Saving the GOP
I long for the day when rational people resume control of the GOP and put an end to the fundamentalist influence described so well by Andrew Sullivan in The Conservative Soul.
I long for that day because I am sick and tired and more-than-a-shade furious about the debates that are distracting the party’s attention from governance issues (like how to balance the federal budget while still providing for those who cannot provide for themselves).
Sadly, no debate seems to distract the party more from governance issues than the debate over stem cell research.
In a Boston Globe article yesterday, we learn that despite Mitt Romney’s capitulation to the fundamentalists, they want more …
In the heated debate among conservatives over whether Mitt Romney deserves their vote, the focus has been largely on whether his big swings to the right on social issues are sincere.
But on the charged issue of stem cell research, he’s facing conservative criticism of a different shade: that he hasn’t swung far enough.
Unlike many on the right, Romney supports research on excess embryos created during fertility treatments. Because couples are making embryos to have a baby, he reasons, it is ethical to use the leftovers for research when they would otherwise just be discarded.
Romney’s position, however, is at odds with the views of many conservative anti abortion activists, who believe that any work on stem cells derived from human embryos is wrong, because it destroys the embryos in the process. Some say Romney’s views make him unacceptable to many voters and will complicate his attempt to win the 2008 GOP nomination by appealing to the party’s conservative flank
Romney is certainly not my favorite candidate, not by a long shot. Regardless, his candidacy (and McCain’s and others’) provide mounting evidence that despite the outcomes of the mid-terms, despite the defection of moderate voters en masse, the GOP continues to perceive the grasp of the fundamentalists as an embrace rather than a stranglehold.
(Continued at Central Sanity.)
28 Responses to “Saving the GOP”
Pete,
I really don’t understand the conclusion you’re drawing from the Romney story. Romney takes a position that shows he’s NOT pandering to the religious right, and from that you say that:
WTH?
What do you suggest GOP candidates do- openly engage in attacking the position of the religious right on this issue? How would that help?
And besides that, I feel your veering pretty close to the false argument that anyone is trying to stop all ESCR. The main issue of contention was on federal funding for such research; and I’d argue that citizens ought not to be forced to pay taxes for activities that directly violate their religious and moral beliefs. Such people are entitled to withhold their support of these activities; that is not the same thing as fighting to make the activities illegal. In short, they’re not telling you what you should believe, but stop telling them what they should believe or be forced to support.
CStanley,
The conclusion I’m drawing from the Romney story is not that Romney himself is the culprit, per se, but that there is a considerable level of pressure (on the stem cell issue and abortion and homosexuality, etc.) for viable GOP candidates to cater to the theocratic arm of the party. My belief in the separation of church and state — plus my belief that the GOP once stood for non-intrusive governance — prompt me to recoil at the fundamentalists’ attempts to transform political debates into religious debates.
Nor am I suggesting that GOP candidates “openly engage in attacking the position of the religious right on this issue,” or on any other issue for that matter. Rather, I’d like to see the GOP and its candidates simply ignore the positions of the religious right when those positions are argued on religious grounds.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with your argument that the “main issue of contention” is federal funding for ESCR. Yes, you’re right that may be the current manifestation of today’s debate in Washington, but I don’t think it’s the crux of the larger national debate. The recent fight over stem cells in my bellweather state (Missouri) demonstrated all too well that the larger debate is about whether or not ESCR should be allowed at all.
Thanks for challenging me on these points. Your questions demonstrate that I should have been more precise in my original post.
Well, thanks for clarifying, Paul, even though I still disagree with you. I simply don’t accept your axiom that a belief that ESCR is wrong is strictly a religious belief, and I think that ignoring people who feel that it’s wrong is only going to keep the issue festering in a divisive way (similar to the way that Roe v. Wade opened a wound that won’t heal, because we’re not allowing people to speak through the legislative process). The legislatures ought to be allowed to set laws and then the courts determinne constitutionality on an issue that really isn’t that clear cut as a religious one (for example, some libertarians are staunch pro-lifers because they believe that there’s no logical point to set as the beginning of an individual’s life that makes any more sense than conception does: they’re acknowledging that most people do believe that there’s a right to life sometime before birth, and that any other distinction is too arbitrary to determine something so critical.)
The question really isn’t about religious beliefs, it’s about asking people to decide when the state’s mandated protection of human life actually begins. Ever since Roe, we’ve avoided making that determination and it’s divided us ever since.
I haven’t read The Conservative Soul and don’t really have any plans to do so, but I do have a question for those here who have read it:
Does it really cover any new territory?
I periodically read Andrew Sullivan’s blog and he seems to emphasize fiscal instead of social conservatism. I get the impression that this is the focus of his book and his suggestion for conservatives.
The problem is that I seem to have read something very similar in Why Americans Hate Politics , which discusses the history of political parties in detail and the history of conservatives in particular. In that account, tensions have always existed between the financial and social conservatives…tensions that have gotten worse since the truce arranged by William F. Buckley in the 50′s broke down in the 80′s or 90′s.
It would seem that Sullivan wants to save conservativism by jettisoning the social half of it and keeping the fiscal half. I’m not sure that fiscal conservatisvism can stand on its own.
Alan G,
I have read Sullivan’s book, all but the last 25 pages that is (which I hope to finish in the next week), and I thought his argument was remarkably fresh and insightful, perhaps because I haven’t read similar books, inlcuding (it would seem) the one you cite.
That said, Sullivan’s argument struck me as much more than jettisoning the social half of modern conservatism. In fact, from my read, he accepts a social as well as fiscal role for conservatism, but argues that both roles should be based more on a questioning skeptic’s approach than on a pre-determined absolutist’s approach.
His rub is with the uncompromisable “we have all the answers” pronouncements made by many modern conservatives, whereas historically, conservatives have been more inclined to say “we don’t have all the answers, no one does, and for that reason we should be very ‘conservative’ about allowing governments to solve problems of any kind.”
Net: Checks and balances were put in place by the framers of the Constitution not so much to enable government, but hinder it — and that’s the “true” conservatives wish.
Hope that makes sense. And whether you ultimately agree or disagree with Sullivan’s premise, I’d recommend picking up and reading the book for what it is. Pro or con, it’s well worth everyone’s time, IMHO.
C Stanley,
You raise many good points that deserve more thorough consideration than I give them right now, but I promise I will consider them.
Ultimately, we may have to agree to disagree, but that’s the at least part of the beauty of TMV and constructive debate. Thanks for sharing.
OK, fair enough, Paul.
I read your summary of Sullivan’s argument with interest (will have to read his book one of these days, but I’ll assume you are interpreting him correctly.)
I think in a general sense, I’d agree with what he is saying; that the primary philosophy of a conservative should be that govt should be restricted from involvement in any human activity except for when the majority feel after careful deliberation, that govt interference would be the best solution to a particular problem. Generally, the default position is “no govt interference”.
But modern times, IMO, necessitate a corollary of that philosophy in the arena of biotechnology. As this field advances, the ability to perform certain biotechnological feats is advancing much farther than society’s ability to understand potential ethical concerns. Thus, just as the traditional conservative views the checks and balances of our system as a way of keeping the brakes on govt intervention (until we feel sure that benefits outweigh risks), modern times require us to put brakes on certain evolving technologies through intervention that sometimes prohibits activities, until the relative merits and ethical risks can be weighed against each other.
In other words, in earlier times the status quo was slow, steady progress that allowed people to make informed decisions on whether new trends should be legally sanctioned or not. Under those conditions, conservatism says that we should mostly keep the govt out of the way but sometimes call for legislative action after careful consideration. But with rapidly accelarating technology in areas of ethical concern, the govt intervention switch is necessary to slow down the decision making process. The default in these areas can no longer be “no govt action” because that in itself is often the same as giving sanction to these new activities- the ramifications of which society still hasn’t had a chance to consider.
“I am sick and tired and more-than-a-shade furious about the debates that are distracting the party’s attention from governance issues”
And yet, you write an article about one such issue. How about we get some blog posts up here about actual governance issues to comment on? One of the things I like about TMV is that folks usually do a much better job looking into issues than I would on my own. Not only that but you guys often bring up topics that I would not have seen or heard about normally. But lately its been kinda a rehash of many of the same. I think some articles about fresh topics, and also important topics, would be really nice.
Pete,
Regarding the question you ask in the rest of your post (at your own blog): it depends. Are you truly a fiscal conservative? Or not? Can a Centrist for instance, change conservatism? Will those who consider themselves to be conservative allow that? (I think not)
If I were American I would probably lobby to reform the GOP – but I think that I am more right of center than you are.
On the other hand… if your goal is NOT to reform ‘conservatism’ but merely the GOP: by making the GOP generally more Centrist, then it would make sense for you to ‘join forces’ with the GOP and work at reforming it from the inside out.
So, what do you want to do?
Sam,
Point taken, and it’s a fair one. I won’t speak for my colleagues, but yes, I for one could do a better job of introducing some fresh, important topics rather than re-hashing what’s already been thoroughly “hashed.”
Michael,
Good questions, and I think the latter — i.e., my desire is to make the GOP generally more centrist and truer to its conservative roots (vs. its newly fundamentalist slant).
Fiscal conservativism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Social conservatism
Social conservatism as it’s come to be defined in recent years does contrast with the core principles of conservatism if you define those as “small govt” or “seeking least intrusive govt” (which are really more libertarian definitions). But if you understand the root of conservatism as the desire to conserve, to have social change come gradually without losing what was good from the past, then the shift in social conservatives wanting govt to protect the status quo came about because the status quo was being questioned more and more. Social upheaval that began in the 60s has resulted in a reaction from conservatives, who are acting on their instinct to “conserve” or “preserve”.
And that’s why I don’t think that the religious right should be ignored; instead, pragmatic politicians should help the most extreme among them understand that solutions can be sought which do preserve their right to their beliefs and practices without resorting to calls for theologically based laws.
One can only hope, C…one can only hope.
CS,
Why do you still say things like this?
Republican Senator Sam Brownback, now a presidential candidate sponsored a bill to do precisely that. Republican Representative Sam Graves is one of the main sponsors of its equivalent bill in the House. There are people trying to stop all ESCR, I’ve pointed this out to you before and yet you continue to deny it. Why?
And as far as denying that the opposition is religious, while it might be true that it isn’t completely religious I’d be willing to bet that it’s 90% or more based in religious belief so let’s not pretend it isn’t.
OK, Jim, I phrased that incorrectly. My complaint is that even when one voices an opinion that ESCR shouldn’t be govt funded, opponents have mischaracterized that as an attempt to ban the research itself. You are right to correct me because I don’t want to be guilty of the same kind of mischaracterization (although I will have to read the bills that you mention to see if they do in fact go as far as you are saying: I thought they were banning certain types of ESCR but not all of it).
Jim,
I never pretended anything. The point is that for religious believers, it’s difficult to separate our religious views from moral ones that aren’t theologically based. But the fact that some secularists understand that there’s a moral reason to apply the right to life to a pre-born reason means that this viewpoint shouldn’t be disqualified as a basis for making law (it should not be unconstitutional if the majority voted for a law to protect embryonic/fetal humans because it’s not strictly a religious viewpoint).
What CStanley said. Do they exert political pressure to try to move candidates to their ends? You bet. They sure do. They are citizens of this country and are entitled to participate in the political process and influence elections and get citizens and politicians to agree with their policy opinions.
You know who else does that? Everybody. The left, the middle, the right. Michael Moore is a complete whacko, who exerts political pressure to try to accomplish his policy goals. Whenever some on the right use Moore as an example of the idiocy of the left, we are usually met, quite properly, with the response that Moore is not the whole left, that the wingnuts are not the whole left, that DailyKos even is not the whole left. All quite true, even as the Kossacks and Moore and others try very hard to pressure politicians into advancing their causes.
All I hear from the middle and left is this tired old argument about how dominant the “Religious Right” is over the Republican Party, and how there’s no way that Giuliani or McCain could ever get the nomination. Meanwhile, Giuliani and McCain are leading the pack in the early polls, even among self-described Republicans and conservatives. So wedded to the notion of the dominance of the “Religious Right” are its critics that they refuse to accept the evidence that they may not actually be that strong. In fact, by screaming so loudly about their dominance, the left may in fact have given them more power and credence than they actually deserve.
PatMHV,
I’m torn between continuing to try to convince people on the left of this and (deviously) hoping that they won’t be convinced. That would allow the GOP to quietly realign a moderate but fiscally conservative base and blindside them with a candidate like Guiliani. It will be priceless to see those who pontificated about his chances of winning the GOP primary being zero, to have to explain how this aberration occurred.
Let’s be honest here. The Republican Party of today isn’t your father’s Republican Party. The main thrust of the Republican Party used to be fiscal conservatism and smaller government. Nowadays, fiscal conservatism has taken a back seat to the Culture War and the War on Terrorism–neither of which is consistent with smaller government.
The libertarian wing of the GOP is dead–replaced long ago by neoconservatives and social conservatives who, despite their affection for the late president Reagan, do indeed believe that government is the solution to the problem.
Pat and CS are just so very, very wrong when they try to claim how little influence the RR has on Republican politics. I have one phrase that proves it. Terri Schiavo. But I have no doubt they’ll try to tap dance around it and misrepresent what happened then.
Here’s a Wired Magazine article about the bill Brownback pushed. While they didn’t state that they explicitly wanted to ban ESCR, they did explicitly ban a technique necessary to the research. No difference except in the mind of political partisans.
“But if you understand the root of conservatism as the desire to conserve, to have social change come gradually without losing what was good from the past, then the shift in social conservatives wanting govt to protect the status quo came about because the status quo was being questioned more and more.”
If you define it this way, I’m a conservative, too. It’s only that I suspect we won’t find much common ground on what was good in the past, CS…
And, btw, having spent much time recently on sites like Forgotten NY and The Fabulous Ruins of Detroit makes me believe that Americans aren’t good at conservating the past at all…
Conservatism is, historically, the idea that it is good as it is and that just about nothing should be changed.
Probably not, Gray, probably not. But you might “get” me better if I tell you a major pet peeve of mine. It’s that my view of progressives is often that they ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’. Examples: there are obviously some valid criticisms of organized religion- therefore many seem to want to abandon the whole idea of organized religion as though the thing itself is inherently bad instead of a good thing which has been corrupted. Another example: the feminist movement, which in my view should celebrate the differences in the genders and while correctly identifying (and attempting to correct) the problem of conditions of inequity in society, there was an incorrect attempt to make women equal to men in all senses. Again, that’s an example of getting rid of the whole idea of different qualities of the genders, which in itself was not a bad thing, in order to remedy some problems which had come about as a result of those differences. `
[...] In my post yesterday on Saving the GOP, I wrote that, “I am sick and tired and more-than-a-shade furious about the debates that are distracting the party’s attention from governance issues.� I then turned around and focused on one of those distracting debates rather than tackling the more substantive governance issues that I accused the party of short-changing. [...]
[...] Those of who you are regular readers of my posts here and at Central Sanity are likely already aware that on the subject of embryonic stem-cell research, I am not a moderate voice. I am a raving lunatic. [...]