Sullivan's travels

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I highly recommend Andrew Sullivan's piece in today's Sunday Times. It's a thoughtful examination of the 2006 midterms and of America's current political climate. But it's not without its problems.

As you all may know, Sullivan is a conservative who finds himself at odds with the two dominant strains of conservatism in the Republican Party, the social conservatism associated with religious fundamentalism and the neoconservatism associated with the Iraq War and the global war on terror. He is philosophically Burkean insofar as he emphasizes the limits of politics, but his conservatism may best be described as a sort of sober libertarianism, a libertarianism with limits. He wants the government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. This is the old-is-new-again conservatism that he presents in his new book.

Sullivan has also been one of the toughest and most persistent critics of President Bush and the Republican Congress. Which should come as no surprise. Tax cuts for the wealthy aside, Bush and the Republicans have run up massive deficits, reversing Clinton's surpluses; attempted to legislate morality on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem-cell research; pushed a nativist approach to immigration; and promoted a foreign policy that is reckless and self-defeating, most notably in Iraq. Which is to say, Bush and the Republicans have taken the money out of our wallets and the privacy out of our bedrooms. They have plunged the country into a quagmire of their own choosing in Iraq. And they have sacrificed America's values and destroyed America's credibility abroad by enabling and supporting the torture of detainees and the suspension of habeus corpus. And they have done all this with the greatest of hubris.

Sullivan says that "it feels as if the country is about to vomit". I'm not sure I agree, but then I would welcome a Democratic victory on Tuesday for different reasons than he would, at least in part. To be sure, Sullivan acknowledges that "[t]he project for a peaceful, democratic future in that country is dead" and that a Democratic victory -- in either the House or the Senate, or both -- would possibly prevent them from "[pursuing] their manic dream of remaking the world". If the Democrats win, Bush may have to "face reality". If they don't, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld "will be like Nixon, the last to realise that their own fantasy has ended — but, unlike Nixon, with a Congress of their own party they will be able to drag the entire country with them... And we will be facing severe strife within America itself -- as well as a potential disaster in the Middle East." With control of Congress, or at least half of it, Democrats could compel Bush to "change a disastrous course" both at home and abroad, as well as to "investigate some of the many abuses of power that have accumulated during one-party rule".

Essentially, though, Sullivan hopes for a Democratic not because he supports the Democrats -- although they "need to be forced to take responsibility for the war on Islamist terror, to make the hard choices it demands" -- but because it would be good for conservatism. And there are two reasons for this. First, a Democratic victory could provoke "a serious debate about how to do triage in the ravaged country of Iraq, how to grapple with America’s dangerously growing debt, and how to defang the growing menace of Iran". It could even force Bush to moderate himself by turning away from the social conservatives and neoconservatives and embracing the realists associated with his father's presidency. Second, a Democratic victory would provoke "[a] huge and bloody battle for the soul of American conservatism". This would be "a good thing". Republicans and conservatives -- he doesn't always distinguish between the two -- have been characterized by "incompetence, fanaticism and recklessness". It is time for them to lose and for conservatism to embrace once again its "most basic principles": "competence, accountability, limited government, and prudence in foreign policy". In other words, "it may require a big Democratic victory" for "sane conservatism" to come back.

Sullivan isn't a Democrat, and he certainly isn't an American liberal, but the Democrats are now conservatism's best hope. And this is where I disagree with him. I disagree with him because however much I respect the political philosophy of conservatism according to Burke I am a liberal who think that government needs to do more than stay out of our wallets and bedrooms. And although I would welcome greater competence and accountability, I do not see these qualities as essentially conservative. It is certainly possible for liberal public policy, as well as liberal foreign policy, to be both competent and accountable. I hope for a Democratic victory not just because of Iraq, although that is clearly a major concern, but because I support I support greater federal funding for stem-cell research; an increase in the minimum wage; lobbying reform; efforts to curb carbon emissions and more broadly to tackle the encroaching threat of climate change; health care reform; the development of alternative energy sources; and so on.

There are many reasons to support and vote for the Democrats. The revitalization of conservatism may be Sullivan's priority, but it certainly isn't mine. And I would add this: A Democratic victory could moderate Bush, invigorate political debate, and awaken the center, but I doubt it. On this, Sullivan is very much the idealist he so loathes. With two years left as a lame-duck president, Bush would not be so quick to moderate himself and his positions, whether on Iraq or otherwise. On the contrary, a Democratic victory could exacerbate his characteristic stubbornness. Given what we know of him, he would consider engaging in open debate a sign of weakness. He would view any moderation as giving in to the opposition. And the same is true of the Republicans in Congress. They would likely be nastier in defeat than they are already. And whether they lose one or both houses of Congress, or neither, it is likely that they would be more extreme and more partisan than they have been in recent years. This is because the Republicans most likely to lose on Tuesday are the moderates.

Sullivan longs for the re-emergence of the center, of a center that encompasses his brand of conservatism, but the realities of American politics suggest that partisanship will continue to dominate the political landscape. He may be right that a major loss is just what conservatism needs, but the choice in this election, and certainly also the choice in 2008, is between an extremist Republican Party that has governed disastrously both in the White House and in Congress and a Democratic Party that offers ideas and hope for the future. If conservatives like Sullivan choose to support and vote for the Democrats for other reasons, so be it. That's fine with me and good for the Democrats. Every vote counts. But the Republicans and the two dominant strains of conservatism that underpin it have led America into a valley of darkness from which it will not be easy to emerge. It is time for the Democrats to lead that effort. That's what this election is about.