November 14, 2008
The Jackalopes of American politics
National Review's Jonah Goldberg casts a jaundiced eye on the "moderate's" prescription for what ails the GOP.
He's not impressed.
By now you’ve probably heard: The GOP is becoming too regional, too white, too old to compete at a national level. Democrats look like a merging of the cast of Rent and Up With People, while Republicans look like diehard fans of Matlock and Murder, She Wrote.
Fine, fine. The GOP needs to win over more Hispanics, young people, suburban women. That sounds perfectly plausible. But what does “win over” mean?
To listen to many pundits and analysts, it means Republicans must become Democrats. The GOP has become too socially conservative, and if it wants to win the support of mainstream voters, it will need to become more socially liberal. To be “economically conservative but socially liberal” is the beginning of wisdom for this school of thought.
[...]
Economically conservative social liberals are the “jackalopes of American politics,” in the words of the National Review Institute’s Kate O’Beirne. The press keeps telling us they exist out there in huge numbers, but when you go looking for them, they refuse to emerge from the bushes.
In fairness, many people do describe themselves this way. Most of the time we simply call them “Democrats.” Those who call themselves Republicans should more properly be called “confused.”
This is not to say that one can’t be a moderate on this issue or that and be a Republican. But the idea that social liberalism and economic conservatism can coexist easily is not well supported by the evidence. For example, in Congress and in state legislatures, the more pro-life you are, the more likely you are to be a free-market, low-tax conservative. The more pro-choice you are, the more likely it is that you will be remarkably generous with other people’s money.
[...]
One objection is that “economic conservatism” and “fiscal conservatism” are different things. One can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, in the sense that you’re only willing to constrain your statist do-goodery to the extent you’re able to pay for it. This is certainly an intellectually defensible position.
But politically, this is hard ground to defend. It turns out that people who buy into the logic of social liberalism, not just on abortion but racial and other issues as well, usually find themselves ill-equipped ideologically to say no to additional spending on causes they care about. They even find it difficult to stay Republicans, as we can see from recent example Colin Powell, who endorsed Barack Obama for president for largely ethereal reasons.
It should be noted that it’s also difficult to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative if you’ve jettisoned the conservative dogma of limited government. We saw this in spades as President Bush embraced “activist government” and ended up wildly increasing government spending over the last eight years.
And that should serve as a warning to those, on the right and left, who would like to see the GOP defenestrate millions of actual, living, breathing members of the party — e.g., social conservatives — in order to woo millions of largely nonexistent jackalopes. The GOP would simply cease to exist as a viable party without the support of social and religious conservatives.
I disagree with Goldberg on a couple of major points, amongst them the idea that religious conservatives are a key constituency without which the GOP cannot regain an ascendent role in governance.
Now, I am not the typical modern American Jew -- prone to soiling himself in abject terror at the approach of (presumably) anti-Semitic Evangelical Christians (i.e., anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ and has the gall to not keep said faith secret and locked in the attic like the crazy uncle no one is supposed to know about).
My experience has been that the modern version of devout Christians -- both evangelical and plain-wrap -- are remarkably tolerant of me and my fellow Corned-Beef-On-Rye-With-Mustard types. And, truth be told, support for Israel is much stronger amongst evangelical Christians than in the ranks of American Jews (outside the Orthodox movement).
So, hostile to devout Christianity as a political force I most assuredly am not.
But I do think that the so-called religious right failed spectacularly this election cycle to serve as a key player, and therefore calls into question the idea that their self-identified core issue(s) are do-or-die planks of the GOP platform.
I was chatting recently with a friend who counts himself amongst that devout Christian voting demographic, the two of us mulling over the aftermath of the election. He said that it was probably time to eliminate the issue of abortion from the GOP lexicon -- at least in national elections -- as the public seemingly doesn't give a damn. As evidence of the apathy amongst the voters on the issue, he pointed to the failure of the California ballot initiative requiring parents be notified that their teenage (or younger) daughter was having an abortion a couple of days before actually going on the table.
This was not a requirement that parents give permission first; it was a let-them-know-about-it-first proposal with safety-valve clauses for abusive relationships.
My friend's point was that if the initiative's backers couldn't convince a simple majority that abortion was a significant-enough procedure to require parents get a heads-up -- when the same daughters can't be given an aspirin or have a mole removed without getting permission from their parents -- than clearly the public simply cannot be convinced to vote for a candidate because she's opposed to abortion.
I disagreed with him only to the extent that partial-birth abortion is such a horrifying procedure -- when explained in graphic terms, opposition to it is off the charts, no matter the political affiliation of the voter -- that a politician's refusal to seek the procedure's elimination is and will remain a huge liability (as well as an indelible stain on said pol's moral character). Which begs the question of why McCain didn't talk about Obama's vote against banning the procedure. (Answer: McCain didn't want to win.)
But Goldberg's central point, that rebuilding the GOP around fiscal conservatism and social liberalism -- a political Pushmi-Pullyu -- is a recipe for disaster seems to be a decent place to begin.
The problem for the GOP is, of course, that fiscal conservatism has disappeared from its playbook, leaving the party as little more than Democrat-lite with a distaste for "Yoote Kultur" and recreational pharmaceuticals.
When Goldberg refers to the putative fiscal conservative, socially liberal voters as jackalopes, he's right, and amusing, too.
But support for limited government, free markets and low taxes are the ingredients for long-term success; without them, trying to rebuild a party on a foundation of social conservatism is a recipe for one-party rule -- and it ain't the party of Lincoln that'll be doing the ruling.
Make sure to read the whole thing.
Posted by Mike Lief at November 14, 2008 07:07 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
After the circular firing squads have done their work, Republicans should formulate a set of First Principles that define the party's position. The party has to say "You can't be a Republican, or a Republican candidate, unless you are 100% in favor of these First Principles. This is what we hold to be our truest credo." I don't think Christianity and Absolute Right To Life need to be part of the short list. I think the hardest part of creating the First Principles is to make each one of them capable of being expressed in a two-or-three-word slogan so the ordinary American will be able to comprehend them. "Fiscal Responsibility". . ."States Rights". . ."Public Morality". . ."whatever". Open your own dialogue, Mike.
Posted by: The Little Coach at November 14, 2008 08:39 AM
Where was Jonah Golderberg when the Republican Congress at the height of its corrupt spending and earmark practices? The Republican Congress took the "greed is good" mantra to the bank and broke it.
Look at the Republican brand in California. You've got Arnold letting criminals out of jail and spending more money than even Grey Davis. The labels just don't mean anything any more to the average voter. The Republican Party was judged and booted out of office because actions speak louder than words. If you want to look at the last fiscal conservative in the White House - he had a "D" behind his name and that name was Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Burt at November 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Burt, you are absolutely right about the Republican failure to maintain an identity. Republican office-holders abandoned genuine conservative principles so completely that there IS no Republican brand. If we are to be relevant on the national scene, we have to stand for something identifiable as a party. I don't know where Jonah Golderberg was (or even who he is, whoever you are talking about) but I know that Jonah Goldberg was saying the same things then that he is now. So was I, and so were a lot of Republicans who are insisting that the party has to begin standing for something in the face of the socialistic syndicalism of the Democrats. Start defining ourselves, right here, right now.
Posted by: The Litttle Coach at November 14, 2008 07:05 PM
I think members of the two political parties line up with a host of issues that they may not totally buy into because most people are just followers. If your big thing is low taxes and you want to go to the GOP convention, wear a funny hat and cheer along with everyone else, you are going to give tepid applause when other issues are discussed by your red party bretheren. I believe that it's just human psychology.
Both parties are forced to wrestle with far too many issues than even 3 people could agree upon let alone tens of millions. Contrary to Jonah's point, anyone who agrees with a political party on every espoused issue is weak minded and a follower because a party platform is a negotiated set of issues reached through compromise and concensus.
If I am pro-business and for low taxes and free trade but want assault weapons banned and believe in a woman's right to choose which party wants my vote?
Posted by: John at November 15, 2008 07:30 AM
The Republicans will be happy to have your vote, but you won't be a Republican candidate.
Posted by: The Litttle Coach at November 15, 2008 09:17 AM