The Conservative as Elitist

October 9, 2011

Sunday Book Review

The Conservative as Elitist

By Sheri Berman
Published: October 7, 2011

Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin
By Corey Robin
290 pp. Oxford University Press.

The American right has a lot to answer for these days. Members of this group are ardent peddlers of conspiracy theories, anti-intellectualism and the demonization of opponents. This approach has contributed in no small way to the sorry state of contemporary American politics, where epithets have replaced arguments, a sense of common destiny seems lacking among citizens and compromise has become almost impossible on the most pressing national issues. A book documenting the wreckage and carefully tracing the links between right-wing ideas, policies and outcomes would be a significant contribution to public debate. Unfortunately, Corey Robin’s “Reactionary Mind” is not that book.

The twin goals of this collection of previously published essays are to provide a coherent definition of conservatism and reveal the ideology’s flaws through detailed analysis of various conservative thinkers and arguments. The book’s problems lie not in concept, but in execution. Driven to distraction by anger at his subject, Robin ends up reproducing many of the pathologies he is trying to criticize. The result is a diatribe that preaches to the converted rather than offering much to general readers sincerely trying to under­stand the right’s role in contemporary American political dysfunction.

Robin’s definition of conservatism is unquestionably provocative. He starts by echoing arguments made by Samuel Huntington and others about conservatism being a situational ideology, one arising in reaction to a fundamental challenge to an existing order and devoted to preserving traditional institutions. But Robin then adds a substantive component. Conservatism, he argues, involves a reaction to certain kinds of challenges in particular, those by “subject” or “subordinate” classes. It is thus an inherently elitist and hierarchical ideology, whose essence is the defense of elite privileges against challenges from below.

The more one thinks about such a definition, the more problematic it becomes, because there is simply no way to lump all the figures and ideas one associates with conservatism under this rubric. Take the two figures mentioned in the book’s subtitle, Edmund Burke and Sarah Palin. Burke fits the situational definition of conservatism well, since he was concerned with preserving institutions that had been tested “in terms of history, God, nature and man,” as Huntington once wrote. This led him to defend Whig institutions in England and democratic institutions in America, since he believed they were each anchored in their particular societies and traditions. But it also led him to champion the cause of people subjected to the injustices of British imperialism, which tended to destroy traditional institutions in the colonies.

Palin (left), meanwhile, is nothing if not an anti-elitist, so she has little legitimate place in Robin’s system at all. In fact, the most powerful part of the modern right has been not elitist but populist. This is certainly true of the 20th century’s most successful right-wing movements, Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism), which had mass and cross-class appeal and were real (if perverted) responses to genuine societal grievances and problems. They were anti-elitist and deliberately destroyed the traditional orders in the countries where they gained power. The strongest right-wing movements in the West in more recent decades have been populist as well, drawing their support from and directing their programs at the frustrations and anger of a wide variety of ordinary citizens.

Robin cannot or will not accept this, insisting instead that conservatism is always, at its core, about subjugating society’s lower orders. He thus has to explain away right-wing populism as some sort of trick designed to “harness the energy of the mass in order to reinforce or restore the power of elites.” Suffice it to say that reliance on conspiracy theories and false-consciousness explanations to dispose of inconvenient evidence is always a bad sign.

The essays in “The Reactionary Mind” devoted to individual conservative thinkers and their arguments are often unconvincing as well. They contain smart and interesting points, but are so filled with exaggeration and invective that make the reader’s eyes roll. According to Robin, for example, “the U.S. media practices a form of censorship that must be the envy of tyrants everywhere.” And conservatives, he claims, “far from being saddened, burdened or vexed by violence,” are “enlivened by it.”

The vituperation reaches a peak in an essay called “Protocols of Machismo,” in which Robin argues that the entire concept of national security lacks any meaning or validity and is merely a device used by conservatives to justify violence and aggression against the world’s marginalized peoples. Although the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq gives unfortunate credence to such views, Robin takes his arguments too far, while engaging in a series of ad hominem attacks that portray America’s leaders as essentially a bunch of evil idiots, “perennially autistic,” driven by a “restless need to prove themselves, to demonstrate that neither their imagination nor their actions will be constrained by anyone or anything.” And he suggests that even “a casual reading of the history of national security suggests not only that the rules of evidence will be ignored in practice, but also that the notion of catastrophe encourages, even insists on, these rules being flouted.

The Reactionary Mind” has higher intellectual ambitions than talk radio or the right-wing pulp nonfiction churned out by writers like Ann Coulter (right) or Bernard Goldberg, but it ends up replicating their breathless Manichaean attitude. It takes too many cheap shots at the other side rather than bothering to explain why its own side is on balance more deserving. This is both a shame and a lost opportunity, because now more than ever the left needs to go beyond speaking to itself and try to persuade a broad general audience of the validity of its case.

Despite what Robin claims, the problems of advanced industrial democracies today are not all caused by elite cabals hellbent on keeping the lower orders in their place. Populist demagogues feeding off mass anger, frustration and despair are a much greater danger. The left’s central challenge, accordingly, is how to address the public’s real needs and get credit for doing so.

The questions Robin and his ideological confreres should really be asking themselves is why the contemporary left has been so bad at this, particularly in contrast to the contemporary right. Why, in an era of extreme unemployment, rising inequality and social dislocation, is it the right rather than the left that generated a movement like the Tea Party? Why are mass protests railing against tax increases rather than demanding more progressive and activist government?

The left’s inability to reach out to ordinary citizens, to address them in ways that resonate with their most basic problems and concerns, is, while not the only cause, surely largely to blame. We have seen this so tragically in Barack Obama, who for all his rhetorical gifts has not managed to connect with the people, and often has not even bothered to try. Nor does Corey Robin. But until the left finds a way to do so, it should not be surprised that the public gravitates toward others who can — even if they are on the other side of the political spectrum.

Sheri Berman is a professor of political science at Barnard College and the author, most recently, of “The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century.”

A version of this review appeared in print on October 9, 2011, on page BR24 of the Sunday Book Review with the headline: Keeping Them Down.

10 thoughts on “The Conservative as Elitist

  1. Mongkut Bean and Semper Fi,

    Any difference between Republican and Democrat? They are all politicians, playing football politics; they have lost sight of the American dream which was created by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and embodied in the American Constitution. Read Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used to be US (2011).–Din Merican

  2. Have not read the actual book but merely making a reactive response to the critic’s interesting critique.

    “Populist demagogues feeding off mass anger, frustration and despair are a much greater danger. The left’s central challenge, accordingly, is how to address the public’s real needs and get credit for doing so.” Does not work that way in reality. Regardless if they are right or left,the opposition’s main objective will be to dislodge the ruling party from power using populist methods to garner support if necessary, to achieve their objective. They will make sure they get the credit alright but addressing the public’s real needs is secondary.

    “Why, in an era of extreme unemployment, rising inequality and social dislocation, is it the right rather than the left that generated a movement like the Tea Party? ”

    It is all right, left and centrist, Which is why America needs a second political party. With the erosion of the American thick middle class – once a upon a time a single income was sufficient to own a house. Until recently it took 2 incomes. Now, 2 incomes and then some, will still not be enough.

    “We have seen this so tragically in Barack Obama, who for all his rhetorical gifts has not managed to connect with the people, and often has not even bothered to try.” He connected with the people alright. He surfed the populist wave with a Socialist logo to capture an unprecedented victory to dislodge Bush. What is apparent now is that his leftist wings have been clipped by his neo-con handlers.
    Obama’s job was to beat John McCain and the Republicans by capitalising on G W Bush’s misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan, and offering an alternative economic agenda that challenges main street and Wall Street, but on both he is caught and appear unable to get out. On the economic policy he has to rely on Larry Summers and his contacts via Clinton’s Treasury Secretary (Rubin) like Timothy Franz Geithner (pronounced /ˈɡaɪtnər/) who is an American economist, central banker, and civil servant and was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Obama is likely to be a one term President because the economy is weak under his watch.–Din Merican

  3. Ocho, we have to wait for our American-Malaysian commenters, Mongkut Bean and Semper Fi to share their views on la politique américaine. I am sure they are as confused about the games their politicians play as we are about PR and UMNO-BN politics in Malaysia. –Din Merican

  4. The current crisis is not a failure of the Conservatives or the Left-Wing. It is the result of an almost complete takeover of government by lobbies, pressure groups, big business and the like.

    If this is not addressed we shall almost definitely have a repeat scenario in two or three decades. And the only way to address the issue is to bring about a mechanism to REGULATE politicians.

    We shall need such regulation right here too.

  5. DDM,

    Like all aspiring politicians seeking the seat of power, Obama had the noblest of intentions, mainly to challenge Wall Street to protect Main Street.

    However, to date, he appears more like a kerb crawler who is more comfortable in the side street than to be anywhere near Main Street or any other street.

    I began to lose faith in him the moment he presented the key members of his staff – almost all of them were from Wall Street.

    Like I said, Left, Right, Centrist; Democrat, Republican, Liberal or whatever political shades, they all represent the interests of Wall Street (read: oligarchs who control the financial/military/industrial complex).
    Right now, it is the People vs, The State.

    Obama is a political puppet whose political existence is plugged into the largesse of his supporters (read:handlers/money changers)

  6. The politics of change didn’t happen overnight. Can’t blame Obama or Bush Jr or Clinton. It has evolved over the 235 years since the declaration of Independence by Jefferson and gang.
    The scenario then was different and the founding fathers were addressing what they see as matters affecting the state of the union then, freedom, democracy, system of government, judiciary and check and balances.
    Today, issues that were bypassed many many years ago or issues that were not dealt with then are emerging to shape the new American policies. Policies that were adopted to handle issues during the Great Depression and post war recovery period are now coming back to haunt the present day policy makers.
    There is no clear distinct line between Republican and Democrat in their views and actions taken to solve the US financial predicament as each party tries to protect the interest of their supporters and also to ensure that their reps are reelected. The citizens are short changed and thus the citizens are slowly taking back the government through protest and demonstrations to send a clear message to their elected representatives their displeasure. Citizens are encouraged to ask their rep their stand on certain issues and to make known to the reps how they will vote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s