Sam Tanenhaus declares conservatism dead. John O’Sullivan responds:
The most important weakness is that, at the end of Sam’s long tour of post-war American conservatism, it’s not at all clear what conservatives are supposed to do in the way of government policies. Oh, sure, they have to embrace Burkean wisdom and Disraelian paradox and be prudent, moderate, cautious, and so on. But what does that mean in terms of health, education, the budget, foreign policy, etc.?
Damon Linker has a brief response here. I’m mulling Sam’s piece over and will post a response tomorrow, partly because the deeper questions raised are essential and partly because the gist of what Tanenhaus has written is close in many ways to my own attempt to diagnose the problem in The Conservative Soul (and over the last ten years). The essay’s most subversive argument is that the current president may be the real Oakeshottian here. I increasingly realize that was part of my own deep interest in Obama and what he might mean. How that squares with those policy aspects of Obama that are unmistakably liberal in some respects is the question. And it’s a really provocative question with an equally provocative answer. More tomorrow.
The Dish 