« William Kristol on McCain’s “Fixer-Upper”
Somebody Just Won Huge »



Building a Better Conservatism

July 7th, 2008
By DAMOZEL

Print Print

Columnist Steven Greenhut writes:

Syndicated columnist Bob Novak, writing about the surprising number of conservatives who are backing Democrat Barack Obama rather than Republican John McCain for the presidency, captured their widespread sentiment when he quoted one "Obamacon" with impeccable GOP credentials: "The Republican Party is a dead rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of ‘Weekend at Bernie,’ handcuffed to a corpse." These Obama supporters hold no illusions about Obama’s liberalism, but they are so angry at the GOP, Novak writes, that they seek a "therapeutic electoral bloodbath."… [I]n a two-party system, when one party screws up royally, the voters reward the other party.’
(OC Register; emphasis added)

It’s actually quite affirming that some conservatives have decided to rebel against what the Bush administration and its abettors and enablers and are prepared, in the best traditions of democracy, to throw the rascals out.’

Because ‘conservative’ sure doesn’t mean what it used to. It doesn’t actually even mean ‘conservative’ anymore.

After all, as Greenhut points out:

President Bush has increased the size of the federal government faster than even LBJ. Bush promised the nation a humbler foreign policy. Certainly, that’s a dead letter. There was a time when Republicans understood the importance of the separation of powers and other protections against centralized government. No more. Another Republican with unassailable credentials, former Reagan appointee Paul Craig Roberts, wrote recently: "The Republican Party has shown beyond all doubt that it holds the U.S. Constitution in total contempt. Today, the Republican Party stands for unaccountable executive power. To re-elect such a party is to murder liberty in America."   (OC Register)

At Poligazette, Michael van der Galien similarly suggests that what the GOP really needs is a message about what it can do to make things better.   

The Grand Old Party has, from the perspective of an outsider at least, a grumpy old party, with grumpy old man, who offer fear, sarcasm and cynicism. Now, there’s reason to be cynical about politics, but if you want your country to make progress, cynicism won’t get you anywhere. You need a healthy dose of cynicism in order to be able to say what plans will and won’t work, and to point out to voters that they should not expect miracles from the government - they’ve got to do
it themselves in the end, but you also need a positive message to progress. You need to work towards something, a goal, a vision. 

This ‘vision thing’ is sorely lacking. And if Republicans do have a vision, it’s a negative one. Republicans should use their strengths and not just exploit the weaknesses of the Democratic Party. Conservative policies can revive the economy and encourage entrepreneurship. They can increase competition and give people the feeling that they can get ahead in life, they can succeed, if they want to and work hard for it. And when you do, the message and policy should be, you’re rewarded.

I think van der Galien is both right and wrong here.  He’s written well elsewhere and often about conservative principles so I give him a pass for reducing it down to one questionable assumption when he’s really talking about something else. But I am nevertheless going to challenge — or perhaps just question — the notion of what a conservative vision ought to be.

I agree that the Republicans desperately need to revise their message.  But they need to start by retooling their vision of reality. 

It’s just not true what van der Galien says:  that people can necessarily ‘get ahead in life…if they want to and work hard for it.’  If that were so, all those middle-aged people in the Rust Belt who are having to move back in with their parents — and all the people who saved for years to pay for their homes, provide for a comfortable retirement, and pay for their children’s educations —would be laughing.

If it were true, I — and I consider myself fortunate both in my work and my ability to work 15 hour days when I need to — wouldn’t be worrying how I’m going to scrape up the money to help pay for my stepdaughter’s wedding without incurring serious debt…or to pay the expenses of flying my husband and me to England to attend it, ditto.

In fact, the idea that hard work = success was probable never true.  For one thing, ‘to get ahead in life’ is a relative concept.  It depends on where you want to go, and on there being somewhere to get.  It might be as rewarding, for example, to be a community worker as it is to be Donald Trump, but you aren’t going to be financially rewarded for it. 

What does ‘getting ahead in life’ even mean to someone who is doing necessary work — say, collecting the garbage — and doing it well, responsibly, etc.?  Suppose that person isn’t really qualified to be anything else?  Suppose then after 15 years of working responsibly, that person’s job is cut be a state desperate to conserve funds and no longer has health care, money to pay the rent or the mortgage, or a pension fund?  Suppose that the person tries to find other work and ends up settling for a job that pays minimum wage and offers no benefits, or offers such benefits as a health care plan that pays 70% and has a $1500 deductible?  How does that person ‘get ahead’ by working hard?

Maybe today’s self-styled conservatives really need to completely rethink what it means to be conservative.  Or maybe what I am really saying is that they should return to their roots—van der Galien knows more about this than I do. But what is it, exactly, that conservatives aspire to conserve?  I’d recommend:

(1) Supporting notions of responsible stewardship, such as:

  • Caring for the environment, conserving resources, protecting wildlife to prevent further accelerating species die-off (which in the long run IS going to affect humans).

  • Rationally balancing the risks of short-term benefits against the possible disastrous consequences of long-term risks.
  • Objectively looking into the opinions of environmental scientists, embryonic stem cell researchers, and other experts on subjects affecting our long-term welfare so as to make intelligent decisions that correctly weigh competing interests.
  • (2) Rethinking whether all those private for-profit companies Republicans think should be handling government contracts are the best stewards of those ‘precious tax dollars’ conservatives are always going on about; sternly holding government contractors accountable for fraud and excessive waste; going after war profiteers.
  • (3)  Taking a stand in favor of campaign finance reform, so that people’s political representatives aren’t unduly weighing the interests of donors who can raise a lot of money against individuals who can’t.
  • (4)  Recognizing the universal need for health care (even among people who can’t afford it without, say, selling their homes, spending their kids’ college funds,or using up all their welfare money on doctor bills instead of groceries or rent).
  • (5) Educating themselves about the rest of the world; making no foreign policy decisions without making sure they’ve looked at all the consequences to all affected parties.
  • (6) Educating themselves about the economy; fairly balancing the needs of individuals and families for a measure of stability and security against the wish of businesses to turn larger profits; requiring those who benefit most from participation in the economy to give back a fair share (don’t kid yourself — they don’t).
  • (7)  Discouraging individual fiscal irresponsibility; cracking down on irresponsible extension of credit;  working to change the ‘consumer mindset’ of most Americans and encouraging  by redefining success to mean something else other than owning a lot of stuff.
  • (8) Affirming old fashioned conservative values such as courage in the face of a threat, value for the principles on which the country was founded (such as the idea that due process requires procedures to protect and affirm the dignity of individuals against whom the government proceeds), and resistance to the craven notion that those principles should give way because you’re afraid.
  • (9)  Taking the stand that the government doesn’t have any business deciding private moral issues or inserting itself into debates over religion; protecting individual privacy and standing up vigorously for  ‘the right to be let alone’ except in cases involving actual harm to others.

    • I could go on for hours.  None of these notions are at odds with true conservative principles, but they are certainly at odds with the ideas that most Republicans have pushed on the American public during the last few years.



    This entry was posted on Monday, July 7th, 2008 at 8:32 am and is filed under Social Conservatives, Political Philosophy, Conservatism, Neoconservatives, Moral Values, Stem Cell Research, Political Christianity, Republican Party, Moderate Republicans, Domestic Surveillance, Ideologies, Social Commentary, Science, Math, Technology, Moderates, Environment, Endangered Species, Conservation, Republicans, Referenda, Animals, Global Warming, Conservatives. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

    Viewing 19 Comments

      • ^
      • v
      the Democrats cannot be serious about the environment as long as they support open borders and unlimited. A refusal to deport illegal aliens and giving illegal aliens government benefits, cause population explosions, causes people to talk actions to avoid being harmed from unlimited immigration, and thus hurts the environment.

      If the government wants to run health care is should demonstrate its competence by running primary and secondary education for the benefit of the students instead of as a jobs program. Until the DC public schools function properly, please leave the rest of the government alone.

      I can tell you have never dealt much with government planners. The idea that no one can be hurt by failure will quickly be turned into no one can succeed. It will become that all profits are ill gotten. Please tell me why anyone would want to start a new business in the coming Obama Admnistration. Why risk your own capital when the government will want any profits made? Isn't it easier to invest in government debt instead of starting your own business? Isn't it easier to work for the government instead of the private sector? Of course the government cannot produce wealth than will pay taxes and fund retirements but the Democrats seem to have forgotten as much economics as the Republicans.

      You obviosly have never lived in DC. When a crisis comes up, the politicians must do something. Look at the window dressing that started right after 9/11. Do you really think that the Democrats will be able to resisit a massive response to the next 9/11 type incident?
      • ^
      • v
      I think Reagan is the corpse they are handcuffed to...

      And SD... "Please tell me why anyone would want to start a new business in the coming Obama Admnistration. Why risk your own capital when the government will want any profits made?"

      Don't you think that statement is a tad ridiculous?
      • ^
      • v
      ChrisWWW,

      What part of the private sector do you think will have above normal growth in an Obama Administration. Labor Unions, public sector employees, and trial lawyers to not have stock owners.

      What will be the best place for your retirement investment in an Obama Administration? Stocks in companies that have higher corporate taxes, higher capital gains taxes, and new regulatory schemes? Should you invest in bonds? maybe foreign investment would be best because it will be the least affect by the Obama Administration.

      Please, what part of the private sector is going to make higher profits and experience growth under an Obama Administration? The Clinton Administration only had good growth when it keep its hands off of the private sector.
      • ^
      • v
      SD,
      How is your stock portfolio doing right now?
      • ^
      • v
      Here's a little clip about the Lincoln Club of Orange County stopping their contributions to incumbent Repubicans as a sign to them that change in party leadership is needed.
      http://www.greenfaucet.com/hanlons-pub/proud-to...
      Pretty interesting..
      • ^
      • v
      ChrisWWW

      The Bush Administration had been horrible. However, the market is beginning to factor in the coming Obama Administration. Energy, Transportation, chemical, and manufacturing will all be hit with the new regulations. All the companies will be hit with increased capital gains taxes and with new corporate income taxes.

      A real question is if any corporations are putting off new products or expansion plans because the mid-range economic outlook is bad.

      Again, what companies are going to benefit from the coming Obama Administration.
      • ^
      • v
      "Again, what companies are going to benefit from the coming Obama Administration."

      Seems to me the same ones that benefited during the Clinton administration.

      "A real question is if any corporations are putting off new products or expansion plans because the mid-range economic outlook is bad."

      What exactly does that have to do with a potential Obama administration? Is Obama to blame for the mid range economic outlook?

      I can tell you as a small business owner that despite the current economic situation, 2008 looks to be the most profitable year in my 11 year history.

      And it has nothing to do with Bush, Obama, nor any other politician.
      • ^
      • v
      The chaos the world will face with an Obama presidency is mindboggling.

      Democrats. Will not drill, will not build new refineriers and will not build new nuclear power plants. World oil demand will rise under Obama. The price of oil skyrockets. The democrats hold out hope that Barak Obama can somehow smooth talk more oil out of the arabs asses to lower prices.

      The democrats raise taxes but give it back to the middle class. Net gain zero. They raise taxes on corporations. The corporations pass the tax increase back to the consumer thru higher prices.

      They pass additional regulation which forces the corporations to reduce job growth. Unemployment rises.

      Barak Obama cannot bring the troops home from Iraq soon enough, he has to continue the battle in Afghanistan.

      The result is huge tax shortfalls, 8 percent to 10 percent unemployment. Interest rates in the double digits because of legislation that forces the corporations to pass on the costs to consumers so they can do what they do..............make a profit.

      JIMMY CARTER all over again. However Barak Obama does give some imspiring speechs to those who are unemployed finding a way to convince them that the GOP which consists of 3 old men in a Larry Craig stall at the airport ARE TOTALLY TO BLAME.

      Meanwhile Maxine Waters continues to threaten to Social.......er nationalize the Oil companies believeing that the government can find more oil on those leases that the oil companies continue to allow to lapse. We all know that with oil at 150 dollars a barrel they do not want to drill and make more money.

      As things continue to denegrate The democratic congress finally understands economics and decides that 10 dollar a gallon gasoline which has destroyed the teamsters, trucking, Automobile industry and recr