RSS

Contact us

FAQs

Sunday 27 May 2012

The pros and cons of "Heroic Conservatism"

Ex-Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson has written a manifesto. Ross Douthat gives it a considered response: 

Gerson's central argument is basically correct: American conservatism needs to stand for something besides government-cutting if it hopes to regain the majority that George W. Bush won (and quickly lost). At its best, Heroic Conservatism is a necessary corrective to the right's mythologizing of its own past, which cultivates the pretense that small-government purity has always been the key to Republican success. By way of rebuttal, Gerson points out that conservatives tend to win elections only when they convince voters that they mean to reform the welfare state, rather than do away with it entirely...  

[H]owever, his proposed remedy... seems more likely to kill the patient than to save it. Standing amid the rubble of an administration that promised (often in his own flowery prose) far more than it delivered, Gerson summons the GOP to a still-more-ambitious set of foreign and domestic crusades.

Actions: Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink  

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved