Conservatism and Iconoclasts
Listen to them but don't let them lead our most important public institutions
I have a new piece running this morning over at The Dispatch. I think you might find it interesting.
The smart and thought-provoking Daniel McCarthy, the Editor in Chief of Modern Age, and I take different positions on a timely issue—the role of RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard in conservative leadership today.
If you read any installments of my series on the Trump transition (See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), you probably know I think selecting these two individuals for the cabinet was a mistake. But in this piece, I offer three reasons why conservatives should oppose elevating to positions of public authority iconoclasts like Kennedy and Gabbard. I think it is bad for conservatism, our institutions, and American governing.
Briefly, here’s my case.
I actually start by arguing that iconoclasts play an important role in society and can occasionally save conservatives from ourselves. They can raise the right objections at the right times. The huge problem, however, is that
iconoclasts are often very wrong about really important issues. As I write:
We must never forget that iconoclasts are often dead wrong. Their ideas can be loopy, even dangerous. They’d have us believe in deranged conspiracy theories, in ancient aliens, that the position of planets and stars dictate human events. If some of these iconoclasts gained power, they could undermine generations of hard-earned wisdom and wreak havoc in essential institutions—the very things conservatives fight to prevent
Kennedy and Gabbard have, in my view, been wrong about too much.
It’s absolutely true that conservatives should be frustrated at many institutions for failing at their core competencies over the last generation. Those institutions need to be seriously reformed. So the conservative impulse to preserve and move slowly isn’t a great fit.
However, conservatives shouldn’t ally themselves with those who seem to be animated by a desire to swiftly, dramatical overhaul or bring down institutions.
That’s not how conservatives choose allies; that’s typically how we choose opponents. Edmund Burke, arguably the founder of modern conservatism, is best known for his criticism of the French revolutionaries who wanted to overturn longstanding governing bodies and religious and social arrangements. More recent conservatives have seen themselves as fundamentally at odds with critical race and critical legal theorists and Marxists, all of whom argue that our key institutions are built on and perpetuate injustice and therefore need to be undone. Strong conservatives don’t team up with such institution-levelers in order to win a current scuffle; we oppose them because they threaten lasting societal damage.
Even if we’re really angry at institutions and believe firmly that recent institutional leaders have failed, we should not select as replacements unqualified individuals whose primary credential is the promise to “shake things up.” That’s not how responsible stewards of important enterprises reason.
Of course we should be frustrated if someone purportedly qualified for a job fails at it. But if you have a bad experience with a doctor, you don’t seek a second opinion from someone unfamiliar with human anatomy just because he or she will “shake things up.” You find a better doctor. If your daughter’s teacher isn’t very good, you don’t “shake things up” and ask for a replacement who’s ignorant about phonics and child development. You find a better teacher. We should respect our institutions and the work of governing enough to recognize that disruptive novices are not the answer.
Lastly, conservatives need to appreciate how important our major governing institutions are. They affect hundreds of millions of lives and mountains of money. Americans need to trust them. We will only give these institutions the power and resources they need to accomplish their jobs if we believe they are serious and are led by serious people.
There is nothing wrong with a private individual becoming a high-profile iconoclast. But that’s entirely different than putting such people in charge of our most important federal agencies.
A citizen has every right to hold avant-garde positions far outside of the consensus of medical professionals. But we should not put such a person atop the nation’s largest public-health agency. A citizen has the right to be transgressive and express sympathy for some of our nation’s enemies. But we should not put such a person at the head of our intelligence community.
You don’t strengthen an institution by elevating people who will bring chaos and subversion to the body; that is a recipe for the institution’s downfall. Conservatives must not lose the distinction between an external agitator and an internal leader.
My conclusion about Kennedy and Gabbard is straightforward:
Yes, hear them out. Sure, consider them intellectual provocateurs. But don’t let them within a country mile of federal executive power.