A Stitch in Haste

The Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz seems to think so: (W$J; OpinionJournal)

One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty.

"Lively appreciation" is of course not the term I would use for bigot amendments, flag burning amendments, the eradication of the separation of church and state, and all the other ways that social conservatives have waged culture war against libertarianism -- and all that even before any discussion of Iraq or the War on Civil Liberties!

"Conservatism" today (to the extent it is not faux "No Child Left Behind" or "Gonzales v. Raich" conservatism) can be summed up thusly:

Liberty? Sure -- as long as that "liberty" doesn't offend my social-conservative "beliefs" (creationism?), "practices" (anti-gay bigotry?), "associations" (VMI?) and "institutions" (the Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist and Mormon churches?), all of which "form" (indoctrinate?) citizens capable of preserving "liberty" (as long as that "liberty" doesn't offend my social-conservative ...).

One especially obnoxious bait-and-switch from Berkowitz:

A crucial segment of those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 think that the Constitution should be amended to protect the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Another crucial segment of the Republican coalition rejects alteration of the Constitution to advance debatable social policy, preferring that states function as laboratories of innovation.

In other words, "conservatism" is so wonderfully diverse that it can embrace declaring an insular minority to be second-class citizens at either the federal or the state level. "We got both kinds -- Country and Western!"

The schism between social conservatives and libertarians within the Republican Party was not a manifestation of "diversity" -- it was political schizophrenia. It was not "celebrated," it was tolerated. And now it's dead anyway -- the social conservatives won; the libertarians were purged. The Grand Old Party was as Grand -- and its ideas as Old -- as ever.

Until it self-destructed under its own hubris.

Now, faced with only half a party, a petered-out "us or the terrorists" hysteria no longer propping it up and an utterly inept president leading it, suddenly Republicans want to rediscover "conservative diversity" and summon back disenchanted libertarians?

Conservatives, facing uncertainty about George W. Bush's legacy, and the reality of their own errors and excesses, have good reason just now to read and ponder [Russell] Kirk, [Friedrich] Hayek and [Leo] Strauss.

Yeah right. You don't uninvite someone to your fraternity party and then re-invite them to help clean up your vomit the morning after. Libertarians are, generally, not that stupid. If they return to the GOP, it will only be on their terms, not Karl Rove's or James Dobson's.

Fool me once -- shame on you. Fool me twice -- ain't gonna happen.

---

Richard Cohen, meanwhile, attacks conservatism from its left flank:

An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.

No, that's an overriding principle of libertarianism; conservatives wanted, and got, a federal command-and-control structure in the schools just as liberals wanted -- but with different command(ment)s and controls. That's exactly what No Child Left Behind proves.

And the fact that libertarians and conservatives don't play well together anymore, in the schoolyard or anywhere else, is precisely why the Republican Party is imploding.

Look at who is running for the Republican nomination:

--The utterly unprincipled "say anything" candidates ("Rudy McRomney").
--The all-too-principled "four more years" radical social conservatives (Brownback, Huckabee, Gilmore).
--The nutjobs (Tancredo, Hunter, Gingrich, Paul).

Not a libertarian in the bunch. And who can claim surprise? The GOP has simply reaped what they have sown.