The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewSam Francis Archive
David Brooks Redefines "Conservatism." Guess Who's Not Included
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With all the chest-thumping and flag-waving the Republican Convention contributed to Western civilization last month, President Bush finally got the bounce in the polls that may well keep him in the White House for the next four years. If so, what will he and his party do and where will they move?

In the New York Times Magazine of Aug. 29, just before the convention gathered, columnist David Brooks tells us what he and his neoconservative colleagues have in mind. If you think it’s what most conservatives want, take a closer look.

“Should Bush lose,” Mr. Brooks warns, the party “will be like a pack of wolves that suddenly turns on itself. The civil war over the future of the party will be ruthless and bloody,” with civil wars between foreign policy realists and “democracy-promoting Reaganites” (apparently not the “foreign policy-realist Reaganites”),“the immigrant-bashing nativists vs. the free marketeers,”(apparently not the immigration-controlling free marketeers“), etc.

You begin to get the picture. Every dog would get to bark except those Mr. Brooks wants to muzzle, and those just happen to be—well—the conservatives. [How to Reinvent the G.O.P. By David Brooks, August 29, 2004 ]

That’s because Mr. Brooks believes that “conservatism” in the sense the term has been used for the last several decades is defunct, and in this he and Pat Buchanan, who says the same thing in his new book Where the Right Went Wrong, are in agreement.

Mr. Buchanan, however, believes the right—and with it the GOP—should resurrect something like old conservatism. Mr. Brooks doesn’t.

The great virtue of Mr. Brooks’ article is that it pretty much settles once and for all whether the neoconservatism he represents is really conservatism in the traditional sense or not.

Many neocons, especially when attacking real conservatives or claiming the conservative mantle for themselves, say it is. But it isn’t, as Mr. Brooks is honest enough to make clear.

What then should the Republican Party do? In Mr. Brooks’ view, it should announce, as the front cover of the magazine proclaims in displaying his article, “The Era of Small Government is Over.” The future of the Republican Party, Mr. Brooks tells us, lies in “progressive conservatism,” which gets us back to the “Republican tradition” of “strong government.”

“Long before it was the party of Tom DeLay,” he writes, using Mr. DeLay as a kind of metaphor for “small government conservatism,”

“the G.O.P. was a strong government/progressive conservative party. It was the party of Lincoln, and thus of Hamilton. Today, in other words, the Republican Party doesn’t need another revolution. It just needs a revival. It needs to learn from the ideas that shaped the party when it was born.”

Well, actually, it wasn’t Mr. DeLay who made the GOP “small government.” It was people like Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and the conservatism to which they adhered.

The reason they did and the reason they succeeded is that there was a large constituency in the country for resisting the leviathan state that liberalism created and championed.

What Mr. Brooks and his “progressive conservatism” are proposing is to dump that kind of conservatism and those who favored it.

Among the “tasks that strong government conservatism will champion” are fighting the “war on Islamic Extremism and promoting “social mobility.”

We know what the former means—perpetual war with the Muslim world. Mr. Brooks is a bit vague as to exactly what the latter means, but you can figure it out.

“Progressive conservatives understand that while culture matters most, government can alter culture. It has done it in bad ways, and it can do it in good ways.”

Maybe so, but unprogressive conservatives believe government has no business altering culture at all. The culture—the way of life of a people—is what creates and disciplines government, not the other way around.

Mr. Brooks has a small raft of nifty ideas about how the leviathan state can change the culture in “good ways”—”design programs to encourage and strengthen marriages,” “wage subsidies,” federal education policy, etc.

“More and more conservatives understand that local control [of schools] means local monopolies and local mediocrity. Most Republicans, happily or not, have embraced a significant federal role in education.”

So they have, oblivious, as perhaps is Mr. Brooks, that a larger c role will mean federal monopolies and federal mediocrity.

Mr. Brooks, like Mr. Buchanan, is probably right that the old conservatism is defunct, and maybe he’s right it can’t be brought back to life.

But there’s another term for the sort of progressive conservatismhe’s proposing, and that is just plain old vanilla liberalism.

In more recent years it’s been called “neoconservatism,” which is where we came in.

If anyone still in the Republican Party wants something different, I couldn’t tell you who it is.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, David Brooks, Neocons 
Hide 2 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hello!
    I am a conservative objective libertarian. I’m not a conspiracist, but if I were, I’d say the neocons and liberals colluded to eliminate the middle class altogether in favor of uneducated, poor minorities who leave government to the elites. I have many Chinese friends who say that the Chinese are not politically minded because, for them, the purpose of government is to run everyday affairs to insure ordinary people have a good life without concerning themselves. I wonder if this isn’t actually what the elites want here?

    It seems that White Male Privilege is being used to silence and castrate any man who might object to trade policies that render him jobless, using the label of racist or White Supremacist.

    If I examine the globalist economic model, each underdeveloped country becomes the destination of manufacturing seeking cheap labor, until that country develops and transitions to a service job economy and a consumer economy which supports global business; whereupon manufacturing will once again abandon that country in search of cheap labor in another country, and the cycle repeats.

    There is no incentive to educate or include native populations in any decision making. Native populations will have no rights over their countries as migrant populations will be much sought after. The very concept of individual human rights will disappear, and docile citizens will be pacified with cheap consumer goods. This is the Chinese model.

    We are nearing, in the US, a feudal model where middle class populations are losing mobility to relocate to other States and Countries as government regulates professions with local licensure. California is a great example. They have made the State impentrable by other Americans by having separate licensure requirements. This means that can maintain a Socialist state by excluding any influx of Conservative minded Americans. They have become Xenphobic, themselves. Look at California, and you will see the future of America unless we act to elect conservatives.

    We can only stick a finger in this dyke, and hope that another Reagan emerges after Trump leaves office.

  2. Though Sam Francis thought very little of David Brooks—the above is far from the only piece by the late luminary attacking the Gray Lady’s token Republican—with the passing of time, Brooks would come to call Francis, “one of the most prescient writers of the past 50 years.” (Source: ) At the time of that column’s publication, I was working full-time for American Renaissance, so I dug up a home address for David Brooks and mailed him a complimentary copy of the AmRen anthology of Francis’ work, Essential Writings on Race. Never heard back from him, but who knows, maybe his new young wife picked it up. I recommend it to whoever’s reading this as well:

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Sam Francis Comments via RSS