castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Running Out of Steam

By DAVID BROOKS, December 12, 2005

Conservatives are in power but out of sorts. Fifty years after the founding of the modern right, conservatives hold just about every important government job, yet the conservative agenda has stalled. Federal spending has surged. Social Security reform is dead. And when voters are asked which party they trust on key issues, they decisively reject conservative ideas.

On the economy, Democrats are trusted more, 56 to 34. On education, it’s Democrats 55 to 32. On taxes, Democrats 48 to 38. On health care, Democrats 54 to 29.

For members of a movement that is supposed to be winning the battle of ideas, conservatives are in a mess.

So what’s gone wrong? First, most of the issues that propelled conservatives to power have been addressed. Modern American conservatism was formed by people who wanted to defeat the Soviet Union, reduce crime, reform welfare, cut taxes, deregulate the economy and reintroduce traditional social values. All those problems are less salient today.

Second, conservatism has been semi-absorbed into the Republican Party. When conservatism was in its most creative phase, there was a sharp distinction between conservatives and Republicans. Conservatives chased ideas, while Republicans were the corporate hacks who sold out. Now that conservative Republicans are in power, that distinction is obliterated.

There are a number of consequences. A lot of the energy that used to go into ideas is now devoted to defending Republican politicians. Many former conservative activists have become Republican lobbyists. (When conservatism was a movement of ideas, it attracted oddballs; now that it’s a movement with power, it attracts sleazeballs.)

Most important, there is greater social pressure to conform to the party’s needs. Even writers and wonks are supposed to stay on message. In the 1970’s, supply-siders mounted an insurgency against the Republican House leadership and against some sitting G.O.P. senators. If any group tried that today, it would be crushed by the party establishment.

Third, conservative media success means intellectual flabbiness. Conservatives used to live in a media world created by people who thought differently than they did. Reading certain publications and watching the evening news was like intellectual calisthenics. Now conservatives can be just as insular as liberals, retreating to their own media sources to be told how right they are.

Fourth, conservatives have lost their governing philosophy. In 1994, the Republicans thought their purpose was to reduce the size of government. But when the government shutdown failed, they never developed a new set of guiding principles to clarify which things government should do and which things it shouldn’t. George Bush came up with a philosophy of compassionate conservatism, but it remains fuzzy and incomplete.

Fifth, conservative Republicans have lost touch with their base. To win, Republicans depend on white rural and suburban working-class voters making $30,000 to $50,000 a year. Conservative Republicans offer almost no policies that directly benefit these people. Americans at that income level tend to be financially risk-averse. But the out-of-touch Republicans offered a Social Security plan that increased risk.

Sixth, conservatives have not effectively addressed the second-generation issues. Technological change has really changed the economy, introducing new stratifications. Inequality is rising. Wage stagnation is a problem. Social mobility is lagging, and globalization hurts hard-working people. Global warming is real (conservatives secretly know this). The health care system is ridiculous. Welfare reform is unfinished. Conservatives have not addressed these second-generation issues as effectively as their forebears addressed the first-generation ones.

The good news is that we are about to enter a political season with no obvious conservative standard bearer, leaving plenty of room for innovation. Also, the current conservative crisis has produced some new thinking. A few weeks ago, two young writers, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam (my former assistant), unveiled a fresh conservative agenda in a Weekly Standard essay called “The Party of Sam’s Club.” These writers, 26 and 25 years old, are closer to the future than the party leaders.

And the final bit of good news for the right is the left. No matter how serious the conservative crisis is, liberals remain surpassingly effective at making themselves unelectable.

Copyright 2005, New York Times

[estio]

The problem with the republicans - and democrats - is there is only a two party system in this country. But they like it that way, so I guess the problem is really with us mere voters who are forced to choose the lesser of two evils.


But does it really matter? The party in power doesn't change govt. It only steers it for a little bit. The governmental machinery smoothly churns along to bring in donations and hand out favors, contracts and tax breaks in return, regardless of party in charge.

The whole system has been corrupted and to make the changes needed all politicians would have to change the way they do business. That will never happen.

[JuntaJoe]

That's quite the fatalistic stance, estio. A little defeatist too.


Ok, plenty of people agree that the two party system is broken and that a viable third party is a steep uphill battle.

David Brooks points out that starting a fresh conservative movement in the Republican Party would meet heavily entrenched politicians that currently hold the majority. It's hard to make a party revolution when the party is riding high.



But he totally dismissed a revolution in the Democratic Party as doomed to fail with unpopular liberal policies that spend money and hurt business.

So why not a conservative revolution in that party? By changing tack to a Libertarian policy of permissive social values, but a new hard line on fiscal policy that puts the economy into high gear, the Democrats could actually create the same Clintonian economic climate that was handed to them by the Reagan/Bush Sr. era on a silver platter.

So how would such a revolution take place? The South was until recently a heavily Democrat stronghold. It was only in the Reagan era that literally millions of Democrat Southerners converted wholesale to the Republican Party. This isn't ancient history. Millions are still alive that voted originally Democrat and are camping with the Republicans today. Additionally, you could almost roll the entire American middle class suburban female vote into a socially gentle agenda that stuck to a budget and created wealth in the working class.


Now you wouldn't see me doing a religious conversion to such a cause, but I would certainly applaud it. Why? Because it would weaken the Republicans enough to perhaps create the same fertile climate that surged through the Republicans in the 60's to oust the yesmen beholdened to business interests.


Even better if such a party revolution was gripping both parties in roughly the same decade. This would finally be the time for a 3rd party to break loose. I see the reason a 3rd party never seems to emerge is because there is always one party in comfortable stasis. A party that begins to splinter has no where for the refugees to go without losing all political clout. The splintering of Perot's 3rd party is a fine example of this dilution. The splintering party must come to an accomidation and reform in order to retain any semblence of power. Then the money grubbing cycle begins anew. But if both parties were splintering at the same time then refugee groups might see a new coaltion possibility that will hold enough seats to retain power. Then you create a Tri-partisan system where to hold a majority there is a required power sharing arrangement. The 2 parties in power will watchdog each other to keep the 3rd party at bay.

It would drive lobbyists nuts. And that's a good thing.

[estio]

Yes, my view of our govt should be considered fatalistic. I have given up hope that we can change the system.

As long as govt has the capability to plunder our money and redirect it's expenditure we are at the mercy of whichever party has the reins. And the parties get to hold the reins by spending the most at election time. Unfortunately, with the huge expense of campaigns, politicians must now be expert money raisers first, and principled idealists second. These are not people who would ever want to change the system. Even if they did, the public wouldn't stand for it. Too many are suckling at the federal teat.

We get the govt we deserve.

With that out of the way, I will now pretend it really matters which party wins an election.

There is a crisis with the republicans.

There are actually two types of republicans: Fundamentalists and economists. The fundamentalists are the ones I blame for the "conservative" label. They are the bible thumping anti abortion censorship prone apes that really give the party a bad name. Their goal of controlling individual choices and enforcing morality should offend all americans. The economists are striving for limited govt and increased personal responsibility. That is why I vote republican.

So here we are after being in total charge and what do we see...

Expanding govt with larger deficits, higher taxes and the Ten Commandments getting kicked out of courtrooms. Both sides of the party should be pissed off.

To regain strength the party needs to find a Reagan jr. that can make people believe in free market possibilities. Someone who defends the power of profit and righteousness of liberty. but hold the god crap. Of course that won't happen until the party actually spilts like it needs to.

I worry about the democracts only because you never know what you're going to get with one of them. I think the welfare state is so ingrained in their belief system that there is no possibility they'll ever have a fiscally conservative agenda. They may put forth a candidate who professes such goals but their party would drink Guyana koolaid before ever actually reducing their social expenditures. That is how they maintain their voting base.

It's not about the money. It's about controlling the money. When you do that you have real power. then the goal is to maintain that power, get more power and stay in power.

We need to separate the govt from the economy. Period. Oops. Back where I started.

[JuntaJoe]

I see the need to create a new current of philosophy that would recreate the conservative movement of the past.

Note that it while the conservative movement existed since FDR began doling out the free money, it wasn't until Reagan was elected in 1980 that it took control of the Republicans. 30+ years passed while the movement solidified. You can be sure that Nixon was part of the old Republicans who pandered to the money lobby instead of the policy. Nixon won on his still mysterious "plan" to win Vietnam or get us out with dignity.

Thus, a new body of philosophy needs to be fleshed out and disseminated to disaffected conservatives essentially to fester until the party implodes itself from bloat. Basically, we need a blueprint ready for when a Republican president embarasses himself enough to lose his second election.

[estio]

I agree with you Joe. We do need to have a philsophical basis for free market politics. I just don't have the respect for the voting public to believe we could ever elect such conservative leaders.



"Glittering prizes and endless compromises... shatter the illusion of integrity."

Yeah.

[JuntaJoe]

Maybe we need to sacrifice another Barry Goldwater on the election alter to really rally the base.

That's what really ended up getting Reagan chomping at the bit.

[CooJoe]

I'm thinking part of the issue with this "conservative crisis" is not merely a political one, but a cultural one. Most people, at least those that I talk politics with want to avoid personal responsibility.

I'll talk to self identified liberals who vouch for socialism. Many blindly hate George Bush, because "they just do."

Most of the conservitives I know are blind supporters of the former Ayatollah Ashcroft, and the patriot act. They're the sort that doesn't understand that the government has no place in forcing moralality on people. (I like to point out that it isn't really moral if it's compulsary.)

Maybe it's just a highschool thing. I hope it's just a highschool thing.

[JuntaJoe]

It only gets more bizaare in college. The profs whip the kids into a frenzy over activism. The only people capable of intelligent discussion are the profs. And they hold your grades in their hand.

Then you hit the workplace where you finally meet people capable of decent discussion and you find that politics makes for a "heavy atmosphere" and you are told to shun the topic by the bosses.


It's a friggin disgrace that when real communication is needed in America over politics that there is always some form of impediment tossed up by people in power to make it taboo.


So just find your little windows of safe communication and keep jamming the facts through them and hope it causes someone to go on a learning experience of their own.

[Eddy]

I wish there were viable third parties, but I have to agree with estio in the fact that it seems hopeless.

Republicans - taken over by right-wing christian fanatics who want to force their morality on me, pandering to the corporate interests at the expense of the people of the country, and only concerned with the wealthy.

Democrats - just plain inept with no real leadership, they are also beholden to the corporate interests, only existing because of the "lesser of two evils" philosophy.

Third parties - clueless in their approach towards building a voter base because they go after the presidency where they don't stand a chance of breaking 5% yet alone winning, instead of going after local positions where a dozen people can swing an election.

It makes me want to write in "we need better" instead of pretending to play the game anymore.

[Georgie]

Eddy wrote: I wish there were viable third parties, but I You are not alone.