I wanted to add something to today’s Impromptus. I open this column with a note about conservatism — a current tussle over it. There are some people who think that it’s conservatism’s job to accommodate a reigning liberalism, or progressivism. We can tinker around the edges, we can grump a bit — we can “manage the scope and pace of change,” as George McGovern says, when he’s being generous. But that’s about it. Liberalism builds, and then conservatives “conserve.”
I was reminded of something I heard Michael Kinsley say long ago — this is what I wanted to add to today’s Impromptus. He was co-hosting Crossfire, and the topic was the Supreme Court: judicial restraint versus judicial activism. And Kinsley said roughly this:
I feel sorry for you conservatives. You are really in an unfortunate position. My side is all for activism, and you believe in stare decisis — the preserving of precedent. We get to do whatever we want — we get to make change from the bench — and you have to swallow it. You have to preserve what we do, simply because it’s done. If you stick to your principles, we get to stick it to you, all the time. Too bad.
Now, Kinsley did not say it just like this — but it was somewhere close.
And who said nuts to this kind of conservatism — a conservatism that simply bows to the liberal order, a defeatist conservatism, a gracious-losing conservatism? WFB. And many others, of course. A friend and I were having a discussion this morning: In the 2000 election campaign, it was the Republican nominee, George W. Bush, who was for the reform of everything: reform of the tax code, reform of Social Security, reform of education, reform of the Pentagon, etc. And it was Al Gore who was the great defender of the status quo: standing in front of Fortress Government, saying, “You shall not alter one brick!”
And yet it was Bush who was the “conservative,” of course, and Gore who was the — you know: “progressive.” American politics is funny, not least in its language.