A review of conservatism

David Brooks, in this article, explores a missed opportunity for McCain. He points out that McCain could have rejected Burkean conservatism (which in its modern incarnation posits the role of government is to promote individual liberty of the kind later espoused by Ayn Rand), and FDR styled liberalism (which posits that the role of government is to provide equal opportunity and equality), for the centrism of Hamilton and Lincoln (which posits that the role of government is to enable people to progress, by providing a helping hand). It's a fascinating exploration. He says, McCain essentially ceded the center to Obama.

The interesting nugget of news in the opinion piece is that Obama's economic team actually had a project called the Hamilton project to actually create a centrist economic plan.

The one shortcoming of Brooks' analysis is his complete avoidance of a discussion of social conservatism. Brooks' explanation seems to conflate the Burke and Goldwater conservatism with social conservatism, and view the more extreme positions of Sarah Palin as being the exception or the fringe, rather than the norm. This is a misrepresentation of history.

Social conservatives posit that government has a moral responsibility to use its power to protect their values. This is somewhat consistent with Burkean conservatism. However, modern social conservatism goes further. It is based on the belief that America is a Christian country whose values are evangelical Christian and ultimately draw from white traditions of America. They posit that the role of government is to protect those "American values". The unstated undercurrent of these assertions is that non-white non-Christians are less moral and less American.

Historically, due to Lincoln's role, the GOP was the party of liberty and the DNC attracted the social conservatives. After FDR, though, the central value of the DNC became equality. After the Brown v. the Board of Education decision in the mid 1950s, Eisenhower moved to impose Civil Rights, but hesitated. The mantle of Civil Rights was taken up by the Democrats, who saw this as an issue of equality that seemed a natural offshoot of FDRs philosophy. After initially moving slowly, after Kennedy's death, Lyndon Johnson was able to get the support needed to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. With that decision, the DNC lost their hold on the social conservatives. Nixon moved in to capitalize, with his Southern Strategy.

It was not until Reagan though that this strategy was built into a significant movement. The Reagan team's brilliance was to conflate two extraordinarily different political philosophies (Burkean Conservatism and Social Conservatism) into one movement by using some touchstone issues that they agreed on: Roe v. Wade and taxes.

This brings us back to the current elections. The McCain camp seems to be talking about simple issues in fiscal conservative voice. However, people who understand the history, know what the actual statement underneath is for the Social Conservatives. Here are some examples:

• "Spreading the wealth around" in the social conservative code that government will take your money and give it to undeserving un-Americans (read African Americans, liberals, non-Christians, Hispanic, etc.)
  
• "American exceptionalism" asserts America is the greatest country in the world and the naysayers and those who criticize America are not patriotic. This, of course, is about saying to the Southerners that America does not have to apologize for slavery or segregation.
  
• "Real America" and "pro-American regions" is a direct reference to the social conservative belief in the evangelical Christian, White values of America.
  

A successful Obama in many ways would challenge the fundamental precepts of social conservatism. Obama, after all, is not white and is not of the evangelical Christian movement in the same way as say Sarah Palin. The social conservatives are reacting heatedly to the crumbling of their ideology.

There are three interesting aspects to ponder:

• David Brooks' discomfort with the social right is symptomatic of the fissure between the social and fiscal conservatives in the GOP that this campaign has exposed. The question for the Obama camp is: 'Can they bring these disenchanted conservatives into the DNC fold?'
• Secondly, the Hamilton-Lincoln progressive conservative center that was captured by Reagan, Clinton and Bush, seems to be veering to Obama. The question is: 'Can Obama consolidate the center for DNC?'
• Thirdly, we see in the social conservative reaction, the vituperative attacks that will plague an Obama administration. They will be waiting for a slip-up. The question is: 'How far will Social Conservatives go?'
  

Obama's win is definitely not in the bag. However, if he wins, he will have an opportunity to redefine the political map. We will need to wait and see whether, if he wins, he is able to grab the opportunity and achieve a new coalition.