Internal contestation
Why dissent ought to be encouraged – but isn’t
Today conservative author and Bush speechwriter David Frum parted ways with the American Enterprise Institute, a leading right-of-center think tank. Speculation has been rampant throughout the day, but the latest updates indicate that Frum’s reason for leaving was money, not an ideological purge. Frum has won a reputation for reasonableness and objectivity among moderates and liberals for breaking ranks with Fox News and for his willingness to openly criticize the Republican Party.
Many believed that Frum’s recent CNN article, in which he argued that Republicans were unwise to universally lambast the health care reform bill(s), was the last straw for AEI, which is perceived by many have strayed from a more market-based moderate conservatism toward an ideological, movement-based model.
Andrew Sullivan (no stranger to defecting from mainstream conservatism) laments Frum’s resignation, writing the following:
Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn’t already. Sadly, there is no place for David and me to go. The donor community is only interested in financing organizations that parrot the party line…
Bruce Bartlett (another more centrist conservative) recalls Frum telling him privately that AEI essentially placed a gag order on its scholars with regard to Obama’s health care proposals over the past year, because the scholars were actually supportive of many of the President’s ideas.
Much of this is speculative and anecdotal. But if some of it is true, it’s worrisome not only for liberals, who are faced with a more and more polarized opposition, but for conservatives as well. Partisan politics and ideology aside, movements with no tolerance for dissent tend toward self-destruction. That’s not to say that the “big-tent” approach is always preferable (indeed, many liberals blame over-inclusion of varying viewpoints for the Democrats’ woes), but it’s likely that a healthy balance of constructive diversity and consistent messaging is ideal for any political entity.
J.S. Mill famously gave a two-pronged epistemological argument for philosophical heterogeneity at the society level: (1) if you happen to be wrong about something (as we often are), you need others who can persuade and correct you; and (2) even you happen to be right, you benefit from opposing arguments – they keep you on your toes, clarify your weaknesses, and most important, they prevent your “truth” from becoming mere dogma, worn thin by time and repetition.
Rather than circling the wagons, conservatives – and everyone else, for that matter – would do to remember Mill’s advice. Forcing out astute minds like Sullivan, Frum, and Bartlett may give short-term satisfaction, solidifying the ‘Rovian’ base and alleviating the thorny pains of self-critique. But in the long run, the movement’s ideas and appeal will suffer from suffocating insulation.
One need not appeal to Millian liberal ideals to recognize this – No one knows better than conservatives the value of open markets, competition, and unencumbered innovation. Just as the notion of a unitary “state doctrine” grates on the conservative’s conscience, so should the idea that today’s most powerful think tanks and media outlets would enforce adherence to the party line. The battle of ideas should be won by argument, not strategic censorship.
-Colin
Image from AEI’s website.
Related posts:
- Right of resistance
- Tea Partyers for Medicare
- My professor voted for McCain
- Linker redux
- Chambers and Trilling
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
