The Conservatism That Can Lose Again?

I missed this article by Sean Scallon - titled "Carter Conservatism" - when it was published in the April 6, 2009 edition of The American Conservative a few weeks back. In the article, Scallon maintains that the tone of Jimmy Carter's infamous "Crisis of Confidence"speech, given on July 15, 1979 was essentially conservative in its focus on conservation and self-sufficiency - essentially a re-stating of the conservatism of thew early twentieth century Southern Agrarians. Writes Scallon:

Carter's demands that the American people curtail their travel, obey the speed limit, and lower their thermostats only reinforced the image of the president as a humorless, puritanical schoolmarm. Trying to limit America's leadership leadership role on the world as the Cold War heated up in late 1979 seemed ludicrous, if not downright dangerous. Moreover, Carter and [Pat] Caddell failed to provide a vision of the new nation they were trying to create: Americans had no idea how or when all the sacrifices demanded of them would come to an end.

Scallon's point would be easier to take had Carter not established a consistent record for himself as a president unwilling and unable to lead his country in the face of serious threats, whether posed by the ephemeral "energy crisis" or the very real threat of Soviet expansion. For example, in his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame in June 1977, Carter said:

Democracy’s great recent successes — in India, Portugal, Spain, Greece — show that our confidence in this system is not misplaced. Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed.

Well by 1980, most Americans were not happy about that at all, and Carter's impotent response to the Iranian hostage crisis had further underlined that fatal flaw in his administration's approach to adversarial foreign nations.

Thus, I do not believe that adopting a reactive, if not submissive stance like that of Carter would be a good approach for conservatives to undertake. While I believe some aspects of isolationism do have merit, withdrawing behind our own borders would not be a beneficial approach politically for conservatives, nor beneficial for the nation as a whole.

Nonetheless, despite that fact that I disagree with Scallon's take on Carter, it is nice to read a viewpoint contrary to mine, from a fellow conservative, that is expressed logically and thoughtfully. Rather than presenting his argument in a snarky and insulting manner - an approach recently favored by such would-be gadflies as David Brooks, David Frum, and Kathleen Parker - Scallon instead makes his argument in a clear, articulate manner. Much appreciated.

Regarding David Brooks, blogger and American Spectator writer Robert Stacy McCain posted an excellent take-down of the eponymous "National Greatness" conservative on Tuesday. From the entry:

Let's go back to 1997, Mr. Brooks. The Republicans in Congress had fought Clinton to a stalemate over basic economic issues. Clinton had been forced to declare that "the era of big government is over" and -- after vetoing it twice -- had finally signed welfare reform into law.

And what was your response to these hard-fought conservative victories? "National Greatness," an unprincipled and dishonest embrace of the same big-government agenda that the GOP had spent so much political capital opposing.

Now that the GOP and the nation have reaped the bitter fruit of your big-government Republican agenda, with characteristic dishonesty you attempt to evade responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the betrayals of conservative principle you enthusiastically advocated for more than a decade.

As we Texans like to say, boy howdy.