You hear a fair amount of talk these days about the future direction of the Republican party and divisions between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. I think this is something of a false dichotomy. There should only be conservatives (a term I dislike because it suggests a resistance to change). A conservative has to be defined as someone who is reflexively skeptical about government power. That's it. If you're on board with that, welcome to the club, you're officially a member.
If, however, you merely want to use government as a tool to achieve your own ends, be that either bailing out a prominent business or enforce a particular moral code, please apply elsewhere.
If you're opposed to flag burning, then don't burn it. If you don't like drugs, don't do them. If you don't like certain material being shown on television, don't watch it.
A political party which advocates for reduced government interference in some areas such as economic affairs while pushing for more control in others is incoherent. The Republican party's central organizing principle must be opposition to government power and the defense of individual liberty. Everything else must flow from that.
Yes, debates will be held over what exactly that means. For example, on the abortion issue it is not at all clear whether abortion restrictions are an infringement on individual rights or the defense of rights. Such debates will occur and that's healthy. But if Republicans can't decide on at least a founding principle then it is truly rudderless.
If, however, you merely want to use government as a tool to achieve your own ends, be that either bailing out a prominent business or enforce a particular moral code, please apply elsewhere.
If you're opposed to flag burning, then don't burn it. If you don't like drugs, don't do them. If you don't like certain material being shown on television, don't watch it.
A political party which advocates for reduced government interference in some areas such as economic affairs while pushing for more control in others is incoherent. The Republican party's central organizing principle must be opposition to government power and the defense of individual liberty. Everything else must flow from that.
Yes, debates will be held over what exactly that means. For example, on the abortion issue it is not at all clear whether abortion restrictions are an infringement on individual rights or the defense of rights. Such debates will occur and that's healthy. But if Republicans can't decide on at least a founding principle then it is truly rudderless.
2 comments:
Very well said. The danger lies in litmus tests so many Republicans want to use as "ticket to enter."
The Republicans gave up a solid GOP seat in the House this month in NY because of a dangerous debate over how conservative a Republican needs to be. The split in the party resulted in a needless loss.
I think the solution is to find solid folks who stand firm in their beliefs and don't scare off normal folks with knuckle dragging stubbornness. That helps grow the party and the larger the party, the broader our tent can be. Big tents in political parties lead to good governance and compromise.
This approach might be a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?_r=1
i'm dubious about "reduced government interference." it's a weighted term that carries implications.
the federal government's interference is warranted many times, and thank goodness for that.
there's a reason why we ditched the Articles of Confederation and created a strong central government (the Federalists/John Marshall prevailed.)
in fact, this "government can't do anything right" meme is dumb, and false. the government has done some good stuff:
* GI bill
* civil rights in the 60s (unless the Alabama state troopers were gonna escort black kids to college?)
* All those wars we won
* interstate highway system
so spare me!
Post a Comment