Disliking Democracy On Principle

In an earlier post today, I discussed Colin Powell's unwillingness to remember that he's no long Secretary of State, and I called him and his followers "reactionary." It's not the first time I, or many others, have labeled the left as the bastion of today's most reactionary politics. As so many have said, so many times: if you're out of ideas, there's little left to do but stand in the way of those who still bother to learn, reason, and debate.

David Gelernter's op-ed in today's L.A. Times (registration) makes many similar points, and eloquently. In "To Dems, It's 1974 Forever," he states a plain truth: the parties have reversed their stances on the idea of acting on new ideas. If once the Democrats stood for tackling problems with new ideas, today they demand a halt to all debate, all efforts to bring new research and evidence to bear on perennial problems at home and abroad.

Read Gelernter's piece, as he's always a stimulating writer whose passion for ideas never wanes. By and large I agree with his assessment, and I'd refer everyone to a path-breaking lecture delivered by Democracy Project board member Wilfred McClay at the Ethics and Public Policy Center earlier this year. What McClay asks, and what Gelernter will hopefully address in a future piece, is the type of change the right should embrace, and the means by which it can conserve what is worthy of conservation.

That isn't an argument for reaction on the right, mind you: there's been plenty of that in the past, and there are still pockets of reactionaries on the far right who've long since made their peace with their contemporaries on the left. It is, however, a reminder that change should be pursued not for its own sake, but for an end that is worthy of the sacrifices required to gain it. Gelernter offers several examples that qualify: in education, foreign policy, economics, social issues, and more. And on every count, he's exactly correct: the status quo is unacceptable, and change is needed in order to either attack problems effectively, or, at least, to get out of the way so that states and localities can take charge.

At root, what Gelernter recognizes is shared by a huge number of conservatives across the land: conserving what is good and honorable in the past is a virtue, while attempting to make time stand still is both foolish and destructive. The agent of change most celebrated by today's conservatives, and most loathed by the reactionary left, is liberty. As Gelernter writes:

"Today's Democrats dislike democracy on principle, like Russian nobility circa 1905."

It's important to bear in mind, again, that conservatives can be enthusiastic about change if and when the ends are virtuous and worthy of praise. After all, the left's mindless embrace of revolutionary change, from the '60s forward, served to damage the country's social fabric and ruin more than a few institutions, most obviously academe. The right's embrace of change today is a sign both of its desire to repair the damage wrought by the left, and of its willingness to use the knowledge and means available to us to work toward a better world for ourselves and others. That's the kind of change thoughtful conservatives should (and do) embrace, even if in its democratic nature precludes support from the contemporary left.