The Conservative Reformation: A Cauldron of Proposals
In my prior post on this subject, I promised to share a “modest proposal for the next Goldwater’s consideration.” By that, I meant this: Goldwater articulated a compelling vision for conservatives in 1960, which Ronald Reagan and his team subsequently studied and re-phrased in their own parlance and used (two decades later) to build a winning coalition. The “new Goldwater” — of 2008 or beyond — will need to do the same, anticipating the “new Reagan,” whomever he might be and whenever he might arrive, be it 20 years from now, or less, or more.
That’s where I left off nearly two months ago. I’ll now beg your forgiveness for another (albeit lesser) delay. I’m opting for this second delay because I think — before offering my unsolicited opinions to the heirs of Goldwater and Reagan — it would be worthwhile to first look at some recent proposals from other conservatives, two of which I briefly referenced in my last post.
(I’ll focus here on proposals from inside the conservative camp, but I’d be remiss not to remind readers of Damozel’s excellent thoughts on this subject. And if I’ve unfairly characterized Damozel as “not conservative,” I trust she’ll correct me in the comments.)
On May 9, in two separate essays, NYT columnist David Brooks and Reason Associate Editor Michael Moynihan suggested the new Goldwater look to today’s British conservatives as a model for the movement’s reformation. Moynihan concluded:
With a strong majority of Americans supporting Roe v. Wade, a clear majority supporting civil unions for gay couples, and the very real possibility of the country electing an African-American president, it’s time for the Republican Party to borrow from the Tories if they want to recapture the center ground.
That line of thinking seems a tad simplistic. If American conservatives, as represented in today’s Republican Party, are to enjoy a Tory-like resurgence, they will have to think much more broadly than a center-skewed migration on social/cultural issues. Such a migration might be a good start, but it can’t be the only (nor the predominant) step.
I think Tory captain David Cameron strikes closer to the crux of the matter – as does columnist David Brooks in his aforementioned column, where he wrote:
… The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”
That “way we live our lives” meme is amplified in two new books by conservative authors, both of which George Packer references in his May 26 essay for The New Yorker, “The Fall of Conservatism.”
The first book is Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, by David Frum. Its thesis (according to Packer) is this: The GOP “has lost the middle class by ignoring its sense of economic insecurity and continuing to wage campaigns as if the year were 1980, or 1968.”
Expanding on that motif, the second book — Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream, by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam — concerns itself with:
… “Sam’s Club Republicans” — members of the white working class, who are the descendants of Nixon’s “northern ethnics and southern Protestants” and the Reagan Democrats of the eighties. In their analysis, America is divided between the working class (defined as those without a college education) and a “mass upper class” of the college educated, who are culturally liberal and increasingly Democratic. The New Deal, the authors acknowledge, provided a sense of security to working-class families; the upheavals of the sixties and afterward broke it down. Their emphasis is on the disintegration of working-class cohesion, which they blame on “crime, contraception, and growing economic inequality.”
Packer is skeptical of Douthat’s and Salam’s policy prescriptions, summarizing them as “an unorthodox mixture of government interventions … and tax reforms.” But despite his skepticism, Packer acknowledges that “any Republican politician worried about his party’s eroding base and grim prospects should make a careful study of this book.”
David Brooks is more kind than Packer in his assessment of Grand New Party — a postion that may, he acknowledges, have something to do with his “friendship with the authors.” Regardless, he reaches a conclusion similar to Packer’s, namely that Grand New Party is a must-read treatise for concerned Republicans.
I assume Packer’s sketch of the two books, and Brooks’ of the latter, are reasonably accurate. But to be fair to the books’ authors, a full reading of both is on my “to do” list.
In the meantime, I hope (finally) to present, later this week, my own set of suggestions for conservative reform — which you, in turn, can either throw into the same cauldron as the other proposals outlined above, or simply throw away.
23 Responses to “The Conservative Reformation: A Cauldron of Proposals”
The real problem that neither book really wants to deal with is how can there be a conservative party in the U.S. when less than 50% of the children in kindergarten are white? The demographic trends in the U.S. are going to crush the Republican Party and any other conservative party.
Also, if the Republicans are the party of the middle class whites, there will not be enough money or enough talent to keep the party going.
Superdestroyer if your analysis is true then that is a pretty sad indictment for the Conservative values and the GOP.
Essentially you are saying that anyone who is not white cant be a conservative and I find that distressing if the GOP is in fact that which they claim they are not.
Racists.
I am not saying that they can't be a conservative but that they will never be a conservative due to cultural norms, the current civil rights laws, and political trends in the U.S. The Congressional black caucus is probably the most liberal group in Congress. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus is also extremely liberal.
When any pundit talks about Republicans appealing to blacks and Hispanics, they conclude that they only way to appeal is to stop being conservatives and become more liberal so that they can pander to those groups.
If you believes that conservatives are racist for not being able to appeal to blacks or Hispanics, then virtually every pundit in the U.S. would be considered a racist.
It's not racist to observe that for decades, every minority group has had the Democrats appeal to them not only by professing “inclusion” but by giving them favors (admission to the USA and defending them even while they are here illegally, for example — to this day some radical Democrats in some municipal governments practice a contemporary “sanctuary” organized criminal program of obstructing federal immigration enforcement) and entitlements of all kinds. The party of welfare and other entitlements is of course the Democratic Party and in addition, there remains to this day a degenerate, perverse insistence on having minorities not assimilate and advance but forever remain perpetual Victims, whom Democrats and entitlements naturally can assist.
Superdestroyer–
This seems interesting if rather cryptic. Where would (should?) the money and talent be coming from?
The money and talent come from the upper classes. Since the upper classes are trending very heavily to being Democrats, that is why the Democrats are now killing the Republicans in fund raising (along with the Republican party alienting parts of its base).
In the credential mania in the U.S., the vast majority of Ivy leaguers and other elite university students are Democrats. they have a number of pathways into politics. There is no career pathway for someone who wants to a Republicans except to get rich doing something else and then do into politics. Any super ambitious upper class kid who wants to go into politics will naturally become a Democrat.
The Republicans will be stuck recruiting candidates from BYU, state universities, and second tier private universities. They will look weak compared to the crop of Ivy leaguers that will be the future Democratic Party candidates.
The Bush Administration has tainted everyone who worked in it. Everyone who was a Congressional staffer during the Hastert/Frist lead days is also taints. The Republicans have lost a generation of future candidates. Since they will hold few offices and have no effect on policy, only the idiot children of those in power will end up working for Republicans.
Thanks for answering.
Pete,
One of the most compelling conservative voices I've heard is Mickey Edwards. I admire him for how he challenges current Republican conservatives on issues such as:
1. small government. (Small does not mean small in size, but limited in how much it can intrude into private lives)
2, the Bill of Rights. (Rights are everything not excluded by law. The Bill of Rights was not meant to exclude other rights It was meant to only highlight the most important. I.e. Borg was dead wrong.)
3. neglect of the middle class. (This is particularly true as small businesses have been chucked overboard in favor of large corportations as a central interest for conservatives.)
I find Edwards to be extremely appealing, and I admire his willingness to lose rather than go back on his principles. This is a stark contrast to the 'progresives' on the Left, who applaud themselves for their principles, but are not willing to either lose because of them or co-operate with others constructively to further their goals. . Instead they punish politicians whom they can't convince, which is a direct parallel to the Republicans setting out to destroy Clinton instead of continuing to work with him successfully. Different brands, same tactics, both wrong, while Edwards is right, IMO.
Although I haven't heard Edwards on this specifically, I think he would be horrified to hear conservatism described as the party of whites, as some commenters indicate.
“the Bill of Rights. (Rights are everything not excluded by law. The Bill of Rights was not meant to exclude other rights It was meant to only highlight the most important. I.e. Borg was dead wrong.)”
If you mean Robert Bork, you are correct here. This is about the only thing wrong in his book “The Tempting of America.” (Everything else is correct, including how he describes post-1930s liberal judicial activism, notably by the Supreme Court, and some conservative activism in the 1800s.)
Now, be sure to understand that “rights” doesn't mean claims to entitlements of this or that. (There is no “right” to health care or publicly provided transportation, both of which I have seen claimed, any more than there is a “right” to a guaranteed minimum income, or housing, etc.) Rights mean freedoms or more precisely, liberties — such as the right to travel freely (no pun intended) throughout the USA.
If you wish to think or to know more, the Ninth Amendment is somewhat of an inverse of what is a common misconstruction of the “general welfare” clause in Article 1, Section 8. The Founders made it clear there is no general, broad grant of power to the federal government. The Ninth is an inverse of this clause's correct meaning, and is “linked” to the Tenth. The powers of the federal government are strictly limited to those explicitly granted to it and what is additionally “necessary and proper”; the rights of the people, on the other hand, are retained by them unless surrendered to government, and just as it may not correctly be assumed that the federal government has general, broad powers, nor may it correctly be assumed that the people have only precisely granted, limited rights.
The Ninth Amendment (which Bork says is vague and hasn't been given any good description of the intent of its authors) reads as follows:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
It is this amendment which some of us were concerned would be deliberately misconstrued by the Clintons, when they lunged to the left in 1993-1994, to provide the dishonest basis for attempts to provide not only health care but other new entitlements and new regulations (the people having a “right” not to suffer excessive prices of things, etc.). And thank goodness those with tyrannical leanings haven't managed to get a corresponding collectivistic “Bill of Duties” or “Bill of Responsibilities” added as a new amendment or amendments, yet.
“conservatism described as the party of whites”
No, it's not conservatism, but the GOP, which is largely seen as the party of older and more affluent whites.
“how can there be a conservative party in the U.S. when less than 50% of the children in kindergarten are white?”
The taxpayers who are gouged to pay for entitlements given to minorities to entice them to vote Democratic and embrace liberal causes will always constitute a source for conservative politics and activism.
“only the idiot children of those in power will end up working for Republicans”
I suspect many will chuckle when they read this and are convinced this has happened already.
“The Bush Administration has tainted everyone who worked in it.”
The Congressional GOP has done a good job of tainting itself recently, SD. They have been great at enjoying power and even becoming corrupt, becoming like Democrats here (but offering less in the realm of entitlements and while not pursuing liberal or even “progressive” policy goals, so there is no way most Democratic voters would ever change to the GOP). It was disenchantment with the Congressional GOP as well as with the situation in Iraq that led so many GOP voters to change to the Democratic Party in 1996.
And now with a poor economy and many who don't care about economics, future effects of what's done now, or propriety of the scope of federal intervention? They want help from Uncle NOW. I'm still wondering if Obama will reach what I believe is a supermajority that really does constitute a mandate for change, beating McCain at least 62-38 per cent this November.
And, of course, dissatisfaction with the Congressional GOP this year means what for Dem and what for GOP Congressional candidates? The big story that should develop is a set of great gains for the Democrats in Congress. (State and local elections are mere icing on the cake for the Dem voters; Washington is where they want everything centered and what means nearly everything to them.)
“new Goldwater”
Consider the lies and slander we all heard after the 1994 elections, when only some reform began to be sought. “EXTREMISTS! FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS!”
Runasim — Thanks for the tip. I've checked out Mickey Edwards' writing and ordered a copy of his most recent book, to add to the others mentioned in the post. I'm going to be very busy reading over the next several months.
DLS.
i think you are practicing your own version of activism by definiing the whole (conservatism, the Constitution) according to your personal issue-oriented (immigration) preferences.
Sammy Edwards does not oppose entitlements on principle , btw, anymore than he opposes an inclusive interpretation of rights. He was happpy with Clinton's reforms, and thinks the attempt to destroy Clinton was a major departure from conservatism.
There are as many different views about the particulars of conservatism as there are among Democrats about thier party. Your voice is just one among many, and it differs from Edwards in what to me is a primary consideration : He doesn't demonize, and he is ready to co-operate with the opposition. .
For at least six years, as I've become increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration's repeated betrayal of constitutional — and conservative — principles, I have defended Vice President Cheney, a man I've known for decades and with whom I served and made common cause in Congress. No longer.
I do not blame Dick Cheney for George W. Bush's transgressions; the president needs no prompting to wrap himself in the cloak of a modern-day king. Nor do I believe that the vice president so enthusiastically supports the Iraq war out of a loyalty to the oil industry that his former employer serves. By all accounts, Cheney's belief in “the military option” and the principle of president-as-decider predates his affiliation with Halliburton.
Mickey Edwards WaPo March 2008.
The left admires anyone who bashes Bush. The find particular GLEE when it is a frustrated Conservative who finally lashes out instead of working to make things better. And of course now he Blogs over at Huffington Post…….lord have mercy. Hes definetly the conservative I would want teaching me the truth of conservativism.
But honestly I see no way around a blood bath. The democrats and the antiwar have so defined this debate that the GOP has nothing to throw out there that does not get swatted like flies on a dead calm day.
They no longer have Bill Clinton to bash around because no one cares about Bill Clinton. Its all about Bush and this gop fiasco. So it is best they get trounced in November and I mean big. So big in fact that they have veto proof majorities. Then the debate will be about their failures, their policies and their stupidity. It will be about their trampling the constitution when they ram rod something thru congress.
Then America and the GOP will realize one thing that everyones forgot. People didnt suddenly in the span of a few years all become Liberal Democrats. The GOP just forgot what they were all about because they got so sidetracked by fighting terrorists as if it was World War three, four and Five all rolled into one.
” think you are practicing your own version of activism by definiing the whole (conservatism, the Constitution) according to your personal issue-oriented (immigration) preferences. “
Are you confusing me with Superdestroyer?
I'm simply among the mainstream who wants immigration reform, an end to nearly unchecked (and prosecution of the criminal activists including those in the governments of some cities like San Francisco who deliberately are refusing to cooperate with federal immigration and other authorities and even are obstructing them — this is obstruction of justice as well as being accomplices to criminal illegal entry into this country).
I've distinguished between conservatism (we don't see as much of this by the GOP as the media would have you believe) and the GOP (often a weak, very often these days a dysfunctional, and too often a “me-too” Dems Lite party), which does not offer an alternative to the status quo in Washington (which is a major reason it suffered in the 2006 elections).
As for the Constitution, it says what it says, means what those who wrote and approved it intended it to mean, just like any other law. I'm substituting nothing for the facts here, either.
“GLEE”
It beats the frequent hatred that is a near-monopoly of the Left insofar as Bush is concerned (a sharper echo than the original disgusting hatred of Reagan, someone I heard bashed and shouted about a lot today on lefty talk radio). Everything was wonderful in this country until evil Ronald Reagan ruined it all…
That “surly loser” attitude has been with the Left ever since the 1980 elections.
* * *
“He doesn't demonize, and he is ready to co-operate with the opposition.”
The Left frequently demonizes; Bush is the quintessential example these past several years. (I'm not a demonizer, so don't bother with bogus charges.) Being willing to co-operate with the opposition is fine; I sometimes envision a big Senate meeting where everyone comes away with the table having won something in addition to having “left something on the table” (concessions in exchange). But this is never a necessity and cooperation is not the same as selling out or in this nation's case, agreeing to give the Democrats whatever they demand (the contemporary definition of “bi-partisanship” that we'll hear more of after the Dems get the White House and control both houses of Congress next year).
“views about the particulars of conservatism”
No — the best general description if we're just going to use one word. Conservatism (what exists, not what is shrieked about) is not monolithic any more than liberalism is. Leaving the Religious Right aside as well as the true far right, conservatism and the GOP consists of at least two different types, called “Whigs” and “Tories” by Amitai Etzioni, for example. The first are basically libertarian so-called “economic conservatives” (these are often called “neo-liberals” outside the USA) and then there are what I would call “traditionalist” or authoritarian conservatives, who aren't necessarily against interventionism (think about “law and order” and warrant-free wiretaps and such and trappings like the flag and the eagle). Then you have a division between “paleo-conservatives” (ranging toward the true far right, who are anti-Iraq-war but not libertarian, such as Pat Buchanan) and (not the contemporary term, but an earlier one, more broad) “neo-conservatives” (roots after Goldwater's defeat, rose with Reagan, but nowadays are happy with Big Government and loathed by the paleo-conservatives).
“There are as many different views about the particulars of conservatism as there are among Democrats about thier party.”
There is one difference. So often, anything “threatening” in any way to be conservative is called “far right” no matter how ridiculous this is. (It has even been done on this site.)
“So it is best they get trounced in November and I mean big. So big in fact that they have veto proof majorities. Then the debate will be about their failures, their policies and their stupidity.”
That is, in fact, one reason for those who would vote GOP as the lesser of two evils (even in McCain's case) who aren't that enamored of McCain to vote for Obama, and to vote for Obama (and other Dems in their state and local elections) even if there were an appealing, strong, positive-outlook GOP candidate (yes, maybe on another planet than this) this year.
It's a similar beyond-immediate-concerns strategic view to Quebec separatists who vote Oui on a bad secession bill just to express a no-confidence vote upon Ottawa and hope to prod Ottawa into offering them a better deal.
It is often a trend that great leaders can be followed by incompetent successors. Look at what we have today.
Less an administration based on substantiative policy, then a policy based on hubris, cronyism and bad judgement of an administration