When the Cold War ended, there was much discussion over the future look of American politics. With the big bad Soviet bogeyman gone, how would American politics face the challenges of a world without clear-cut ideological boundaries? One reason conservatives hated the Clinton years was that the answer they offered was the kind of wonky, policy-driven tinkering that disdained discussion of the deep roots of social and political questions. All their disdain for what they continue to call "the nanny state" have to do with the kind of minutiae the Clinton's loved to discuss in detail, and for which they were amply rewarded with more than moderate popularity. While conservatives continued to control Congress, grand, controlling conservative narratives - from the PNAC group that wanted to re-fight the Iraq war, to the impeachment nonsense - were roundly rejected by the American people. Conservatives felt the American people needed a new controlling paradigm, a battle cry to rally folks around the flag. The American people, with more than a little justification I might add, felt they had a controlling paradigm, one that disdained grand, world-changing schemes and plans and focused on the modest proposals for tinkering with social betterment at home.
The alternative the conservatives have offered - and despite the many differences among various groups we should never forget that conservatives rallied around Bush until it was clear they were backing a hobbled loser - has been on display since January 20, 2001. I clearly remember the summer of 2001, in those halcyon days before the terrorist attacks, when it seemed Bush would be limping to the finish line of 2004, with America ready for a change. Indeed, lest we forget how miserably awful they were back then, the reaction among many voters that is commonplace today - i.e., we would rather be rid of them sooner rather than later - was already in place before the end of that long, hot summer. Had the terrorist plot been foiled, or had it not happened at all, we would be looking back on George W. Bush as a one-term President, the memory of which would be more the source of jokes than cause for national embarrassment.
What we have now, however, are the tattered remnants of conservative ideology still controlling much of our elite discourse. Part of the disconnect between much of what passes for political commentary these days can be written off to elitism. A large part, however, revolves around themes that are still part of conservative ideology, which, unless the polls are lying, has been rejected by the American people. That is, while our elites continue to shuffle the deck chairs on the sinking ship of state, the people are safely rowing away in life boats. It might be all well and good for conservatives to bemoan the lack of moral purpose the American people seem to share with them; that disguises the fact that the "moral vision" conservatives continue to try to sell lacks a serious moral center, and the American people are much wiser than our elites, preferring a certain pragmatic anti-ideology to the idea that we need grand controlling narratives in order to survive.
Part of the reason the Republicans will lose next year's Presidential election - and they will lose, no matter who they nominate - is the Republican candidates continue to debate and argue within a very narrow vocabulary, a vocabulary most voters understand does not describe the world they inhabit, and serves no function whatsoever other than an ideological one. I for one am tired of those on the left who see dangerous spooks and specters behind the possibilities for Republican dirty tricks stealing the election next year. All one need do is consider the fact that the Republicans seem ready to support a borderline sociopath - Rudy Giuliani - for the Presidency; said man has all the self-destructive characteristics of those same ideologically driven men and women who currently infest our federal bureaucracy, and are held in lower esteem than used-car sales personnel. The only thing better for the Democrats than Rudy getting the nod would be for Newt to enter the mix next fall; I know of fewer people whose entire careers center around their own fantasies of being the white knight of American history.
The American people are a practical lot; while our pundits and journalists look for the Great American Hero to rescue us from our malaise, they look for the next person who will actually work in their interests, and respond to their desire for actual policy-making. This is not the stuff of great political narratives, to be sure. We have lived, however, for the past six years, within a bad political novel centered on a failed political narrative, a vocabulary of nonsense and criminality that has driven the entire country a bit beyond the brink of despair. I believe a time of relief from ideology is in order. Pragmatism is not the stuff of great novels and heroes. I think, however, the American people no longer need heroes, or need to be the director of world-wide salvation. I think all of us yearn for something so banal our pundits refuse to accept it - a little practical governance.
Virtual Tin Cup
