On Conservatism’s (Un)Certain Future
With the seemingly-likely blowout of the GOP from the halls of power, there has been a lot of talk about what will happen to the conservative moment. Blogger Peter Suderman believes it’s a bit premature to say that conservatism is doomed:
I don’t want to go too far down the road of arguing that the right doesn’t have problems. It does, and I desperately hope that it takes this current moment of confusion and anxiety as the impetus for some serious soul-searching and reform. But the drama and high emotions that coincide with election years can easily be taken to mean more than they do, and the results of an election or two don’t always signal the sort of political catastrophe that many are predicting for current GOP.
However, Daniel Larison argues that things are terribly bad in conservative-land:
It is fair to say that Republicans–and conservatives–have not faced a situation like this one since the eve of the 1964 landslide loss. While the result will not be that lopsided, this will probably be the second-worst defeat of a Republican presidential ticket since WWII, and it will be the first time in over a century that Republicans are not going to win an open presidential election. Unlike Goldwater 1964, however, McCain has no
coherent message and leaves no legacy to be seized on later. There are times when parties lose elections badly but find a coherent set of arguments that can make them competitive soon thereafter, and then there is the case of the Tories after 1997 as they stumbled and bumbled from one leader to the next as obsessed with Europe as McCain and the rest of the GOP leadership have been obsessed with earmarks. The GOP’s alienation of the rising cohort of 18-29 year olds, which it was always going to have difficulty with because of demographic and cultural changes within that cohort, is going to reverberate for decades to come, even though it is the youngest voters who have the greatest incentives to respond to a new agenda of entitlement reform and fiscal responsibility. The GOP is going to find itself increasingly saddled with aging Boomer voters who will reject the kind of policy innovation that is needed to offer a coherent alternative.
So, what is going to be the outcome of the Republican Party after November 4?
My answer? We don’t know.
It’s nice to think we might know what could happen, but the reality is that things are not so set in stone as to the future. In my opinion, it’s really all up to how people respond to the situation. In short, it’s up to conservatives to determine who to react. I do think there are several possible outcomes:
It’s fun speculating what the future might hold for the GOP, but the fact is, we don’t know. It really depends on many factors: the economy, foreign policy and other events. We can lay out possible outcomes, but the one certainty that I know is that humans are incredibly illogical creatures.
My hope is that the time spent in the political wilderness will be short and helpful. But the amount of time spent out of power hinges on how Republicans want to respond, and not on the chatter of people like me.
33 Responses to “On Conservatism’s (Un)Certain Future”
I certainly hope none of the liberals (“moderates” [sic]) on this site advocates a regression of the GOP toward being a smiley-faced even-more-Dem-Lite liberal alternative to a Democratic Party (no doubt more “progressive” [sic] and activist than it was in the 1990s). That is not advocating true conservatism (or a return to true English-libertarian-heritage US traditionalist values, let alone defense of them).
A lot depends on how truly hooked on entitlements the vast US middle class is, in addition to traditional Dem special-interest groups. (Social Security and Medicare are middle-class mainly-retirement-related welfare programs that dwarf what we all envision as welfare programs). Of course, therein lies the key to incrementalist victory for modern liberalism and the Democrats, namely progression to universality (though a guaranteed minimum income for everybody remains overreach at this time).
DLS, what's your opinion of what the GOP should become? Or does the three-legged stool model still suffice?
There is a great need for moderate voices today's age economic uncertainty. Particularly when it comes to a reasoned response to the current crisis. Irrational blowhards in Congress and the media are calling for increased regulation, which would come at an incredible cost to productivity and prosperity. Steve Forbes gives a great explanation for economic downturns of the 1930's and 1970's which were results of over-regulation and ridiculous taxes. He then goes on to show why when regulations and taxes were eased, we had an “economic golden age.” Check it out, it's definitely worth the read.
http://www.forbes.com/hcome/forbes/2008/1110/01…
Neither author faced the demographic that less than half the children in kindergarten are white.
If you are selling anything, political ideas, cars, food slicers, you have to remember that there are certain groups that will never be buyers. The problem that the Republicans face is that less that soon, less than 50% of the voters will even be potential buyers of the Republican brand. they also face the problem is that any change they can make will alienate more buyers than it gains.
A Goldwater-esque backpedaling would be a step in the right direction. The moderates used to be even with the social conservatives but the balance has been weighed out as seen by the rally behind Palin and the questions the base has for McCain. It doesn't help much that the Left is moving faster than much of the country wants – the right is just trying to stay afloat.
Dang. 8 minutes too late to post:
3…2…1 to superdestroyer hand-ringing and mourning the come of the brown faces…
roro80,
Unless a writer is willing to talk about changing demographics, why listen to them about the Republicans being lost in the wilderness. Does anyone really believe that the Repulbicans can become the majority party in California? And as the demographics of the U.S. begin to resembel the current population of California, the Republicans face exactly the same problem.
Unless the Republicans can find a full slate of action movie actors, Arnold will probably be the last Republican Governor of California.
I think you missed a possibility. What if the rational conservatives still in the party get together with some of those who have left it in order to do a major push to truly create a non-extremist conservative third party? How many people do you think it would attract? Far more than Nader, the Greens or Libertarians I bet. It might be their only option, to provide a viable external threat to the current GOP power structure.
SD,
Hispanics aren't as party loyal as you think they are. And infact if xenophobes like you wouldn't have spooked so many Hispanics, Bush's increase in the Hispanic vote might have continued.
But lets say that you are right. We have had two parties since Washington. Maybe the GOP won't be the other party or maybe they will different than today. But either way there will be another party because parties tend to screw up when they get power and people get sick of the same people in charge forever.
Jim,
One of the many problems with third parties is that really need to find candiates in all fifty states. Do you really think that rational conservatives could actually create organizations in all 50 states when even the Republicans cannot operate relevant party structures in all 50 states?
DLS: Neither author faced the demographic that less than half the children in kindergarten are white.
Why should they? Is it written in stone somewhere that the GOP has to be a predominantly white party? History indicates that not to be true. Not always. It's true that they currently are, but it hasn't always been the case. The GOP could, if they wanted, avoid racial/cultural wedge issues. That might help. Alternatively, they could champion one or more kinds of racial/cultural outreaches to one extent or another and in one style or another. They simply choose not to. Would it be difficult to do while still maintaining the existing base contingencies? Yes. Is it necessary? Well, to the extent that what you say is true, then also yes. And in fact I happen to agree with you that if the GOP feels compelled to remain a predominantly white party, they have no future. But I would also argue that there is potential lemonade in that lemon.
You said, “If you are selling anything, political ideas, cars, food slicers, you have to remember that there are certain groups that will never be buyers.” That's true. But the road to success still remains in maximizing the number of potential buyers. It seems to me the GOP is hell bent on minimizing them, not maximizing them. It's time to re-think the marketing strategy.
Ricorun
The GOP tried to maximize the number of buyers with it illegal aliens amnesty program. How did that work out. It pissed off its base of core Republican voters, it hurt GOP fund raising, and still managed to alienate Hispanics.
The bigger government party will always be able to appeal to all non-dominate ethnic groups by promising to tax the dominate group and give the money to the non-dominate groups. Do you really think it would help Repulbicans to propose higher taxes to fund more miority set aside programs?
I agree with BBQ: Hispanics in particular represent a largest, most accessible bloc of low-hanging fruit for the GOP. Despite what my nickname might imply (and despite the fact that there was a time in my life when I was frequently mistaken for Geraldo Rivera, lol!), I am not Hispanic. But my sweetie is. I speak Spanish, and I have other ties to the Hispanic community as well. And while there are obviously exceptions and variations on the theme, a good many of them are conservative with respect to at least two of the three legs of the stool by which conservatism is currently defined. But I have to say, they really hate the unilateral focus on the supply side of the illegal immigrant equation in very large numbers. That one issue is really killing the GOP. Then again, it also serves as a prime motivator for the social conservative contingent of the existing base. It's a real dilemma for the GOP. But if they manage to figure it out, I suspect that the GOP can become competitive again.
That's one example. There are others.
Jim's on to something here.
But here's the major problem with third parties in this country. The very makeup of the government makes it nearly impossible for third parties to exist. While it's very, very, appealing; the duality of the political system just isn't suited to this idea. The two parties will eventually adopt the positions that made the third parties appealing in the first place.
But, with the way the GOP is heading, it's worth a shot. I mean, changes aren't exactly gaining within the party for the. Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Snowe et. al. are all but ostracized.
Ricorun,
Even you could not put a policy on immigration that would appeal to heavily Democratic leaning Hispanic voters and most of the current Repulbicans. Other than making open borders and unlimited immigration the official policy of the U.S. after having it as the unofficial policy for 30 years, I cannot think of anything that would make Hispanics happy.
Sorry, SD, we seem to have overlapped in our comments. Anyway, I agree with you that “maximizing the number of buyers” presents dilemmas for the GOP. But I would also argue that it's essential. The illegal alien issue was attempted in one way. It was rejected by the GOP base. So what does that mean? Does it mean you abandon the effort or tweak the effort? It seems to me there are myriad ways to tweak it. And frankly, I get the impression that both McCain and Obama appreciate the big picture on this issue, although their approaches differ. But I also get the impression that McCain is more constrained in the possible approaches open to him because his support is both more restricted and fractured. Obama appears to have more wiggle room, because his support is more malleable.
Ricorun,
I heard Obama Hispanic coordinator (or equivalent title) on C-SPAN and he basically said that the solution is to give everyone in the U.S. illegally a document to make them legal. I also doubt that an Obama Administration will continue with contruction of physical barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border. So, in reality, the Obama Administration seems to want to pursue a policy of open borders, unlimited immigration, and amnety for all who are in or can make it to the U.S.
“Does anyone really believe that the Repulbicans can become the majority party in California? And as the demographics of the U.S. begin to resembel the current population of California, the Republicans face exactly the same problem.”
Incorrect premise. California is not a solid Dem state solely because of our Mexican population. Both California and Texas have similar demographics in terms of their hispanic populations: about 1/3. Somehow, despite the brown people, Texas has managed to maintain it's near-universal Republican power structure. So while I don't believe that California will go red anytime in the near future, there's a lot more to it than the hispanic population.
Everyone on this board has tried to explain to you that changing demographics don't mean that the conservative movement has to die. We've all read your comments over the last few weeks, all of which say the same thing, none of which make a lick of sense unless you start with the premise that minorities are bad. It's offensive.
By definition of the term, “liberalism” is a tent, prima facie. Conservatism, by definition is selective.
Making the Republican Party into a tent is political pragmatics winning over inherent philosophy.
Republicans only win because Democrats are often goofballs. When Republicans become goofballs, a Dem should win walking away. That's the only part that doesn't make sense this election.
roro,
I am not arguing that minorities are bad. I am just arguing that minorities will stay very loyal to the Democratic party no matter what the Replubicans say or do.
The Republican party could come out for race based reparations and for every form of affirmative action that exist and the Republicans would still not get any more black votes than it does today. the same goes for Hispanics voters to a lesser degree.
Sor the Republicans are forced to figure out how to get a higher percentage of the white vote with every election cycle ( a doubtful trend) or figure out how to appeal to Hispanics (the GOP has forget blacks) without alienating whites ( also very doubtful).
SD,
Your argument has merit but blacks, Hispanics, and many other demographics can indeed be low hanging fruit for the GOP. Many in these demographics are religious and socially conservative. The GOP can recover, but it needs more faces like Jindal and less old white men. WASPy tribalism will doom the party, and eventually, people will either see the writing on the wall or young conservatives like Jindal will take control.
sd: I am not arguing that minorities are bad. I am just arguing that minorities will stay very loyal to the Democratic party no matter what the Replubicans say or do.
I can't speak for roro, but I argue that minorities stay very loyal to the Democratic party because of what the Replubicans say and do. I argue further that what the Republicans say and do in the future is not set in stone. Rather, it is a choice. On the most basic level they can continue to ignore reality or accept it. If they ignore it, they're certainly toast. If they accept it, then, depending upon the platform they generate, they may have a chance.
Q: “what's your opinion of what the GOP should become?”
A: Traditional libertarian-heritage minimalist government, with fidelity to true constitutional federalism as the obvious bonus. In practice that means a vast dimunition (actually, shrinkage) and termination of much of what the federal government goes. Ideally that would include an end to all federal entitlement programs; government in Washington would revert to being a _government_ and nothing but (not a service agency or vote-buying ATM-candy-dispensing machine, not a political weapon, not an instrument of social engineering, income or wealth redistribution, none of it). To return to the Constitution would mean ending as much as 2/3 or more of the size and scope of the federal government. (“Devolution” of so much of what Washington does currently to the state and local governments where it properly belongs doesn't necessarily follow, not if a similarly minimalist government is the objective there as well.) This is the ideal and impossible to achieve in practice, as is true with other ideals, but the theory is sound and it certainly provides a guide. It would resurrect much of the attitudes expressed by the peers of Goldwater in the early-to-mid-1960s when the opposite trend had been so evident for so long in Washington, but already had begun to be resisted. (It would be sad if in practice such a government, minimalist or at least much leaner, as it ought to be, was so out of reach that activism related to it and strategy related to it was constrained merely to resistance against continued growth and incrementalism, which has been the trend even since 1980 — it is not merely a case of revival of the Left or excitement about Obama.)
1. Rico — you attributed to me something that someone else had said. I'm aware myself of demographics and their changes in this nation (now and to come), but if you review what I have written, my area of interest is not on the changing nature of our racial and ethnic composition (I grew up in California and have lived all over the nation and have seen changes as well as differences in various places), but to be precise, I've been interested on the future effects of societal aging in the USA, to a related (and more severe) extent in Europe (whose democratic socialist system of entitlements, more extensive and more depended upon than ours, will experience worse problems), and also to the world population in general (“global aging”).
2. What I said elsewhere about Goldwatersque push-back-against-the-New-Deal libertarian “conservatism” as a desireable future for conservatism and Washington is hardly new. Be aware, I'll repeat on this thread, that true constitutional federalism, which was abandoned in the New Deal, has _never_ been attempted in modern times (1930s onward, in this case, 1960s-onward additionally emphasized; 1980s-onward is most people's view of “contemporary,” a later part of “modern” times — the dream of lefties to change the nation's direction can be seen as a hope to redefine what is contemporary, albeit going back to the 1960s), and thus it is _impossible_ for anyone to claim (with a straight face) that federalism is impossible to practice now, or (a bolder lie) that it has been tried and has failed.
Goldwater fought the New Deal and the New Deal won in 1964, and has remained alive. But with all the lessons we've learned since then (including the medicinal metaphor I've posted before — government programs as medications with side effects, responding to the side effects by taking additional medication, leading to a cascade of medicines and side effects), why not turn back, get off this supposedly better-engineered but in fact rock-strewn often-rutted dirt road we've been on*, and go back to a longer-traveled but better, less problem-ridden, better-laid-out road?
* Or at least, with complete command and control by government over the economy and society, we do approach the Soviet Union, which largely had rock-strewn rutted dirt paths as “roads” outside of Moscow and other select places to show foreigners, and which were the metaphor describing so much of the economy and society there.
(I could say more about that road metaphor and many people's idea of “progress” in fact leading to a deteriorating road the longer we travel along it — going backward is _wise_ in this circumstance — but will leave it alone at this point.)
Actually, Rico, it's not any (nearly 100% bogus) Republican “sticks” (push factors) but Democratic “carrots” (pull factors) that attract minorities to the Dems rather than be repelled by the Republicans (albeit that can happen with a lib-Dem media and how it describes things). The Dems' attraction goes beyond 1960s-onward welfare; we had welfare programs as far back as the 1930s that appealed to the down-and-out as far back as the 1930s, and as I wrote elsewhere, the Dems were a party also of “inclusion” that goes beyond any crass, overt attempts to buy votes (which the Dems also do, of course).
“blacks, Hispanics, and many other demographics can indeed be low hanging fruit for the GOP. Many in these demographics are religious and socially conservative” (and they aren't the old, white guys you see on US currency, as Obama noted)
Do you know what? To date, given the Dems' refusal to let 'em go, this dream of the GOP is like “The China Dream” (you can look it up, it's an update on “400 million customers”)
Epitaph — “Here lies a conservative party that tried to out-appeal a liberal party with a lock on the people the conservative party tried to get to switch” (out-hustle the East)
(If you research the eternal lust for China the World's Greatest Market you'll encounter what all that is about)
My genuine hope is that the Republican party as it currently exists is unable to be sustained. The Democrats will rule for 3 cycles in which time they will likely overspend and anger a lot of fiscal conservatives. The Democratic party could then fracture into 3 distinct blocs; a democratic socialist party (think Sweden); a moderate party that resembles the current democratic party; and a socially liberal / fiscally conservative party (libertarian-esque). With any luck, the religious, social conservatives will become irrelevant as homogeneous voting bloc and will spread between the three parties.
I think conservatism is pretty well doomed in its current form. The three legged stool only worked when the opposing party was all about socalism. That just doesn't apply anymore. Most younger dems aren't into Marxist idiology. They tend to be libertarian leaning, favoring things like micro-lending over just giving money to the poor. The only exception is healthcare, where our free market system has delivered a giant mess that gives less care for more money.
So, the reason the 3-legged stool won't stand now, are simple. Starting with social conservatives: The Republican social conservatives tend to be a lot older. There is more of a tendency for those folks to be distrustful of blacks and hispanics, and to say and do things that alienate them from the Republican party. This is bad for Republican social conservatives, because there are a lot of black and hispanic social conservatives who would be their natural allies. Social conservatives tend to be pretty populist when it comes to economic policy. They want their elderly welfare (ie medicare and medicaid). They think they deserve it, even though what they have contributed is waaaayyy below what they are expecting to collect. They like to blame budget problems on actual welfare and other social programs that help poor blacks and hispanics, even though the data shows that a third of state, local, and federal taxes are direct wealth transfers to retirees. If we eliminated all help to the poor tomorrow, we would still be in a giant budget hole, because of the elderly.
Foreign policy conservatives still fit ok in the same tent as the social conservatives. They can both agree that the middle east needs to be 'managed'. However, between war spending and elderly entitlement programs, this is a big budget, big spending coalition.
Fiscal conservatives have the opposite agenda from the social and foreign policy big spending conservatives. There is nothing those people have in common anymore.
JMattM,
For what I speculated about to succeed it would rely on the people like Snowe, Powell, Hagel and other high profile Republicans jumping into it and getting some decent financial backing. That is the kind of shift it would take for it to work.
Another problem with conservatism as we know it is its inherent unsuitability for our times. Conservatives believe in a slow, measured approach to problems. They look to the past for examples and inspiration. When they do so they tend to deny that advances in technology and societal changes can make the old tried and true standards irrelevant or at least unworkable. Unemployment lasts 13 weeks typically. Maybe it made sense in the blue collar age but now that so many decent jobs that don't require specialized training are gone it doesn't work when retraining and more education are the most likely thing to get someone a new job and it just takes longer than that. It happens in business as well. Home foreclosures are 71% higher now than they were a year ago. Credit has tightened making buyers scarce. Yet institutions are largely doing the same old thing by foreclosing instead of admitting that the house has lost value and that value will not be back any time soon and proceeding from there. Maintaining a foreclosed house costs money yet the old habits die hard. It's actually interesting how conservative the approach towards customers is by the financial world even as they play games with “advanced” concepts such as those highly technical approaches to derivatives and packaging which helped lead to the current disaster. Not politics but the problem and approaches are similar.
The truth is that in our history we have always swung between liberalism and conservatism. They are cyclical– attempts at relative centrism– by administrations like Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Eisenhower– have usually resulted in the centrist being attacked by both sides of the spectrum.
The free-wheeling liberalism of the 60's produced the conservatism of the 80's, and the revival of conservatism in '94 led to the cockiness and excesses of the 2001-2006 period. The GOP overstepped and lost its way- resulting in a period of chaotic growth of government that violated all of their principles.
We are now swinging back towards liberalism, as the Conservative movement turns inward on itself and outwardly has only its failed dogma and distorted vitriol to offer voters. Certainly its attempts at anti-intellectualism- while a populist trend — has led to what Noonan called the “vulgarization” of the movement.
kritt
In the past, the swings in voting occur among white voters. In the future, as the white voters become a smaller percentage of overall voters, the swings will stop. The Democrats will figure out that the way to maintain power no matter what is to use the government to deliver as much government goodies as possible to as many groups as possible. that leaves conservatives wanting to take things away from people and that is a losing idea.
I also find it odd that as the Democratic party runs on a return to the policies of 1933 that Democratic pundits are claiming that the Democrats are the forwarding looking party.