Lessons from “the W”

President Eisenhower privately referred to them as  mossback conservatives.

The late Peter Viereck, Conservative Philosopher, Writer and Poet

Conservative iconoclast Peter Viereck coined a more elegant term: ottantotists  – the Italian term for 88’ers, referring to those old French monarchists and counterrevolutionaries who doggedly maintained that following the collapse of the ’89 revolution the clock really could be turned back to 1788.
Viereck had no use for those kinds of conservative ideologues in his day who, for example, had deluded themselves into believing that with electoral victory would follow the halcyon days of the past, whether those of the pre-Civil War or the pre-New Deal American republic.
I share Viereck’s frustration.
There really are those among us who believe passionately that clocks can magically be turned back in time,  that all that has been lost over the past 30, 40, 50, even 150 years can somehow be painstakingly restored.
Add to that people who resist constructive change even if it means eventual dispossession, if not outright extinction.
I’ve have been reminded of this over the last couple of years reading about the firestorm of words that has ignited among alumni over a proposed name change at Mississippi University for Women.
Never mind the fact that MUW has been admitting men since 1982 or that other formerly women-only schools, notably Florida State University, have achieved resounding success following name changes.
Some of the names advanced included Reneau University and Waverly University.
Many “W girls,” as alumni are commonly known, aren’t buying it, despite the institution’s courageous president staking her presidency on the change and painting a bleak picture of the school’s future barring such a change.
This name change would have offered MUW with an opportunity for a fresh start, including enhanced prospects for increased male enrollment.
After years of study, which included focus groups and committees of local Columbus citizens and alumni, there seems to be no prospect for a name change.  Facing a 25 percent state budget cut, school’s prospects look exceedingly bleak.
The same sort of rigid, uncompromising thinking is reflected time and again in ideological conservative ranks.
People ask me why I employ such a strange term as red tory instead of conservative.  This is why.
The term really doesn’t translate well into the American context, and, frankly, that is why I chose it.
Historically speaking, red toryism, perhaps best reflected in the principles of one-nation conservative Benjamin Disraeli, has reflected a willingness to face up to reality.
I use it to underscore how conservatism must evolve into a post-modern form that takes firmly into account what has transpired  since the end of WWII.  We conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that the post-modernist tide isn’t going to be turned back.  We must remain in active dialogue with post-modernism with the aim of refining it and humanizing it to the fullest degree possible.
In a candid letter to his rigidly ideological brother, Edgar, President Eisenhower outlined the fate  awaiting any political movement that refused active enagement with the present.

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this — in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

That letter was written in 1954, but Ike’s progressive conservative views are just as valid and relevant today.

Breaking the States Rights Impasse

  

 

 

 

George F. Kennan, Former Diplomat and Ambassador

Exceedingly late in his life, former diplomat George F. Kennan stepped up with a solution for breaking the lonstanding impasse between states rights and federal centralization.

In his book, Around the Cragged Hill, Kennan outlined a series constitutional reforms that would transform the states into larger constituent republics with substantial sovereignty vis-a-vis the central government.

He also advocated assigning this status to New York, Los Angeles, and a few other major U.S. cities.

Kennan was onto something – in my humble opinion, the only viable solution in a post-New Deal, post-civil rights, post-modernist, post-states right era. His proposal, more than any other of which I’m aware, offers the best chance of resolving a longstanding impasse.

Even so, the obstacles to such a sweeping reform are legion.

The 50-states still enjoy a measure of sovereignty in this country largely because of the history of the original 13. All of these states, despite their varying sizes, were sovereign, if not independent, political entities when they came to the table as equals – sovereignty that was underscored and affirmed through their joint collaboration in one of the bloodiest revolutions in human history.

A peaceful 21st century revolution aimed at restoring a healthy measure of sovereign faces several daunting hurdles. For starters, support would have to be secured in both legislative houses of at least two-thirds of the states. Good luck with that: Many of these legislators would not look kindly on the likelihood of their district being eliminated or, at the very least, expanded considerably.

Even if supporters achieve the unthinkable and secure enough legislative support, there is the added challenge of securing three-fourths support among the 50 states – small wonder why the Founding Fathers sat the amendment bar so high.

Congress is required by the Constitution to set a time limit on passage of this amendment, allowing plenty of room for additional mischief.

Yes, there is the far less conventional route – a convention called by two-thirds of the states. The problem is that it’s never been achieved.

For that to succeed, there would have to be massive public support for such reform, which scarcely seem conceivable at this juncture in history.  Most rank-and-file Americans, even Southerners, tend to regard with ambivalence any discussion of states rights or regionalism – at least, that’s my impression.

The major preoccupations remain bread-and-butter issues – taxes, the deficit and economic recovery.

Call me a pessimist, but I simply don’t foresee any groundswell for state sovereignty and regionalism any time in the foreseeable future.

But the late Mr. Kennan deserves credit for generating the most compelling and workable concept in 50 years.

If only there were a modicum of interest in it.

Downsizing America?

Almost 20 years ago, outlining his personal and political philosophy in Around the Cragged Hill, renowned American diplomat and historian George F. Kennan had limited foresight into the immense political, cultural and financial pressures that would eventually be exerted on the American political system over the next generation.

He worried a lot about bureaucracy – its boundless capacity for growth and its natural tendency to draw in ever-increasing numbers of people with vested interests its perpetuation.  As these numbers grow and bureaucracies garner more electoral influence, aspiring reformers eventually perceive that “treatment becomes more painful than the disease” and move on to some less intractable problem.

To put it bluntly, they throw in the towel.

Thinking about all this prompted Kennan to offer a radical solution: a drastic reordering of the federal system — downsizing it by entrusting the biggest share of domestic policies to new political entities he described as constituent republics.

Kennan obviously had determined that states were no longer large enough to absorb most of these powers. As an alternative, he advocated the merging of various states sharing strong cultural and historical affinities into constituent republics, though he also singled out a few major U.S. cities.

I could conceived of something like nine of these republics — let say, New England; the Middle Atlantic states; the Middle West; the Northwest (from Wisconsin to the Northwest, and down the Pacific coast to central California); the Southwest (including southern California and Hawaii); Texas (by itself); the Old South; Florida (perhaps including Puerto Rico); and Alaska; plus three great self-governing urban regions, those of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles — a total of twelve constituent entities.

To these twelve entities, Kennan advocated entrusting “a larger part of the federal power than one might suspect — large enough, in fact, to make most people gasp.”

Kennan readily conceded what a daunting and complex undertaking this would be.  Even so, he contended that the advantages of such reform would offer tremendous opportunities for experimentation and innovation.

He also stressed that his suggestion implied no attempt to create a patchwork of racial or ethnic enclaves throughout the United States.

Several of these proposed individual republics — New England, the Old South, the Middle West, and the great urban regions — would embrace within their borders a good cross section of the diversity of cultures, traditions, and ethnic and racial colorations now borne by the country as a whole; yet each of them would be marked by certain peculiar cultural and social qualities that would set it off from the others.

The persistent and seemingly intractable problems associated with bureaucratic growth and influence were the motivating factors behind Kennan’s radical plan.  Even so, the immense fiscal, political and cultural pressures at work in the United States today leads one to wonder: Is current federal system sustainable over the long term?

Conservatives of strong decentralizing bents — and I confess here and now I used to be one of them — contend that it isn’t.

This raises the question: If, as most decentralizers would contend, the federal government is an agent of the states and at some point fails to deliver the goods, what will happen, especially considering that many, if not most, states are ill-equipped to fill this breach?

At least one prominent U.S. political leader already has raised the “S” word — secession. But barring this radical solution, what can be done?

I believe Kennan ultimately may be credited by future historians for anticipating these looming challenges and offering a viable and, compared with secession, painless solution almost two decades in advance.