If recent rhetoric from two prominent conservative columnists is to be believed the GOP is girding itself for civil war in the wake of last week's disaster at the polls. David Brooks sees two competing camps emerging which he dubs the Traditionalists and the Reformers:
In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.
To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.
...The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.
Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.
The Reformist view is articulated most fully by books, such as “Comeback” by David Frum and “Grand New Party” by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, as well as the various writings of people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin, Jim Manzi, Rod Dreher, Peggy Noonan and, at the moderate edge, me.
...The Bush chapter is closing, and the fight to write the next one has begun.
In one corner, there are a large number of bright, mostly younger, self-styled reformers with a diverse -- and often contradictory -- set of proposals to win back middle-class voters and restore the GOP's status as "the party of ideas" (as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it).
In another corner are self-proclaimed traditional conservatives and Reaganites, led most notably by Rush Limbaugh, who believe that the party desperately needs to get back to the basics: limited government, low taxes and strong defense.
What is fascinating is that both camps seem implicitly to agree that the real challenge lurks in how to account for the Bush years. For the young Turks and their older allies -- my National Review colleagues Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin and David Frum, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, New York Times columnist David Brooks et al -- the problem is that Bush botched the GOP's shot at real reform. For the Limbaugh crowd, the issue seems to be that we've already tried this reform stuff -- from both Bush and McCain -- and look where it's gotten us.
Neither camp has adequately explained where Bush figures in their vision for the future of the party. Is reform going to be a debugged compassionate conservatism 2.0 or a Reaganesque revival of conservative problem solving? Does back-to-basics mean breaking with the precedents of the last eight years or building on them?
The irony is that both camps agree on a lot more than they disagree. The reformers are committed to market principles and reducing the size and role of government, and so are the back-to-basics crowd.
My take: Like Goldberg I fear that what the Reformers offer up could amount to nothing more than compassionate conservatism 2.0. As far as I'm concerned compassionate conservatism ought to be given the Rasputin treatment -- that is to say it should be poisoned, shot, beaten, shoved in a bag and then thrown into an icy river. The very term should be anathema to those of us on the right with its implied message that the mainstream version's emphasis on freedom instead of making people wards of the state is something less than compassionate.
Furthermore, why is everyone so anxious to toss traditional conservatism overboard anyhow? When was it disproven as a viable governing philosophy? As a rhetorical device it sure didn't hurt Reagan and Bush was elected in 2000 on a platform of tax cutting and social security reform in an environment of peace and prosperity that should have boded well for Al Gore. In practice it seems that conservatism was tried for about a full year by Congress in 1995, but the effort collapsed in the budget mess late that year. I would submit that the episode was more a failure of Republican PR than a rejection of the underlying philosophy. (For a rejection of my argument read this)
To a large extent, however, this debate is purely academic. We're not about to abolish the Department of Energy, Education or any other cabinet positions. Actual cutting of government simply isn't in the cards -- we're more concerned with just holding the line. In the meantime here are some areas I think that conservatives from the two sides can agree on:
Tax reform: Overhaul the tax code. Eliminate loopholes. Flatten tax rates. This would do much to cut down on lobbyists influence while also making taxes easier to calculate and less onerous. This both reduces the influence of government via the tax code while also making it function better.
Government reform: Appoint a panel that would recommend on an annual basis a list of government programs, laws and offices that should be consolidated or ended entirely. Congress would vote on whether to eliminate them or not as one package. Again, this shrinks government, is something most people would be willing to get behind, and prevents grandma from screaming about her social security check.
Reform the earmark process: I don't have specifics to offer here, but this is something everyone should be able to get on board with.
Other items I can see possible common ground on are a combined package of expanded drilling along with reform of our national parks and expanded tree planting or something. You can be pro-environment and also pro-drilling, and the GOP needs to figure out how to accomodate both. On immigration we should consider toughening the border while also expanding the number of immigrants we let in with university degrees and the number of F-1 visas for foreigners to study.
Look, ultimately conservatism has to be about reducing the size and scope of government. If it's just about tinkering at the margins then Republicans have become nothing more than a more conservative wing of the Democratic party.
No comments:
Post a Comment