A sop to moderation and the joys (and necessities) of compromising principles, courtesy the Hoover Institute’s Peter Berkowitz.
I’m not going to spend much time on this because frankly I don’t have to. I’ll leave that to Rush Limbaugh and the rest.
Instead, here’s all you need to know about Berkowitz’s argument, distilled to its kernel assertion: the end game in political engagments is winning, using moderation as a tactic toward that end. What’s left unsaid by Berkowitz, however — and this is key — is what, exactly, is being won? Winning elections and then agreeing not to govern by your principles is accepting power for the sake of holding it.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again until it finally sinks in to the conservative consciousness: Losing more slowly is still losing. If it’s your goal to lose on the substance while maintaining a veneer of dignity and open-mindedness in ideological defeat, then by all means practice moderation and compromise with those who, because they themselves won’t, will continue to pull you away from your own foundational principles.
If, however, it’s your goal to live free or die, moderation and compromise for the sake of appearing conciliatory is for pussies and Think Tank apologists who really should know better, given that they’re actually being handsomely paid to think these kinds of things through.
Deal.
It’s as if there were a pattern on today’s OPED page – this, and 2 anti Sarah missives.
Here’s what the moderate said.
Moderates are lowest common denominators.
Yeah, that’s Madison to a T. The lowest common denominator.
giving obama $300 billion more dollars for him to buy the election is a Retarded Plan and it’s a good place to try out this not-compromising thing I think
You know what moderation is good for?
Eating pizza.
You don’t want to eat a whole large pizza all by yourself.
Trust me on this.
You wake up about 2 in the morning real thirsty and having to pee.
Moderation is for food and sometimes drinking.
Moderation in politics is for Unitarians.
Which is kinda a moderate religion.
It seems the WSJ wants me to pay money to see more than Berkowitz’s first paragraph. That’s okay I don’t need to see more.
Mr. Berkowitz: Arguably Reagan’s greatest compromise was when he agreed to raise taxes then in exchange for spending cuts later. On paper it seemed like a good compromise:$2 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
Of course the cuts never materialized.
Like Rush said, “winners don’t compromise, losers do.”
Reagan compromised, and he lost.
Ernst, all you got to do to see the whole thing is copy/paste the title into Google, then click on the first link that comes up.
Look at the time stamp, sdferr. That wasn’t directed at you.
Or James Madison, who would not hardly be considered moderate today.
And then there’s the counter-example: Reykjavík.
Nixon, Ford, Carter, any one of them would have taken the deal Reagan walked away from.
And in so doing, saved the Soviet Union.
hooray compromise
Oh, I didn’t think it was directed at me at all. The idea, however, that J. Madison would hardly be considered a moderate today is precisely the problem I (and Berkowitz too, I think) was pointing at. We’re an ignorant fucking lot, we contemporary Americans, who may deserve the government we get, as a matter of the highest form of justice. Invisible hand!
Yeah sdferr, I could, but why would I?
Best not to listen to fools like Berkowitz. So I guess you wouldn’t Ernst.
I don’t know. Sometimes shits-n-giggles is a good enough reason to finish reading something, so I might.
And sdferr, I think you’re going to have to explain the sense in which you define Madison as a moderate. Because if it’s in the sense that he occuppied the middle space between say, Hamilton and the Shays rebels, I think you just might be part of the ignorant lot you’re talking about.
By which I mean that “political moderate” in the sense we currently use it doesn’t translate all that well.
As I wrote to geoffb, Madison is a moderate in the sense that he was a student of Aristotle. As is Berkowitz.
And Locke. And Smith. This list is long.
But we could lean on Oscar Wilde!
The problem with getting eaten last is, you still get eaten.
I shouldn’t let this pass without shouting my firm agreement with it. I most certainly am part of that ignorant lot, and more’s the pity.
So then. In a political universe where the Left can’t lose (because they’re either going to succeed in redefining the social contract, or destroy the existing one —which is the same thing), and the Right can’t win (because the Left will destroy the social contract if they do), I guess that makes losing more slowly the Golden Mean.
Either I’m seriously misunderstanding you, or Berkowitz isn’t the Aristotlean that you (and he, presumably) believe him to be.
I think there is a serious misunderstanding at work.
To bring this back to Berkowitz, all I’m saying is compromising for the sake of saying you compromised in order to get a deal isn’t “wise.”
Where does Berkowitz recommend compromising for the sake of saying you compromised? That’s ridiculous.
I’m playing off of the title of his piece. Compromise isn’t intrinsically virtuous is all I’m saying. In addition, of course, to saying that moderation doesn’t make one a moderate per se.
The problem with finding the mean between extremes in our political culture is that there is no Right to speak of.
And I thought we’d agreed that Berkowitz was a fool.
The disagreement is over the idea that Madison was a moderate.
Perhaps also our (mis-[?])understanding of Aristotle.
Ernst, I’d say the reaction to the piece reflects the justice of the title, i.e., there is no such thing as “conservative purity”. The question outstanding is then, where and how do our principles themselves conflict with one another, as Berkowitz suggests they do? It’s easy enough to see the conflict between people who are so-called social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives, for instance. But what of the underlying principles or motivations themselves?
I just don’t think Berkowitz is talking about the left at all.
He doesn’t, explicitly. He advocates for it as a means to an end. The end isn’t given, but I’ve provided it: winning power.
To what end?
To have it.
And what to do with it?
Compromise and moderate. To keep it.
To what end?
To have it.
Etc.
Limbaugh, for instance, set up an analogy with the Continental Convention as today’s Conservatives and King George as today’s Progressives. Berkowitz, I think, isn’t concerned with King George here. He’s talking about the compromise that took place within the Convention, where everyone agreed as to aims, but disagreed — where they disagreed — as to means. Berkowitz doesn’t believe in compromising with the Progressives, it seems to me, and to think that he does mistakes him. His aim is to encourage conciliation where necessary within Conservative ranks, and to discourage factionalism there.
But why? On the grounds that he sees genuine, unavoidable friction in the principles themselves he thinks that such conciliation will be necessary to defeat the progressives in the near term (if not to eliminate their pernicious philosophical beliefs altogether) — and it appears he believes that though that conflict may be unavoidable in certain instances, it can be finessed by skillful political actors, like a Reagan, a Buckley or a Madison.
It could be that power for its own sake, annoying as that may be, is simply a function of politics after Machiavelli. Then again, maybe not, but it sure looks an awful lot like that to me.
Let me submit that by suggesting people like Limbaugh are “purists,” Berkowitz is not really doing his part in discouraging factionalism.
Jeff, your post is going to leave a mark!
Again, I think he well knew what the reaction to the piece would be. I certainly did and I can give him credit for being sharper in that respect than I am. On the other hand, I don’t see him calling Limbaugh a purist as such.
To say Berkowitz isn’t discouraging factionalism is to go a bit far though, since he clearly is discouraging it. What else would it mean to take conflict amongst the principles for granted as an inherent condition of the principles, if he weren’t to believe conflict will be there of necessity? So, he offers examples where those inherent problems, inescapable problems, have been overcome, if only for a time, which is how such finesses seem to work in any case.
The “after Machievelli” should suggest to you that such things can and do and have changed — and that any “function of politics” as some kind of immutable law of nature, surrendered to as such, is mere laziness dressed up as resigned wisdom.
Our problem is, we’ve been conditioned to be frightened of being singled out as purists — such a description having become synonymous with, say, zealot, or cultist.
Our next problem is, as a result of our first problem, we continue to look for ways to justify and rationalize a softening of our own stance, and we’re not honest about why that is: we don’t want to be thought close minded or intractable.
That condition doesn’t have to be permanent.
#8 Thanks, sdferr!
I don’t think I cited Machiavelli and the development of modern natural right theory as an immutable law of nature. The problem that development leaves us with is very deep however (not least because hardly anyone pays it any mind) and won’t be easily overcome, as my life working to understand it and to converse about it will attest.
I’m not going to play semantic games here. You cited politics after Machievelli as a thing that just is. I supplied the metaphor.
As for the ease of overcoming it, I sometimes think you overthink these things. The way to overcome it is simply to point out that it isn’t so, and convince people of the rectitude of that position.
Rights theory can’t live without it, at least as modern rights theory is built. I suppose I’d be happy to strike out with others in another attempt to build a rights theory based on a better foundation, but holy hell, what a lot of work.
First, we kill all the lawyers!
He’s clearly discouraging a certain kind of conservative factionalism —the Tea Party kind.
Which cost us “winnable” elections in Delaware and Nevada.
Winnable by the right kind of candidate, that is.
And that brings us back to Jeff’s question: “to what end?”
Because a Mike Castle sitting in Joe Biden’s seat, making it easier for Olympia Snow and that other pain in the ass from Maine to be pains in the ass, making it easier for Orrin Hatch to sleep undisturbed by dreams of Tea Party voters upsetting his pro forma renomination to be the Republican candidate for Utah’s senate seat, that my friend is what winning looks like. From RNC headquarters, that is.
Berkowitz is not an enemy of the Tea Party. Come on.
Maybe, maybe not. But he did single out as exemplars of troubling purist mistakes the Angle and O’Donnell Senate races, did he not?
Why, do you think?
Did he single out Mike Lee or Marco Rubio? Why not?
The way to overcome it is simply to point out that it isn’t so, and convince people of the rectitude of that position.
Remember, the next time somebody accuses you of extremism or zealotry, that you are only standing up for your rights, and not hurting, nor advocating the hurting, of anybody. Further remember that the other side has black-clad mobs of trust-fund anarchists throwing bricks and bombs at anything and anyone who resembles what they’ve been programmed to recognize as an enemy.
We want to be free. They want to make slaves of us. There simply isn’t any compromise to be made in this particular conflict. They will be made to respect liberty, or they will be made powerless to bring their plans to fruition, but they will not be allowed to control us any further.
They may argue until the heat death of the Universe regarding the proper length of one’s leash, but I will not recognize the legitimacy of their argument nor their system, as I refuse to put my neck in a collar in the first place. If that makes me a barbarian or an unhelpful anti-social zealot, then so be it.
Berkowitz is not an enemy of the Tea Party. Come on.
Like one of the commenters on this story over at the WSJ noted:
“He cites O’Donnell and Angle but omits the obvious and strong victories in Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee?”
Por que?
And apparently several here as well.
Are you asking me Dave?
Maybe, maybe not. But he did single out as exemplars of troubling purist mistakes the Angle and O’Donnell Senate races, did he not?
Why, do you think?
Because singling out McCain’s disastrous “campaign” would have blown his argument to little bitty pieces?
Since the Proggs and the Establicans already accuse me of wanting anarchy, and of wanting to let old people starve and sick people die, and of wanting to enslave the blacks and stone the gays, I figure my actual real-world positions are compromise enough.
Are you asking me Dave?
Nope. Just wondering out loud. Sorry if that was how it appeared.
Let’s consider the way Berkowitz uses the Great
CommunicatorCompromiser, Ronald Reagan:Two things:
First: Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes! is a liberal argument. I’m not saying Berkowitz is a liberal (or even a rino, for that matter), but it raises eyebrows to see a liberal argument made by an ostensible conservative ostensibly talking to conservatives.
Second: The most dramatic moment of those dramatic negotiations came when Reagan walked away instead of compromising at Reykjavík. Berkowitz’s picture here egregiously misrepresents what happened in the 80s. Reagan didn’t pursue dramatic negotiations, he persued victory in the Cold War. Negotaiations were a means to an end. An end that was successfully brought about, not by cutting a deal, but by refusing to cut a deal. As I said before, all of Reagan’s immediate predecessors would have taken that deal —and they would have been wrong.
That was my question to you, phrased differently.
Do you have an answer?
Because a President has just so much authority, under the Constitution.
Principles taught Reagan that.
I have a guess anyhow, since I don’t speak for him. But assuming he thinks the Tea Party a good thing, he sees Rubio or Lee as wise choices and Angle and O’Donnell as unwise choices. Whether the wisdom or lack of it ties to “purity” or some variant of it as such, I doubt, but that’s only my guess. I don’t think rejection of Angle or O’Donnell positively affirms support for Castle or whoever the Angle alternative was though.
“. . . all of Reagan’s immediate predecessors would have taken that deal —and they would have been wrong.”
And here I thought Berkowitz was citing Reagan as an example of a wise man capable of making judgment calls.
Because a President has just so much authority,
That authority being pretty much limited to executive orders like the Mexico City policy.
And here I thought Berkowitz was citing Reagan as an example of a wise man capable of making judgment calls.
In a piece that faults Rush Limbaugh for criticizing compromisers as losers or, at best, winners afraid of actually winning.
My point is that Berkowitz’s use of Reagan doesn’t refute Rush’s point.
Also, for what it’s worth, making judgement calls also brings us back to Jeff’s question:
Isn’t the real reason he cites Angle and O’Donnell that they committed what Berkowitz regards as the greatest sin: losing? If Rubio and Lee had lost, they’d be on the list too, regadless of their principles. Ideas matter less to Berkowitz than winning.
Or, assuming he thinks the Tea Party an immature rabble in need of guidance from wiser, more pragmatic minds, Lee an Rubio don’t advance his argument that we could have turned a blue seat red —if only we’d compromised and backed a purple candidate (well, more of a royal blue than purple but hey it’s Delaware and you got to win first).
Limiting myself to Delaware for the same reasons as you.
Castle was so RINO he was DIABLo. Tossing him to the curb was an example of prudential judgement as well.
Just not one Berkowitz agrees with.
Bingo; man wins the largest teddybear on the 3rd shelf from the top.
I also caught a whiff of Berkowitz perhaps sniffing unpleasant SoCon odors lingering about Angle and O’Donnell. We all know these troublesome SoCons are only necessary for their votes; at other times, their policies are highly unregarded, most unwelcome; they should keep their damned godbothering moufs shuttered. But do pull the right levers, by all means.
But he cited Angle and O’Donnell, not Lee or Rubio or Rand Paul. The former he used to make a point about a troublesome purity; the latter he left out entirely, because (it seems to me) they represent a triumph of voting on principle. Win some, lose some — but fight them all.
Is the message here that the only good choice is a winning choice? And that we should judge how good our choices our in retrospect, once the votes are counted?
And in any event, it isn’t as though the TEA Party told establishment Republicans in the primaries that they weren’t allowed to run or vote. It’s that the GOP establishment Republicans lost primary elections to those the actual voters thought best represented them.
Who are these voters supposed to be compromising to, exactly? And again, to what end?
“If Rubio and Lee had lost, they’d be on the list too, regadless of their principles. Ideas matter less to Berkowitz than winning.”
SVT FTW.
Or what SVT said.
First, the conflicts, the sides cited are not in that much conflict, except in the promulgated and seemingly accepted lying stereotypes which have been built up by that one force, Progressives, the opposition to which is and should be the main unifying force in conservatives. That opposition should override the internal “conflicts”. In that one respect there is a “conservative purity”.
Those of the Progressive left are to be opposed using whatever instrument is at hand. The “conservative purity” is the recognition that there is an enemy to the left. Were O’Donnell or Angle perfect candidates, no, (nor are any unless you define perfect by the utilitarian, those who win are perfect) they were however conservative and recognized who and what conservative must oppose, fight. Ones such as Castle, who see only friends to the left, are not better because they could possibly win, they are worse because of of what their winning wins.
Slow again, I am.
To what end?
To have it.
And what to do with it?
Compromise and moderate. To keep it.
To what end?
To have it.
Etc.
My name is Yon Yonson…
Berkowitz is a professor of political philosophy and I’m supposed to think ideas matter less to him than losing? He’s not a campaign hack like Ed Rollins. Something about that just doesn’t seem to fit.
Professors don’t like to lose, either. Recall the fellow Yelverton, and that fat bastard from the Red State blog who used to troll here, whatever his name was.
Professors are just as human (or not) as the rest of us.
That’s enlightening serr8d, I didn’t know.
Rush Limbaugh’s response for those of you who missed it because you were still sleeping off your drunk, or out mowing the lawn, or getting your freak on, or whatever.
You’re welcome~!
Seems to me the operative idea here is a form of political pragmatism, built around the idea of winning elections and securing power, to some nebulous end.
I don’t think Berkowitz believes the ends he would advocate nebulous, despite his not bothering to spell them out here. Why didn’t he spell them out? Maybe because as a conservative he thinks them generally accepted and not a matter of disagreement?
He probably also thought he was making a thoughtful argument in his column.
Ah, but let’s see, is “The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes . . .” nebulous? Hey! Maybe so. Since the accompanying clause “. . . has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape” is precisely about nebulosity. In which case, it’s my mistake to claim otherwise about him.
And yeah, he’s unthoughtful.
“The debate is OVER!” mindset. That’s a bad habit to adapt, especially in politics.
adopt I’m intending.
I thought “the great mission of American conservatism” was to conserve “the conditions under which liberty flourishes;” conditions previously secured under the Constitution, passed down to us and which we were now responsible for passing on to future generations.
But I’m naive and sentimental like that.
Yeah, we all are Ernst. I can’t remember the last time I read Marbury v. Madison.
I, too, am Ernst?
Spliff.
In my case it was almost twenty years ago. But damn if I remember the class I was required to read it in.
Look. I’m sympathetic to your wanting to read Berkowitz charitably, sdferr. Hell, it wasn’t all that long ago that I probably would have agreed with you —don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good and all that. But I’ve read too much over the last couple of years, as well as seeing Jeff proven right too many times, to not see this as anything other than another example of a pundit sympatico with the Republican wing of the governing class telling us that we trogs have to settle for the candidate they, the eloi, choose for us. It’s too early in the process for somebody to be advising that.
“to read Berkowitz charitably”
is to acknowledge the wsj crowd and their views. nice bailout fellas. go team.
The wsj crowd isn’t necessarily wrong by virtue of the fact that they’re the wsj crowd. Rush Limbaugh has been published by the Journal. Is he part of their crowd?
The wsj crowd isn’t necessarily wrong by virtue of the fact that they’re the wsj crowd.
I’m saying, all we’ve got to do to persuade people is adopt newrouter’s style and we’ll be in clover.
I don’t see unthoughtful Berkowitz advocating a candidate though. Disadvocating O’Donnell and Angle, sure. But those aren’t two sides of a coin.
Though, I guess we might suppose that given his druthers, he’d look for someone like Reagan or Ryan, or would we be surprised if that were his view? I don’t think I would. I think Berkowitz is close with Arthur Brooks and Ryan both.
I don’t know shit about Berkowitz.
Having said that, I’m afeared that in this case, at best all he’s doing is playing the role of useful idiot for the Establican wing of the Ruling Class.
Here’s his website, a drop-off for his pieces.
86
“I don’t see unthoughtful Berkowitz advocating a candidate though”
I gotta disagree. He strikes me as a Huntsman kind of guy.
I’m sorry if I offended any Unitarians in my post above. It’s just that I can’t spell Presbyterian.