CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS

I was intrigued by the title of Andrew Sullivan's essay "The Conservative Party", but was disappointed to discover how far he and I have diverged. Sullivan argues that

Whatever else [Bush's] policies might be called, they have very little to do with traditional conservative themes of federalism, small government, the free market, the separation of church and state, and a strong, independent judiciary.

and goes on to argue:

So where is conservatism to be found?

Maybe you should cast a glance at Boston, where next week, the Democrats will anoint one John Forbes Kerry, a Northeastern patrician who is fast becoming the Eastern establishment's favorite son. Yes, Kerry's record on spending, defense and social policy has been liberal. But that is not the theme of his campaign so far. Kerry is as rhetorically dedicated to seeing through nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush is. But where Bush has scrapped America's longstanding military doctrine of only attacking when attacked, Kerry prefers the old, strictly defensive doctrine. Where Bush has clearly placed American national interest above any international concern, Kerry insists that the old alliances - even with old Europe - need to be strengthened and reaffirmed. Kerry insists that he is a fiscal conservative, aiming to reduce the deficit by tax increases. He has argued that stability in some parts of the world should take precedence over democracy or human rights. He opposes amending the Constitution and supports legal abortion, the status quo Bush wants to reverse. He has spent decades in the Senate, quietly building an undistinguished and constantly nuanced record. He is a war veteran, who plays up his record of public service every chance he gets. He's a church-going Catholic who finds discussion of religious faith unseemly in public. In the primaries, he was the safe, establishment bore compared to the radical pyrotechnics of Howard Dean and the populist charm of John Edwards.

His basic message to Americans is: let's return to normalcy. The radicalism of the past four years needs tempering. We need to consolidate the nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, before any new adventures against, say, Iran. We need to return to the old diplomatic obeisance to the United Nations. We should stop referring to a "war" on terror, and return to pre-9/11 notions of terrorism as a discrete phenomenon best dealt with by police work in coordination with our democratic allies. At home, we need to restrain the unruly theocratic impulses now unleashed by the Republicans. We must balance the budget again. We need to redress some of the social and economic inequality that has so intensified these past few years. Kerry's biggest proposal - and one sure to be modified considerably by the Congress - is an incremental increase in the number of people with health insurance. It's far more modest than that proposed by Bill and Hillary Clinton a decade ago.

Since when has "separation of church and state" been a conservative position? Or a "strong, independent judiciary"-- at least, since Warren launched the saga of judicial usurpation in the 1950s? Since when has support for the UN been "conservative?" I think Sullivan is right that the Democrats are the conservative party now, but the reasons for this are deeper and require more conceptual work for their elucidation. A conservative looks to the status quo and the recent past, to the self-interest of well-established interest groups, and regards change with more fear than hope. A radical looks to novel trends and to the future, is ecumenical and motivated by generous ideas, dreams of a better world and tries to make it be, and regards change with more hope than fear. In this sense, the Democrats are conservative: they want to preserve the heritage of the New Deal and the Great Society; they defend the interests of teachers' unions, labor unions, trial lawyers, seniors, workers in industries threatened by international trade; they are frightened by globalization, by the "forward strategy of freedom" and its perils, and by the transformative effects of the New Economy. Republicans are radical: they envision a democratic transformation of the Middle East, they preach that freedom is "God's gift to everyone," reform of Social Security and of the tax code, pouring money into drug innovation, "transformation" of the military (at least, Rumsfeld envisions this), they want more aid to stop AIDS in Africa, they want to roll back usurping courts and give power to the people. A very radical agenda.