Dear Mr. Swindle,
My name is Barry Loberfeld. I am a Libertarian Party activist and freelance writer. I have contributed a number of pieces to FrontPageMag.com, sometimes at the request of David Horowitz. Since you are completing a work on him, I would like to share a few thoughts….
To my mind, one of the most interesting things about David is that in moving away from something called The Left, he imagines that he has moved to something called The Right, i.e., the conservative movement. But has he really become a “movement conservative”? True, he associates with and promotes numerous figures and organizations popularly considered conservative, and his sympathies are clearly with the Republican Party. But what of his ideas? He is hardly a traditionalist in either the Russell Kirk or Peter Viereck mold. And no one could possibly see him as a part of any “Religious Right”: Despite having a general respect for religion in its non-fanatical forms, he openly maintains his agnosticism. (This may not be the heresy some think. Remember, for Burke, “pleasing illusions” were illusions.) The “social conservative” agenda is not his agenda. However, he is not a libertarian the way the Cato Institute — or LewRockwell.com — defines one. Though he acknowledges the insights of Mises and Hayek, their Austrianism doesn’t play a major role in his thought. So, does that leave David a “neoconservative,” i.e., an old-fangled centrist liberal? No, no one could look at him and see a
die-hard defender of Social Security a la Ben "life is a Ponzi scheme" Wattenberg. And his recent identification of “Obama Derangement Syndrome” refutes those who would dismiss him as just another Spite Right demagogue.
All of which makes him what — a Horowitzian conservative? Quite possibly, yes. He has not become the Lenin to any right-wing Marx. His beliefs are more the result of his personal experiences — and personal interpretation of events — than of anything taken from any ideologue. Why, then, does such an independent thinker identify so strongly with a movement? The only answer I can think of is an adaptation of a line from Ayn Rand: He is interested not in following any conservative tradition, but in founding his own. David may very well not be the last Horowitzian conservative.
Barry
Http://ABCDunlimited.com/ideas
Barry CC'd David on his email to me and he responded quickly confirming Barry's summation of his ideas and intent:
Thanks Barry, but that mouthful - Horowitzian conservative - will never fly. Nonetheless I appreciate that you got it right.
I responded to both Barry and David:
Barry,
Thank you so much for your keen insight on David's philosophy. I really couldn't agree with you more. Further, I think your description of the different elements in David's conservatism is the beginning of understanding why he doesn't receive the credit he deserves on the Right and why he's so reviled on the Left. (Though there are other reasons the Left can't stand him also.) Because David fashions his own conservative tradition he's difficult to pin down, categorize, and understand within the standard categories. Not ideologically libertarian, not ideologically "neo-conservative," not a "Spite Right" demagogue (though this is the bucket his detractors love to stick him in,) and certainly not a religious Right or social conservative -- though I do draw some moderate social conservative themes from his work, though nothing resembling the authoritarian agendas that characterize dominant social conservative objectives.
What this amounts to is an ideological flexibility which results in clearer thinking on issues. (David thinks about the issue himself instead of just deferring to a prepackaged ideological response.) Lately I think you see this especially in David's response to the economic crisis on his blog (his rejection of the "Burning Down the House" meme for example) and his measured commentary on Obama.
And David I'm going to have to disagree with you. "Horowitzian conservative" sounds badass. And it's certainly less of a mouthful than "Kolakowskite," another name-based term I seem to recall being applied to you at one point -- I think in Christopher Hitchens' review of Left Illusions.
Barry would it be all right if I publish your email on my Books In Depth blog along with some accompanying thoughts of my own?
Thanks,
David Swindle
Barry gave his blessing to publish his email and I sat on it for a few weeks as the ideas took root in my mind. This idea of the Horowitzian Conservative needed to be further defined and clarified if it was to be understood. But how to do so? The very nature of Horowitzian Conservatism was that it was complex, that it managed to hold conflicting ideological tendencies simultaneously. Nevertheless there were some key ideas which do define it. These include:
- An appreciation for the concept of freedom as the central value of our society. Hence the prominent position in his organization's name.
- Extending from this appreciation comes a robust patriotism and loyalty to the American Idea, since freedom is the primary principle upon which our country was founded. Horowitz goes to the root of freedom in our society and finds it in the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
- From an appreciation of freedom comes the appreciation of capitalism. Horowitz is a staunch advocate of the free market. However this does not mean he's a free market fundamentalist. Regarding the economic crisis he's rejected the idea that government interference in the market through the Community Reinvestment Act caused the crisis. He's further claimed that deregulation of the market helped cause the crisis. Thus while being libertarian economically he does not approximate free market utopianism -- the idea that a pure laissez faire economy will yield a perfect economy.
- This appreciation of capitalism does not translate into economic punditry. Horowitz has challenged others for "talking through their hat" on economics and has acknowledged that he's not an economist. This is a kind of intellectual humility. Horowitz doesn't pretend to talk with authority on subjects he hasn't studied in depth. This is a refreshing aspect of his approach -- one missing from most "pundits" who think they're experts on everything.
- A hostility to forces that seek to subvert freedom and the American Idea. Horowitz identifies these as principally the political Left and our Islamofascist enemies abroad.
- This defense of America also extends to a defense of Israel, a sentiment that originates not from Horowitz's own ethnic background but from his view that Israel embraces the same value of freedom as the United States. Horowitz wants others to experience the freedom of America and Israel -- hence his engagement with the Neo-Conservative political tradition and support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
- A need to ally with others who defend the American Idea. This is another explanation for Horowitz's loyalty to the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement. Both are principally concerned with protecting freedom and the American Idea, thus he joins with them even if he does not agree with all the positions of his allies.
- An opposition to humans' ability -- and particularly government's ability -- to radically change and improve the world. Horowitz said on this point (one of the key themes of his work): "I'm not skeptical of the idea that you can radically change the world. I'm opposed to it because I see it as a modern idea (progressivism) that has produced the worst atrocities and greatest oppression the world has ever known. The only radical changes that have been conservative in that they have extended incrementally achieved freedoms to previously excluded groups. The most obvious example would be the ending of slavery."
- Extending from his hostility toward freedom's enemies, is a need to confront these opponents in intellectual combat. For Horowitz those who actively oppose the American Idea and our society's value of freedom must be challenged. Their ideas must be examined and revealed. The cloak of innocence and virtue worn by them must be removed to reveal the totalitarianism underneath.
- From this need to engage in intellectual combat comes a fervent intellectualism and appreciation for learning, books, and ideas. Horowitz is a staunch advocate of developing oneself mentally. It's one of the reasons for his Academic Freedom Campaign. It troubles him deeply that the university -- the institution most dedicated toward teaching one how to think critically -- has been usurped by those that would subvert it to further their utopian visions.
- From this intellectualism comes an understanding of the complexity of the world. Horowitz has read enough to know that no theory explains everything and no one is right about everything. Because of this realization he has liberated himself to draw from a wide variety of intellectual traditions. This accounts for how there are aspects of libertarianism, neo-conservatism, and centrist JFK liberalism in his thinking -- all the while he manages not to become a True Believer of any of them.
- The freedom of America extends to all races. The color-blind vision of Martin Luther King, Jr. lives on. American freedom is accessible to all and the racist vision of one race's superiority to another is a dangerous delusion that must be confronted.
- A moderation on social issues. Horowitz is pretty moderate on social issues like abortion and gay rights. Such causes -- often considered key elements of the Conservative Movement -- are not subjects he writes about often.
- The abstract and the intellectual must be translated into the practical. Horowitz is not just an abstract thinker. Ideas have little value if they are not translated into reality. This is why he is also an activist who seeks to see his ideas directly put into practice.
Defined in this fashion, Horowitzian Conservatism is to be considered a variation of Postmodern Conservatism -- a term that has been lobbed at Horowitz as an insult by historian Kevin Mattson in his book Rebels All!: A Short History of the Conservative Mind in Post-War America. Horowitz rejected the term as Mattson defined it. In his response to the author's book he wrote:
I do not subscribe to many of the views he attributes to me – post-modernism being the most obvious -- and he seems entirely ignorant of the books I have written to explain what I actually think.The principle reason that Horowitz seems to oppose the post-modern label is because it infers a certain nihilistic belief in nothing -- which it certainly does. (Also in Mattson's use of the term a "postmodern conservative" believes in nothing but, as a result, lies pathologically to achieve his policy objectives.)
But that's not the only thing that postmodernism can suggest. Postmodernism can be the belief that there is no truth out there. But the postmodernism I prefer has a slight but critical caveat: it's not that the Truth isn't out there, but rather we cannot know for certain what it is. We can only make educated guesses based on the limited evidence we have before us. Let's consider a few more additional definitions of postmodern:
From Merriam Webster:
of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>
Thus a postmodern conservative would approach the conservative political tradition differently than a more traditional, "True Believer" conservative. Synonyms for postmodern conservative could be "skeptical conservative," "pragmatic conservative," "cautious conservative," or, to highlight a term from Andrew Sullivan, "a conservative of doubt." (These are all terms which would apply to Horowitz and he might embrace more than "postmodern.") That's all. Not "a conservative that lies and doesn't believe in anything but the GOP's supremacy" as Mattson would seem to suggest.
Such a conservative can still support many of the ideas of conservatism but in a different style and for different reasons -- often more persuasive reasons -- than a True Believer Conservative. Limited government, traditional morality, personal freedom, a strong military, capitalism -- all the values of the Conservative Movement -- can be defended not because we know they're true or right (as the True Believer would,) but because evidence can be put forth in their favor. (Or we can demonstrate that they're the "least worst" option. To cite just one example, democracy might in one context be a lousy system of government but it's hard to find one that sucks less.)
My additional attraction to "postmodern conservative" and my preference toward it as opposed to the four clarifying alternatives I've just suggested comes from an agenda that I pursue which Horowitz does not: the quest to take the Right and the Left and smash them together to emerge with an ideological approach more suited to our time, place, and generation. I seek to transcend the Left/Right culture war. "Postmodern conservatism" does this, creating an odd intellectual juxtaposition that ultimately serves to put conservative ideas in a new context. Refer to oneself as a "Postmodern Conservative" and immediately it causes some degree of confusion with one's intellectual opponents. (This confusion has a strategic advantage that can be utilized to reframe the defense of the American Idea in a new, more constructive context.)
And it's on this point that I come to where Horowitzian Conservatism and Postmodern Conservatism should be destined: Generation Y Conservatism. It is my contention that of all the voices on the Right the one that is most in tune with the sensibilities of my generation (roughly defined as those born between 1982 and 2000) is Horowitz.
Horowitzian Conservatism, a postmodern conservatism, fits with the postmodern skepticism of Generation Y. We are a generation raised with greater access to information than any before us. We are a generation that has come to doubt -- the only proper response to the necessity of confronting the tidal wave of change and information of the past 20 years. We are also a generation that is optimistic and still wants to change and improve the world. But many of us know that it cannot be done with the leftist methods of our Baby Boomer parents. In our mission to change the world it must be approached with the knowledge and experience of those that have come before us -- hence the necessity of Horowitzian Conservatism.
Ideology is unavoidable in politics. And it's ultimately only a bad thing if one comes to believe in it too deeply. Remember that ideologies are only maps and not the political territory itself and they can provide useful guides to navigating an often treacherous landscape. In Horowitzian Conservatism we have a variant of the Conservative political tradition that is flexible and adaptable to any given situation. It is my sincere hope that the politically-minded members of my generation will look to the ideological maps Horowitz has drawn and consider their value as we prepare to assume our place in the defense of the American Idea.
