Why America Is Different

ONE OF THE enduring genres of political writing is the conservative freak show, the book titled: “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” or “Thunder on the Right.” It feeds a aching need among the world’s Pharisees to remind themselves that they are not as other men are: bigots, businessmen, and boobs. So The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by Economist writers John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, spends almost three hundred pages peering into the cages at the zoo, describing the “vixens” and other “ferocious” animals they encounter. Only in the final 25-page conclusion do they get around to admitting that “Hastertland,” the sprawling Congressional district represented by Speaker Denny Hastert, is a much better place than “Pelosiville,” the district represented by San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi. Hastertland is a suburban and egalitarian world of middle-class families where the schools are decent and government works; Pelosiville is a mean-spirited world of rich singles and homelessness where the schools are lousy and government is dysfunctional.

Hastertland is where the “Right Nation” lives and Pelosiville is where liberals live. But they have just spent three quarters of the book looking down their noses at the freaks in Hastertland. What’s going on here?

What’s going on is that our bien pensant elites cannot begin to face the fact that their rule-of-the-experts welfare state, the one they have been congratulating themselves about for the last century, is a hole-in-the-corner affair that pales next to the self-governing city of a hill of capitalism, patriotism, and religion. Anybody could tell that North Americans learned self-government early on, and never could be talked out of it, except after the perfect storm we call the Great Depression. But anybody couldn’t tell our western elites, so Micklethwait and Wooldridge are forced into writing a “Straussian text,” where the real message is hidden between the lines, understandable only to those that know the code.

Still, underneath the epithets and the condescension, the authors have written a journeyman description of the conservative movement since 1945 with all the usual characters given their due: Buckley and National Review, Hayek and Mises, neocons ancient and modern, the foundations and the think tanks, Goldwater and Reagan, anti-communism, supply-side economics, the social issues and the rise of the Christian Right. What really got it going was the leftward lurch of the Great Society. Americans are different from lefty Europeans, and the “Right Nation” rose up against an alien creed.

The bottom line is that conservatism in the United States is a kind of reformation, “combin[ing] renewal with heresy.” It has renewed Burke’s conservatism, particularly in a “deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; love of country.” But by embracing classical liberalism it has subverted his “belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about progress; and elitism.” Thus American conservatism is a meeting of opposites. Even though “classical liberalism has traditionally been the sworn enemy of conservatism,” American conservatives behave as though it was a marriage made in heaven. And the man that married them was Hayek who wrote “’Why I am not a conservative,’ cursing the creed for worshiping the state and trying to constrain individuals.” Conservatism, the authors admit, is merely returning the United States to its roots, capitalistic, patriotic, and religious, from the aberration that began in 1933 and peaked in 1965 with the “overreaching” of the Great Society.

With that off their chests, there’s not much left to do except explain the Bush-haters, foreign and domestic. Micklethwait and Wooldridge are rather shy about this. But I’m not shy at all. The fundamental thing to know about Bush hatred is that it is not spontaneous. It was ginned up by political actors that needed an enemy. Al Gore could have folded his tents after the Florida squeaker, as Richard Nixon had done forty years before, but he contested the result and riled up the Democratic faithful. “Old Europe” could have done a deal on Iraq, but Chancellor Schröder needed a spot of America bashing to put him over the top in the German 2002 elections. And President Chirac much preferred filling the streets of Paris with anti-American demonstrators than dealing with bloody-minded government employees striking over pensions.

As usual, the bien pensants have got it backwards. Bush didn’t get it wrong, but stunningly right. It took three world wars, but now the United States has successfully bullied the three bad boys of Europe—France, Germany, and Russia—into a sulk. This is a world-historical achievement. It has a created a window of opportunity in which to clean out the Middle East before confronting the great challenge of the millennium: house-breaking a resurgent China. Anybody around here know how to train a dragon?

Christopher Chantrill blogs at www.roadtothemiddleclass.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.

print view

To comment on this article at American Thinker click here.

To email the author, click here.

TAGS

Chappies

“But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.” —Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison

Civil Society

“Civil Society”—a complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churches—builds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust

Hugo on Genius

“Tear down theory, poetic systems… No more rules, no more models… Genius conjures up rather than learns… ” —Victor Hugo
César Graña, Bohemian versus Bourgeois

Education

“We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.”
E. G. West, Education and the State

Faith & Purpose

“When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of ages—they seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings...”
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990

Conversion

“When we received Christ,” Phil added, “all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.”
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh

Postmodernism

A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ’merely relative’, is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy

Faith and Politics

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable... [1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006

China and Christianity

At first, we thought [the power of the West] was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity.
David Aikman, Jesus in Beijing

Religion, Property, and Family

But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

Conservatism

Conservatism is the philosophy of society. Its ethic is fraternity and its characteristic is authority — the non-coercive social persuasion which operates in a family or a community. It says ‘we should...’.
Danny Kruger, On Fraternity

US Life in 1842

Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism

mysql close