|
|
|
November 04, 2008
A building, not a tent.
One of the points I tried to make earlier on PJTV was that I think it's a mistake to accelerate the dividing of the Republican Party into competing sides (or factions, wings, whatever you want to call them) by working towards a takeover of the party by one faction or another. I think it might be time to reexamine the "big tent" theory. It always sounded shaky and flappy (as if a good strong wind could blow it down), and too much like the Democrats' multi-culti coalition stuff. The Republicans are not all that great at beating the Democrats at their own coalition game. What I think made the Republicans crash -- twice now -- was not the betrayal of or triumph of any particular faction much less "the base," (which I think makes about as much analytical sense as "the tent") but the loss of the glue that once held these various factions together into a whole. I see the GOP not as a tent, but as a building, and it was built of bricks held together by some very strong cement -- economic conservatism. This was something all Republicans could unite behind, and it tied them together as no other bottom line possibly could. When the GOP lost that, they lost everything, and doomed themselves. It wasn't until McCain finally got it and started talking about Joe the Plumber and condemning socialism that the cement started to congeal, and work its magic again. Ronald Reagan intimately and intuitively understood that cement. The bricks held together, the building was strong, and yet the disagreements between libertarians and social conservatives were just as profound -- yet if you factor in federalism, just as ultimately moot -- as now. Economic conservatism allowed people to get along by agreeing on something important -- the bottom line of the pocketbook. And that explains why the cement is like magic. Not only does it hold the bricks together into an impressive edifice, but it's what a majority of ordinary people want. They want to keep their money, and they don't want the government throwing it away. This is so painfully obvious that I don't even understand why I have to explain it, but it has apparently been forgotten by the party leadership. I don't know exactly who is to blame for the disappeance of the cement, and while it isn't my purpose to blame here, I will say that I don't think libertarians or social conservatives are the primary culprits. Perhaps it was 9/11 and the war in combination with the kind of contented corruption that comes from years in power; perhaps "national greatness" theory played a role. What I do know is this. Once economic conservatism was gone, the walls came tumbling down. I realize that people who claim to speak the loudest for the bricks which constituted the various factions will claim that Obama's win means it should now be "their turn." Their turn to do what? Lose? I would respectfully submit that it makes more sense to get back the glue that once held them together. The bad news is that the glue is gone. The good news is that the bricks are still there. And the Democratic Party has taken a sharp turn to the left. How far remains to be seen, but economic conservatism will look more and more attractive in the next few years. Will the Republican Party take back what was once theirs? MORE: I had to run out and this post was somehow published in unedited form, before I read it. So I did some editing when I got back. My basic point is the same. UPDATE (11/06/08): In a fascinating post, Ilya Somin discusses the return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition. He sees economic conservatism as key: ...I highly doubt that Obama and the Democrats will actually take the relatively moderate, budget-cutting path. It would go against both their own instincts and historical precedent from previous periods of united government and economic crisis. If I am right about that, we will need a revamped conservative-libertarian alliance to oppose the vast expansion of government that looms around the corner.Via Glenn Reynolds, who also links this comment about a standing army of libertarian militias who spend most of their time being left alone. (Sounds like a good deal to me!) If I'm right about economics providing the cement to unite the libertarian and social conservative "bricks," and if Somin is right about Obama's intentions, the vast expansion of government might provide us with the cement factory we need. posted by Eric on 11.04.08 at 10:41 PM
Comments
I agree with you, but social conservatives do not. I am not saying economic conservatism is the only thing, only that it was the glue that held things together. Eric Scheie · November 4, 2008 10:43 PM How about a different approach using your analogy. The conservative building is made up of morality, fiscal restraint, belief in limited government, nationalism and a strong defense. While not all conservatives weight those "values" evenly, they general support 5 out of 6. What we've seen from the Bush Republicans is a caustic substance which has eaten into the cement that binds the various flavors of conservatism together. Call it acid rain. And that acid rain? Fiscal irresponsibility. Nation building--it goes beyond a strong defense and to a great degree doesn't bring any value to the United States. Massive government growth such as no student left behind, the Medicare prescription plan and the wall street bailout. The failure to secure our borders. Allowing foreigners to cross one's borders isn't very nationalistic, is it. The failure to stand up for the various flavors/floors of conservatism and instead, trying to please the opposition more than your own constituency. Machiavelli · November 4, 2008 11:52 PM How ironic that self-proclaimed libertarians have supported the criminal regime of Bush-Cheney. Unitary executive? Libertarians have no problem. Bush has issued signing statements to bypass more than 1,100 sections of laws? Libertarians have no problem. Illegal wiretapping, renditions, torture? Libertarians have supported Bush-Cheney all the way. You guys are hypocritical to talk about 'small government' and 'freedom'. Meyrav Meyrav Levine · November 4, 2008 11:56 PM They want to keep their money, and they don't want the government throwing it away. If this election result is any guide - No they don't. We had Joe the Plumber for about 2 weeks. Long enough to make a dent. Joe made Obama tell his plan. The American people bought Obama's plan. They wanted the crook from Chicago. They got the crook from Chicago. M. Simon · November 5, 2008 01:00 AM I don't know exactly who is to blame for the disappeance of the cement Not, who, what. Specifically, the cement disappeared once Republicans started thinking that government was the way to get things done. Not only is that corrosive of the values you mention, but it makes them indistinguishable from Democrats. And since Democrats own the media and can therefore do a much better job pushing the idea that Republicans are racist, greedy, selfish jerks, the Democrats will always win the contest of "who can use the government to get things done". "Compassionate conservatism" is not only neither compassionate nor conservative, but the phrase itself betrays its flaw: it uses the language of the left in implying that conservatism is not compassionate unless it destroys itself and embraces Marxism. Many conservatives have lived for so long under liberal doublespeak that they cannot identify this problem. That's because they have been conditioned by our educational establishment and media to internalize the left's lingo, talking points, and frame of reference, so they frequently lack the language to rebut liberal political rhetoric. Bob Smith · November 5, 2008 02:14 AM Nation building--it goes beyond a strong defense and to a great degree doesn't bring any value to the United States. No immediate value. Look at the value - in terms of world politics the Brits got out of India. It seems that lately they have even made a little progress in China. Heck. Look at what they got out of the USA and Canada. Self government in the ME - if it spreads - will have a lot of value to us. M. Simon · November 5, 2008 02:58 AM John McCain had a chance to turn his campaign around -- all he had to do was denounce and oppose the $700B (or trillion dollar or whatever it is up to now) bailout to Wall Street. He had that chance and he chose not to take it. In doing so, he showed himself to be as much of a leeching socialist as any of the Democratic pols. Maybe the Republican Party will decide to once more discover the appeal of limited and fiscally-responsible government. Unfortunately, if tonight's comments by Karl Rove are any indication, it will instead turn to the ever-popular sport of gay-bashing. Fritz · November 5, 2008 03:25 AM The glue is actually individual liberty. Economic conservatism follows from that principle, as a government that doesn't respect its citizens' property rights destroys that liberty. Brett · November 5, 2008 06:56 AM I refuse to debate people like Meyrav Levine, who start out with premises like "criminal Bush regime". It always leads down a path of name calling and I'd rather stab my eyes out with an ice pick. That said, the Democratic Party split and one side won control of the party, the one farthest left. If the Republicans must do so with the hope of the more realistic center-right winning out, then so-be-it. Let the chips fall where they may. I do not want to be "glued" to the far-right who I deem intolerant and wish to give the government power to dictate their intolerance. The far-right wishes to give the government as much power as the far-left, only in different regards. By every indication, and I've watched both sides of the equation, I've seen those on the right show a willingness to hold accountable those who betray the conservative principle of limiting government. When Republicans lost their majority in '04 conservatives across the board admitted out loud that they deserved to lose it. Now with a Democrat majority Congress already with an historically low approval rating liberals don't hold them accountable. It's their belief that to correct the problem they need even MORE Democrats, not only in Congress and the Senate, but also the Presidency. It's not healthy for one party to have so much control and it leads to more spending and more programs and more laws that can never be fixed without more and more money. Oyster · November 5, 2008 08:53 AM Brett hit it. Economic conservatism is dependent upon political liberty. And political liberty is dependent upon our personal private property rights. Whether it's "Green" laws or taxation, what is ours is increasingly becoming "theirs". We've been losing our private property rights to the left for 30 years. But, our private property rights are basic, intrinsic and fundamental. So this erosion can be reversed. The political intrusion into the private sphere has been represented well on this website. From everything to smoking in bars to seatbelts. Politicians have fallen victim of their own need to "do something", even when the cure is worse than the condition. Would, or will, millions of Americans become unemployed if Fannie and Freddie are forced to sell their assets? How? What is the mechanism that would assure us of huge, national unemployment through the sale of the assets held by these two monsters? Power, perhaps, corrupts. Sure, it's cliche, and I winced as I typed it. But how many politicians--the worst among these is our current president--can resist the urge to pick winners and losers? Governments can screw things up. Markets adjust. In a showdown between the Market and the Government, I pick the Market. (And I don't think any/most of our politicians get that, do you?) OregonGuy · November 5, 2008 11:22 AM Germaine to this topic, are the principles set forth by Thaddeus McCotter to rebuild the party. Link= http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/11/05/now-seize-freedom/print "McCotter demands a return to First Principles, as did Flak, and he calls them the “enduring principles” of the Republican Party: 1. Our liberty is from God not the government. Anyway, in the comments at Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/05/the-mccotter-challenge-why-is-there-a-republican-party/)where I found this article, several people blurted out that our party has to get rid of God and that rights don't come from God. That in essence is the basis of our republic. Rights are given to us by the Creator and those rights can never by taken away by man. Maybe a starting point to recovery would be reintroducing Americans to Locke, Hume, Jefferson, and the Declaration. Machiavelli · November 5, 2008 08:05 PM Economic conservatism IS the cement, and it is basic morality. The golden rule, treating others the way you want to be treated = respect for the rights of others = respect for their property rights. Respect for property rights = not stealing for yourself or for others. Economic liberalism is theft - soak somebody else to get rich quick. dustydog · November 5, 2008 08:46 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "Will this put a stop to the idiotic rumors? Of course not!"
• Soothe The Monkeys • McCain Is Against Coal • All speech is like pornography! And libertarians don't exist! • The election is over, but the geographical literacy campaign continues • The Obama Economy - An Anecdote • cynically naive? • Criticism is not hatred • Marxing Off A Cliff • A time for hope?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Nope sorry, as much as I am in favor of lower taxes and smaller government the core principle is not economic.
Sounds contradictory? It's not. Placing economics first means accepting whatever performs. Conceivably this could mean some very unfree forms of government. Hell, Obama just may be the one who makes the trains run on time.
No, I support lower taxes and smaller government because the underlying principle is liberty - ie. the most freedom for the most people. Economic growth tends to flow from such arrangements, but should never be mistaken for the goal of such arrangements.
Money is never a substitute for morality and the morality I speak of is liberty.