Ship of fools - The Economist - Nov 13th 2008


JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid 
party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who 
have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, 
the title of the "stupid party" now belongs to the Tories' transatlantic 
cousins, the Republicans.

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party's defeat on November 
4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for 
brains. 

Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won 
by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 
points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of 
whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best 
among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they 
lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with 
nothing more than slogans. 

Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. 

Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. 

Immigration? Send the bums home. 

Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be 
water-boarding. Ha ha. 

During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted 
that they did not believe in evolution.

The Republican Party's divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the 
making. 

The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his "heart" rather than his 
"head". He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael 
"heck-of-a-job" Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. 

Mr McCain, once the chattering classes' favourite Republican, refused to 
grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to 
look for cartoonish villains. 

And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah 
Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, 
and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about 
international politics.

Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. 

The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to 
link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to 
craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that 
emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also 
provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party's loss of brains 
leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more 
educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty 
per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. 
Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves 
"professionals". 

McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring 
"tacit" intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in 
general. 

The Republican Party's current "redneck strategy" will leave it appealing to a 
shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience 
with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. 

Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental 
fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their 
opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle 
Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin's apparent ignorance not as a problem 
but as a badge of honour.

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a 
modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in 
an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and 
incapable of adjusting to a changed world. 

The movement has little to say about today's pressing problems, such as global 
warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on 
xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research.

Conservative intellectuals are also engaged in their own version of what Julian 
Benda dubbed la trahison des clercs, the treason of the learned. They have 
fallen into constructing cartoon images of "real Americans", with their 
"volkish" wisdom and charming habit of dropping their "g"s. 

Mrs Palin was invented as a national political force by Beltway journalists 
from the Weekly Standard and the National Review who met her when they were on 
luxury cruises around Alaska, and then noisily championed her cause.

Time for reflection

How likely is it that the Republican Party will come to its senses? 
There are glimmers of hope. 

Business conservatives worry that the party has lost the business vote. 

Moderates complain that the Republicans are becoming the party of "white-trash 
pride". 

Anonymous McCain aides complain that Mrs Palin was a campaign-destroying "whack 
job". 

One of the most encouraging signs is the support for giving the chairmanship of 
the Republican Party to John Sununu, a sensible and clever man who has the 
added advantage of coming from the north-east (he lost his New Hampshire Senate 
seat on November 4th).

But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives 
continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist 
enough—Mr McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an 
issue out of Mr Obama's associations with Jeremiah Wright. 

Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book 
entitled "Ideas have Consequences"; unfortunately, too many Republicans are 
still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12599247






Reply via email to