tool name

close
tool goes here

Conservatism? It was just a phase he was going through

“And a little child shall lead them.” — Isaiah 11:6

Published: July 12, 2012 at 12:05 a.m. PDT
0 comments

“And a little child shall lead them.” — Isaiah 11:6

Jonathan Krohn is a symbol of what is wrong in American politics.

That is a not a character assessment. To whatever degree one can judge such things from a distance, he seems a decent kid — smart, likable, nerdy, a 17-year-old Georgia boy bound for New York University in the fall.

But in 2009, just before he turned 14, Krohn gave a short speech at CPAC — the Conservative Political Action Conference — video of which went viral and made him a star. Preternaturally poised for an adolescent — or for anybody, come to think of it — he outlined his four “principles” of conservatism.

Conservatives fell in love. Someone in the audience actually ululated with joy. He was interviewed on Fox “News.” Newt Gingrich blurbed his self-published book.

Three years later, conservatives hate him. “Douche” and “vacuous freak” are among the more printable things they are calling him in online forums.

Krohn’s sin? He changed his mind. He now embraces marriage equality and health care reform, among other apostasies of conservatism. The news broke a few days ago in an interview with Politico.

Conservatism, it seems, was just a phase he was going through. Not that Krohn now considers himself a liberal. No, he rejects the very idea that we must be defined by political ideology.

Good for him.

Here is a newsflash for those bemoaning Krohn’s defection: Kids change, they try on different identities. Conservatism was simply Krohn’s version of Goth attire or Bieber fever. Given that he is still a kid, he may have some entirely new passion six months from now.

The fact that so many on the political right had such faith in the utterances of a child, the fact that they feel so profoundly betrayed now, suggests the degree to which our perception of, and relationship to, political ideology has changed in the years since Ronald Reagan rode off into the sunset.

Back then, ideology was something that guided you. Now, it is something that defines you, a thing you are (like your race or religion), as opposed to a thing you merely support.

It is there in the sweeping statements of conservatives’ native moral, intellectual and even physical superiority (Rush Limbaugh believes conservative women are better looking than others). There in the brutish dismissal of competing views (“Liberalism is a mental disorder,” writes Michael Savage). There in the brazen willingness to alter history that contradicts their claim to supremacy (conservatives started the Civil Rights Movement, says Glenn Beck).

To reject conservatism, then, is not simply to change your mind, exercising your God-given right to reconsider or dissent. No, it is to commit heresy, blasphemy and apostasy, to abandon the one true faith, to become a sellout, an Uncle Tom, an Oreo.

The right has come to embrace a kind of ideological McCarthyism stultifying of and antithetical to independent thought and intellectual rigor.

Small wonder a steady trickle of true believers has come to question and even abandon true belief. As in a conservative federal judge, appointed by Reagan, who recently called the conservative GOP “goofy” and a “crowd of lunatics.”

The plain truth is that neither liberalism nor conservatism owns a monopoly on good ideas – or bad ones. Smarter people in a healthier nation would realize this and do as Krohn has done, climb out of the political boxes, give themselves permission to embrace an idea based not on ideology, but on whether it is right and whether it will work.

In thinking otherwise, in believing there was something inherently holy or true about conservatism, Krohn was just going through an adolescent phase. Apparently he’s grown out of it.

That’s more than some of us can say.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Miami Herald. Email him at lpitts@miamiherald.com. Pitts chats with readers every Wednesday from 10-11 a.m. on www.MiamiHerald.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.

CONTESTS

Similar stories

  • Resolve to unsettle your mind a bit this year

    Come what may in the next 12 months, 2013 has this much going for it: It’s a year without a midterm election, and a year that’s as far removed as possible from the next presidential race.

  • Right decision for the wrong reason on same-sex marriage

    Let there be no cheers for Rob Portman.

  • Sen. Joe Lieberman made history but will retire without a party

    Lieberman on Thursday will end his 24-year term in the Senate and in a political world that’s changed around him. He exits as a voice often without an echo, an independent without a comfortable spot in either political party, a man in the middle of a system that prizes partisanship over moderation.

  • The best way to handle bad news you don’t like? Deny it

    GQ magazine published an interview last week with Sen. Marco Rubio, whom many consider a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, in which Rubio was asked how old the Earth is.

  • Are these states united? Actions indictate not

    No sooner had Arkansas adopted the country’s most regressive abortion law earlier this month – a ban after about 12 weeks of pregnancy – than North Dakota lowered its limit to as early as six weeks. Both measures are expected to be ruled unconstitut-ional, but here’s my question: Is North Dakota that much more conservative than, say, South Dakota, where abortions are permitted up to 24 weeks?