A Crisis Of Faith?

I've been reading Andrew Sullivan's indictment of contemporary American conservatism (which he's decided to term "the conservatism of faith") and the ensuing replies with some interest. On one level, obviously, Sullivan's arguments position him as to some extent "on my side" so I'd like to be able to embrace his argument. But really wading through the whole thing it seems to me that the entire debate -- and Sullivan's way of approaching it as much as his antagonists' -- is just a symptom of what's really gone wrong with American conservatism: Its near-total detachment from actual policy discussions. Sullivan seems to think that the best way to think about, say, Health Savings Accounts is to ponder whether or not such advocacy of such accounts counts as a conservative position, or to wonder what sort of conservative one would have to be to support HSAs and then wonder whether or not that sounds like the kind of conservative you want to be.

There are certain issues that really should be thought about in this way, but conservative intellectuals of various strikes seem to have taken to applying the procedure willy-nilly in wildly inappropriate contexts. The set of tax and regulatory rules the administration wants to implement around Health Savings Accounts are a quintessentially dull, wonky matter. You need to look at what these changes actually amount to and what the consequences of implementing them are going to be. Whether or not a policy that will serve the wealthy, the healthy, and the young well at the expense of rendering employment-based insurance unworkable and screw over the sick, the poor, and the middle aged should be labeled "conservative" or not has very little to do with anything. A political movement that wants to govern the country needs to involve people who are interested in the business of government and governance and who, therefore, have some understanding of what it is they're doing. A bunch of hazy goals, vague notions, and quotations from the philosophers of yore doesn't cut it. Principles, philosophy, religious precepts, and -- shudder -- ideology are good to have and important in many ways. But a willingness to slog through policy debates is really vital.

UPDATE: To give another example of a different sort of reformist conservative who often seems trapped in the same policy void, here's Reihan Salam reacting to last night's Social Security talk:

As for "voluntary personal savings accounts," Bush never committed himself to a "carve-out." Perhaps he's backing away from that design principle in favor of something along DeLongian lines. That would represent progress. Note that I remain a partisan of the Kotlikoff plan, but half a loaf is better than none.

This is all over the map. The president did so remain committed to carve outs, he just didn't use the word. But even if he hadn't remained committed, Brad's idea for private accounts doesn't bear any resemblance to the sort of thing the President is talking about. Nor is it anything like Kotlikoff's Social Security plan. Nor does the Kotlikoff Plan really have much of anything in common with the Pozen Plan. Pozen doesn't stand in a "half of loaf" kind of relationship to Kotlikoff -- they're just totally different things that happen to involve the words "private accounts" and to have been proposed by men who think Social Security's in crisis.