A Word in Defense of ‘Northeast Corridor Conservatism’
I’m back on On Tap for a bit, to analyze and pick some bones with an essay in the American Thinker by J.R. Dunn, detailing “Northeast Corridor Conservatism.”
(He quotes specifically enough to identify two particular conservatives he objects to – Richard Brookheiser of NR, Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal.)
I didn’t agree with either Brookheiser or Noonan’s skeptical responses to the Palin pick. But that doesn’t mean I think it warrants reading them the riot act or declaring them “alienated from the people as a whole, to such an extent that it no longer clearly represents their interests.”
(Early in the comments in the response to the piece, there’s a declaration that “When and if McCain/Palin assume leadership of the government and the party it will be time to purge the movement of the elitists who hold the people in disdain. Their mundane intellectuality and sheltered lives of privileged entitlement should neither be followed nor tolerated.” Purge! Purge! Grab the pitchforks and torches! Let the movement be cleansed with purifying fire! Wait, weren’t we the side that wasn’t enamored with the French Revolution?)
Does being a conservative mean you have to like Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate? Keep in mind, I like her. In May I said she was one of my favorites. I was talking about her as McCain’s running mate/two-term successor back in June. My first reaction was to call it a “wow” pick (in the positive sense).
But I dare any conservative to take some sodium pentathol and then try to argue that we don’t wish she was a second-term governor. She’s had a great, but brief run managing her state. As my tougher teachers used to tell me when I did a particular assignment right, “Great job. Now do it the same way again and show me it wasn’t an accident.” For me, that’s not a deal-breaker, but I can’t take the rhetorical flamethrower to those who find it cause for significant concern. Dunn decries conservative “writers… shaking their heads over ‘lack of experience’ (this about a politician with more executive experience than the other three candidates combined).” Considering that the only executive experience in the bunch is McCain’s command of the Navy’s largest air squadron at Cecil Field in Jacksonville from 1975 to 1977, that’s not exactly the highest bar to clear, and the “more executive experience” line says more about the three other guys than her.
I guess I just miss the geographical boundaries of Northeast Corridor Conservatism, living in Alexandria, Va. But I worry when conservatism becomes synonymous with a region or a bunch of cultural indicators, revealed in Dunn’s dismissal of “living in a Northeast that is steadily combining aspects of a Third-World state and a suburban mall.” Just because many conservatives like watching NASCAR and wearing cowboy boots does not mean that conservatism is defined by appreciation of NASCAR and cowboy boots. Is it any better to write off New Jersey as a hopeless backwater than to do the same to Alaska? Is the movement to be defined as, “we want nothing to do with that wretched corner of the country”?
The simplest definition of conservatism – a belief in the free market and economic freedom; a healthy skepticism for the government’s capacity to solve problems without creating new ones; a strong military and unwavering stance against those who would harm us; a high priority on the rule of law, protecting individual rights and an enduring respect for the traditional values handed down to us by our forefathers – none of these should be unable to sell in New York State or California. Folks in the heartland can tell themselves that the above description encapsulates “heartland values”, but there’s really no reason that places outside the heartland can’t get in on that action, too.
The conversation in the comments gets worse: “Even more than elitism, a lack of experience in winning politics at the local and state level defines “Northeast Corridor Conservatives.” They may sniff at Sarah Palin’s supposed inexperience and populism, but they have long been in political decline on their native soil and have little or no experience themselves in producing successful state and local campaigns.” Noonan’s pedigree is speechwriting for Reagan, George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, and working on George W. Bush’s reelection campaign in 2004. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think she’s ever worked on a losing campaign. I don’t think Brookheiser, David Brooks, or any of the other suspects mentioned in the comments have ever been involved in managing or advising campaigns.
(As an aside – no offense to those who live in the reddest of red states, but how tough is it to an elect a Republican in Utah, or South Carolina, or Wyoming or Indiana? Think the “degree of difficulty” in the task is worth noting in the guy who got Chris Shays reelected in Connecticut or Tim Pawlenty reelected in Minnesota in 2006?)
Beyond that… is the biggest problem for conservatism that David Brooks didn’t defend Palin enough from his perch on the op-ed page of the New York Times? A post on the Corner that says “humbug” to Palin? Noonan’s off-mike comments on the set of MSNBC?
Really? Or is it just that a post like this gives people a chance to use their favorite “out-of-touch elitist” charges against some folks on the right instead of the left?
September 27th, 2008 at September 27, 2008 - 10:14 am
He makes some excellent points in that essay, but he misidentifies, or perhaps overspecifies, the problem. It isn’t a split between the NE Corridor and rest of the conservatives. It’s a split between elitists and popularists. And while elitism is more uniformly associated with liberals, it runs across the entire spectrum of conservatism. It all boils down to the question of who should govern, a professional political elite, or citizens. And we know where the Founding Fathers fell on that particular question.