Gleaves Whitney Remarks
Philadelphia Society, Fall Meeting 2016
Society Hill Sheraton, Philadelphia, PA
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Note: A shorter version of
this paper was delivered at the last panel of the 2016 fall meeting of the
Philadelphia Society. The theme of the meeting
was The History and Meaning of
American Political Parties. The final panel addressed “Democrats and Republicans Today: Chances of Realignment Looking Forward.”
In 2016 Americans are feeling
anxious. It’s not that we are experiencing crises – we are neither in total war
nor economic depression. Yet 2016 has forced us to rethink all we thought we
knew. A Socialist made a credible run for the Democratic nomination and
succeeded in moving the Democratic Party platform farther left than it has ever
been. A maverick businessman and reality TV star who has shown no loyalty to
the GOP or conservative principles succeeded in winning the Republican
nomination. Whole new factions of Americans who have been left out in the
economic cold are supercharged for change. As a result, the establishments of
both parties have been taking a thrashing. One billion dollars are being spent
on this presidential contest, and millions of those dollars are being used on
television buys – to no effect. Meanwhile, tweets are moving mountains. All
this was unthinkable just 18 months ago. No one saw it coming. What has not changed is that the center does not
hold: Anomic forces continue to coarsen and cleave our culture.
In this exploding landscape, in
this Waste Land of the Kardashians, we find ourselves in an Age of Anxiety. There’s
been anxiety about the left, with its open declarations of victory in the
culture wars. There’s been anxiety about the right, with its lurch toward
populism, nativism, and protectionism. Now there’s anxiety in everyone about
what comes next. Moments ago in his paper, Lee Edwards outlined five necessary conditions
for a political realignment to occur: (1) crisis, (2) demographic change, (3) the
serious weakening of a party, (4) a strong third party rising, and (5) new
leadership and ideas.[1] Since Lee did such a good job explaining political realignment, I’d like to veer in a different direction and ask that you consider two points regarding cultural realignment – one of which
looks back, the other of which looks forward.
 |
| Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945) |
But – in the process of enlarging
their sphere of influence, conservatives began to have second thoughts, the
same second thoughts that occur to people the morning after an exciting liaison.
Maybe the conservative hookup with the GOP wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.
In fact, a lot of conservatives began to realize they had gotten left out in
the cold. Russell Kirk, Friedrich von Hayek, Richard
Weaver – they were quoted in set pieces yet, truth be told, most all their books were relegated to the
status of historic curios.
That’s why we sense anxiety
among our conservative friends about even a favorable
political realignment. As noted above, we’ve seen a favorable realignment
before, with less than satisfactory results. A distinguished member of the
Philadelphia Society now deceased, Stephen Tonsor, put it to me this way some
three decades ago, back in the heyday of the Reagan era: “Mr. Whitney,” he
intoned, “Do not become corrupted by the Imperial City. It’s where scholars go
to die. As for the conservative movement – well, it died when it put on a blue
suit and went to Washington.”[2]
(This led the inimitable Stan Evans
to formulate the Law of Perfidy: “When our people get to a place where they can
do some good, they quit being our people!”[3])
To his students and to previous
audiences of the Philadelphia Society, Tonsor’s drumbeat was: Don’t be seduced
by power. Don’t neglect the culture. Keep doing the necessary work of building
up the culture.
Tonsor’s message was similar to
that of the controversial activist Paul Weyrich, who wrote a now-famous letter to
conservatives in 1999 that stirred up considerable discussion in this Society. Weyrich believed that conservatives had made a Faustian
bargain: They were winning political battles but losing the cultural war. Permit me to quote
from that lightning rod of a letter:
“In
looking at the long history of conservative politics, from the defeat of Robert
Taft in 1952, to the nomination of Barry Goldwater, to the takeover of the
Republican Party in 1994, I think it is fair to say that conservatives have
learned to succeed in politics. That is, we got our people elected.
 |
| Paul M. Weyrich (1942-2008) |
“That's
why I am in the process of rethinking what it is that we, who still believe in
our traditional, Western, Judeo-Christian culture, can and should do under the
circumstances. Please understand that I am not quarreling with anybody who
pursues politics, because it is important to pursue politics, to be involved in
government. It is also important to try, as many people have, to re-take the
cultural institutions that have been captured by the other side.”[4]
I think Tonsor, Weyrich, and others made a profoundly important argument, even more penetrating today than it was two, three decades ago. They remind us that even a good political realignment must be accompanied by a better cultural realignment if favorable political change is to stick, if our pursuit of happiness is to have real meaning.
My second point looks forward, to a revolution that is proving to be every bit as far reaching as the French and Industrial revolutions. And it’s not finished, and we are starting to see it as a driver of realignment.
We cannot even wrap our minds
around this upheaval that, for convenience, we shall call the “digital
revolution.” Johns Hopkins fellow Alec Ross points to a stunning fact: Every two days as much data has been produced as all
the information humans produced between the cave paintings and 2003. The applications
of a world coded in zeros and ones are dizzying – driverless cars, precision
agriculture, artificial intelligence, robotics, the digital transfer of entire
libraries.[5] Did you know that every six hours, the National Security Agency
(NSA) is gathering as much information as is stored in the entire Library of
Congress?[6] And that it can fit in an object smaller than a key fob?[7] I
should think that fact alone would make everybody anti-statist!
Ross also notes that you can divide
the digital revolution into two phases: the world’s last trillion-dollar
industry that arose from digital
coding, and the world’s next trillion-dollar industry that is coming from genetic coding; the genomic therapies
that are being developed now will soon be eliminating diseases and extending
life by three to five years.
The digital revolution is
breathtaking to those who have the education and skills to access and
manipulate it; and it is heartbreaking to those who do not. While many
industries and communities are making the digital pivot, not all will. Those
that successfully pivot and embrace the digital revolution will prosper. Those
that don’t will become slums of despair. The people in the slums of despair
will be susceptible to radicalization by the far left and the far right. The
truck drivers, the janitors, the hotel maids, the people who fold clothes – if
they are not part of the digital revolution, they might become part of a
counter-revolution, and tear down what they cannot build up.
Ross illustrates what is happening
with a powerful anecdote. There is a businessman in China who owns factories
that used to employ almost one million people on assembly lines. He made the
digital pivot and brought in robots to work the assembly line. As he said,
robots don’t ask for raises, they don’t steal from the company, they don’t get
sick, they don’t get tired – they work 24/7 with nary an HR issue. The robots
were so successful that this factory owner let go 600,000 people. Ladies and
gentlemen, scaled to America, such layoffs could generate a lot of realignment.
As my friend Joe Lehman, president
of the Mackinac Center, likes to say: “Here come the robots and the pitchforks
aren’t far behind.”
When thinking about the
consequences of the digital revolution, it’s not a failure of understanding
that worries me; it’s a failure of imagination. To visualize what a digital
dystopia might look like, I’d recommend you read Kurt Vonnegut’s first novel, Player Piano. It was written in 1952 and
describes a world in which physical labor is eliminated, a world in which
people whose vocation it is to work with their hands are left out in the cold.
Kurt Vonnegut understood – conservatives
understand – that in the face of any revolution, the digital one included, there
is the need for a party of conservation to push back against the party of
innovation. Push back how? For starters, by serving as the collective cultural memory of those things that are needed to be fully human.
In an age of change,
it is the conservative who reminds us of continuity.
In an age of matter, it is the conservative who reminds us of spirit.
In an age of becoming, it is the conservative who reminds us of being.
In an age of science, it is the conservative who reminds us of letters.
In an age of liberty, it is the conservative who reminds us of virtue.
In an age of equality, it is the conservative who reminds us of natural aristocracy.
In an age of conformity, it is the conservative who reminds us to be a contradiction.
In an age of strident tribal identities, it is the conservative who reminds us of our quiet universal humanity.
In an age of matter, it is the conservative who reminds us of spirit.
In an age of becoming, it is the conservative who reminds us of being.
In an age of science, it is the conservative who reminds us of letters.
In an age of liberty, it is the conservative who reminds us of virtue.
In an age of equality, it is the conservative who reminds us of natural aristocracy.
In an age of conformity, it is the conservative who reminds us to be a contradiction.
In an age of strident tribal identities, it is the conservative who reminds us of our quiet universal humanity.
From the foregoing we see that the chief civilizational role of conservatives is to guard the human person is his or her fullness.
Now, while there is a lot of anxiety about the state of our politics and culture, it would not hurt to follow Russell Kirk’s lead and let a little cheerfulness break in. In the first place, conservatives should not look upon political and cultural realignment passively, as if we were victims powerless to bring about change. We are volitional. We are intentional.
Now, while there is a lot of anxiety about the state of our politics and culture, it would not hurt to follow Russell Kirk’s lead and let a little cheerfulness break in. In the first place, conservatives should not look upon political and cultural realignment passively, as if we were victims powerless to bring about change. We are volitional. We are intentional.
 |
| Winston Elliott III, presenting at the Hauenstein Center |
These leaders are men and women of
imagination. Each in his or her own way is anchoring their good work to the
permanent things – to the true, the good, and the beautiful. They are a contradiction
to our age. They are tending to the cultural realignment that must occur for a
favorable political realignment to come about.
As for conservatives who are allied
to the Republican “brand”: Whatever the status of the party at the national
level, at the local and state levels the GOP is fielding outstanding men and
women who are fiscally conservative problem solvers. They are tapping into the
energy for change across the land and channeling that energy into good
policies. They are winning many of the elections in local and state races. That’s
why Republicans hold a solid majority of governorships and state houses. We
must remain on the lookout and cultivate these outstanding young leaders.
So in a spirit of cheerfulness, I
conclude with the words of Alexis de Tocqueville who, in Democracy in America, argued that “A new political science is
needed for a world altogether new.” Indeed:
“To instruct democracy, if possible
to reanimate its beliefs, to purify its mores, to moderate its movements, to
substitute little by little an understanding of affairs for its inexperience,
and knowledge of its true interests for its blind instincts; to adapt its
government to time and place; to modify it according to circumstances and men –
such is the first duty imposed on those who would guide society in our day.
I’m looking out at a lot of great guides, and that gives me
hope.
* *
*
[1] Lee Edwards, “Is 2016 a ‘Critical Election’?” remarks to the panel, “Democrats
and Republicans Today: Chances of Realignment Looking Forward,” Philadelphia
Society 2016 Fall Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, October 1, 2016.
[3] M.
Stanton Evans, quoted by George H. Nash, Philadelphia Society luncheon Address,
Philadelphia, PA, October 1, 2016.
[5] Alec Ross, “A Look at Industries of the Future and the Disruptive Trends and
Changes Happening in Business,” speech presented to the West Michigan Policy
Forum and Economic Club of Grand Rapids, September 26, 2016.
[8] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in
America, vol. 1, author’s Introduction.
No comments:
Post a Comment