One interesting post-election development are predictions from the right that President Obama and his allies in Congress will seek to reassert the Fairness Doctrine, a long-lapsed federal regulation mandating equal time for opposing political views on broadcasts. Rush Limbaugh especially promoted the idea, but The Wall Street Journal, George Will, and Michael Gerson all jumped on the train as well.
The problem, of course, is that most folks on the left could care less about the Fairness Doctrine and don't see bringing it back as necessary or important, as The Los Angeles Times chronicles. But, obviously, a good number of conservatives are worked up about this fake issue. Which is weird, but also got me to thinking: Are liberals worked up about a similarly fake conservative project? I e-mailed some conservative writers to get their thoughts on that issue, and so here is James Poulos of Culture11 in reply:
It's funny -- in thinking through your question I found myself recalling a series of "conservative projects" that don't really exist because liberals defeated them or they ran out of steam. Abolishing the Department of Education, banning flag-burning by Constitutional Amendment -- liberals can rest easy as far as these former lodestars of conservative activism are concerned.
But I suppose I have a less controversial and a more controversial answer for you. The less controversial answer is that doesn't seem right to me to claim that conservatives are out to destroy the unions. In the latest example, when conservatives criticize the proposed bailout of the Big 3 automakers, they're not doing so as part of their longstanding vendetta against those horrible unions. And when conservatives advocate vouchers, their arguments in favor of school choice are typically not a scrim designed to destroy the teachers' unions. Not that there aren't bad things to say about some of the consequences of unions, of course; but it strikes me as off the mark to imagine that union-annihilation is a "conservative project."
The more controversial answer is that I don't think "overturning Roe vs. Wade" really accurately describes "a conservative project" anymore. Even though it's just a plurality opinion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey itself superceded Roe and is a much worse decision from a conservative standpoint. (Just read Scalia's eyelash-searing dissent!) And though some conservatives at the grassroots level surely do think in explicitly anti-Roe terms, it strikes me that an increasing number of conservatives would be willing to let Roe go un-overturned so long as progress was made and permitted on late-term abortion, parental notification, and the broadest-possible interpretation of health-of-the-mother provisions (upon which John McCain tried so unsuccessfully to cast a fleeting debate aspersion). Yes, I might go so far as to say that "outlawing abortion" nationwide is not a "conservative project," indeed if it ever was.
Of course none of this means there aren't some conservatives who would prefer a world in which there were no unions and no abortions...just as presumably there are some liberals who really do prefer the fairness doctrine.
Interesting stuff, if a bit, hmm, hopeful? The two main issues Poulos' refers to -- opposition to abortion, and to a slightly lesser extent, labor -- are in my view, at least, key components of the American conservative coalition. It almost seems like Poulos is envisioning a future conservatism that strikes me as being much more electorally effective than the current iteration. But let's consider the ideas.
Admittedly, I was always surprised to hear McCain speak favorably of unions during the presidential campaign, and we shouldn't forget that Republican first-dude-in-waiting Todd Palin is a union member. There certainly have been instances in recent years of unions endorsing Republicans when Democrats were insufficiently enthusiastic about various labor proposals. For the two examples Poulos gives, I'd concede that conservatives have bigger motivations than labor and they're generally interested, respectively, in keeping government out of the market, on one side, and creating an education market, on the other.
The argument seems to me to represent a kind of conservative concession: Labor unions, like the welfare state, are here to stay, and though it seems to me that conservatives are by default in favor of "the right to work" (and laissez faire) most conservatives today are willing to compromise on the issue in different ways. On issues that are mainly about unions, like the Employee Free Choice Act (which allows for card check organizing and is supported by the unions), conservatives cast their opposition as protecting the worker's right to a secret ballot. But it's still an anti-union policy.
On the abortion front, I'd like to hope that Poulos' interpretation is right, though I'm not sure where this country's conservative coalition would be without a strong anti-abortion component. The Doug Kmiecs of the world give progressives ( and Poulos *) hope, and the Ross Douthats take it away.
Thanks to James for participating in this little experiment. I've contacted several other writers for their perspectives on this topic, and if any of them reply, I'll post them.
--Tim Fernholz
*Poulos writes to note that his main point is that conservatives are focused on limiting "abortion on demand," rather than making abortion illegal. Thus, he is not given hope by Kmiec or dismayed by Douthat.
