UPDATE: The AFL-CIO had already confirmed the offer.
UPDATE 2: Bad news for my prediction, though not good news for the GOP.
***
Political Animal links to a Greg Sargent bit. Supposedly, the AFL-CIO has told Arlen Specter they’ll back him in his next election if he votes for the Employee Free Choice Act. The idea is that he may jump parties and become a Democrat. My reflex judgment is, yes, he’ll change parties. I saw Bill O’Reilly on the Daily Show in November, and he was saying that basically his outlook was anarchist. These days you can go on national tv and say you’re an anarchist, and that’s better than saying you’re a Republican. And Specter has always struck me as somebody who jumps as survival dictates.
Here’s a clever piece of distancing, by Tom Wolfe in early 2006 (if I remember). He was asked about being a conservative. Wolfe said people know him for what he’s against, they don’t look on him as being in favor of anyone in particular. As I translated it: he wanted to say that, yes, he was still against limousine liberals, but he was not necessarily in favor of Republicans or conservatives. If that was the idea, I think it was a dodge but clever. “Being against” really is a big part of Wolfe’s outlook, especially being against flossy, pretentious, trend-following would-be elite fops — damn liberals. On the other hand, come on, his beliefs are conservative and so are his loyalties; that’s why his latest book is on sale at Human Events Book Service, along with Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg.
Have you read Russell Kirk, Tom?
Not that Wolfe would describe himself as a Traditionalist, but a central theme of Kirks’ is Conservatism as being non-ideological, or more of a negative agenda that only arises when it’s offered something to be against. I wonder if Wolfe was speaking to something like that.
Don’t know though. Yes, the Republican party is squirming, to put it mildly, but I don’t think Conservatism is going anywhere. If the Republican party isn’t the release valve for it in four years, something else will be.
Have to admit I know Kirk only by reputation. There is a lot of “being against” in conservatism — we were just discussing the word “reactionary,” and we all know “react” is in there. But being right wing isn’t the same as being contrarian. Progressivism has its own “against” streak, and the right is in favor of lots of stuff. The right is especially in favor of itself, the conservative movement. Wolfe favors it too, though these days not so much in public.
Oh, I know it’s not contrarianism and understand that Conservatism is in favor of itself- and Kirk, too identifies being a reactionary as part in parcel of Conservatism, mostly in response to progressive social agendas. He basically says that in the last century Traditionalists of all stripes ( including the European Right, who reject all forms of liberalism, like the free market concept) have been put in a defensive position, mostly due to the rise of Marxist thought, and that’s it’s strength, but also it’s achilles heal, as it can’t offer an alternative to larger social or economic strategies, especially to a populace that views government as a sort of provider/nanny figure.
I’m curious what you’d offer as Progressivisms basic
“against” streak, as all I can come up with us that they might be against anything that doesn’t involve them attempting to recreate humanity in their egalitarian vision.
That’d good info about Russell Kirk, thanks. The thing is, if we agree that the right isn’t simply contrarian — that is, against for the sake of being against — then we also have to consider what conservatives are for. Wolfe doesn’t want to talk about what he’s for. My guess: because his “for” list, like that of most US conservatives, had the GOP ranked high up for a long time.
What are progressives against? I bet a lot of people would have different answers. Maybe I can test an impression on you. From reading conservatives here and there, I got the idea that a lot of them think progressives are against the status quo simply because it is the status quo, because the progressives want the power and ego-gratification that supposedly come with turning over things-as-they-are and remaking them in one’s own image. God or tradition and its collective wisdom establish perfectly sensible rules and social institutions, then progressives come and hack them up so the progressives can feel big. Or such was the view I ascribed to conservatives.
But if you have to ask me what progressives are against, maybe my impression is wrong and the above view is not common among conservatives.
Progressives tend to be against torture at the moment. They are often against war. They’re against big business pretty often, and against capitalism more generally (though that last is obviously somewhat slippery.)
I think being against big business is probably the most salient. Whereas conservatives tend to define themselves as being against big government. Socially, conservatives often define themselves as being against decadent change, while progressives define themselves as being against status quo prejudice.