And the Republican Party from itself.
I thought, as a public service, I'd offer some opinion on where the Republican Party has gone wrong and how it might best save itself from going the way of the Whigs. That answer lies in what TYPE of conservatism Republicans will represent.
It is my opinion that conservatives have become doctrinaire and exclusive. There's a cold wind of "IF you don't agree with me, you're a terrorist, socialist and murderer" blowing through their tents and it's chasing people out of the tent faster than they can recruit people in. It's not a winning solution (ask any community organizer, they can tell you).
Now understand, I am NOT suggesting that Republicans give up their moral beliefs, but rather that they approach moral problems with the recognition that this is a free nation and we are all moral agents seeking to do the right thing and sometimes failing, but we're seeking nonetheless. Shrillness and bile is no way to win over converts and, unfortunately, many people have begun to associate the Republican party as the Shrillness and Bile party.
So, to best save the GOP, here are my suggestions, for what they're worth, beginning with the over all suggestion that conservatism has its best chance at survival in redefining/reclaiming its role as the small gov’t/libertarianism type of conservatism.
So, my thinking would be:
1. They de-emphasize the gay marriage/abortion/drug war social/cultural hangups they have. Still remain opposed to such cultural things, if they think they are wrong, but recognize that it’s not gov’ts role to get involved in these personal matters.
Or, at the least, do so for gay marriage and drug war (I can understand the thinking that abortion does remain a gov’t issue insofar as the defense of the defenseless angle). But by and large, social conservatives come across as nosy busybodies, presuming to tell everyone in this free nation how they can and can’t live. Big gov’t to the extreme. It’s not a winning argument.
2. If they want to keep abortion as an issue, change the approach. Less shrillness. Less preachiness. Recognize that no one is out to “kill babies,” but that there are complex moral issues and honest differences of opinions by free moral agents on this topic.
Work across the aisle on the decreasing the number of abortions angle, rather than emphasizing abortion as holocaust. I fully understand being opposed to abortion, but the approach is not working and if it’s not working, then you’re not stopping it or slowing it down. Why not shoot for an approach that works?
3. Go for the more traditional conservative ideal of less military adventurism. We have no business gallavanting around the world playing world police. It’s part of what people don’t like about the US globally. Again, SMALL gov’t, not big gov’t.
4. Go for the libertarian, fiscally responsible PAYGO no deficit small gov’t type of conservatism. The last three “conservatives” in the White House have all ended up with the most massive growth of gov’t in our nation’s history. That sort of hypocrisy has been recognized and is a no-winner for conservatives.
Them’d be my thoughts. Any one else have opinions on how to save the GOP? Am I way off?
44 comments:
Far too many conservatives first migrated to the Republican Party in part because of social/cultural issues. You and I both know that those who oppose abortion and believe it to be murder of babies do more than believe it; they know it, regardless of any evidence or arguments to the contrary. I do think that abandoning social and cultural issues in pursuit of a broader economic and military conservatism would certainly benefit them; in light of the fact of a generation (or so, roughly speaking) of conservative governance has not yet seen the end of abortion on demand or compulsory Christian prayer in public schools, I do not see where supporting Republican politicians who espouse such policies has benefited them all that much.
We are in need of a vital discourse including the contrariness of opposition. Except for the past three years, in my lifetime official Democratic politicians have done little to that end. Now, it seems, the Republicans are going through the process the Democratic Party did in the years after George McGovern was defeated - figuring out one's identity.
The immediate evidence is that the pursuit of a Republican identity will be ugly and bloody (metaphorically speaking). While a part of me will look on with a smile of satisfaction, at the same time, I think we are ill-served by a lack of serious opposition based on real possibilities (the hard right long ago abandoned reality, sad to say).
I also think even moderates such as yourself concern-trolling conservative and Republican debates on identity will not be taken in the spirit they are offered. More's the pity.
I think they need to go back to their roots: small government (not huge executive over-reach), strong national defense (*defense* not offense), fiscal responsibility (instead of huge deficits), emphasis on accountability (instead of just talking about it, then giving presidential medals to abject failures), a healthy respect for tradition and history (instead of making them into idols) and a sober consistency of ideals and action (instead of the current hysterical hypocritical smorgasbord of inconsistent ideals and policies.)
It might be nice if they spent more time promoting an idealism of confidence instead of fear too. I swear, I don't know what happened, but ever since 2001 this group of Republicans has been the biggest set of pansies I've ever seen .... and trust me, that's saying something. ;)
Right now the only observable difference between the Republican party and the Democrats is that the Republicans are the ones who think they can catch "teh gay".
I don't know what happened, but ever since 2001 this group of Republicans has been the biggest set of pansies I've ever seen .... and trust me, that's saying something. ;)
[rim shot]
Thank you, thank you very much. I'll be here all week folks. Try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress. :)
It would be great if a major party -- either, really -- would turn toward small government. But it's not terribly likely. People love Big Brother too much.
I'm keeping an eye on Oscar Goodman, the Democratic mayor of Las Vegas, for the next presidential election. He has some libertarian instincts and may be worth considering.
Or we could just wait four years and nominate ANYONE who isn't Barack Obama.
It would be a forty-eight state landslide.
Yes, oh deluded one. Liberals are the \"tolerate ones\"
Yeah right.
And how exactly would electing someone who isn't Obama save conservatism and the Republican party, Tug? Sounds like wishful thinking, to me. But, if you have some serious thoughts, I'd be glad to hear them.
Mark, as to your link:
1. Who said anything about "tolerant ones"? Are you just coming to my blog to post a wholly unrelated attack on "liberals," just for fun? If so, how are you different than these folk in your alleged story?
2. Do you have any news report to validate this story, or are we supposed to take this blog report as a valid representation of facts? I can find no independent reports to substantiate this claim.
3. EVEN IF the story is true as reported (and I have serious doubts), what you have there are a handful of folk who sound a bit more like anarchists and criminals rather than merely "liberals." The liberals I know respect people's rights, don't tend to trespass on church grounds and don't hide behind masks. That sounds more like (conservative) KKK tactics than any liberal behavior of which I'm aware.
So, EVEN IF the story is true, that is not an indication that liberals believe in misbehaving, but rather that a few liberals misbehaved, just like a few conservatives misbehave sometimes (let's see, who was it that shot up a church building, killing church members for being too liberal? Oh, yes, that's right, it was a conservative.)
4. If it's all the same to you, Mark, I'd suggest that we agree that invading a private space - including a place of worship - to demonstrate or to kill for supposedly "liberal" or "conservative" reasons is wrong. We can further agree that those who would do so do not necessarily represent the norm of Liberals or Conservatives, yes?
"Yes, oh deluded one. Liberals are the \"tolerate ones\"
Um. Yeah. I'm guessing that little non-sequitur is supposed to mean something, but I'm afraid I missed it. Sorry. Care to provide a crazy-to-English translation, for those of us that don't speak teh crazy as well as you? Thanks. ;)
Now behave or you won't get your jello tonight.
So Dan, just FYI, I was curious so I did some checking, because I was surprised to hear about this bizarre and violent protest in Michigan since, unlike Mark, I actually live here (not 30 miles from Lansing) and I'm pretty well informed on what's going on in the queer community in the state.
So this protest was reported by real media in Lansing, but they didn't provide many details. However, after checking with some friends, it seems that this Michigan "Bash Back" group consists of about 20 people, total. They in no way represent any larger liberal or LGBT group or movement, nor are they affiliated with any larger LGBT or liberal group or movement. They're not a liberal organization organization at all. They have protested at both the Democratic and Republican national conventions. By their own words, they claim to be anarchists, not liberals. Obviously, as anarchists, they didn't support either Obama or McCain because they reject "all forms of State power."
So what appeared to be a non-sequitur was indeed a non-sequitur.
Unfortunately Mark isn't, apparently, clever enough to know the difference between liberals and anarchists. I'm sure he just saw the word "queer" and it got his juices flowing since (like any other minority, I'm guessing) we all look alike to him.
Thanks, Alan. Here's the story, for anyone interested.
I think you have provided a map to save the GOP, but not movement conservatism. The modern conservative movement began in the '50s with Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater and first won a presidential victory in 1980 with Reagan. (Nixon was an authoritarian, but not really a conservative. He signed the EPA into law and many of our strongest environmental laws. Claimed "We're all basically Keynesians, now." ) I think the GOP can only make a comeback by rejecting movement conservatism (composed of free market fundamentalism, the Religious Right, and militarist nationalists--split between traditional realist nationalists like Condi Rice and the Neo-Cons like Cheney) and returning to the GOP of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Former Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR), Harold Stassen, etc. Unfortunately, there are not many examples of these kind of Republicans left: Sen. Olympia Snow e(R-ME), Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (who may end up with a post in the Obama admin.), Gen. Colin Powell, and, to a lesser extent, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).
I think the GOP will move to the Right again for '10 and '12 and, provided Obama is successful in fixing this mess, will continue to lose. THEN, they may finally be interested in advice like you give, here.
Conservatives will stand behind our new President and show our support and love for this country just as the Liberals did in 2000 and 2004.
I think you said it best Dan
http://paynehollow.blogspot.com/2005/01/this-ones-for-you-mr-president.html
The difference being that I was criticizing Bush AFTER he had been elected and put in place policies which I found especially wrong.
Invading a nation unprovoked, for instance. Allowing torture.
As soon as Obama begins to enact policies that rise to the level of possible war crimes, feel free to start criticizing.
that comment will come back to haunt you Dan
I don't see how. As soon as Obama were to enact a policy that was approaching the severity of Bush's policies (regarding torture, or Iraq, for instance), I'd be right there objecting to it, as well. IF he were to go that route.
But we owe him the benefit of the doubt, it seems.
The suggestion by Edwin, that the way to save conservatism is just to hate Obama as much and as loudly as possible for the next 4 years doesn't seem like a viable strategy.
As this election proved, people actually want candidates to be *for* something, not just cranky old men who say "no" all the time.
But by all means, conservatives, please try that for a few years and let's see how well it works. We will look forward to mopping the floor with you again in 2010. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
It may indeed take a while, but the Republican Party is probably going to work things out.
I have been thinking for some weeks that there was a chance the RP could split between moderates -- who see new opportunities working from the middle, learned what a disaster it is to have a moderate candidate pander to the right, and who have a large corps of leadership (though rapidly aging) -- and the right wing.
But chances are, given how dependent our political culture is on a two-party system, that the RP is going to work out some other compromise. Part of this is how hungry the religious right is for power. For some time now, pro-lIfe advocates have changed rhetoric from moral based arguments to a women's health based argument. Abortion is bad for women's health, physically and psychologically, is the constant refrain. And there is some power to that.
The religious right can be amazing shape shifters when necessary. Their deep investment is in the triumph of "the good people" over "the bad people." And they will gloss right over the ministry of Jesus as presented in the Gospels in order to make sure that their vision of the victory of Revelation refers to them and the culture war they love so much.
They commit themselves so thoroughly to these ends they don't trouble themselves with means. But they do know that this is exactly where Democrats are measurably more shy.
And, as I say, moderate Republican leadership is aging fast. And usually Northern to begin with. The RP is at its core now Southern white evangelicals. But they do shape shift. They are so talented they can make one think that they are... oh, I don't know... an Alaskan moose hunter.
One more thing. If, in the end, a revived Republican Party appears in eight years and has moved relatively significantly to the left, it can only be good for the country and for Democrats.
Power corrupts after all. It seems to me that Alan's argument is that the hunger for power by Democrats seduced them into sacrificing some important stances.
Perhaps, Dan, you'd like to start a discussion on whether two parties are a good thing, and if so, how?
OMG...a true CONSERVATIVE blog! I have found a home! I no longer have to defend myself amongst the true believers!
Ummm, welcome to Payne Hollow, Tao. I'm not sure how serious you are, but you should know that many folk consider me a nutty liberal and I tend to identify more along those lines, although I think labels are confining.
Having said that, you are more than welcome here. Come by any time.
Oh, I get asked if I am a true conservative or a moderate (as if that is a dirty word!) Realistically, I see myself as a sane conservative. I think the Republican party is going to split over the next few years. With the theory people jumping on the Obama bandwagon over Palin the split is obvious. I voted for Obama because I believe he was the right man at the right time...and because I was totally disgusted with Bush. Reality is what reality is and I have no problem taking off my rose colored glasses of political theory and looking reality right in the eyes..
I don't believe Obama is the marxist devil and I doubt that I lose any more freedoms in the next most likely 8 years than I have already lost in the last 8. I just don't believe that government can solve all the problems but at the same time I realize that not enough government is another set of problems...
I see the sanity, but where is the conservatism?
Where is the conservative? Good point. I believe that social issues are best left with the individual and there is no benefit to society to make them political issues. I do not follow the argument of having a military to police the world because it doesn't seem to solve any of our problems. I cannot support the argument of lower taxes since all it seems to mean is higher debt and I would like to believe that we could achieve smaller government but whew...everytime you turn around government is getting bigger no matter who is in office....
I just figured that rather than voting for the guy that promises smaller government and lower taxes and then gives me the opposite...
I would vote for the guy that promised bigger government, more taxes and maybe I would end up with what I want all along....smarter government.
Its obvious after 20 years of promises that government isn't going to get any smaller. With the debt load this country is carrying we can forget about lower taxes...and the option of economic growth right now doesn't look all that promising. So, the best we can hope for is smarter government.
Tao, if I weren't already, I'd ask you to marry me.
Someone posted an entire article by Ann Coulter. I deleted it.
1. I don't like Coulter enough to reprint her junk here.
2. Tell me what you have to say. If you would like to quote someone, that's fine, just don't run an entire article, please.
Thank you.
O brave anonymous one, I ask you politely to post your thoughts or go away. I'd love to hear what you're thinking.
"Someone posted an entire article by -SWMNBN-. I deleted it."
Good idea. If you say her name 3 times while looking in a mirror, she magically appears, you know.
Then, like a mantis, she bites your head off.
Anonymous, I can keep deleting as often as you can post it, it probably takes me less time than it does for you.
But really, what I would prefer is that you act like an honorable adult and heed my polite request that you offer your own opinions.
If you truly have none of your own opinions, then spend some time reading books and writers and listening to people who can actually encourage personal thinking. Here's a starter hint: Ann Coulter ain't it.
Okay, that was adult. Our anonymous friend began posting the same Coulter post over and over. I've turned on comment moderation - something I've never had to do as I never had such a spineless cretin post here - and that's saying something!
I'm sure I'll remove moderation soon, as I don't believe in taking away people's chance to express their opinion, as long as they are polite and follow some basic rules (like not posting the same thing over and over, or posting something other than their own opinions.)
Enjoy, Dan.
http://www.savagechickens.com/2008/11/troll.html
Thanks, Alan.
It's amazing. After continuing to post dozens of times the same tripe, he realizes that moderation is on, calls me a nazi and all manner of names, then continues posting the same tripe some more.
Sort of like a brain-damaged mouse that just keeps running into a wall over and over and over...
ROFL. Well, to get back to the topic of the post, I believe that such crazy obsessiveness is not the way to save conservatism. But I do love it see it from Republicans ... I think it basically guarantees Democratic wins for the foreseeable future.
Heh. Gotta love the irony that someone who posts anything by SWMNBN would call you a Nazi. ROFL.
Of course, according to Godwin's Law it is generally agreed that the first person to make the Nazi reference has already admitted that they have lost the argument.
"Sort of like a brain-damaged mouse that just keeps running into a wall over and over and over..."
Now, now...let's not insult mice like that. ;)
You still have to delete it if i post it, whether or not anyone else sees it...
Annoying, isn't it?
Besides, i thought you said that you could delete it as fast as i could post it...
No trouble at all.
We could do this all day, i thought.
No, not especially annoying. Childish on your part, but I can delete ten or one hundred at a time as easily as I can delete one at a time. Sorry, but if you're hoping to be annoying - if that is your grandest goal - well, you're a failure.
Tell me, Ann, do you have a real name? Are you afraid to say who you are?
Do you have an original thought or opinion about how to save the GOP? Do you think chickenshit brainless trolling and posting of other people's thoughts is somehow helpful to your position? How so?
By the way, Alan, I noticed that I had never posted a link to your blog (although I was sure I had), but have done so now. Hope that's okay (don't want to send any weirdos your way... or at least any BAD weirdos, we're all a little weird, eh?)
No problem, Dan. Thanks for the link love! :) I just realized I hadn't linked to you either, but unfortunately Blogrolling is down for repairs. I'll be sure to return the favor once it's up.
What position?
Have I stated any positions?
No. That would be my point. You are welcome to state an original opinion. You are also welcome to answer my questions to you. Failing that, you are welcome to go away.
I don't think that the GOP will be able to get its act together any time soon. Calls to true ideological conservativism are well-founded, but essentially hopeless. As folks like Trent Lott have demonstrated, graft is more profitable than principle.
Modern "movement conservatism" which began with Buckley and Goldwater in the '50s as an attempt to roll back the New Deal, cannot be saved from becoming a minority movement since it has no solutions for 21st C. problems. What Dan calls "classic conservatism" is either a conservative tendency of caution or is a defense of aristocracy and plutocracy.
The Republican Party can best be saved by its members rejecting the Movement Conservative coalition of 1)The Religious Right (and its anti-intellectualism); 2)Free Market Fundamentalists; and 3)Militaristic Nationalists (divided into traditional nationalists like Condi Rice, George Shulz, Chuck Hagel, etc. and Neo-cons like Cheney, Rumsfeld,& Co.). Instead, the GOP should embrace the moderate Republican heritage of Lincoln (how many heirs of abolitionism in today's GOP?), Teddy Roosevelt (any GOP pols today for progressive income tax, breaking up monopolies, or protecting the environment), Eisenhower, Ford, Rockefeller, Harold Stassen, etc.
There are very few of these kind of Republicans left in elected office: Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN), parts of the OLD (pre-'04) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ); Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), at least in part. There's also Gen. Colin Powell (Ret.), the former Sec. of State. But these GOP politicians are not embraced as the way forward, but shunned by the Right--which is a recipe for their continued self-immolation.
The GOP base is shrinking. Today's Democratic Party is larger than the GOP and so are registered Independents--the fastest growing voting bloc. So, attempts to win by ignoring the middle and "getting out the base" are increasingly counterproductive. The GOP is 93% white in a country which is only 66% white and which by 2050 (at the very latest) will have no majority racial/ethnic group. (Whites will only be a plurality, the largest minority group.) So, to win, the GOP has to recruit African-Americans, Asians, First Americans, and Hispanics/Latinos--the latter being the fastest growing ethnic group in the nation. But the GOP's message is anti-immigrant and filled with coded race-baiting (or, on right wing talk radio, not very coded at all).
51% of the nation is female, yet the GOP has no message for women and keeps losing their votes.
Despite all this, it refuses to change. It pits "real America" (rural, small town America) against "fake America" (the 80% of the nation which lives in or near cities)--and then wonders why it loses. Even David Frum, who coined the term "compassionate conservatism" for George W. Bush and later wrote his "axis of evil" speech, admits that if the GOP does not develop a strong message for the cities, it will continue to lose for the foreseeable future. But Frum is being rejected as a "conservative egghead," part of the anti-intellectualism and anti-education stance of the current GOP.
From where I sit, it seems that the GOP will need to lose a few more election cycles before it wakes up. It took 25 years for Democrats to recover from Reagan's realigning victory in 1980--getting back on message, etc. It could take that long for the GOP to adapt to the Obama realigning victory, too.
Post a Comment