Las Vegas Sun

March 1, 2015

Currently: 61° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Other Voices:

New ideas? Just say ‘No’

After declining to give details of the Romney-Ryan tax plan in a testy back-and-forth with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday,” Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan, offered a novel excuse. He didn’t want to put viewers to sleep.

“I like Chris,” the Wisconsin Republican told a Milwaukee talk radio show. “I didn’t want to get into all of the math on this because everyone would start changing the channel.”

That’s merciful, I suppose. But it’s also too bad, since Ryan’s tax plan is one of the closest things that we have heard in Campaign 2012 to an original idea.

What happened, I wondered, to the days when another conservative challenger, Ronald Reagan, led what many called a “party of new ideas,” a time when conservatives responded to the liberal legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal with market-driven innovations of their own?

Ideas like welfare reform, school vouchers, neighborhood enterprise zones and tenant management of public housing enlivened a real debate and helped make Reagan a truly transformational president, even for those of us who opposed many of his ideas.

Today, despite the conservative think tanks and 24/7 talk shows and blogs, the party of ideas has become the party of “No,” blocking President Barack Obama’s initiatives without presenting many alternative ideas of their own.


One academic, Corey Robin at Brooklyn College, gave me a plain and simple answer: “Because they don’t have to,” he said.

That’s a nutshell version of the central argument in Robin’s latest book, “The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin.” For all the talk we hear from the right about freedom and liberty these days, the conservative movement dating back to the 18th century Whig statesman Edmund Burke, the movement’s founding philosopher, has always merely defended the status quo, as far as it protected elites. Only after the empowered and privileged classes are challenged by some new order do conservatives feel compelled to articulate new political ideas.

For Burke, a supporter of the American Revolution, that unacceptable challenge came when the French Revolution turned ugly with mob rule and brutality. The history of conservatives in the United States is marked by similar confrontations to block such change agents as abolitionists, progressives, socialists, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement and, most recently, the gay marriage movement.

“Conservative ideas are only produced when they have to be produced,” Robin, an associate professor in political science, told me in a telephone interview. “When real power and privilege are being threatened, that’s when the conservative defenders of those powers and privilege recognize they have to come up with a new defense.”

Of course, conservative thought leaders have been as varied as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Jack Kemp, to name a few. But the constructive obstructionism, as I would call it, that links them all was captured best in a much-quoted line from National Review founder William F. Buckley’s mission statement: The magazine, he declared, “stands athwart history, yelling Stop.”

Indeed, there are times when conservatism plays a valuable role in checking the excesses of the left. But the right has little reason to rise up with new ideas these days, Robin says, because, ironically, “they already have won. The administration of Barack Obama is proof of that in a bizarre kind of way. Here you had the most progressive candidate to come along in a generation ... yet, he has governed like an Eisenhower Republican.”

Indeed, despite a previous voting record that conservatives blast as “the most liberal in the Congress,” President Obama has governed mostly as a center-left moderate who admiringly quotes Ronald Reagan. Even Obama’s embattled health care overhaul and stimulus packages took as much fire from the left as from the right for giving away too much, even before negotiations began.

Besides, despite all of the paranoid right-wing myths about Obama as a Marxist-Kenyan-Muslim, Obama’s unthreatening moderation is revealed in the failure of moderate establishment Republicans to rise up against him with anything resembling the far right’s panic. True conservatives know when they have something valuable to conserve, beginning with their sanity.

So those of us who would like to see a more vigorous debate from the right will just have to wait. There’s no need to come up with new ideas when a simple “No” will do.

Clarence Page is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. He writes from Washington.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I case you missed it columnist, there was quite vigorous debate last night at Dnever University. True grit Mitt took President Obama to the watershed on jobs, the economy, entitlements, health care, role of government, debt, taxes and leadership. Too bad there was not enough time for immigration and Fed reserve policy. But considering the shellacking he took, President Obama will be licking his wounds right up to the next debate. He didn't need anymore.


  2. This is simply how I perceived it.

    Romney took your advice and attacked, frothing in the mouth with lies we already heard before. Obama maintained his civility and class.

    Romney kept repeating the $716B, even after the President explained it - the same $716B that had been beaten to death before the debate. Romney was clearly and desperately trying to reverse the 'inartful' remarks he spewed.

    There is no longer a need for more debates. They are simply rehashes of sound bytes we are already tired of hearing. What else is new.

  3. "There is no longer a need for more debates. They are simply rehashes of sound bytes we are already tired of hearing."

    Not true. The one on one debates preempts TV ad soundbites because there are direct and immediate rebuttals. Governator won, BIG! 2 more presidential debates and one VP debate to go. Then the only poll that counts: November 6, 2012.