Part Of The Problem
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Robert Stacy McCain strikes again:
In other words, Rush’s 20 million listeners are what’s wrong with the Republican Party. If only they’d listen to these young Harvard graduates who know everything . . .
That isn’t what Ross said, as Ross was arguing against the obviously ridiculous claim from Limbaugh that it is somehow undesirable to win over independent and moderate voters during election campaigns. As McCain might say, even a Harvard graduate can see the flaw in this view.
However, in point of fact, yes, that audience is part of what’s wrong with the Republican Party. Part of what has been wrong with the GOP is that its rank-and-file members take their political advice and insights from radio entertainers who seem to understand little about political reality and even less about policy, and who substitute bluster for understanding. When they are confronted with an administration that does much the same, they have seemed only too willing to buy into the bluster. They remain steadfastly loyal to a failed President and his indefensible decisions, and they break with him only when he supports measures that are absolutely intolerable and even then they do this only when the President is profoundly unpopular and no longer very influential. This audience may have the right views about many things, but in practice that translates into reliable loyalty to a party that virtually never serves their interests, which enables the politicians who support all of the intolerable policies that they themselves reject.
The “young Harvard graduates” and the like may not have the right answers, and indeed I think they don’t have most of the right answers, but they at least recognize that there is something deeply awry on the American right that isn’t going to be fixed by repeating worn-out mantras and slapping oneself on the back. The Limbaugh approach recommended to his audience (which hasn’t been 20 million-strong in years) is that Republicans and conservatives have made no mistakes and need to learn nothing, except that they were not hard-core and true-believing enough according to whatever caricature of conservatism Limbaugh claims to represent, which actually might not be so very conservative after all. Being far to the right of Limbaugh, even I can recognize the absurdity of the argument that Republicans do not need to expand their coalition beyond core constituencies. Of course, it is only absurd if you assume that they want to win elections.
This brings me to another point. Mr. McCain would like to buy Jim Nuzzo, a Bush White House aide, a drink for his promised defenestration of anti-Palin conservatives. Very good. On the verge of one of the more impressive electoral defeats in the last thirty years, members of the Bush administration have the gall to threaten other people on the right with exclusion from the ever-shrinking numbers of the GOP for the crime of having come to the conclusion that Palin is not the answer to what ails the right. Even though she is an embodiment of exactly the sort of Republican self-congratulation that will not win elections, she has somehow become the symbol of the future. How you respond to Palin has become a litmus test to determine whether you are worthy and have a future on the right, which is another way of saying that the right won’t have much of a future if it makes Palin loyalty tests mandatory. Many thousands of people, and perhaps many more, who are sympathetic to a center-right agenda will gladly, enthusiastically fail such a ridiculous test.
Filed under: politics
It is not only that Rush and his ilk replace reasoned discussion of policy with bluster and bellicosity, but also they demonize their opponents, cutting off any avenue to rational political discourse. This tactic encourages not conservatism but a politics of resentment, which abhors policy and celebrates raw emotion, primarily anger.
If the Republican Party ever hopes to recover and to present a center-right agenda that people can sign on to, it does need to jettison the Limbaugh wing, which has done almost as much to poison the well of our politics as the omnipresent buying power of well-monied lobbyists. Both groups need to be thrown from the rafters.
Case in point: I, a liberal registered Democrat, voted for McCain in the 2000 California open primary. Gore was guaranteed to carry Cali, so I used my vote to send a message to the Republicans: the 2000 McCain version, who denounced the “agents of intolerance” on both right and left, who championed “American Civil Virtues”.
Here’s something I wrote in 2000 during the primaries and posted to the old Lycos political discussion board:
That was me, a moderate liberal, being impressed by a Republican. When Republicans can embrace that vision again, they will regain what they’ve lost in the age of Dubya.
I started to write a comment that somehow got eaten, but I guess I didn’t have much to say in any case. I just have a question. Daniel, I’ve only read McCain’s blog when you link to it, and I’ve found it consistently small-minded, mean and unenlightening. So… would you recommend McCain’s blog? Or do you just read it to keep abreast of a certain strain of nasty pseudo-populist anti-intellectualism on the right?
I think McCain has some worthy insights to impart, he makes sense in his criticism of amnesty and the bailout, among other things, and if he would get off of his hobbyhorse of mocking Ross and anyone who went to a university he did not attend I think he would score some real hits against his “refomist conservative” targets. He is a professional journalist, and especially when he talks about journalism he has something valuable to say. He and I have had our share of disagreements in recent years, but he does have a perspective that deserves being taken into account.
Sorry to double-post, but I did remember part of what I was saying when my first comment got nixed. You write:
the right won’t have much of a future if it makes Palin loyalty tests mandatory. Many thousands of people, and perhaps many more, who are sympathetic to a center-right agenda will gladly, enthusiastically fail such a ridiculous test.
Just wanted to say, I’m one of these people. Not only would I happily fail that test: if it becomes widely understood that to be a “conservative” in America is to embrace Sarah Palin I’ll probably stop calling myself a conservative. Since 2004 I’ve been entirely comfortable identifying as a conservative who is not a Republican. But it’s probably possible for mainstream conservatism as practiced in Washington, by Limbaugh, etc., to become so intellectually and morally bankrupt that I wouldn’t want to be associated with it in any way.
Here’s the problem: if and when it becomes generally understood that conservatism is a movement with a hierarchy, and that the hierarchy includes enforcers (Nuzzo, Limbaugh, whoever) who keep conservatives in line and have the power to excommunicate, then it’s a lot more difficult for someone like me to say, “Well, I can be a conservative even though I disagree with what self-styled ‘conservatives’ in Washington are doing.”*** It might make more sense to just leave the label to its self-styled protectors, and watch them sink into irrelevance as they shake their tiny little fists at the world.
I guess that would be resigning myself to the fact that genuine conservatism has been impersonated and eradicated, body-snatcher style. But I’m one person and can’t do anything about that. I can, though, refuse to associate with what mainstream “conservatism” has become.
***I realize that the whole reason this magazine exists is that this sort of thing has been going on for quite awhile. But it seems like, lately, it has become much more prevalent in the wider culture, and less of a fight taking place exclusively between elites of various kinds.
Remember when conservatives used to (sometimes justifiably) criticize blacks and latinos for rejecting mainstream values and achievements (like getting an education) and embracing the “street” culture prevalent in their communities, a culture that sometimes looked suspiciously on formal education and book learning?
My how times have changed.
I was walking through a South Texas barrio yesterday doing some door to door voter outreach for a local race and all the young kids were following me on their bikes talking about Obama, saying they would vote for him if they could. Cultural attitudes change slowly, except when they don’t.
A Republican friend of mine who is chief of staff for a Republican state representative was lamenting the end of “white culture”. He was talking about his boss’s constituents – suburban Republicans – their limitless anger and resentment, their belief in the oppression of the white male and society’s prejudice against Christianity (despite every authority figure in that part of the world being a white, male Christian), their passionate hatred of taxes combined with their ever increasing demand of high quality government services (why didn’t the police send a detective to investigate my stolen lawnmower?!?), their support for unlimited police authority, except when they get a DWI or their kid gets arrested with marijuana. These are the same folks that will swear on the bible that the only way Obama won was ACORN and voter fraud.
I guess what he means by the end of white culture is the sense of entitlement to wealth and political power coupled with the complete rejection of any social responsibility – civic, environmental, etc. It is the “white man’s burden” without the burden part of having to lead the world and actually do something positive and constructive.
I don’t know, I am an outsider looking in. What is going on in Republican baseworld?
Part of what Rush and his followers don’t want to face is that a lot of the problem stems from some really catastrophic policy decisions, and they didn’t all start in the White House. The Republicans are taking the blame for almost all of it. It is going to take a long time for them to accept that some of the dogma may be past it’s due date. Douthat gets it and so does Frum….Brooks too, I suppose.
For more than a decade the Democrats couldn’t get back to the White House, partly because the couldn’t really grasp the appeal of Reagan. Since they thought he and his notions were clearly absurd, it followed that any right-thinking American would feel the same way. If only they could market the Democratic Platform properly and re-educate the populace they would be sitting pretty again. They still haven’t quite worked that out yet, but they’ve been given a second chance by virtue of the epic scope of the Bush disaster. It is going to take the Republicans at least as long to work out their “contradictions”….maybe longer, as some of the problems are sort of structural. I mean, there’s no particular reason why a pro-life Catholic, an anti-immigration guy, and an old-fashioned country-club Republican should all be in the same canoe and paddling in the same direction. This could be a great moment for the Democrats to peel off disaffected Republicans and even some conservatives, if only they hadn’t done such a bang-up job of alienating the pro-life community.
I’m afraid the Republicans will have to go through a cycle or two of trying to do the marketing thing before they get down to policy Brass Tacks, unless of course the Democrats blow themselves up which is quite, quite possible. I’m taking it for granted that Larison/ Frum/Douthat/Brooks and the other sane people will be drowned out and shouted down by the noise machine and the NR apparatus. I wish you good luck, though
It is a philosophy based purely on the perception of strength, and any sign of weakness is fatal. This is why the crazy core refuses to admit that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq and still supports him. This is how people like Palin and Bachmann can stare straight at the camera and make up facts, because admission of the truth would be a sign of weakness. Strength above all. It’s time that honesty comes into play and banishes this tactic.
el_longhorn,
I’m not completely sure I understand your point, but I think what you’re getting at traces back to Reagan.
Essentially, Reagan told everybody that government was the problem, that their taxes were too high, and that we needed to “face down” the evil in the world — Soviets in particular.
So, what happened was we built up the military, ran big deficits, and patted ourselves on the back about how great we are when the Soviet Union eventually collapsed, conflating correlation with causality.
Did Reagan shrink government? Absolutely not. He merely stopped paying for it.
Today, we see a total US debt of about $10 trillion, with at least 75% of that accumulated during the Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 administrations. Deficits are taxes on future generations, yet somehow the idea of not paying taxes is an important part of the Republican party platform. This takes irresponsibility to new levels.
Honestly, I don’t know why Obama doesn’t frame this discussion in terms of how we need to pay for what we get, when we get it. I don’t think this is particularly complicated. However, I do see how the American public has been conditioned to the idea that we should get stuff without paying for it. This really needs to change.
“Part of what has been wrong with the GOP is that its rank-and-file members take their political advice and insights from radio entertainers who seem to understand little about political reality and even less about policy, and who substitute bluster for understanding.”
They aren’t substituting anything, Daniel. They’re just telling people what they want to hear, because it’s about marketing, ratings and sales — not politics or policy. And that’s a huge part of the problem.
Palin doesn’t understand the populist argument she is trying to make. Huckabee does, and that’s why I think he’ll represent that wing of the Republican party going forward.
But who is going to lead the actual conservative wing of the Republican party? The fiscally conservative/libertarian wing? Has such a creature existed in politics since Goldwater? I’m not trying to be glib here, and I honestly believe that the Republicans will be best led out of the wilderness by someone with this political philosophy. But I don’t see any mainstream Republicans who espouse it.
Well, there is Ron Paul, who’s been getting a lot more press time following the financial crisis. Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, has frequently been put forward as the great Libertarian hope. We’ve also seen several Ron Paul Republicans win congressional nominations on the local level, such as BJ Lawson. Lawson and his fellows might not be ready for a Presidential race too soon, but Sanford has frequently been mentioned as a possible contender in 2012.
[...] 2.) This explains why the Republicans, if the trust their instincts, will be a minority party for a long, long time. [...]
I just checked out Lawson’s website. Thank you for mentioning him. He is more or less the type of Republican I was talking about. But he has no shot in the NC-4 and I cannot see how he will ever break into the national conscience in the near future. I’m sure there are many Republicans like Lawson are out there, but the actual leadership of the Republican party sorely lacks anyone with a political philosophy approaching Lawson’s.
Mitt Romney could have been that guy, but he basically abandoned anything resembling a libertarian philosophy to run for President. You can make conservative arguments for gay marriage and choice, which I suspect is what he made when he was governor of Massachusetts.
I do not believe the Republican party will necessarily nominate candidates from the Palin-wing. John McCain, for all of his flaws, is proof of that. But Republicans insist on nominating Palins going forward, then the GOP may never recover.
“But who is going to lead the actual conservative wing of the Republican party? The fiscally conservative/libertarian wing? Has such a creature existed in politics since Goldwater? I’m not trying to be glib here, and I honestly believe that the Republicans will be best led out of the wilderness by someone with this political philosophy.”
But this is the wrong mindset to have already. Paleo-cons/libertarians do not need to wait around for another Reagan or Goldwater to appear. They must build a coalition and then out of that, a clear torch bearer may appear. As is said above by ggreenwill, there is Paul, Sanford, and Lawson. But what that wing needs to do is produce a clear and forceful message that is easily digestible for talking heads and the populace. I definitely think it is possible but the only way it is going to happen is if people like us join forces with the handful of paleocon Reps and write to our Newspapers and start getting involved with communities and governments.
I was talking to a friend last night and she was saying how blessed we were as Christians to be living in a non-Christian society. We have unique perspective and can influence people by offering them something fresh and acting in a way most do not act.But since we are not in power, we have to start by writing to newspapers, congressmen, assemblymen, and the likes and expressing our views and backing them up with solid theoretical and in some cases, empirical evidence. The only way it is going to change is if people are proactive. The Ron Paul “revolution” was a great starting point for this.The same can be applied to paleocons/libertarians by just being good people and presenting the populace with something different, and better. The people want fresh, and we have fresh. Now we must give it to them.
You need both. You need the grassroots and a leader for it to rally behind. The fight in front of the paleocons is with the Palin wing of the Republican party, not the Democrats. That wing has several leaders and mouthpieces, the paleocons have no way to respond.
I fear the belief that we must rally around a singular leader. That often leads to hero worshiping and reliance upon one person to change things around. It will never work that way. Traditional conservatives need many leaders (plural), but first they need a coalition of people to give those leaders national validity. Without a larger coalition behind them, people like Paul, Lawson, and Sanford have little stand on and will always be considered outsiders. I think it out of the grassroots, clear leaders will emerge. Not that the grassroots need a leader to rally behind.
I would like to add that the reasoning for this is because if you have a leader and a grassroots coalition rallying behind that leader, you simply begin to have a cult of personality (much like the criticism of Obama). Many of Paul’s supporters were framed this way as well. The narrative becomes that the supporters believe more in the person than they do the underlying theories the person advocates. Goldwater came out of the strong anti-new deal coalition (made up of largely traditional conservatives) and Reagan came out of the anti Soviet, but also the anti-great society programs advocated by the 1960’s and 1970’s liberals. Simply put, the leaders came out of the already in place grassroots structure.
Traditional conservatives must first put that grassroots structure in place. And as I have argued before, this the perfect time to do it. Paul has definitely done a lot of work, as has some of the major traditional conservative publications but without everyday people a large traditional coalition will never become a reality. The current political beliefs of most is that of uncertainty. Many people are unsure of what they want and who they want to implement it. And both major parties have done an incredibly crappy job of being clear. Traditional conservatism now has an opening to offer the clear alternative. The only caveat is that 1. It has to be done right (a la grassroots structures and active participation) and 2. the people who choose to make the push must be patient (real political change takes time).
I agree that we shouldn’t have just one leader. But if we did have just one, that would be one more than we currently have. We would win the debate on the merits, but I’m afraid that we are going to lose because we have no one to make the arguments.
This isn’t an abstract concern. The struggle for control of the Republican party is going to be a battle of personalities, not policies. Focusing on the grassroots is a nice way to make lemonade, but it doesn’t give me much confidence that conservatism, as you and I understand it, will emerge as a viable political philosophy for a long while.
As far as I can tell, our best hope is that the Republican party destroy itself as expeditiously as possible. I’d prefer it if there was an actual, viable, conservative wing of the Republican party ready to take it over after this election. But there isn’t. And that’s because of a lack of leadership.
But the welcome implosion of the Republican party won’t help conservatism in the short term. And the problem here is that there are a lot of big problems that Obama or McCain (heh) will need to address in the short term. And they will do so without the benefit of an informed conservative approach.
The problems facing traditional conservatives, or paleocons, or whatever you call a fiscal conservative/libertarian, are profound. They are both structural, in that we currently have no way of advancing conservative ideas, and practical, in that the lack of conservative ideas informing our politics has made an enormous mess. Unfortunately, the grassroots is all we have at the moment. It just isn’t enough.