, temperaments, or experiences.

The more cynical side of me would say that’s because these candidates—and much of the Democratic party—lacks actual ideas and that they’re all reading from the same playbook which recommends MORE GOVERNMENT to any problem whatsoever—a sentiment perfectly captured by Harris’ insistence that “America doesn’t want to witness a food fight, they want to know how we’re going to put food on their table.” Perhaps the only true way to differentiate them from one another is to fall back on a sort of surface-level identification game of gender, age, race, and sexual orientation.

Then again, how reasonable is it to expect these candidates to engage in something that approaches a debate over ideas when the entire process is designed to give them mere minutes to express their views and then be subjected to their opponents’ attempts at squeaking in a couple of zingers? Debate in this format doesn’t work for the same reason complex topics on Twitter often devolve into reactionary name-calling.

And making matters worse, the media seems complicit in the chicanery, asking questions that—by design—illicit reactionary responses from the other candidates rather than deep contemplation. Notice how each time a candidate is asked to comment on something another candidate said we get the split-screen showing how each candidate will react. This format has more in common with reality TV than with reality.

The candidate who has put the most effort into his ideas—in my opinion—is Andrew Yang. I rarely agree with his policy proposals, as I’ve written here. But Yang is refreshingly forthright, vulnerable, open, and articulate. He has appeared on numerous conservative and libertarian programs that would likely be hostile to his ideas and meticulously laid out his vision and responded to criticism. Just listen to how blown away Dave Rubin is by how open Yang was to any question. Well then, how did Yang fair in the opening debates?

He sucked.

I’m sure there are many reasons for this, but the fact that these debates are not a format for the exchange of complex ideas has got to be one of them. So, who’s to blame? Can we blame the candidates? What more could we expect them to do? If they tried to engage in any meaningful nuance they’d likely get buried in a process designed to reward reactionary zingers. Can the media be blamed? Would anyone watch the debates if the media gave TEN people ample time to truly lay out their ideas and be cross-examined by the other nine? Who in their right mind wants to listen to Joe Biden for any longer than they absolutely have to?

The dizzying number of candidates is not only confusing, it’s optically embarrassing. This looks like a party that can’t reign in its members and has succumb to chaos. And I don’t mean that in a partisan sense. This isn’t a Democratic problem so much as it’s a political party problem. After all, twenty candidates is only slightly worse than the seventeen Republican candidates who ran for president in 2016. Here again we were subjected to “debates”—a generous word in an age of slogans and soundbites—that were so overcrowded the contenders were split between a varsity and jv league. And those “debates” ended up rewarding the candidate least fit for the office of president.

A lot of these problems would go away if there were simply fewer candidates. So, why aren’t there fewer candidates? Here again, there are probably lots of reasons. But I have in mind at least two primary culprits:

First – The opposition party seems to believe they’re going to win

In 2016 the smart money was that a Republican would be the next president of the United States, long before we knew who might get the nomination. Obama had successfully won two national elections but it didn’t escape the Republican party’s attention that, under Obama’s leadership, Democrats hadn’t suffered greater losses since President Eisenhower. Whoever assumed the Democratic leadership mantle in 2016 was going to have a difficult time beating the Republican challenger.

President Trump’s lackluster popularity and tendencies to Tweet like an escaped monkey from a cocaine study—to borrow Jonah Goldberg’s phraseology—have energized the Democrats this round. The potential for a Democrat to win in 2020 seems—to the extent anything can truly be known in political elections—almost inevitable. So long as one secures the nomination, they are going to have an easier time at winning the general election. Supposedly. So why not go for it now?

Second – The parties are too weak to stop them

The first reason is more an accident of timing. The second reason is very much a product of our own making. The political parties—both the Democratic and Republican parties—have lost most of their power over the past couple of decades. And that power was wielded by both parties to stop the very circuses we’ve witnessed these past two election cycles. Neither party would have tolerated a Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders; two people who decried the very parties they ran under. And, back in the day, both parties could have prevented candidates such as Trump and Sanders from ever getting off the ground.

Precisely what changed and how the parties were able to do this is a complex topic outside the immediate purview of this post. If the reader is truly interested I highly recommend the first five or so episodes of Jon Ward’s podcast The Long Game, which does an incredible job explaining how the parties lost so much power.

The point is that the loss of power in our political parties ultra-democratized the process. The parties no longer filter through all the possible candidates and present their members with a select few who are carefully vetted and guaranteed to have the best long-term interests of the party in mind.

Now it’s a free-for-all where any nut job who amasses enough support can steal the stage and, as 2016 demonstrated, even beat out all the other candidates and become president. For, while I was no fan of Trump’s debate style it cannot be denied he stood-out from all the other faceless candidates whose well-rehearsed speech was so filtered through focus groups it was devoid of any originality or heart. If we turn the political process into a reality TV game we shouldn’t be surprised when a reality TV star outperforms the rest.

But does anyone actually prefer the process as it stands now? Does anyone truly feel they are well represented by the candidates trotted out? Even if they have a candidate or two they prefer, do they want this many to chose from? And does this process truly produce a candidate that’s best fit for the office of President? When George Washington took the oath of office he was barely audible. One wonders how the Father of the Nation would have fared on a debate stage designed to exploit and exaggerate every irrelevant personal quirk.

What, then, is the solution? Strengthen the parties. Give them back the power to filter out candidates and limit them to a more reasonable level so that they not only truly represent the long-term interests of the parties they hail from, but they’ll be all the more likely to engage in meaningful debate knowing that they don’t have to compete in a mindless gotcha game on stage with nine other contenders.

Anyone following Saving Elephants for any length of time will notice the common theme of the need for revitalized institutions in our lives. Healthy institutions develop character and act as an intermediary between the individual and the collective. We spend most of our lives inhabiting institutions and, when they are functioning well, our lives are enriched by them. Our political parties are no exception. Love them or hate them, all of us are better off when they are strong and vibrant and all of us have to endure another round of “debates” like we witnessed this week when they are not.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 34 - American Interests Part 2

Josh and Bob continue their conversation on the national interests of the United States that drives the nation’s foreign policy in part two of this two-part discussion.

To the casual observer, American foreign policy over the past 240 years can come across as sporadic at best. We’ve gone from Washingtonian noninterventionism to the territorial expansions of the nineteenth century to gearing up a massive military industrial complex for two world wars to Soviet containment to democratic nation-building to a series of non-specific military engagements with rogue terrorist groups.

Some conservatives have argued the best thing we could do as a nation would be to heed George Washington’s warning of no entangling alliances with foreign powers and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. Other conservatives argue for a strong military presence around the globe needed to keep world peace and free markets operating. Which view is truly “conservative” and which view represents the best course of action?

Irving Kristol—the father of Neoconservatism—spoke of the challenge of developing universal foreign policy principles. Although Neocons usually get a bad rap for being war hawkish, Kristol’s observations argued for constraint and contemplation:

“Western political thought has very little to say about foreign policy. From Thucydides to our own time, political philosophy has seen foreign affairs so radically affected by contingency, fortune, and fate as to leave little room for speculative enlightenment. John Locke was fertile in suggestions for the establishment and maintenance of good government, but when it came to foreign affairs he pretty much threw up his hands: ‘What is to be done in reference to foreigners, depending much upon their actions and the variation of designs and interests, must be left in great part to the prudence of those who have this power committed to them, to be managed by the best of their skill for the advantage of the Commonwealth.’”

While the best foreign policy may change depending on how the pieces on the chess board are arranged, one thing that does not change are a nation’s national interests. And American interests are an excellent gauge for evaluating American foreign policy. What are those national interests? Bob Burch joins the conversation with Josh once more to walk through American foreign policy.

Listen Here

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Angry Trump Supporter Contacts My Employer, Trying to Intimidate Me

I’m old enough to remember an era when those on the Right who had disagreements responded with tools such as reason, discussion, and persuasion. On occasion debates offered in good faith would descend into name-calling, but this was the exception and not the rule. Today, far too many bypass the toolkit and go straight to name-calling. When that doesn’t work, they descend to threats and intimidation.

I had such an encounter recently and—while it caused me no actual harm and pales in comparison to what some conservatives endure—I thought it might be instructive to give the reader a glimpse into the void that is contemporary politics.

The Incident

What began as a brief exchange on Twitter between myself and David—a fellow Tulsan Republican who I’ve known personally for years—ended in this individual contacting my employer in an ill-fated attempt to intimidate me into silence. All of my previous encounters with David, both in person and online, had been civil; though it was evident he did not care for my reluctance to embrace Donald Trump. Evidently, the most recent exchange was the tipping point that convinced him to abandon the pretense of civility and debate and opt instead for personal attacks.

Before I go any further, I want to stress that I have many friends and loved ones who consider themselves to be Trump supporters and would gladly vote for him again. And we get along just fine. We may disagree, but we know how to disagree without torpedoing the relationship. Nothing shared below is intended as an indictment of Trumplicans in general. My focus is on those within that group that choose to attack people in a misguided sense of patriotism and seem allergic to competing ideas or civil debate.

The saga began with this brief exchange on Twitter:

Some Thoughts on the Twitter Exchange

What prompted this brief exchange was David responding to my glib comment suggesting being photographed in the nude may disqualify Melania Trump from being the “classiest first lady our country has ever had”. For the record, I have no animosity towards Melania. But I take issue with those who purport to be Christian leaders saying inept and uncouth things publicly as it may do damage to the reputation of Christianity in the culture. And Franklin Graham (the son of the late Reverend Billy Graham) claiming Melania is the classiest first lady ever betrays not only his lack of good tastes, but the latest chapter in his history of hypocrisy (as this article here shows, Graham’s views on whether a politician’s private sins are a public matter seems largely dependent on whether the individual in question has a “D” or an “R” by their name).

David’s opening response in the exchange is perplexing. His attempts at attacking my character were so off base that I actually didn’t realize he was insinuating I had done anything immoral until I reread the tweets a few days later (which is why my response didn’t address his accusations). Let me address his two personal attacks:

1. “Your relationship with a female boss”

I literally have no idea what relationship he’s referring to. My immediate manager is female and the State Auditor is female, but I don’t know where he’d get the notion there was anything untoward going on. My best guess is he just made up an accusation in hopes something would stick.

2. “The photo of a model”

His second attack—that I used a photo of a model to pretend I had a girlfriend—is at least factual. But it reveals more about the depletion of David’s sense of humor than it does about my character. Over a decade ago I created a Facebook account of a girl I named “Natalie”. I used a picture I found online, made up the demographic info, and was “in a relationship” status with her on Facebook. About a month later—on April Fool’s Day—I announced that the whole thing was a joke. Here is the picture I used:

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if this is a blight on my judgment or character.

Dissatisfied with his opening volley, David decided to move the one-sided affair out of cyberspace and into the workspace.

Contacting My Employer

David's next move was to call my employer, asking for clarification on our social media policies before taking this public (presumably by writing about the incident in the blog he runs, though he was not specific). David followed up the phone call with an email which—thankfully—is public record as I work for a state agency. Here’s the email:

I’m not trying to belabor the post needlessly, but there are several more accusations here that I feel compelled to address. First, I would encourage anyone to follow me on Twitter to judge for themselves whether I am in the habit of “insulting” people. The notion I was insulting all “Evangelical” Christians is curious since I consider myself to be an Evangelical. If a Christian leader is engaged in false teachings or allegiance to a political cult, I do not consider it unchristian to decry their errors—a practice found in almost every book of the New Testament.

I’m not clear how my supposed “hubris” has stunned David as I’ve never claimed to represent the GOP. He is correct the only position I held in the party was treasurer for the Republican party of Tulsa County but—again—the idea I’ve held myself out there as some sort of mouthpiece for the GOP is a figment of his imagination. If anything, Saving Elephants has made it abundantly clear it represents the views of conservatives who feel estranged from the party and find themselves on the outside looking in.

I’m also very unclear how he made the determination I “miserably FAILED” at this voluntary position. My decision to leave was made when I felt I could no longer be actively involved with a party who chose Donald Trump to represent their values and advance their interests. The party Chair who appointed me had not asked me to leave, and both of the subsequent Chairs asked if I would be interested in coming back. As a CPA with over a decade’s experience in the profession, the idea I couldn’t handle the bookkeeping for the local county party is laughable.

I have the utmost respect for my employer and, not wishing to involve them any further, I will refrain from showing their response. I’ll simply say it was brief, polite, professional, and more or less said that it was our “policy” to recognize that employees had the right to free speech in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

What Kind of a Party Do We Want?

While few go as far as David in tyring to silence speech they do not want to hear, I’ll say again that there are an alarming number of Republicans who are sympathetic to this approach. This is not an isolated case of a few loose cannons, but a growing epidemic. I think it’s time we Republicans took a hard look at the situation and asked if this is the direction we’re comfortable with the party taking.

I have made it clear that I am—at best—Trump-skeptical. I did not vote for him in 2016 and I do not believe, in the long run, he’s good for the party, let alone the nation. I recognize that that puts me in the minority within the party. And, for that reason, I’m eager to discuss why I feel this way. What’s curious is how many of the majority seem terrified of conversation. Why? What are they afraid might happen in a civil, fair exchange of ideas?

And ideas are what matters—or at least, it’s what use to matter. The question before us then is what kind of a party do we want to be when it comes to handling disagreements within the party? Do we want to be the kind of party that seeks to debate and reason—even if it gets heated—in an effort to grow the coalition and strengthen the movement? Or do we want to be the kind of party that lies and intimidates and shouts down voices that don’t toe the party line?

Do we want to return to the pre-Trump era where evaluating the behavior of our elected officials was not only tolerated, but encouraged? Or do we want to become the Right’s version of social justice warriors threatening speakers they deem noxious, such as Ben Shapiro speaking at Berkley? Both parties are radicalizing, and this is not some far flung apocolytic vision of the future but the most likely outcome if those who choose ideas over unquestioning fealty do nothing. How will you choose?

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 33 - American Interests Part 1

To the casual observer, American foreign policy over the past 240 years can come across as sporadic at best. We’ve gone from Washingtonian noninterventionism to the territorial expansions of the nineteenth century to gearing up a massive military industrial complex for two world wars to Soviet containment to democratic nation-building to a series of non-specific military engagements with rogue terrorist groups.

Some conservatives have argued the best thing we could do as a nation would be to heed George Washington’s warning of no entangling alliances with foreign powers and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. Other conservatives argue for a strong military presence around the globe needed to keep world peace and free markets operating. Which view is truly “conservative” and which view represents the best course of action?

Irving Kristol—the father of Neoconservatism—spoke of the challenge of developing universal foreign policy principles. Although Neocons usually get a bad rap for being war hawkish, Kristol’s observations argued for constraint and contemplation:

“Western political thought has very little to say about foreign policy. From Thucydides to our own time, political philosophy has seen foreign affairs so radically affected by contingency, fortune, and fate as to leave little room for speculative enlightenment. John Locke was fertile in suggestions for the establishment and maintenance of good government, but when it came to foreign affairs he pretty much threw up his hands: ‘What is to be done in reference to foreigners, depending much upon their actions and the variation of designs and interests, must be left in great part to the prudence of those who have this power committed to them, to be managed by the best of their skill for the advantage of the Commonwealth.’”

While the best foreign policy may change depending on how the pieces on the chess board are arranged, one thing that does not change are a nation’s national interests. And American interests are an excellent gauge for evaluating American foreign policy. What are those national interests? Bob Burch joins the conversation with Josh once more to walk through American foreign policy in part one of this two-part series.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

French-ism and the Looming Conservative Civil War

There is a debate currently raging within Western conservatism that has the potential to erupt in a full-fledged civil war. Both sides—in my opinion—have legitimate beefs with the other side and come from intellectually-sound foundations. But one side—again, in my opinion—is largely occupied by representatives teetering on the edge of operating in bad faith and at risk of abandoning any semblance of conservatism whatsoever. Let me begin where what both sides get right.

What Both Sides Get Right

Here is where I believe both sides have merit: the conservative worldview has historically been riddled with tensions, not because it’s untrue but because it wasn’t developed by any one person or group of philosophers but was derived from millennia of Western thought reasonably demonstrated and discerned to be true. But because conservatism rejects ideological certainty and political absolutism, it ends up embracing voices that are “true” but also somewhat opposed to one another.

The greatest example of this inherent conflict I know of is the breach between a sort of Burkean traditionalism and a Lockean abstraction. For the readers who doesn’t spend their weekends reading 17th and 18th century English philosophers, what that means in layman’s terms is that conservatives have long been defenders of Edmund Burke and his belief that politics was a matter of prudence and providence and general distain for some ideology that says all people at all times in all circumstances have a right to something BUT also defenders of John Locke in his teachings that all people at all times in all circumstances have a right to life, liberty, and property (what we call classical liberalism). Both intellectual traditions are complex, noble, and, in some sense, true. But they are also in tension.

At present, there is a rift in the conservative world that has been torn wide by the disruption of the Trump era. Trump is all about disruption and overturning the status quo. And the ripple effects have exacerbated conservatism’s inherent tension to the point where both sides barely recognize the other as being genuinely conservative. What’s at stake here is quickly becoming a war for what it even means to be a conservative.

Both “sides”—if we can call them that—begin with intellectually sound foundations and have—by my estimation—present-day representatives that are arguing a respectable viewpoint. The best present-day representative for what we might call Burkean conservatism that I know of is Patrick Deneen, political science professor at Notre Dame whose book Why Liberalism Failed beautifully articulates the fatalistic flaws in the liberal ideology espoused by John Locke. Deneen’s argument is complex and deserves at least a post all on its own, but it boils down to the idea that liberalism encourages disassociation from all other forms of obligations and associations to the point where there’s nothing left but the individual and the state, which ultimately leads to either authoritarianism or anarchy.

The other “side” might best be represented by attorney and journalist David French whose name was recently coined—admittedly as a pejorative—to describe this viewpoint. “French-ism” first appeared in last month’s issue of First Things in an article written by Sohrab Ahmari (more on that in a bit). At the risk of oversimplifying, I believe we could say that French-ism represents the classical liberal perspective, which proudly defends the abstract rights of Americans to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, champions the rule of law, believes in due process, and basically holds that—no matter who’s in charge—we all benefit from a democratic system of checks and balances.

While I believe both “sides” to be true, I have long found myself compelled by the Burkean form of conservatism more than the Lockean variety. Regrettably, I also believe that those claiming to hold this Burkean viewpoint have largely hijacked a commendable movement and turned it into something far from conservative. Which brings me to where my admiration for both “sides” becomes decidedly more one-sided.

What One Side Gets Wrong

At the risk of sounding biased, I can’t help but notice that as each “side” aligns itself for the looming conservative civil war, one side appears largely represented by conservatives and the other does not. It is my contention that those on the Burkean side are moving so far in the anti-liberal or illiberal direction that they’re now even anti-conservative. Historically, Burkean conservatives had always agreed with Lockean ends (a society of ordered liberty) even if they squabbled over Lockean means (abstract reasoning). But today’s “Burkeans” (quotations very much intentional) seem to be aiming for neither order nor liberty but a sort of authoritarian, nationalistic, populous Trumpian Red State ripped from a Jon McNaughton painting.

Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, so let’s back up to last month. What history may very well record as the first volley in the conservative civil war began when Sohrab Ahmari decried David French’s approach (“French-ism”) as a weak and tepid “conservatism” and contrasted it against the—wait for it—“strong” “conservatism” of Donald Trump. French responded by accusing Ahmari of creating a strawman argument in misrepresenting his position and work (and having followed French for some time, I am inclined to agree). To quote French:

“What is singularly curious about this, and Ahmari’s essay on the whole, is the extent to which it depends on the creation of two fictional people: a fictional David French far weaker than I think I’ve shown myself to be over many years of fighting for conservative causes, and a fictional version of Donald Trump as an avatar of a philosophy that Trump wouldn’t recognize. It is within the framework of these two fictional people that my approach is allegedly doomed to fail and Trump’s approach has a chance to prevail.”

In what way did Ahmari mischaracterize Trump? Here is an excerpt from Ahmari’s original piece:

“With a kind of animal instinct, Trump understood what was missing from mainstream (more or less French-ian) conservatism. His instinct has been to shift the cultural and political mix, ever so slightly, away from autonomy-above-all toward order, continuity, and social cohesion. He believes that the political community—and not just the church, family, and individual—has its own legitimate scope for action. He believes it can help protect the citizen from transnational forces beyond his control.”

To even suspect the sort of motives or end-game Ahmari so seamlessly ascribes to Trump requires an astounding willful ignorance to the advents of the past three years. Do even Trump’s strongest supporters believe he represents “order, continuity, and social cohesion”? Is the thrice married playboy business cheat truly the only hope we have of restoring a political community of outstanding character? Does anyone seriously believe Trump would even comprehend what Ahmari is yammering on about?!

What the Heck Are We Supposed to Do?

I believe one of the great challenges of those who stand on the Burkean side of conservatism is a sort of inability to articulate what the heck we’re supposed to be doing. Conversely, one of the great strength’s of Deneen’s book Why Liberalism Failed is that he goes out of his way to say he’s not advocating another ideology to replace liberalism but rather better practiced politics at the local level. Some of his followers (Ahmari among them) err in that they ARE trying to replace the liberalism they detest with an untried Trumpian ideology that’s certainly no better and likely a lot worse.

The problem is that you can’t “nationalize” Burkean conservatism or fit it into an ideological framework. For Edmund Burke taught that the little platoon (the most local unit) was where our practical politics begins. This is a fine sentiment—and I strongly agree. It is something that must be ingested into the culture and be reinforced through the family, church, and local community. But Burke never intended for some central authority to “enforce” local norms. What’s more, central authorities aren’t capable of enforcing “local” norms—only national, one-size-fits-all norms. The irony here is that many of those who have inherited the Burkean tradition have grown to despise everything Burke taught, as seen here in an article by James McElroy or in the infamous Flight 93 Election post.

This side seems beset by a great deal of desperation—the idea that somehow things are so bad off that we must shuck the rules of the game and fight dirty. Take, for example, Will Chamberlain’s Against Peacetime Conservatism which argued that “peacetime conservatives”—Chamberlain’s version of “French-ism”—"complain that their colleagues have abandoned their principles. Wartime conservatives refuse to adhere to self-defeating principles.”

The “war” analogy is interesting for I think it strikes at the heart of what’s wrong here. Chamberlain, and far too many of his ilk, wrongly equate “principles” with “tactics”. The former should only change if one changes their worldview, the latter can change the moment one believes they’re not “winning”. It’s not that changing one’s principles can’t result in a win of sorts. In fact, we could easily win a war by changing our principles. For example, instead of storming Normandy beach on D-Day, the United States could have renounced liberal democracy, embraced fascism, and joined the Nazis in their quest of establishing a new world order. If we’re concerned conservative principles are “no longer winning” we could change our principles. Just stop calling it conservatism.

As for those who rightly recognize the principles must remain intact but accuse French-ists of bad tactics, the question remains: what exactly are they advocating? As Charles Cooke of National Review put it, “One of my biggest problems with the worldview that Sohrab Ahmari outlines in the course of criticizing David French—and, for that matter, with the general tenor of the Deneen-inspired ‘anti-liberalism’ that First Things is presently indulging—is that it gets extremely fuzzy when it reaches the questions, ‘What do we actually want?’ and ‘How do we intend to get there?’”

Ahmari’s post was inspired by his magazine’s manifesto of sorts entitled Against the Dead Consensus, which included a lot of declarations such as the following:

“There is no returning to the pre-Trump conservative consensus that collapsed in 2016. Any attempt to revive the failed conservative consensus that preceded Trump would be misguided and harmful to the right. Yes, the old conservative consensus paid lip service to traditional values. But it failed to retard, much less reverse, the eclipse of permanent truths, family stability, communal solidarity, and much else. It surrendered to the pornographization of daily life, to the culture of death, to the cult of competitiveness. It too often bowed to a poisonous and censorious multiculturalism.”

Here’s the thing, when I look over the demands of their manifesto (see the link above) two questions emerge: 1) What exactly do they believe they want that French-ism supposedly oppose? 2) What exactly do they believe they want that Donald Trump supposedly supports? But it is not at all clear what the French-ist did or didn’t do that’s got Ahmari and the gang up in arms. Yes, bad things have happened. Yes, there is much cultural decay that both sides bemoan, but what do we do about it?

If the chief complaint is that French-ist are just too nice or not trying hard enough, what would being adequately mean or trying all the harder look like? Does that mean we knowingly lie, cheat, and belittle? Does it mean we attend Leftist rallies and incite violence? Does it mean we rig elections? Should we begin killing people, or would nasty comments on social media suffice? And—here’s a question the illiberal side seems wholly disinterested in exploring—what are the likely outcomes of those types of behaviors? Would that win hearts and minds to the conservative cause or virtually ensure the movement’s extinction?

As for trying harder, I challenge you to find a conservative who’s worked harder for the cause than David French—the very man whose name is being used as the archetype weakling of the movement.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Perhaps it’s not possible to sustain self-governance in the face of widespread societal decay. But count me among the side still fighting for ordered liberty to the last man standing and not the those that carve out for themselves a different flavor of Leftist statism, offering to solve all of the problems of the “right people” through some all-encompassing central authority.

As I said above, I most closely align with the Burkean variety of conservatism—the one that’s arguing for revitalized communities and associations to replace an ailing liberal ideology. But the illiberals who have inherited this noble tradition seem interested in destroying everything that remains (which is about as anti-Burkean as one can get). Some conservatives are trying to navigate the current decline of Western civilization, while others seem to celebrate—even work towards—all of the disruption that Trumpism represents out of a misguided sense they could somehow make the world anew. For those willing to listen, Burke had a thing or two to say about those who try to turn the world upside down (hint: it wasn’t “I alone can fix this”).

The inherent conflict in conservatism between Burkean and Lockean beliefs has historically been a great strength, not a defect. It has kept the more radical traditionalists and libertarians within the movement in check and humbled those who were wise enough to learn not to rely too heavily on their tiny stockpile of personal discovered truths. The great danger in this current rift is the potential it forever separates the two sides of this same coin we call conservatism.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Kimberly Ross on What If Conservatives Ran Social Media?

I’m taking time away from blogging this week due to some unanticipated interruptions, but I didn’t want to leave you hanging with nothing. So here’s a link to a recent article by blogger Kimberly Ross on What If Conservatives Ran Social Media?

There is growing discontent regarding efforts by social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to “censor” some on the Right. At first, I suspected this was the flavor-of-the-week in an era of endless outrage. But it does not appear this issue is going away anytime soon. I have some thoughts on the matter and may flesh them out soon but, in the meanwhile, I think Kimberly’s article is an excellent summation of where we stand now and how we might better frame the debate between free speech and censorship.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 32 - #PrinciplesFirst with Heath Mayo

In an age where much of the Right is embracing nationalism, populism, and the cult of personality that is Trumpism, some are beginning to ask themselves what being a conservative even means anymore? But few have gone further to reinforce the idea that conservatism is about putting principles over party loyalty or allegiance to any one individual than Heath Mayo. Heath joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis to discuss the #PrinciplesFirst movement and how it’s shaping what it means to be a conservative by developing a vision for the future without abandoning the principles of the past.

Heath Mayo is a native of East Texas and currently a management consultant at Bain & Company where he helps some of the country's largest companies solve their strategic challenges. He did his undergraduate work at Brown University where he pitched on the baseball team and graduated from Yale Law School this past May. Politically, Heath is a self-described conservative activist and most recently traveled to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida volunteering for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign.

During the build-up to the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Heath became frustrated over the line-up of speakers who did not represent the conservative movement he was immersed in during college but instead embodied a group who did not tolerate competing ideas or calls to principles over party. Heath tweeted—jokingly—that conservatives who were still interested in putting principles first should meet separately during CPAC and the tweet went viral. Ever since then Heath has been facilitating meetings with conservatives across the U.S. who are interested in restoring the movement. These sessions are held under the banner #PrinciplesFirst.

#PrinciplesFirst sessions are designed to be 2-hour brainstorming sessions that bring together the most energized folks with the goal of (1) determining what a modern definition of conservatism is—what its principles are and how those principles might map onto a modern conservative agenda, and (2) developing a plan of action that can actually elevate those principles back into the national discussion which have fallen out of favor on the right as personalities have gotten bigger and crowded out an idea-driven discourse.

You can follow Heath on Twitter @HeathMayo

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog