The GOP will not fulfill the hopes that conservatives have placed in it as long as it can take for granted the conservative vote.
Glenn Beck's keynote speech at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) has generated considerable controversy among self-conceived "conservatives" of a certain kind. This should come as no surprise, though, for this is but the latest episode in an ever increasing internecine conflict raging between those typically considered to be among the Right.
The conflict is susceptible of a plurality of characterizations of varying degrees of plausibility, and, in some instances, I believe, comparable plausibility. Yet while the old stock ideas of "neoconservatism" and "paleoconservatism," "traditionalists" and "fiscal conservatives," "moderates" and "the far right" (as well as several others that I need not here mention) are not inappropriate to this discussion, for the sake of enlivening thought over this matter, it may be fruitful for us to consider it in terms that, though not new, haven't — at least not as of yet — the mountainous compilation of often disparate connotations with which the others have been saddled over their respective histories.
There are, as I see it, essentially two factions that compose this war within the Right. On the one hand are those who believe that only a foolish and self-defeating commitment to a "purist" or "utopian" ideal explains why a self-understood conservative would ever refuse to endorse GOP candidates over their Democra and/or third party opponents. Apologists for this perspective I will here refer to as Republican Conservatives, with the emphasis on "Republican," and their view I will call Republican Conservatism. Although Republican Conservatives recognize that some Republicans are not real "conservatives," that is, although they know that, conceptually, there is indeed a distinction between a Republican and a conservative, and although they are not (all) incapable of discerning that the "movement" and the party in whose name they speak would, ultimately, be best served via an electoral purging of its RHINOS, for all practical purposes, whether they admit this or not, they perceive the Republican Party and "the conservative movement" as being essentially one and the same. In other words, if one is a "conservative," then, regardless of who the Republican candidate is, he or she should get one's vote.
On the other hand are those who, like Glenn Beck, believe that the Republican Party, while the more likely of America's two national political parties to be the vehicle through which a more or less "conservative" vision can be translated into law, is by no means interchangeable with it. And if and when the GOP betrays the conservative and libertarian commitments affirmed in its plank, as well as its base of supporters who labor diligently to fulfill those commitments, then it is not only no longer deserving of that support, but deserving of losing it. The champions of this perspective I will call Conservative Republicans, underscoring "conservative," and the perspective itself, Conservative Republicanism. Conservative Republicans think that it is, at best, a gross misplacement of loyalty to what is nothing more or less than a mechanism that has all too frequently been less effective than not at advancing the values that Republican Conservatives claim to affirm, and, at worst, stupidity, cynicism, and hypocrisy that accounts for the Republican Conservative's unfailing support of the GOP.
Against the objection that by rejecting the GOP, either by voting for a third-party candidate or by not voting at all, Conservative Republicans insure victory for Democrats, this faction offers a reply that is as swift as its adherents believe it is decisive: Tough. Some convictions — "principles" is how Beck and many other contemporary self-described "conservatives" would describe them — categorically defy compromise — even if the compromise is but a short-term expedient for long-term gain. Self-preservation, whether understood severally or collectively, is a not an unqualified good. In other words, there are some things worth dying for, whether the death in question is construed literally or metaphorically.
Let me state that I am 37 years old and I have never voted for a candidate, in any election, local or national, that wasn't a Republican. I confess that when I was young and naive I believed the rhetorical homage to "conservative values" that every Republican candidate pays when election seasons roll around, but familiarity with political realities have long since liberated me from such delusions. This, however, has not stopped me from voting Republican, for I am convinced that, while the GOP is emphatically not synonymous with conservatism, and while it has most definitely, and successfully, conspired with its rivals over the decades to move the United States ever further from the vision of its Founders, it is, at any given time, less likely to inflict as much harm on the country than the Democrat Party.
This is the reason, and the only reason, why I vote Republican.
The Republican Party is a tool, a mere means, by which I seek to procure my modest goal of delaying America's demise, or — what amounts to the same thing — its virtually complete transformation into an association of a kind that her citizens, for the most part, have traditionally resisted. And even though I am painfully aware that as far as this project of re-centering America's self-conception is concerned, the Republican Party is not without much blood on its own hands, the fact of the matter remains that its commitment to this end has none of the zealotry that informs that of its main competitor.
Yet be that as it may, that the GOP is not overall as willing as the Democrat Party to impose upon the country the character of a grand "enterprise association," as Michael Oakeshott referred to it, does not mean that it isn't more or less willing to do so at any given time. Much less does the slower rate at which Republicans have moved the United States along a trajectory toward a full-blown enterprise association guarantee that their conduct while in office will reflect the values that they claim to affirm. Sadly, we know that far too often, there has in fact been too deep of a divergence between the actions of Republican office holders and the principles to which they have given expression.
So, what does all of this mean? Right now, given my reasoning, I can conclude only that Republican Conservatives and Conservative Republicans are both partially correct and partially incorrect. Since third-party candidates haven't so much as a semblance of viability, the only possible hope for preserving at least the vestiges of the America to which conservatives have pledged their love and loyalty lies in the Republican Party. This, at any rate, is the case as of the present moment. So, Republican Conservatives have a point when they castigate Conservative Republicans for their ostensible willingness to resign the fate of their beloved nation to the one party that seems resolved to render it unrecognizable to itself.
However, Conservative Republicans speak the truth when they argue that the GOP will not fulfill the hopes that conservatives of both types have placed in it as long as it can take for granted the conservative vote. The reason for this is actually quite simple and, from what I can determine, indisputable. Also, it is a variant of a perennial conservative insight.
Conservative thinkers from the eighteenth century to our age, from Adam Smith, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, to F.A. Hayek, Michael Oakeshott, and Thomas Sowell, have distinguished themselves from their Rationalist (and (usually) leftist) counterparts by their insistence that all substantive ends, even when there is a consensus on their desirability, must never be attended to in abstraction from considerations regarding the formal means, the procedural conditions specifying the incentives and constraints, by which they would have to be pursued, for the pursuit of some ends inescapably demands the generation of procedures the observance of which foretells more corruption than would otherwise have existed.
Now, the Republican Party is a political apparatus that, as such, is motivated first and foremost by the desire to amass as much power unto itself as it is permitted, and Republican politicians are motivated first and foremost by their need to win elections. But with just the conservative vote upon which to rely, the end of victory on which the GOP has its sights set is sure to remain forever elusive. Thus, it has every incentive to appeal to non-conservatives, yet this it can successfully do only by affirming non-conservative, or even anti-conservative, values. In other words, only by betraying the values embodied in its plank can the GOP accommodate the interests and wants of "moderates" and "independents" (read: "leftists").
So, it is inevitable both that the Republican Party will forever be tempted to drift leftward as well as that it will, episodically at the very least, succumb to that temptation. This being the case, the conservative's objective is to minimize (because it is impossible to eliminate) the Republican's chances of succumbing to that temptation by reducing its allure. But this the conservative can do only by making it painstakingly clear to the Republican that his vote is something that must be earned. Or, to put it another way, the Republican must know in his bones that if he plans on betraying the conservative values to which he gives lip service, he will pay a high cost, for while it is true that Republicans cannot win elections relying only upon the conservative vote, it is no less true that they are equally incapable of prevailing over their rivals without the conservative vote.
Conservative Republicans and Republican Conservatives both, let's just assume, want the same thing: the advancement of "conservative values." Yet they differ on the means that will prove most conducive to the realization of this goal. The latter believe that it is essentially a no-brainer: always vote Republican. The former, in stark contrast, think that this strategy is profoundly flawed.
The Conservative Republican believes that it is a crime against one's conscience — what Christians have traditionally regarded as a sin — to vote for any candidate — even if he or she is a Republican — who either in word or deed has signaled a willingness to undermine the values to which one is committed. The earliest Christians martyred themselves in scores rather than pay tribute to the Roman gods. They were not, or would not have been, persuaded by the argument that they could both preserve their lives and continue to practice their faith if only they would merely go through the motions of satisfying the Romans. Although the latter lacked the power to stop them from worshipping Christ, the early Christians refused to accommodate the Romans' demands, for they believed that in doing so, they would have been guilty of violating their convictions. Similarly, Conservative Republicans take the position that in voting for Republican candidates who repudiate their values, even if those candidates, whether measured severally or in conjunction with the other members of their respective parties, are preferable to their Democratic opponents, they convict themselves of wrong doing.
It is this reasoning, I believe, that explains why Glenn Beck has repeatedly implored his audiences to always vote for, not against, something.
My position falls somewhere in between the two that I have delineated here. The Republican Conservative's prescription to always vote Republican encourages the same mindlessness, the same invincible indiscriminateness, fostered by all absolutes that, as such, sternly disallow all considerations of circumstances. But the Conservative Republican's quasi-Stoic resignation of his country's fate to the one party that's resolved to "transform" it into something that can't but repulse him — however honorable his intentions — I find equally unacceptable.
At times it is a good thing for the Republican Party to lose — and 2006 and 2008 were such times. B. Hussein Obama, I believe, is among the worst, if not the worst, president this country has ever had the misfortune of electing. But within just one year of triumphing over the one Republican who was emblematic of exactly that impulse within the GOP that had disenchanted numberless conservative voters, our 44th president has proven to be more successful than even Ronald Reagan in energizing and uniting the base of Republican support that George W. Bush and his Congress had left scattered in fragments. Furthermore, Obama has succeeded, I believe, in actually expanding the ranks of Republican voters.
The point is this: contrary to Conservative Republicans and Republican Conservatives alike, the situation in which we find ourselves need not be characterized in the falsely dichotomous terms upon which they insist: either vote Republican or die. It is possible to simultaneously honor one's conscience and resist the leftist onslaught or, to put it positively, live without cause for guilt, but so doing will require us — when it is appropriate, of course — to not vote Republican.
In knowing that the conservative vote is no longer a sure thing, the Republican politician will be sure to at least think twice before undercutting the conservative's commitments.
Until this administration I would have been inclined toward the principled conservatism stance. I have made many of the arguments about the importance of ideology put forth in the article. But after what’s happened, and what is going to happen, during the current administration and congress, I am now ready to admit I was wrong. At least in the context of the present political environment.
The problem with casting a principled vote and blocking the election of a less-desirable Republican in order to teach him a lesson and solidify the ideological base of the party at a time when the opposing party’s leadership is on the extreme fringe of social/democratic liberalism is what happens in the meantime. When congress passes, through whatever underhanded process necessary, a nationalization of the health care industry, it will not be reversible by the principled conservatives who will be elected later when the public backlash occurs and the newly-rejuvenated conservative coalition takes power. Your principled opposition to the Republican who would have violated your values by, say, imposing a national individual health care mandate, or establishing a government operated insurance program in each state, either of which could be reversed relatively easily by better people later on, assures the election of an uber-socialist power block that will pass a full nationalization of health care with specific provisions that make it next to impossible to reverse legislatively, leaving the Supreme Court (now packed with the most radical ACORN-affiliated activist judges on offer in all of the country – also as a result of your principled vote) as a last resort 20 years down the line.
Sadly, we do not live in a vacuum, and while we are busy rebuilding the Republican party in the image of conservative perfection, power will be held by people a lot more practical than we are who are willing to do whatever it takes to advance even the smallest part of their agenda. Short of an actual, literal revolution, we are powerless to reverse the rape of the constitution that has happened in the last 100 years. If the best we can do right now is mitigate the damage by electing less-than-desirable Republicans, with an eye toward reversing the damage later on, then so be it if the alternative is a total reconstruction of America in the mold of European democratic socialism that we have little or no ability to fix later.
When I distill your essay to its essence it seems you advocate the ‘moderation’ or flexing of conservative ideological philosophy in order to increase the probability of achieving sufficient numbers to assume the reins of institutional power. In this regard, I believe you have company in that this is also a strategy recommended by another regular columnist her at IC; namely Dr. Phillip Jackson.
I believe he has, on several occasions, offered the same counsel. The dual belief that ideologically ‘pure’ conservatives cannot be presented well in certain congressional or senatorial districts; and that in order to control the levers of institutional power, temporary concessions to that practical limitation must be made. It’s a numbers game and if you don’t have the numbers you don’t control the game.
Interesting theory. The question is; is there a practical example of the application of this process and can we gauge just how successful such a strategy is. I believe there is a practical illustration of this strategy and an observable example of the outcome of that strategy.
Beginning in 2006 democrats began the process of running stealth candidates in congressional and senatorial districts that had histories of razor thin democratic versus republican electoral margins; plus or minus 5 points or less. They tailored the campaign strategies to minimize the discernable ideological differences between the two candidates on legislative matters with the exception of highlighting the opponent as a supporter of the unpopular ‘war-on-terror’ strategies favored by the Bush administration.
Let’s look at what happened. After the 2004 election, the Senate was 55% republican and 45% democrat. The House was 53% republican and 47% democrat. After the 2006 election, the Senate was 49% republican and 51% democrat. The House was 46% republican and 54% democrat. After the 2008 election, the Senate was 40% republican and 60% democrat. The House was 41% republican and 59% democrat. After 2008 progressives had successfully captured both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue!
This would certainly seem to validate the theory. Moderate the message, tarnish the opposition as spending recklessly on two Mid-East wars and increasing deficits and sell your candidate as a palliative alternative. Evidence points to the fact that such a strategy can be successfully executed.
However observation of the results clearly demonstrates this creates a situation fraught with peril when it comes to governing. What is the most reasonable explanation for the myriad of difficulties that have beset the majority party when it comes to legislative action? The problem stems, in my opinion, from accepting less than ideologically pure candidates.
In some cases democrats had to accept actual deficit hawks in order to win elections, in others they had to swallow hard and embrace pro-life candidates. The belief was that once these newly minted representatives arrived in Washington, they would follow the directions of the Speaker, or in the case of senatorial freshmen, the Majority Leader. Under these conditions, if all the assumptions were correct; deficits wouldn’t matter anymore, cap & trade legislation would be a lock, and universal health care would take about eight weeks. Fifteen months later only one of these assumptions, deficit levels, has proved correct. While the Speaker did browbeat enough democratic congressmen into voting for the disastrous cap & trade bill, Harry couldn’t hold up his end of the bargain and the Senate sawed that limb off behind the Congress and left them hanging out to dry.
Then we began the debacle that is health care. The American public, already incensed over the debt, went absolutely ballistic on representatives of both Houses regarding universal health care during the summer recess. Now, here we are in the Ides of March and the deficit hawk and pro-life democrats that the left had backed in the last two elections cycles are the very ones keeping progressives from the prize they’ve coveted for almost three generations; government run health care.
I’d guess that Nancy Pelosi has issued every imaginable threat against these reticent democrats. Her refusal to schedule a vote is direct evidence of her lack of success. The President has delayed an overseas trip and booked an interview with a sworn enemy in order to make a final effort to reach enough people to maybe turn the tide of public opinion. Although way past the time of saving the jobs of any of these representatives the House is currently mulling the idea of using an arcane rule that formerly only applied to bi-partisan resolutions to ‘deem’ a bill to have been passed without directly voting on it.
Do we have to accept less than ideological conservatives in order to win in some districts? I disagree. It’s not the election that kills us as often as it is the behavior afterwards.
We can elect candidates of decided ideological purity this year. I think the real challenge comes later. If they don’t govern as conservatives: If they pander to progressives, back down from the challenges of liberal legislators, and attempt to appease the democrats (as Bush tried to do in his last four years) we will lose confidence in them as quickly as we did in the past. I don’t believe we’d have anywhere as much trouble running as conservatives if we’d only govern like conservatives once we got there!
I think your strategy has been tried by the opposition. I think it has been discredited by the opposition.
Although I am a liberal Democrat, I also think that the political party system of a country needs to have some meaningful connections to the actual distribution of political opinion in a country. And so, I offer some advice.
I think Dr. Kerwick doesn’t give sufficient consideration to another possibility, one which I think is credible, given the national outpouring of hostility directed against Obama and the Democrats by a growing percentage of the public. Instead of trying to figure out how to balance ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ to some best political advantage, I contend that there is a unique opportunity, becoming more visible with each passing month, for conservatives to finish what they started back in 1964 and take over the Republican Party. The Goldwater candidacy transformed American conservatism, opening a door to electoral victory for politicians committed to conservative principles. While Goldwater lost, conservatives did not. Instead, as several studies done by political scientists have shown, conservatives moved into the Republican Party organization in force, gradually becoming more and more visible. Eventually, the Regan candidacy became possible, and a giant step forward for conservatism was the result. Conservatives did not rest on their laurels, however, but continued to work for the transformation of the Republican Party in Congress, winning enough elections to move toward shoving liberal to moderate Republicans out, an process of exclusion that is almost complete today. In addition, the center of gravity of the party has shifted strongly to the Right, and the voting base of the party now largely, although not exclusively, consists of social/religious conservatives.
Now is the time for conservatives to take electoral politics very seriously, and work to crowd out and exclude all but genuine conservatives from access to Republican party support, whether logistical or financial. Significant Republican gains in Congress this year are almost guaranteed, and a Republican presidential victory in 2012 cannot be ruled out of bounds as unlikely. Conservatives should take a very long view and figure out precisely how to take advantage of such political gains to transform the Republicans into a true party of the Right.
Of course, some unproductive delusions will need to be wiped away. First to go must be the whole idea of a ‘big tent’ or ‘inclusive’ party. Yes, the major parties have tended to be big tents to a greater or lesser degree throughout much of American history, but there is absolutely no historical necessity that this condition will, or should, continue. The Democratic Party at the national level—which is not to say, the Democrats at the state and local levels—is firmly liberal, and this is unlikely to change. So it is no longer a big tent, and it doesn’t try to be.
Another idea that must be junked is the cliché that Americans will not support a strongly ideologically coherent party. My claim is that, if it is played well by conservatives, the transformation of the Republican Party I am suggesting can be made acceptable to much of the American public. The Republican Party must be identifiable as standing for clearly conservative principles and positions. This means that litmus tests of some sort are absolutely indispensable. No candidate should be able to get party support without declaring his or her allegiance to conservative principles. Since a majority (around 60%) of Americans now identify as ‘conservative,’ the public is already available to plug into a revivified party of the Right.
Finally, this new Republican Party must make clear to the public that it stands where they do. The party must say no to gay marriage, to gays generally, to evolution, to global warming, to secularism, and, of course, to liberalism in any or all of its forms. What if a genuinely conservative Republican Party could promise that, when enough of its candidates are elected to public office, it will take on the task of uprooting and eliminating liberalism from American public life? Do I think lots of voters would sign on to such an agenda? Yes, absolutely. The Tea Party is already pointing the way to such a transformation. Politically realistic conservatives will need to make their peace with the Tea Party so that the energies of its growing numbers can be directed to the goal of creating the first major American party of the ideological Right.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cheryl_Jones: Glenn Beck and the Conservative Movement http://bit.ly/bv3jsp...