What Trump is doing is basically a revolution. As such, it will be chaotic and ugly and create its own problems. Nevertheless, in all that wrecking ball activity, he is breaking up failed structures whose ills have persisted for decades and that have defied resolution by normal means. Indeed, they have only been made worse due to the interests that have become invested in their dysfunction. The American voters clearly want these problems addressed. So my question is: what do you think should be done? If you reject the chaos, what is your solution for addressing those ills by more continuity- and predictability-respectful means? What does that look like?
But the entire conservative framework (at least traditional conservatives like Burke, Kirk, and others) is anti-revolutionary at its core. So the question of how to address these ills will depend on your perspective. But I think a conservative approach would require thoughtful assessment of the real problem, along with time for people to adapt. I have friends in government offices who have been told that they will be fired if they don't resign immediately, which means they've been given no opportunity to plan a savings cushion, find another job, or do any other kind of adjustment. Same for foreign aid organizations, university research offices, and many others. This is a political purge, not a revolution.
I'll also add that I'm deeply critical of the current state of the federal government and the bloat and wasted resources in many of these agencies. I'm not coming at this from the perspective that change isn't necessary. It absolutely is. But this isn't principled change. It's a power grab that will lead to a power vacuum in Washington that will be filled by even less principled people than those who are already there. And many of the *people* in these agencies who are being purged have done bipartisan work in good faith, so we need to separate the structural dysfunction from the people who worked hard and whose lives are now being destroyed.
By all means, do detailed analyses, streamline regulatory rules, eliminate unnecessary offices that aren't central to the function of a specific agency. Those are obvious places to start. But that's not what's happening right now.
Your friends in government who are being fired probably should have seen the light months ago. Private sector employees dont get forewarning like this.
Your article is built on two debatable foundations: (1) That Russel Kirk founded American conservatism and (2) that conservativism means defending the status quo, regardless of what that status quo may be.
While Kirk was influential on other conservative intellectuals, he neither invented conservatism or ever achieved a broad following of his strain of conservativism. He published The Conservative Mind in 1953, a year after the 1952 Republican convention where the proto-neocons wrested control of the party from the Taftian national conservatives. Taft and his father, Coolidge, Harding, the conservative Supreme Court (before the "switch in time to save the nine"), the 1942-1962 conservative coalition in congress, all pre-date Kirk coming on to the scene.
And secondly, conservatism is not merely a procedural thing about defending the status quo for the sake of it. That may be a Kirkian notion, but it is not one that conservatives live in their daily loves. Conservativism is about an actual set of principles and goals, even if there are disagreements over what precisely those goals are.
A conservative who defends affirmative action on the grounds that "it's been the law for half a century" is no conservative, and that is not a conservative argument. It is in fact conservative to want to tear down such an institution to best promote the conservative ideals of color-blindness. It is not conservative to defend and preserve a gloated federal bureaucracy; there may be unwise ways to go about deconstructing it, but the mere act of deconstructing is not un-conservative.
Interesting article, but here's the thing: no other presidents (or even candidates) have been interested in reducing government bloat. If he does it haphazardly, it is because he has no reference on how to do so correctly.
The closest example would be the wonderful changes happening in Argentina. But that's Argentina, and there is a language barrier that nakes it difficult for us to follow their path.
Thanks, Lauren. Great Kirkian (!!!) insights.
What Trump is doing is basically a revolution. As such, it will be chaotic and ugly and create its own problems. Nevertheless, in all that wrecking ball activity, he is breaking up failed structures whose ills have persisted for decades and that have defied resolution by normal means. Indeed, they have only been made worse due to the interests that have become invested in their dysfunction. The American voters clearly want these problems addressed. So my question is: what do you think should be done? If you reject the chaos, what is your solution for addressing those ills by more continuity- and predictability-respectful means? What does that look like?
But the entire conservative framework (at least traditional conservatives like Burke, Kirk, and others) is anti-revolutionary at its core. So the question of how to address these ills will depend on your perspective. But I think a conservative approach would require thoughtful assessment of the real problem, along with time for people to adapt. I have friends in government offices who have been told that they will be fired if they don't resign immediately, which means they've been given no opportunity to plan a savings cushion, find another job, or do any other kind of adjustment. Same for foreign aid organizations, university research offices, and many others. This is a political purge, not a revolution.
I'll also add that I'm deeply critical of the current state of the federal government and the bloat and wasted resources in many of these agencies. I'm not coming at this from the perspective that change isn't necessary. It absolutely is. But this isn't principled change. It's a power grab that will lead to a power vacuum in Washington that will be filled by even less principled people than those who are already there. And many of the *people* in these agencies who are being purged have done bipartisan work in good faith, so we need to separate the structural dysfunction from the people who worked hard and whose lives are now being destroyed.
By all means, do detailed analyses, streamline regulatory rules, eliminate unnecessary offices that aren't central to the function of a specific agency. Those are obvious places to start. But that's not what's happening right now.
Your friends in government who are being fired probably should have seen the light months ago. Private sector employees dont get forewarning like this.
Your article is built on two debatable foundations: (1) That Russel Kirk founded American conservatism and (2) that conservativism means defending the status quo, regardless of what that status quo may be.
While Kirk was influential on other conservative intellectuals, he neither invented conservatism or ever achieved a broad following of his strain of conservativism. He published The Conservative Mind in 1953, a year after the 1952 Republican convention where the proto-neocons wrested control of the party from the Taftian national conservatives. Taft and his father, Coolidge, Harding, the conservative Supreme Court (before the "switch in time to save the nine"), the 1942-1962 conservative coalition in congress, all pre-date Kirk coming on to the scene.
And secondly, conservatism is not merely a procedural thing about defending the status quo for the sake of it. That may be a Kirkian notion, but it is not one that conservatives live in their daily loves. Conservativism is about an actual set of principles and goals, even if there are disagreements over what precisely those goals are.
A conservative who defends affirmative action on the grounds that "it's been the law for half a century" is no conservative, and that is not a conservative argument. It is in fact conservative to want to tear down such an institution to best promote the conservative ideals of color-blindness. It is not conservative to defend and preserve a gloated federal bureaucracy; there may be unwise ways to go about deconstructing it, but the mere act of deconstructing is not un-conservative.
Interesting article, but here's the thing: no other presidents (or even candidates) have been interested in reducing government bloat. If he does it haphazardly, it is because he has no reference on how to do so correctly.
The closest example would be the wonderful changes happening in Argentina. But that's Argentina, and there is a language barrier that nakes it difficult for us to follow their path.