The Next Conservatives are Pro-Aesthetics?
Last month the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area Council of Conservative Citizens had an interesting post about the end of “new right” and discussing the “next conservatism” and referenced Urban Review STL. Now, I know what you are thinking, I’m about as conservative as Rush Limbaugh is liberal.
They started off referencing an article in The American Conservative magazine:
If the New Right is dead, or dying, what could be offered in its place? What will be “The Next Conservatism�
Weyrich and Lind say that it must be a social conservatism, and it must be a cultural movement (not economic) and not a political movement (although the political sphere must not be surrendered).
Themes of “the next conservatism†in article:
– pro-homeschooling
– rejection of mainstream culture
– anti-affirmative action
– anti-political correctness in all forms (e.g. charges of ‘racism’, ’sexism’, etc.)
– anti-abortion
– anti-gay “marriageâ€
– anti-illegal immigration, anti-amnesty, and pro-reduction in legal immigration
– pro- strong national defense based in America’s concrete interests, but an abandonment of the Bush/neocon Wilsonian foreign policy
– pro-agrarianism
– anti-two party system in Washington
– pro-environmentalism in the sense of pro-conservation
– skeptical of big business
– pro-aesthetics (and disdain of ugly growth, such as strip malls)
– pro-trains and streetcars
This sounds like the Council of Conservative Citizens almost to a tee.
There is so much to talk about in the above list but the short answer is very little of that fits me, except at the end. Of course, my views on urbanism are not based on aesthics although that does play apart. It is more about the relationships between buildings and the related public space. They then go on to reference my site in serveral places, such as here:
The irony here is that URSTL blog has a liberal political bias; however, I think its emphasis on urban uniqueness and its opposition to suburban uglification is more in tune with a properly understood and historically correct version of “conservatism,†(and what Weyrich/Lind think it will be again), that is, opposition to homogenization in all its forms.
It almost sounds as if a rational conversation could be had around common ground but then they speak on trains & streetcars:
Yes, that “preponderance of racial minorities utilizing public transit by necessity” is such a problem in our society. Too bad decades of policy decisions have created such a necessity. And too bad they can’t all drive single occupancy SUVs spewing pollutants into the air.
Click here to read the full post from the Saint Louis Metropolitan Area Council of Conservative Citizens. For the article reference click here.
Too much thinking for a Monday morning, but my first response is that the more issues one “claims”, the harder it is to pigeon-hole that someone or group. There was a thing on the news last night, where Christian Conservatives have widely differing views on global warming. I’m sure there are some gay home-schoolers out there, just as there are more than a few conservatives who embrace big business. Ideally, issues should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not in relation to unrelated poltical or philosphical positions . . .
Mixing with the White Citizens Council, really sad.
Why are you giving attention to racist, homophobic bigots? Not only is the CofCC horribly, William Lind is a nutcase. Weyerich is one of his enablers.
Steve,
Given that suburbia and rural American happens to be where an majority of these facists happen to live, I do not think they will be funding any transit, unless some type of energy crisis ensues. They stress alternative sources of fuel more than conservation. Then again it may happen eventually. Who knows?
While I certainly don’t agree with the “racist, homophobic bigots” and “facists” out there, I find it very useful to know what they’re thinking. And since some members of my family tree lean that way, it’s proved to be more scary at times than I’d like to admit. Check out http://www.phc.edu/ for another taste of certain people’s vision of a perfect world . . .
Steve
Moreover, how can one be for an agrarian society while being for transit? We cannot have transit with a rural society as density is required to make it cost effective, as well as practical. Stressing an agrarian society would mean the devolution away from suburbia and urban areas. What happens to the remaining infrastructure? Nice try Thoreau.
These guys are fascists with no common sense. One party system, skeptical of big business, anti-affirmative action, and gay marriage?
Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon would be liberals in today’s political landscape.
my favorite part is “opposition to homogenization in all its forms” juxtaposed with
– anti-affirmative action
– anti-political correctness in all forms (e.g. charges of ‘racism’, ’sexism’, etc.)
– anti-abortion
– anti-gay “marriageâ€
– anti-illegal immigration, anti-amnesty, and pro-reduction in legal immigration
– anti-two party system in Washington
too bad these people don’t have one ounce of self-awareness. then they might be useful.
In general, I think this “New Right” or “Crunchy Con” movement is a positive development because urbanists can no longer automatically be labelled as left-wing birkenstock wearing losers. Suddenly the potential exists to build coalitions with people whose political representatives would never, ever listen to any of us. Maybe working together on our common goals, we could actually get something done, despite the serious differences that exist on social/moral/racial issues. Maybe we could even educate each other–those on the right could learn that atheists, gays, and racial minorities are not necessarily bad people, and those on the left could learn that social and religious conservatives are not by definition fascist nutcases.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one …..
I have long been frustrated by the tendency of left-wing proponents of a humane human habitat to make the issue political where it doesn’t need to be, and where it shouldn’t be.
This is particularly unfortunate because there’s nothing inherently left-wing about a decent human habitat. What are the real, rock-bottom values that are espoused here on a regular basis? Some of the most important ones seem to be:
– tradition
– opportunity
– community
– convenience
– efficiency
– property rights
…all of which are hardly anethema to the Right. Consider a few elements of our human-habitat mess:
The streets are wide in the suburbs not because of some Rovian conspiracy, but because the fire department insists that they need to race fire trucks down them.
People drive SUVs not because they Hate The Environment, but because station wagons were effectively outlawed by the CAFE standards and because if you want to legally haul more than two young children around at a time, you pretty much need an SUV because of child-safety laws.
People buy houses in Chesterfield because they calculate (probably incorrectly) that it’s cheaper than sending their kids to private schools, and because they’re not idealistic enough to deliver their children into the hands of the St. Louis Public Schools.
People shop in strip malls behind giant parking lots, and live in widely-separated houses on large lots because it’s impossible, or nearly so, to build anything else. Counties insist on huge numbers of parking spaces, and they won’t zone new dense housing. They think that dense housing means cheap housing, and because they only get enough tax revenue to run the schools if the kids live in a house that costs at least $380,000.
People don’t drive the SMART car because the EPA and DOT red tape mean that importing one costs a bloody fortune.
And so on and so on. The mess we’re in is to a large degree attributable to well-meaning but ultimately short-sighted or just bad government regulation. Conservatives should be all about decent urban planning, but I think that a lot of them are put off by the nexus with trade-union activism, left-wing social activism, urban NIMBYism, etc., etc.
SUV’s are just minivans with nose jobs. Too many parents with kids these days grew up riding around in a minivan, so they won’t be caught dead in one, even if they make more sense than an SUV (better mileage, better handling, easier to get in and out of) – it’s all about style and “what the neighbors will think”. It’s not a whole lot different than people of my generation who grew up as kids in the ’60’s and ’70’s, riding around (unsecured!) in the back of a station wagon, who embraced the minivan – it’s not what our parents drove (plus I can remember when the only “SUV” was a Chevy Suburban, and the only people who drove them were surveyors or highway department workers)!
As for shopping centers and surface parking lots, it’s partly the county’s fault, but it’s also a developer and tenant-diven decision/requirement. They want to make sure there’s enough parking for everyone on the day after Thanksgiving (“Black Friday”), even if 20%-50% of it sits empty 360+ days a year. While you won’t have much success convincing retailers of “the error of their thinking”, planners and government officials can minimize its impact. Wrapping mixed-use, multi-story buildings around parking structures is one obvious solution, but requires both a different financial environment (higher land costs) and allowing, god-forbid, higher densities in suburban areas. Another, much-less-expensive alternative would be allowing alternative paving solutions for that 20% – 30% that is rarely needed, like http://www.invisiblestructures.com/GP2/grasspave.htm or http://www.grasscrete.com/docs/paving/grassconcrete-paving.htm. While they don’t eliminate the sprawl, at least they make it greener, both literally and figuratively.
And, yes, in the world of politics, there are, at times, some “strange bedfellows”. We need to stay focused on the goal. While I have no interest in going home with a guy and/or studying the bible with him (or her), there’s no reason why we can’t, for example, work together to see rail transit expanded in the region. Yes, we live in “different worlds”, but that can be an advantage – we can “educate” the people in our very different worlds why our common goal makes sense and should be supported. There is strength in numbers. Too much time is spent building walls and stereotypes, and not enough time in tearing them down!
“anti-two party system in Washington”
Don’t you think that means that they want a more open political system with more parties, rather than one or no parties?
Just so you know who your strange bedfellow is, here is ADL’s summary of the group:
The St. Louis-based Council of Conservative Citizens traces its roots directly to the racist, anti-integrationist White Citizens’ Councils of the 1950s and 1960s.
Its current leader, attorney Gordon Lee Baum, was an organizer for the WCC and built the Council of Conservative Citizens in part from the old group’s mailing lists. Like its predecessor, the CCC inflames fears and resentments, particularly among Southern whites, with regard to black-on-white crime, nonwhite immigration, attacks on the Confederate flag and other issues related to “traditional” Southern culture. Although the group claims not to be racist, its leaders traffic with other white supremacist groups and its publications, Web sites and meetings all promote the purportedly innate superiority of whites. Despite its record, the CCC has been successful in drawing southern politicians to its events: the 1998 revelation that then Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott had been a frequent speaker before the group drew substantial media attention. Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi state senators and several state representatives have appeared in recent years.
jim,
please forgive this PC nit-picky aside but when you say,
“While I have no interest in going home with a guy and/or studying the bible with him (or her), there’s no reason why we can’t, for example, work together to see rail transit expanded in the region,”
it sounds as though the implication is that “being gay” = “going home with a guy” and that “going home with a guy” = “going home with a guy for sex.” now i’m probably blowing this TOTALLY out of proportion but that characterization REALLY bothers me since it is, of course, a generalization with a “bad” connotation.
if i’m a million miles from your intended meaning just tell me to shut up.
Adam – No, I’m not going to tell you to shut up, but also I think you’re blowing it out of proportion. I’m not gay. I’m not interested in going home with a guy. I love my wife. But I also don’t care what adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and I have no problem working and socializing with gays, women, Republicans, goths, rednecks, hoosiers, whatever. We’re all different. Different things make us happy and give us validity in this life. Not better or worse, “good” or “bad”, just different. We all have our preferences and, unfortunately, our prejudices. My point is that too many people, especially on the “christian right”, but also on the yuppie left, are more focused on trying to “change” other people to conform to their perception of PC or perfection than in trying to get along and working toward common goals. Cities, by definition, are messy. We have people of all persuasions living here. We have to get along. What we also have is a lot of distrust that hinders positive movement, and. unfortunately, needed reinvestment. To use transit again, Metro struggles here with the perception that only poor (and largely african-american) people ride the bus, and that it’s not something for white suburbanites to be interested in or support. We’re going to live through three years of Highway 40 being reconstructed, and if there were a viable, parallel public transit system, the pain for all commuters would be lessened.
And to dismiss and to try and ignore the CCC because they’re racist and hateful will only be partially successful. You need to “know your enemy”. Whether we like it or not, they’re continuing to appeal to certain members of our society. Unfortunately, as much as we’d like to “stamp out” their views, the reality is that they’re entitled to hold them. I would much rather focus their effiorts on things that are positive for the larger society than in marginalizing and isolating them and allowing their negative views to fester and grow. Most of us don’t like being told that we’re “wrong”. We believe what we believe for a reason. Better to educate and persuade than to act like fascists and try to eradicate “opposing” opinions . . . the opinion being trampled may very well be yours – and that’s why I won’t tell you to “Shut up”!
Adam, I read Jim’s comment as meaning that we can make coalitions with people we wouldn’t necessarily want to have as intimates, whether sexual, social, or intellectual.
Mike,
Allowing many parties to enter in the political arena would make it harder for these conservatives to pass their anti-everything legislation. I doubt they are for pluralism, rather the opposite.
Doug, I happen to agree with Michael’s interpretation. From the American Conservative article:
“Restoring the Republic requires breaking the monopoly of professional politicians and two parties that are for the most part one party—the Party of I’ve Got Mine. The next conservatism should promote increased use of ballot initiatives and referenda, term limits, putting “none of the above†on the ballot and requiring a new election with new candidates if it wins, and ending legalized bribery under the name of campaign contributions.”
Neither of our current so-called major parties can apply guiding principles consistently so long as they both try to please large groups with divergent interests–or small groups with lots of money. The Republican coalition just happens to be falling apart faster because W and his cronies have made it impossible for the either of the major conservative factions–fiscal or social–to pretend that the GOP is serving their interests. It’s only a matter of time before the same happens with the Democrats.
jim,
i completely agree with your overall point. MY point is just that saying things like “i’m not gay therefore i don’t go home with guys” actually REINFORCES prejudices because by and large “going home with guys” is interpreted by many as “typical gay promiscuity.” why not say, “i’m not attracted to guys” instead of “i don’t go home with guys.” anyway, that’s all. i’m not accusing anyone of anything. just asking for careful choice of language because many do not share our enlightened opinions on equality. also, i didn’t mean for the “shut up” thing to be taken literally. it was just sort of an apology for being so picky.
LisaS,
i agree that that’s what jim was trying to convey. but when i first read it that sentence just jumped out at me.
Adam, I think we’re on slightly different wavelengths when it comes to sensitivity – If I were single, I would still say “I have no interest in going home with a guy”. I might expand it to say, “Hey, I’d love to gome home with that girl” (or something more crass). While it’s an oblique reference to promiscuity and possibilities, it has nothing to do with gay or straight, just hormones and preferences . . .
Jim-
You said “hoosier”. Heh. Heh. Did you ever hear the term “hoosier” used in a derogatory context before moving to STL? You’re from Denver, right? Are there any terms spoken in Denver that people in St. Louis generally wouldn’t understand?
Don’t you think living in a place with its own colloquialisms is more interesting than living in places with generic language?
Growing up in Louisville, Ky., the only Hoosiers I knew lived across the river in Indiana. Hoosiers here are apparently “different” and more narrowly-defined 😉 . . . Probably the most common terms that midwesterners wouldn’t understand around Denver are the “chain law”, no-burn days and circle-diamond-square watering restrictions. As for western colloquialisms, they’re mostly aimed at the rural areas, Texans and Californians. Cowboys have their own language (http://www.cowboyshowcase.com/glossary%20people.htm and http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-Slang.html), and look down on “goat ropers”. Add in the language of the oil business (mud jacking, for instance) and a growing Hispanic influence and it created an interesting melting pot. A couple of Colorado sayings described the S. Plate River as “too thick to drink and too thin to plow”, and the ever-popular “Don’t Californicate Colorado”. And if y’all head out to Colorado, be sure to sample the Rocky Mountain osyters (a local “delicacy”)!
When the Bears were about to get whooped by the Colts, the Tribune, in its endless search for news hooks, ran an amusing bit on the origin of “Hoosier” with a nod to St. Louis’ special usage. I can’t find the link now, but it mentioned several negative connotations throughout the history of the term, along the lines of redneck — connotations which remain current only in St. Louis, where old worldviews die hard.
No, I’m not bitter!
Lisa,
They might be for increased participation of 3rd parties, however, suggesting that they support pluralism is naive. How could they expect to achieve any of their extreme goals when increased diversity in the political arena occurs? I think they are simply upset that their Republican party talks big on family values, yet simply does not deliver to the extent which would satisfy them. If these conservatives really want to impose their values, then pluralism is the wrong direction.
Their analysis of the Democratic Party is quite off. In my opinion, the Democratic party is far more pluralistic than the Republican Party. The Democrats are the party of inclusion, which can also be a problem in agenda setting. The Republican Party panders to the conservative voters for their turnout, yet they still support big business. It will be interesting to see how the social conservatives vote in 2008 as really none of their candidates are true social conservatives, except for Brownback, yet he is far behind in the polls. I find it quite ironic that Giuliani is the front runner as he dresses in drag quite frequently.
Quite some interesting comments posted. What stuck out for me was the one about cities being messy…they are. About SUV’s being glorified station wagons…they are. About it being useful to know what the other side is thinking…it is.
In my observation of societies, I see that when the liberals get too far, the economies give people the jitters, jobs are in jeapordy, the ultra rights are there to fight back and swing the pendilum back towards the middle. I think it gives them an unconscious sense of comfort against the unknown. But no matter how much the conservatives fight, sooner or later, society will progress forward.
Two steps forward, one back.
I may be (too?) cynical, but at the national level, I see very little difference between the two major parties. Both are way too focused on fund raisng and polling for the next election, and unwilling to make any “hard” choices on the tough issues like health care and social security. It’s all talk and posturing, with very little substance or progress, combined with a bureacracy on auto-pilot. The Dems “won” this time based on promises that included getting us out of Iraq, yet the Senate can’t even agree (after 10+ weeks!) on how to discuss the issue.
But what’s really scary is the “lock” the R’s & D’s have on the legislative process, with rules that make it virtually impossible for any third-party or “independent” member to accomplish anything! Breaking this monopoly (a.k.a. the european model), with multiple parties and shifting coalitions, might be worth trying, but it simply ain’t gonna happen with the current two-party lock on redistricting, seniority, committee assignments, qualifying for the ballot, etc., etc. Add in the hostile way any candidate’s past choices are parsed and exposed, and you scare off too many potential folks who might run and do some good.
That said, I continue to see potential for positive changes at the local level. The “trick” is in getting “good” people elected. And this isn’t all that different than the CCC perspective. Candidates are both self-selected and encouraged to run by “special-interest” groups, be they R’s, D’s, unions, neo-cons, christians, whatever. Apathy is our biggest hurdle. Given the small turnout at most elections, it’s not that hard for a group with an agenda to get someone elected. Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve . . .
The “next” conservative movement’s embrace of reform of the electoral system is based on a desire to make it easier for candidates not aligned with corporate interests to run for office. Not bad.