Here’s Republican pollster Frank Luntz, as quoted by syndicated columnist Robert Novak (via Townhall, h/t Instapundit)…

“The Republican message machine is a skeleton of its former self,” Luntz told me. “These people have no idea how the American people react to them.”
Luntz sees a disconnect between Republicans and voters that projects a grim future for the party. That contradicts what House and Senate Republicans are saying to each other in closed party conferences. While Luntz views 2006 election defeats as ominous portents, the party’s congressional leaders see only transitory setbacks and now dwell on bashing Democrats….
“The Republican Party that lost those historic elections was a tired, cranky shell of the articulate reformist, forward-thinking movement that was swept into office in 1994 on a wave of positive change,” Luntz wrote. He went on to say that the Republicans of 2006 “were an ethical morass, more interested in protecting their jobs than protecting the people they served. The 1994 Republicans came to ‘revolutionize’ Washington. Washington won.”

No matter what happens, the situation in Iraq will “assure that the GOP gets massacred in 2008 congressional elections.” In 2010, the Republicans will take back the Congress — “Hillary will give Republicans the same gift she gave them in 1994” — and they’ll win the presidency in 2012, but thanks to demographic shifts favoring Democrats (namely the rising Hispanic and African-American populations), “that will be the last Republican president we’ll ever see.”

It was clear to me that in his piece on “Civic Conservatism” that Fonte was emphasizing civic conservatism (or American Patriotism or American Nationalism) as a “glue” that both holds the various types of conservatism together and can serve as an appealing ideological template with which to sway many independent or (ironically) non-ideological voters. As my post demonstrated, I agreed with this formulation for what it was. (His response to my post–which I didn’t see until Justin posted it–concerning how there should be an emphasis on American culture over that of the “other” is fine because I assumed that prioritization, even if I didn’t spell it out).
Justin’s critique of Fonte and his subsequent clarification can stand on its own. Now, to be honest, I initially took Justin’s use of the word “nationalism” to mean that of the European variety, but concluded that my initial reaction was due to my recent experience as a MA History student (in which one is continually exposed to the history and historiography of the what’s, how’s and why’s of the European brand of nationalism). Eventually, knowing Justin, I figured out that he was talking about the sort of American Nationalism that Fonte later described and equated with American Patriotism in his emailed response to Justin.
It never ceases to amaze me how one word and the assumptions made on how it is being used can lead to so much confusion among those who would otherwise agree. Thus, I can see how Fonte apparently made the same assumption about Justin’s use of “nationalism” as I initially did. But an argument over “nationalism” and “patriotism” wasn’t really Justin’s main point, anyway, as Justin has since explained. (But it is something I’d like to focus on for a bit. See the extended entry–below–for my digression).
Back to the point. Patriotism is fundamentally an emotional response, which is why it “stir[s] the blood.” Ultimately, Justin agreed with this (though he called it nationalism), but wanted to stress that the real “oomph” behind the conservative movement needs to be more than a reliance on emotion-based patriotism. A patriot also must understand why he feels the way he does when he sees the flag and hears the National Anthem. Conservatives understand that we aren’t patriotic “just because…” Rather, we are patriotic because we have learned and are continually reminded of the particular American philosophy, culture, and history that comprise and enable our shared American ideals. Indeed, behind the emotion is a whole lot of reason.
As Fonte wrote:

In terms of contemporary policy, civic conservatism emphasizes the following principles: the equality of American citizenship; the learning of America’s history and values, properly understood; the imperative of assimilating immigrants patriotically into the American way of life (what we proudly used to call Americanization); and the indivisibility of American sovereignty.

I agree that those general principles would be palatable to a variety of Americans. Yet, “civic conservatism” is really only the skin of the body conservative. The meat and bones are the conservative philosophy and the conservative interpretation of American culture and history.
Many Americans agree viscerally with the tenets of Fonte’s “civic conservatism,” but they can’t explain why. Most American’s are good people who don’t want to hurt or “impose their values” on others. Because of this, self-doubt about why they hold the values they do can creep in if they are confronted with unfounded and unpleasant charges of racism or bigotry. And such charges would surely be hurled their way if they say they support “Americanization” and “the equality of American citizenship.” Unable to defend their position, they will revert to their inherent “niceness” and go along to get along.
Average folks need to know that what the believe to be true and good really is. They need to know the “why.” Otherwise they’ll be shamed into abandoning the ideals and mores that they feel in their bones to be true. That is why it is incumbent on conservatives to explain that philosophy and history have shown that “Americanization” and “the equality of American citizenship” are beneficial to society and are meant to help all of its people. Simply saying “just because” isn’t enough.
In the end, while I recognize the value of Fonte’s “civic conservatism,” I agree with Justin that conservatives shouldn’t rely too much on it’s appeal for it’s own sake. Weightier essays in support of the agreed upon bullet points need to be at the ready so that a firmer traction can be established in the uphill battle against philosophical, cultural and historical naivete.

(more…)

Somewhere in the hazy period Tuesday between leaving work early at lunch time and leaving Hasbro Children’s Hospital around 8:00 p.m., I read John Fonte’s emailed response to Anchor Rising’s commentary on his recent piece about “civic conservatism.” For most of the remainder of that day, the part of my brain not preoccupied with other things thought that Mr. Fonte must surely be right that I had let slip thoughts in which I don’t actually believe or of which I had been blissfully unaware. Now that I’ve reread my comments and his, I’m not entirely sure how I transformed into a sneering anti-patriot in his eyes. He writes:

On Marc Comtois comments.
I pretty much agree with everything he wrote. I would only emphasize that the ethnic-based or “other” group culture that Americans possess should be subordinate to the overall American civic culture and to political loyalty to the United States.
On Justin Katz comments.
First, I don’t suggest that “my conservatism is the conservatism.” What I do suggest is that “civic” conservatism is deeply rooted in American conservatism and can be a unifying force. In a National Review cover story on June 2, 2003 I called this civic conservatism–“patriotic conservatism”–and described this tendency as glue that unites most (not all) conservatives. I am not describing a universal conservatism, I am talking about an American conservatism. Without American patriotism and an American nation there is no American conservatism that makes sense. Mr. Katz apparently has a problem with George Washington’s Farewell Address (“to concentrate one’s affections”). Also, he apparently has a problem with traditional American patriotism, given his sneering reference to “nationalism.” Well American nationalism has traditionally meant support for the heritage of Washington and the Founding Fathers, of Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. Those who attempt to distinguish between American “patriotism” and American “nationalism” (which has never been blood and soil based, but philosophical, cultural, and historical)—play the game of an anti-patriotic impulse. An American conservatism that is devoid of Washington and Lincoln, is not an “American” conservatism that is recognizable to most Americans.

I apparently misread the degree to which Fonte believes that civic conservatism is somehow more fundamental than other conservatisms, and for that I apologize. In his paragraph:

True, most conservatives are fusionists, supporting limited government, traditional values, and strong national defense. But what stirs the blood?

I guess I mistook the “stirs the blood” phrase as applying to “most conservatives,” not just the handful who are more exclusively civic conservatives. Be that as it may, while I agree with George Washington’s prioritization, with respect to patriotic feelings, of the American nation over “local discriminations,” I disagree with the prioritization — implicit in Fonte’s categorical coinage — of the civic over the social, economic, and philosophical. If American patriotism centers around the “philosophical, cultural, and historical,” not the geographical, then conservatism ought to stir the blood based on those ideas.
I used the term “nationalism” not to invoke the bogeyman of Europe’s bloody, sectarian history, but to give an objective category to Fonte’s policy suggestions. If they are to be the policies under the “Civic” heading in American Conservatism’s platform, wonderful, but if they are to be conservatives’ leading edge, then I doubt that hearts and minds will be forthcoming. I support completely, for example, “the patriotic assimilation of immigrants without apology,” but I wonder how a person, let alone a movement, that is stirred less by culture than by national patriotism can argue with any force for a particular culture that those immigrants ought to be assimilated to.