Bill Buckley, Conservatism and Reality

And now for a bit of K-Street pointy head navel-gazing in honor of Bill Buckley’s 80^th birthday (which is actually the 24^th, it seems, but the gracious and wonderful folks at NRO are celebrating it today, and so will I).

In a recent Wall Street Journal profile, Bill Buckley made an interesting statement.

“Conservatism, except when it is expressed as pure idealism, takes into account reality.”

This idea of conservatism as a bastion of realistic thinking is, as a Texan friend of mine would say, something of a sticky-wicket, for in that simple statement, Buckley has conjured up one of the foremost challenges in current conservative thinking – whether, in embracing thinking that is “realistic,” to position conservatism as an institution of political pragmatism, with all the PR flattery and political dealmaking that implies, or as one of intellectual, moral and economic truth – public opinion be damned. There are realities inherent in both, and yet often these realities conflict with each other. This juxtaposition seems to be in constant play amongst the leaders of the right, whether in the constant verbal maneuvering of Congressmen or the ferocious, unbending certainty of think tanks and lobbyists.

On one hand, there are political realities. It is inarguable that a great many intellectually sound policy options are simply not available because the public will not accept them for whatever reason. Economic conservatives and libertarians might love to do away with anything resembling a progressive tax; social conservatives would race to ban most forms of abortion at the federal level. Political realities, and the realities of public opinion (and, probably, public ignorance), mean these aren’t actually feasible policies no matter how well they might work on paper.

A more obscure example, but one close to my heart, is the issue of Digital TV converter box subsidies. Congress is smartly moving to mandate the conversion of all broadcast TV signals to digital, provoking much talk about how much better digital signal is and how wonderful movies and sports will become when it’s all 1080i and 5.1 surround. This is, of course, rubbish. Congress is mandating the transition to open up hundreds of billions of dollars in spectrum that will finally be available to provide genuinely useful services rather than support the decaying broadcast TV industry which now serves only about 10-15% of the population, depending on whose estimates you look at.

The problem with all this is that the transition mandate will turn lots of old analog TVs into junk, and many are clamoring for Congress to subsidize digital television converter boxes at the cost of about $3 billion. Yes, that’s $3 billion to make sure that your TV doesn’t stop working; that’s not exactly limited government at its best. Julian Sanchez has already exposed the stupidity of this expenditure, but his essay misses the political reality, which is that Congress will never vote to mandate the DTV transition if the broadcast industry can point to even one single grandma who relies on television for blah, blah, blah and just look at the mean old government who is taking it away. Call it granny-TV pork; in order to open up hundreds of billions in spectrum, the government is going to have to shell out $3 billion to keep crappy TV sets alive. That’s the political reality.

On the other hand, we have intellectual, economic, and moral realities. The economic reality is that high tax rates and regulation on businesses burden industry, and thus the economy, creating fewer jobs for everyone which means greater poverty all around. The moral reality is that abortion is tragic and harms many more women that NARAL would ever admit. The obvious policy position is for the government NOT to spend billions of making sure TVs still work. By the logic – indeed the reality – of conservative intellectual thought, all of these are the correct positions to advocate. This, also, is a way in which conservatives could “take into account reality.”

The problem lies in the fact that much of the public does not take reality into account, and therefore, the reality of their will doesn’t match up to the reality of sound policy, but is a force to reckon with all the same. So to which reality does Bill Buckley suggest conservatives adhere? I’m not sure there’s a good, simple answer to that, and I’m mildly abashed to admit that I don’t know Buckley’s writings nearly well enough to propose an idea on what he might say. I think, though, that it’s that ongoing tension between the reality of public opinion and the reality of intellectually correct thinking that keeps conservatism lively, and it’s outlets like National Review (and many others) through which those who attempt to “stand athwart history” can keep the resulting questions wonderfully, sometimes brilliantly, alive.