Stop trying to figure out what part of the Republican coalition needs to be purged. I think the alliance of religious conservatives, economic conservatives, and libertarians can be preserved. Why? In this climate of liberal triumphalism, the Democrats will over-reach.
The liberal economic policies of trying to bail out every industry in a downturn, protectionist trade policies, and the re-unionization of the workforce will be disastrous, making the economy much worse than it is now. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions will not be popular, even for those who agree that abortion should be legalized. The schools are going to get even worse and even liberal parents more alienated, once the teachers’ unions get everything they want. Hollywood will get even more depraved, now that it feels that it is in power. The courts will force gay marriage on states that don’t want it.
Conservatives should just wait. The left will make conservativism attractive again.
37 comments ↓
When the election results were known I predicted to my wife that the Democrats will over reach and the issue will be some version of the Fairness Doctrine. They want to shut down conservative voices and Americans just don’t like being told to shut up.
Terry
I agree. The odds that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al will effectively deal with core international and domestic problems are minimal.
My hope is that the seasoned and able Repubican leaders will work hard at being the loyal opposition and come up with alternative policies that sensible people in the nation will recognize as superior to those of the Democrts.
Republicans should be knowledgeable about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan’s Road map for the Future: A Plan to Solve America’s Long-Term Economic and Fiscal Crisis. In a Wisconsin District that went for Obama 53% to 46%, Ryan, a Republican, won 64% to 35%.
Sorry, the above link is Here.
So the only reason we’ll provide for voters to support the GOP is that we’re not Democrats? That doesn’t sound like a long-run winner to me.
The argument about the GOP isn’t just about whom to run out of the party, it’s about the “vision thing”; it’s about being for something rather than just being “not Democrats.”
The difference between, e.g., Reagan and Bush I, wasn’t on policy. Rather, Reagan believed in something and was able to bring people around to what he believed. (Plus, he wasn’t an angry conservative, which I think counted for a lot. Scowling at voters and scolding them like an old school marm ain’t the face that’s likely to persuade them.)
IMHO, the GOP needs at least a semi-coherent ideology that appeals to those coalitions — and persuades people to join the grand coalition — in order to succeed.
I partly agree. When the liberals go too far, the country will react with a more conservative direction. However, here’s the problem. The liberals always take two steps forward and the conservatives only take one step back. Thus over the years we have seen a somewhat steady socializing and immoralizing of culture. That can change, of course, but it does seem to be the historical trend for the last 80 years.
Jim and David are right–isn’t this purely “reactive” mindset with no morings what recently got the conservative movement in trouble with voters?
Well said. Those like Ms. Parker, who seem to want to assemble the GOP into a circular firing squad need to get some perspective.
May I humbly suggest that — while you’re right that we need not seek to ‘purge’ anyone (as if we had that power!) — we evangelicals do well to reconsider our definition of what actually constitutes conservativism? I think that we too uncritically followed the lead of the neoconservatives and lost sight of true conservatism in the process. Some of us, who are of more paleoconservative ilk, have already found ourselves effectually purged for some time now (note the scorn — even among evangelicals — for Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, whose prognostications for decades are now proving to be very accurate). I don’t mean that we should seek to “purge” the neoconservatives; just that we should regain our bearings so that we don’t uncritically follow ideologues.
Mr. Veith, you failed to mention the neocon wing of the GOP, which never met a war it wouldn’t send other people’s sons and daughters to fight. The public at large soundly rejected this view in ‘06 and ‘08, and the GOP should send them packing.
It’s funny that the GOP’s religious conservatives are so comfortable with the neocons, who by and large are pro-choice (or indifferent to abortion restrictions) and not particularly interested in the culture war that so dominates the thinking of the religious right.
I agree, insofar as Republicans actually start standing for something again - perhaps eventually they will. Could get very costly in the waiting, though.
There is no question that there will be a reaction to Democratic overreaching, and the Republicans will benefit. How much they benefit, though, will depend upon preparation now. It’s not about purging, though. It’s about attracting new people. It’s about the message, and making sure that it is clearly communicated to the young, and to our newer immigrants. A lot of damage will be done to our country in the next four years (and particularly in the next two years), and we need to be prepared, when we regain power, not just to hold things in place, but to persuade the voters that reducing and eliminating some of the new programs and policies which will have been put in place are best for the country.
Very well said. You should write books!
We certainly need to rediscover what conservatism is and what it should mean. And we need attractive candidates and positive leadership. And I do think Christians should re-assess their political commitments and not just let themselves be campaign cannon fodder and uncritical enablers for the Republican party.
A lot of damage has been done to the country Don S. This has to have been the most incompetent administration in living memory. A little more time in purgatory for the GOP is required.
We’ve been kept safe since 9/11 thanks to Bush having some balls to face our enemies.
Let’s see if the pansy Left can keep us from getting attacked here at home again.
They never met an enemy or a tax hike they didn’t love.
Steve, if the “pansy Left” is to be blamed for any attack that occurs in the next four years, then who’s to blame for 9/11?
Who’s to blame for 9-11? Well, the feckless left that during the Clinton years tried to deal with alQuaeda as a legal, not a military problem, along with the pansy liberals in Congress going back to post-Vietnam years when the Democratics in Congress took the cojones out of the CIA. Steve Martin has this issue right.
Peter (@17), ah. I see. So whenever something bad happens, it is either the fault of the current Democratic administration, or, if a Republican is in power, the most recent Democratic administration. Gotcha.
tODD, I’ve plenty of criticisms of the Republicans, though when you ask the simple question as to who is to blame for 9/11, I have no doubt that primarily it is the leftist Democrats in America who, to use Steve Martin’s correctly salty language, lack the balls to stand up to our enemies. The party of Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, and Truman, all of whom stood for strong national security, has been replaced by that of McGovern, T,Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama, all of whom, so far, stand for essentially weak and flabby national security. My guess is that Obama will make Carter seem like a tough statesman.
So Peter, 9/11 is not the result of blowback or the funding of Bin Laden by the US during the 1980’s.
And could you please explain the connection between 9/11 and Iraq?
The question of Bush’s balls is delicate. Didn’t he avoid Vietnam by serving in the National Guard?
Will the cowboy sell the ranch as soon as his term is finished?
John, funding Bin Laden helped to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Clinton’s soft handling of alQuaeda’s depredations later as a legal problem was a serious error.
Pres. Bush didn’t claim any connection between 9/11 aand Iraq. The CIA did have some evidence that Hussein had a connection with Zarqawi and other jihadist groups, though the case for the war on Iraq was based mainly on weapons of mass destriuction, Security Council Resolution violations, and Hussein’s contribution to serious instability in the Middle East.
As to Bush’s cojones, he was a very able F-16 pilot and perfectly prepared to go to Vietnam, if called. In standing up for the unpopular war in Iraq and seeing it through to a probable victory, he bids fair to known in history as the liberator of Iraq and the founder of the first true democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
As Steve Martin remarked, the ballsy Bush managed to keep us safe; let’s see now how the heretofore pansy left handles matters.
Todd,
We’re hit many times at home and abroad during the Clinton Admin. They did nothing (virtually).
The pasny Dems weakened FBI, CIA and the military.
Everytime the Dems get in they weaken our defenses.
Bush has taken on the enemy head on and rebuilt our intelligence capabilities (somewhat).
Our enemies feel embolded by the weakness of the Dems.
Soon, we will be letting out our enemies (Guantanamo) and they will come back and bite us in again.
Compassion, feelings, caring…it just gets people killed when you carry it over to national defense.
Not just wait, but work 1) on becoming more technologically sophistated that the liberals, and 2) putting the message out there in crystalized, intelligent, and popular form, so that when the left collapses, the natural answer to fill the vacuum will be conservatism. If 2 is not done, totalitarianism will be that “natural” answer.
Victor Davis Hanson in an incisive piece, What Went Wrong?
Well, it wasn’t conservatism., he sums up as follows:
The key is not to abandon conservative positions, but to explain them in novel ways to the majority who might find them more in tune with human nature — and consequently more humanitarian than their usual caricatures of being too selfish, tough, or insensitive. The conservative message the last eight years was to support freedom abroad as an absolute value that appealed to all, regardless of culture and background; the liberal multicultural message was not to rely on universal standards to judge the “other” — since supposed past oppression allows the “victim” to redefine morality on his own terms. The conservative message was that government without checks and balances, whether at the UN, the EU, or here in the massive bureaucracies of the federal government, naturally seeks to bully and stifle rather than empower the individual.
A final note. Conservatism also applies to bearing and comportment. There was something repugnant about greedy CEO and speculators on Wall Street wildly raking in hundreds of millions under the guise of “free-market conservatism” — as if Ace hardware store owners, truck drivers, and farmers would find them kindred spirits. Conservatism’s social message used to be something like “Don’t do all the things that you are otherwise free to do” or “Just because we don’t make all your appetites illegal, does not mean that some are not immoral.” Conservative populism is not anti-intellectualism at all, but rather a disdain for excess and arm-chair elitism.
In short, explain why conservatism appeals to the innate values of most ordinary Americans and the squabbling about the proper message disappears.
As George did not go to Vietnam it is difficult to assess just how able a pilot he was.
Given Bush’s record, the fact that the US has not been attacked since 9/11 may be the result of good luck rather than good management.
Your enemies may feel emboldened by Obama’s victory but your friends are greatly relieved Steve and you have many more friends than enemies.
A war of liberation is completely different to a war of conquest Peter — it is a distinction that the neocons did not appreciate.
Let’s face it Peter. You voted for the wrong guy in 2004 — the country got it wrong. You can’t trust the wisdom of crowds.
Naivete’ towards evil is one of the hallmarks of the Left.
Being strong and proactive with respect to enemies is the best way to stay alive.
You can talk to tin-pot dictators and despotic regimes and religious zealots till you are blue in the face, but their promises mean nothing.
Isalm is after us. They will never rest. Either you fight them now, or you will fight them later…when they are stronger and we are weaker.
‘Bush led…terrorists dead.’
It is not Islam that is after you Steve– the war is within
John,
Whether you like it or not, or know it or not…they are after you too.
That may be Steve but i am more concerned by global warming.
John,
Scientists in England are now saying that the big worry now is global cooling.
The temps have fallen globally, so much so that now it is not to be called “global warming” anymore…but “climate change”.
The windmills that the Left cooks up to get out of facing real evil are diverse and legion.
John & Steve - as a scientist, I must say I’m not easily persuaded by “scientific” reports in the press, especially if they concern exceptionally complex phenomena like climatology. I do have a feeling that the quality of science, and especially science reporting, has taken a decidedly downward turn.
That being said, I am worried about our poor STEWARDSHIP of the earth, and would like to see that addressed as a “holistic” concept, and not a single issue. bBut I’m not an American….
The Scylding,
Great points on science and reporting. I worry that when the Left grabs a hold of an issue then “the debate is over”.
Then they will use the power of government to destroy busineses and raise taxes and institute more control over our lives al the while snuffing out opposing viewpoints.
The Great Lakes, Yosemite Valley, and a myriad of other geological formations were formed by ice and melted ice long before the advent of the automobile.
The earth wamed and man was not the cause. Now the earth “may be warming” (many readings and studies say the opposite is true).
The hubris of man never ceases that he believes his activities are the main factor in producing the weather.
Our contribution (not that we shouldn’t be good stewards) towards the change in climate is negligible.
The fact that there are millions of people that would be happy to wipe us off the face of the earth using any means possible, including nuclear or biological weapons ought be the more urgent concern.
The Scylding @ 31:
Your point about stewardship is well taken. Steve’s point @ 32 is also well taken, concerning the real motivations of those in the so-called global warming camp.
What we know from the Bible is that God gave us the resources of the Earth for our use. The other thing we know is that He expects us to be good stewards of the resources He gives us. The point that is not typically acknowledged by environmentalists today is that man is part of nature. We are not some extra-earthly force that has been placed on earth to disrupt the natural process. Rather, we are part of that process, part of the food chain, so to speak. God calculated our activities into the equation when he designed the Earth. Many fervent environmentalists seem to genuinely believe that the earch would be a lot better off if man were eliminated from the eco-system.
Our first job, as Christians, is to ensure that we, ourselves, are doing our best to be good stewards of the resources we have been given by our God. How fervently we should be imposing these stewardship principles on the unbelievers around us is another question.
The Scylding,
“Our first job, as Christians, is to ensure that we, ourselves, are doing our best to be good stewards of the resources we have been given by our God. How fervently we should be imposing these stewardship principles on the unbelievers around us is another question.”
Excellent point.
I do think that we are all lacking in proper stewardship (we still ought try).
But I think the greatest area for stewardship for the Christian ought to be the Word.
Getting the gospel as right as we can get it and getting it out to a sinful world…is job #1.
Yes. But we need to do both.
“Getting the gospel as right as we can get it” : We have well summarised in the Smaller Cathechism already. We should drop our puritanical angst and go forth boldly, proclaiming it, and living it. Endless obsessing over minutae is the job of those that did not get it in the first place. I’m not saying that is what you are saying though. But it could be easy to misinterpret your statement - ask me, I was a Calvinist before…
Great topic. If we want to see a renewal of conservatism, the first thing we need to do is figure out what it is. To that end, I would suggest we must go back to reading Russell Kirk, the father of the conservative renewal, and Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism generally.
Conservatism is not an ideology; it’s the anti-ideology.
Here’s my suggested definition or core principle of conservatism, which I offer for your rejection:
“The incarnation of reverence.”
Leave a Comment