The Daily Clarity

Tea Parties – the bankruptcy of modern American conservatism

The planned conservative  Tea Party protests against Obama economic policies  to be staged next week are proof-positive of the intellectual bankruptcy of the modern American conservative movement. Many commentators are claiming that the triumvirate policy foundations of the conservative movement – traditional social values, unregulated capitalist markets,  and hawkish foreign policy – have been tried and found wanting in this modern world.  Conservatives are in search of a new ideal,  have not yet found it,  and so are retuning to their roots in a hope for inspiration. The Tea Parties smack of a harking back to the halcyon days of the country’s foundation. However, it is a very different reality the country faces in this age,  and a return to that simple age is neither pragmatic nor realistic. The Tea Party movement, a sort of lurch back to fundamentalist conservatism, doesn’t appear to offer any policy alternative, but is merely an expression of civic dissent. In fact, the Tea Party movement rather than an act of conservative idealism, appears to more closely resemble a massing of  a pitchfork-wielding-townspeople-mob,  so common in trite horror stories as they chase the misunderstood  ‘beast’ . The brain trust behind the movement – the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Coulter and Malkin – are perfectly cast as the mob leaders baying for blood. The conservative movement seems at a loss – absent an intellectual policy capacity, lacking a transformative leader, and in want of a political make-over. Modern day conservatism appears aged, weary,  and intellectually spent.

The traditional conservative social values as demonstrated by the religious right are even admitting  defeat. A report today in the British Telegraph newspaper quotes leading evangelist James Dobson, who once infamously decried Harry Potter as  witchcraft, from his  resignation speech  from one of the leading Christian groups in the country. Dobson said,  “We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action. We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.” This is hardly the language or discourse prevalent in other Western democracies, but there again many current American evangleists see Europe as the equivalent of  Sodom and Gomorrah. In another quote in the same article, Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, said of the conservative religious right, “It’s a failed movement. We will end up like England, where the church has utterly lost its way.”

There is no doubt that religion, and especially Christian fundamentalism, is declining in the US.  The Telegraph report says that  ‘…unease is rising that a nation founded – in the view of evangelicals – purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”. Recent surveys have suggested that the American religious landscape has shifted significantly. A study by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 11 per cent fewer Americans identify themselves as Christian than 20 years ago. Those stating no religious affiliation or declaring themselves agnostic has risen from 8.2 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 2008.’ So the right wing Christians, once a bastion of support for the conservative movement, appear to be on the wain. There are many who feel that such fundamentalist religious views are past their use by date,  and that the US is on a catch-up path to social development levels prevalent in Europe. Within US society there is a dichotomy of opinion that the decline in the influence of Christian fundamentalism is either tragic or a cause for celebration – perspective is often dictated by the view from where one stands.

The conservative hawkish foreign policy armory as advocated by the Bush-Cheney,  and as supported by the populist conservative commentators is also under attack. Despite revisionist efforts, the results of years of stern isolationism and military intervention have taken their toll on US standing. The US faces a destabilized Middle East, a disturbed Sunni-Shia power balance, a resurgent Iran with nuclear ambition, and a Netanyahu-Lieberman hegemonistic Israel demonstrating colonial intent. The void created by US withdrawal from meaningful world engagement has allowed the Russian Bear and the Chinese Dragon to create new international trade links and extend their political influence. The reliance on military intention rather than social development has seen the Taliban re-energized,  and puts the world at risk of an India-Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict belt with the potential for global reverberations. The arrogance of the conservatism agenda in foreign policy has cost the US dear – it has undermined US moral authority, cost the lives of many innocents, and has not produced the desired outcomes of increased security, stability and resource access.

The conservative movement however is reluctant to admit its political demise, so has retreated to the claims of economic policy superiority. The Tea Party movement however is not articulating any codified policy recommendations. It is claiming that the country is on the wrong path, but offers no signpost as to a preferable route. The conservative movement claims that the global economic maelstrom has simple one-dimensional origins. In its policy mantra it blames the woes on the sub-prime mortgage meltdown,  caused by the Democrats Freddie-Fanny policies. As appealing as this simple explanation seems, economists who have studied the issue see the roots as much more complex and bi-partisan in cause. The economic issues America faces are multi-faceted – the absence of the an industrial policy, Wall Street trough-like greed for trading unsecuritized commodities,   and over-dependence on unrealistic asset appreciation. Regardless of the facts, conservatives claim that any increase in taxation, government intervention,  or regulation of the markets is the road to ruination. They claim the market, that amorphous but all-powerful concept, will correct itself if given time.

However, as we have previously reported, a more controlled form of capitalism is evidenced to be as productive, if not more  valuable at a societal level, than the pure market capitalism conservatives advocate.

So is socialized capitalism the bogeyman that the rusty old signposts would have is believe? If we take the extreme example of the Scandinavian social-welfare states, namely Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, these have much higher rates of government spending than the US. In 2006, the social welfare countries spent around 52% of GNP on government spending as opposed to the US who spent around 38%. This allowed the US to keep taxes low (though consumer saving remained very low and incurred massive debt as compared to other fast growth countries like China ). If one then analyzes the economic outputs, the US has the highest poverty rate at 17.1% versus 5.6% for the social-welfare states. There is naturally greater economic equity in the social welfare states with poorer households having greater share of the national economic pie. These factors however do not impair wealth creation in the social welfare states regardless of the free market rhetoric. The social welfare states have on average a higher per capita GNP than the free market countries, rank higher in the technology rankings at 6 versus a free market rank of 16 (think Sony, Ericsson, Nokia etc), spend more on international aid as a percentage of GNP, and rank better on entrepreneur risk rankings as there is a social welfare net to fall back on. All in all, the social welfare states generally and on average are outperforming the free market countries. When you support the risk takers, protect the employees, maintain the infrastructure, educate the young, care for the sick, and demonstrate social equity, maybe you create a healthier and more forward thinking society.

So if the unregulated-market no-tax mantra is Emperor’s clothes , where does the political and intellectual capital of modern day conservatives reside?  That is is the nub of the conservative intellectual bankruptcy. The Tea Parties are less grass-roots dissent,  but more desperation. The conservatives and their populist mob-leaders are angry, perpetually it appears. They have no up and coming conservative intelligentsia to offer bright new hope. If one peels back the policies in the conservative vault, one sees the account is overdrawn. Like the leaders of the townspeople in a trashy horror movie, the conservative mob leaders are on the verge of being unmasked as misguided. It will be a collective let-down for the attendees of the Tea Party, who are primarily scared and vulnerable, to see that their leadership has no magic bullet or no path to lead them out of the wilderness. As much as the current world is a scary place, it is the reality that we face. Conservatives denial is neither a policy or a direction . There is no return to the days of the Tea Party. That is intellectual dishonesty, an act of partisan desperation,  and shows that the conservative bank of political capital is bankrupt.