Conservatism vs. Brokenism

Jonah Goldberg's long essay

Jonah Goldberg writes,

many on the “New Right” claim to be on the side of Western civilization, while simultaneously contending that liberalism isn’t part of our civilizational inheritance. This is nonsense. Liberalism has its roots in Ancient Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian ideas (and more than a few Germanic and English customs). Liberalism runs through Western civilization like a broad and deep river, cutting through mountains and valleys leaving wellsprings of liberal custom and tradition throughout the watershed of the West. The Judeo-Christian foundation of the West is also the philosophical and theological foundation of liberalism. The primacy of individual conscience, the vital necessity of pluralism and separation of church and state, freedom of speech, innate God-given rights: All of these things are the product of Jewish and Christian thought as developed in the West. To argue that these ideas are alien or even peripheral to the Western tradition is to argue for the erasure of that tradition—not its restoration.

I continue to believe that there are huge divides, within both the Left and the Right, between Brokenists and Institutionalists. Goldberg is on the side of the Institutionalists, who he argues are the true conservatives, because they stand for time-honored values. The Brokenist complaint is that the Institutionalists have failed to conserve anything important.

According to the writer David Reaboi, who is often credited with coining the phrase: “Knowing ‘what time it is’ is realizing that these institutions are crumbling, with or without you, and the surest way to get to something better is to allow them to crumble—and for as many people as possible to recognize that these things are, indeed, crumbling.”

That is the Brokenist view, which Goldberg opposes. His essay will help clarify, but not settle, the argument.

From the end of World War Two until, again, recently, to say someone was conservative was to suggest they were socially conservative, supportive of the free market and limited government, and in favor of a strong national defense, all at once.

…If the vast infrastructure of “the right”—the Republican Party, partisan media, donors large and small—declares that conservatives now believe in state planning, autocracy, mercantilism, and the advisability of putting mayo on a pastrami sandwich, then simply as a journalistic and conversational matter, that’s what conservatism is.

It should come as no surprise that I think this is wrong.

One can argue that in battling the progressive bullies on DEI and trans women in sports, the Brokenists have succeeded where the Institutionalists failed. Goldberg is uncharitably dismissive of this:

The New Right’s approach to politics is primarily performative. It’s fan service for the customer base who want daily—or hourly—“wins” in the culture war. Trump’s approach to the presidency is uniquely suited to this style of politics, given that he sees the presidency like he’s both the producer and star of a reality show. Even when he engages in public policy, the headline is more important than the substance. He issues executive orders that don’t change the actual law or even substantively change more deeply ingrained regulations, but they do generate press releases and outrage from his enemies.

Goldberg complains,

Today, Trump’s critics are called left-wing because they are his critics, even when they criticize him from the right.

…It’s of little use to focus on Trump’s own views because they are not, strictly speaking, ideological. He has a bookless understanding of politics, economics, foreign policy, and for that matter, religion. (When pressed for his favorite biblical passage, he said “an eye for an eye.”) But it is precisely because Trump is devoid of a coherent ideological or intellectual framework that once marginal factions on the right—and a few on the left—have gained political legitimacy by attaching themselves, remora-like, to his presidency. Some traditionally conservative institutions—the Heritage Foundation and CPAC the most obvious—have dumped traditional conservatism like so much ballast to align with the president. But the real shock troops of MAGA are populist “influencers” and organizations with little history or integrity to jettison in the first place.

I have big doubts about both the Institutionalists and the Brokenists. The big doubt concerning the Institutionalists is whether they can achieve anything, given their lack of popular strength. The big doubt concerning the Brokenists is whether what they achieve will do more harm than good, both for the country and for the long run shape of the conservative cause.