Who Will Be the Next Paul Weyrich?
The late conservative icon was one of the last of a rare breed of right-winger.
Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation, and numerous other conservative organizations, has passed away. His talent was organization: perceiving that ideas alone would not carry the conservative movement and then going out to create the organizations that would spread conservative ideas, develop future leaders, and energize the grassroots.
His passing comes at a particularly critical time for conservatives and emphasizes the enormous challenges on the Right. The leaders of Weyrich’s generation are passing from the scene, the institutions which they founded have matured. But the question remains: what next?
There is not just an intellectual dilemma for conservatives — which keeps pundits bickering about the meaning and direction of “conservatism” — but a realization that the organizational and technological advantage which conservatives enjoyed for nearly a generation has been matched or exceeded by the other side. One can quibble that the liberal opposition is not an intellectually robust or coherent one, but it is a darn successful political force which has swept to coast-to-coast wins in two successive election cycles.
As for conservatives, the existing institutions don’t quite seem sufficient to the task of growing the party, developing new talent, and incubating new ideas. Perhaps what is already there can be enhanced, but it may be that entirely new groups must be created to rebuild and revitalize a movement that is not just intellectually depressed but organizationally weak. So, while pundits already obsess over the next presidential nominee, a better question is: who will be the next Paul Weyrich?
The identity of the individual or individuals is not clear, but the need is apparent.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
14 Comments
1. a:Give Obama a chance.
Dec 18, 2008 - 1:54 pm 2. mr b:A year or two of his presidentship will generate enough conservative discontent to provide themes and passions for conservative social networks, willingness to organize, a clear and immediate purpose and a coolness of conservative anti-establishment and anti-government creds.
Oh, Jennifer, fear not. I’m sure there’s a nasty bigot out there somewhere to replace Weyrich! You know, one with a pulse.
It’ll be okay!
Dec 18, 2008 - 3:10 pm 3. mr. c:Well, mr b has provided us with the nasty bigot. Not sure about the pulse thing, however; sounds as if not blood flow is reaching his brain.
Dec 18, 2008 - 3:55 pm 4. Tennwriter:Absolutely. Happy Warrior Conservatism is a necessity. This tends to require a full-scale rejection of Liberalism in ALL of its manifestations. RINOism is the antitheses of this for RINOs are frequently unhappy, not conservative (socially or financially), and only mildly rejecting Liberalism in some parts. They are also terrible organizationally which is the twin focuses of your article: Happy Warrior Conservatism and Good Organization.
One thing is to embrace the full pantheon of Conservatism. This unleashes a wild energy. This will get us our mojo, our cool back.
It also gives all those single-issue people something to do.
Look, we’re always going to have single-issue voters. Like the guy I know who’d probably vote Dem a lot of the time, but won’t because of the Dem’s abortion stance. Encourage the Border Enforcement people, the Gun Rights people, the FMA people, the Pro-Lifers to push, and push hard on a hundred fronts. If we end up with a situation where the Borderites and the NRA are competing for lead spot on the national news to push their agenda, well, we will be doing all right.
These hyper-enthused partisans of a single issue are very useful. They don’t run the party. We don’t go to the Wall Street Journal for advice on Borders, forex. We listen to the WSJ when they talk about Free Trade, but not when they support Illegal Immigration and Lawbreaking.
We do try to encourage them to step past their limits, and engage more broadly. If we can get Pro-Lifers to care about Low Taxes (well, for many thats already the case), and Borderers to care about Gun Rights…that’s good.
Actually, there is a very large center mass of the Republcan Party that is the Standard Conservative of Values, Defense, and Fiscal Responsibility. But, by encouraging Single-Issue Partisans to broaden their interest, we can expand the Central Base of the Party.
But even if the WSJ refuses to support pro-marriage amendments, we can still use the WSJ. Their enthusiasm for Free Trade makes them front line troops in that issue, and we should demand such from them.
We need activists in each of these little single-issue groups to build their groups, and they need support from the center in access, money, and legitimacy.
There are a number of organizations I’m sure we need, but I’m suggesting three.
Dec 18, 2008 - 6:29 pm 5. Derek:1)Lots of single-issue groups with some of them quite extreme (like say ‘Energy Independence NOW!’).
2)Some type of cross-cultural bonding experiences, camps or conferences, or even trading activists for a week in another one of the single-issue groups…some way to get a net of friendships and loyalties set up across the boundaries of single issues.
3)You specifically mention the Enviromental Groups.
Counterfire with a lot of groups.
A. The Stewards of Gondor, the White City…aim to pull in Friends of Tolkien. LOTR’s is deeply conservative. Maybe call it, The Stewards of the Earth.
B. Rough Riders…harkens back to TRR and his legacy of conservation, and has an appeal to those who actually hike the mountains and go in for extreme sports. Imagine seeing an extreme sport guy on TV not speaking of politics…just wearing an iconic face of TRR as he talks about how he snowboarded down a half-pipe.
C. Caretakers Club…this is a group focused on the notion of being stewards for the environment. And man is part of the environment. They would take care of war cemeteries and parklands.
D. Drill, Baby, Drill, Inc…obvious really.
E. Nukes are Green…this solves the long-term problem that D. starts to deal with.
F. Common Community….this gives a place for commitarians who are willing to embrace freedom, but try to work on improving things.
A very correct article, although not a great one because the solutions simply aren’t there. It’s an article that states the obvious point that no one seems to be talking about. For that, it certainly deserves a read.
My only problem is I’m not sure Rubin genuinely knows the problem she’s articulating here. Why not? Because she was one of the main Palin cheerleaders during the campaign. If she can’t see that Palin’s popularity with the base came through being nothing more then a pretty vehicle for right wing grievance then I don’t think Rubin just quite gets it. And even then, we’re still talking about how Palin energized the base and how the right reacted to her… it isn’t about the damn base. The other ticket energized the country. That’s why they got twice as much money, had WAY better turnout, and had a WAY stronger volunteer organization. Reagan wasn’t a transformational figure for the right, he was one for the country. People have to think bigger then a pretty face from Alaska that attracts big crowds… but crowds that are still no where near as big as her political opponents.
Dec 19, 2008 - 4:56 am 6. Brad S:The death of Paul Weyrich is but another signal to conservatives that the ’80s are over, and that they need to find a way to sell their positions to the public…AND QUICK.
So, how do you sell “limited government” and “bedrock conservative principles” to minorities that are significantly more dependent on, and more accepting of, government largess to help manage their day-to-day lives? Furthermore, how do you sell “We love you, we want you here, just make sure your papers are in order!” to Latinos who have an extensive lack of trust in that statement?
It’s all about the salesmanship, and conservatives for too long have shown they’d rather not get their hands dirty.
Dec 19, 2008 - 7:23 am 7. Curly:|The time therefore is ripe for a new generation of conservative leaders who have the ability to organize, invigorate, and give purpose to conservatives outside the Beltway.|
And more importantly, recognize and embrace the values of conservatives outside the Beltway instead of shunning them and their values.
|The Right reacted to Sarah Palin for many reasons, but in large part, I suspect it is that she was bright, cheery, and looked like she was having some fun out there.|
Or because she boldly adhered to her social conservative positions on issues that resonate with Americans, not just conservatives–sanctity of life, family, Christianity, marriage, etc.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:34 am 8. Sonny:The longer Obama is president of our country, the more conservatism is going to sound to many who made the mistake of voting for him.
Conservative principls are not going away. Why would they? Their principles are the bedrock of our nation that thousands upon thousands have given their life for.
Have you ever heard of a liberal willing to die for his principles?
Dec 19, 2008 - 2:40 pm 9. GB:It is interesting that you noted that Sarah Palin looked as though she were “having fun out there.” I noted that too. I had also noticed it in the past about Joe Biden, a few years ago, before he became so obviously full of himself. In his ruminations on his Senate committee, which I viewed on C-SPAN, he seemed to be on a lark.
Perhaps that is why Sarah Palin and Joe Biden got along surprisingly well with each other. They both seem to have given a place in their psyches to Puck.
Dec 19, 2008 - 6:54 pm 10. Tennwriter:I suspect there is some causation between bold conservatism and having fun. I’m not sure what it is.
But, its clearly not enough as Curly emphasizes to have fun. One must have unapologetic conservatism + fun.
While it is true that Obama is going to be the World’s Best Salesman for Conservatism, we cannot just wait about for errors. Have you ever seen a crowd of people standing about, dissatisfied with what’s offered, but accepting it anyways because nothing better is being put into contention. Whacked out Liberalism will beat Milque Toast Republicanism, the Me-tooers, because Something beats Nothing.
The ground work is being laid now for a sixty percent landslide in 2012.
Dec 19, 2008 - 8:07 pm 11. narciso:Ah Derek, was it really enthusiasm or ‘chinese water torture indoctrination by the media; the bet of the leading subprime players on Obama, precisely he was indifferent to be charitable to those issues. Ironically, it was McCain’s efforts against pharmaceutical companies. defense contractors, finance chop shops, oil companies, and for the campaign finance
reforms, cap & trade, etc; that limited his financial options. When the media turned against him, obscuring his record and having
exacerbated the financial crisis, he was probably done. It still took a remarkable degree of media malpractice, directed most against his running mate, not the putative
candidate.
GB, Biden doesn’t care about the facts, or more frighteningly doesn’t know them. But he sounds very confident when he souts them. Which explanation covers the non existent Katies’ Diner, the US and French ouster of Hezbollah, that alternate reality where FDR addressed the nation on TV is up to you; I don’t do psychonalysis.
Dec 20, 2008 - 2:10 pm 12. Derek:No one cares about Biden because it’s Biden. That’s why you never put someone on the ticket that will outshadow you. That’s why Obama never put Hillary on the ticket. Anyone that didn’t think Palin would be the most scrutinized VP pick of all time the second she hit the stage should be banned from any campaign. And now people are mad that the media pounced when they smelled blood? She was a target of liberal institutions and that made people on the right indignant. As if this targeting is some big surprise. This is what I mean by Palin becoming a vehicle for right wing grievance. She became and emotional symbol of the base of the party. And hitting her pissed off the party. The Palin punching bag fed into the right’s need to vent instead of the need to win elections.
By the end the Mccain camp had managed to attack any perceived slight against Palin to vent this rage and ended up with a happy base. A base that shrunk more an more as it shed anyone that didn’t like Palin but a happy one nonetheless. Even now, people ask that Palin be defended at all costs and trash Mccain for not condemning his aides strongly enough. If Palin can’t defend herself from political attacks then that’s her fault. not the media’s, not liberals, not Mccain. She isn’t a mascot, she is a politician.
Dec 21, 2008 - 5:26 am 13. Iridescent Cuttlefish:“Conservative principls are not going away. Why would they? Their principles are the bedrock of our nation that thousands upon thousands have given their life for.”
Actually, millions have given their lives for those “principles” (the power of a ruling class to control the allocation of resources, including the human variety, in order to maintain & expand that power), but those were mostly involuntary sacrifices.
Sure, you find another crappy actor to trot out all the old “social values” platitudes (with their hypocritical pseudo-reverence for life and, cough-cough, *freedom*), and surely you’d still get working class folks to vote against their own economic interests, but you need to return to the real basics of “the movement.” Weyrich was on the right track for his times–disenfranching as many voters as possible while fooling the rest with empty sloganeering and endless self-reighteous posturing–but his central strategy has grown outdated. No longer will crowds of enthuisiastic campaign workers be inspired by Paul’s down & dirty Atwaterisms:
“I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the
people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not
now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the
voting populace goes down.”
Instead, we should look back to a time when Power was just beginning to fall into the hands of the unwashed masses to see how it reacted to the dangerous impulse toward the empowerment of the downtrodden, the cannon-fodder, the damned uppity servants. (Ever notice how even the waitresses think they have the right to address people of quality & good breeding with insolence, not even keeping their pedestrian gazes properly averted?)
While Atwater & Rove have looked back to one of the true masters in the art of conserving what is ours by birthright, the wonderfully versatile Machiavelli, who gave us the modern blueprint for adopting useful appearances like piety and patriotism, I’m thinking it’s time to go a little further back for solutions to today’s brazen little freedom-seekers.
When the Church first responded to the schismatic tendencies of independent-minded potentates and “free thinkers,” She didn’t much about with rigging elections and fraudulent politicking–no, Sir! The Church took its temporal authority seriously. Fingers were broken (in these marvelously ingenious little devices that the cretins didn’t soon forget.) Heads were rolled (and not into some dainty basket, either, as with those horrid libertines in France.) We simply rode out, with a hearty band of our most trusted retainers, and burned down their squalid villages (putting the innocent babes out of their misery was an act of true Christian mercy & compassion). Of course, care was taken that the leaders of the rabble were kept from the flames, so that their vermin-infested heads could be prominently displayed on pikes; we should never waste an opportunity to impart valuable lessons to the less fortunate.
Now, I know some of you are going to be a little squeamish about these “old-fashioned” methods, but if it was good enough for your grandfather’s grandfather, it’s good enough for you. (What would he say about the pernicious influence of such liberal sentiments, anyway? “Humanism” is nothing more than coddling the incorrigible. Harummph!)
Others will say that the times have changed, that those fools running the little “War of Independence” we gave them went too far with their slogans of egalitarianism & solidarity, but I’d just like to remind you that we strung those bloody Luddites up on creaking gallows from Manchester to London when they somehow managed to build a life where they only worked as much as they felt they needed, and those wretches were very much influenced by our agents in the colonies with all their reckless talk of liberty.
All that’s needed is firm sense of resolve to go along with our firm hand and our firm upper lip (nevermind those corrective surgeries you’ve had, Reginald, to firm up your other bits!) There will be a great many of those bleeding heart liberals who will be willing to die for their silly principles; look at the trouble we had with that rascal Tom Paine, the only “Founding Father” we had the uncommon sense to disown!
In fact, perhaps this is an even better example than that of the various Counter-Reformations and Inquisitions that we’ve employed in the past, as the plebes seem to still be reading to some extent and we just can’t afford to let them fill their heads with all that rubbish again. So, I propose that we all take a moment to study the superior (naturally!) methods we used to solve the problem of that “Paine in the neck!” (And who said that conservatives have no sense of humor?)
Here’s what we did with that trouble-maker:
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/skelton_tom_paine_intro.html
The lessons still apply, obviously.
Dec 21, 2008 - 9:24 am 14. Jack Clough:Paul Weyrich was a good friend to the conservative movement and will be sorely missed. My condolences to the family.
Dec 21, 2008 - 12:37 pm