The Conservatism of Tomorrow
In 1980 Ronald Reagan swept into office and effectively re-invented American politics and American conservatism, ushering in an age of supply-side economics, deregulation, and substantial tax cuts. He united conservatives and some democrats with his social agenda, and won the hearts of as many Americans through his genial nature and oratorical skills as he did with his politics.
But that was then, and now we have watched the past eight years of Bush-era Conservatism lead to huge escalation in the size of the Federal government; the mismanagement (until recently) of two wars; and public support of conservative policies dwindling. We face an Obama Presidency which in and of itself I am not terribly concerned with, but we also face a huge Democratic majority in Congress, and a possible 60-seat Democratic Senate.
I really like checks and balances, so this prospect is frightening.
Now, I realize we’ve been in the last throes of a rather ugly, depressing Presidential race. Conservatives have broken into several camps during these past months. There are those who have disavowed Sarah Palin and jumped ship; those who have stuck to digging up dirt on Obama; those who have argued the merits of the McCain/Palin ticket; and those who have written off the election and have begun to think about the future of the Republican Party and American Conservatism in general.
Many conservative writers have already begun this process, from David Frum or David Brooks, to the editorial staff at Culture11 (read Tory! Tory! Tory! and Coming Up Conservative. Ross Douthat penned an article two years ago that dealt with this issue, The Party of Sam’s Club.
Now, not all these writers and commentators agree on each issue, but they do all share in common the notion that it’s time for Conservatism to adapt, change, evolve, and re-fashion itself as a more competitive brand, a safer, more appealing alternative to the Big Government of the Liberals. After all, following the last 8 years, conservatives can hardly claim to be the party of Limited Government, can we?
David Brooks and many of these others write that we need to re-take the Center. I would agree. I am a centrist-conservative to begin with, but I think even for those more conservative than I, the obvious truth must be that the vast majority of Americans don’t adhere strictly to either Big Government Liberalism or to any orthodox free-market capitalism. The arguments against supply-side economics are getting more plentiful and persuasive. Unfortunately, the alternative presented is a liberal one rather than a conservative. We risk allowing the country to veer far left rather than take it a bit closer to the center.
Douthat argues for a more family-focused conservatism, which places some emphasis on health care and on family-friendly taxes–no tax on those earning under $100,000; larger tax credits for children; a “consumption” tax to encourage savings, and so forth. He argues also for some sort of GI Bill type college tuition reimbursement program for stay-at-home moms.
David Frum and others argue for carbon taxes to replace other more invasive personal taxes. Bill Harrison mentioned this in his Rove article this week as well, arguing that Carbon Taxes could replace at least a portion of FICA taxes. This is one way the conservative movement can also be a green movement.
I would argue that now is the time to begin thinking about these things. Let’s move away from this notion of tax-cuts, and toward the many very good ideas on tax reform. With smart reform, we might have better luck lowering taxes. With family-friendly policies, we might have better luck with the average voter–after all, to the young family of four making $70,000 a year, perhaps hearing that you will not have to fill out a tax return at all will motivate you to vote more than hearing about some big tax cut for the enormously wealthy. This is the logic, I realize, that Obama is using, but he only goes half the distance. He still has his policies wrapped up in regulation, spreading wealth, etc, whereas a conservative policy would focus on business growth, family, and smart reforms of complex and unnecessary government organizations like the IRS.
Conservatives also need to give up the “deregulation” talk. It has become a dirty word. Let’s talk about reforming old regulations for a new century, and then let’s evaluate where deregulation has worked, and where it hasn’t. Let’s also talk about oversight. Limited Government can still very effectively use oversight rather than oppressive regulation, intended to prevent collapses like the one we’re experiencing, but without the oftentimes costly effects of government interference.
I also believe that social conservatives would do well to shift their focus away from gay marriage and the never-ending abortion debate and focus on real-world policies that effect the American family. Education, health care, tax reform, these are all social-issues, and they can all be applied through the lens of the American family. Some of the ideas I mentioned above are as much matters for fiscal conservatives as they are for social conservatives. (Oh, and fiscal conservative doesn’t have to be an oxymoron anymore!)
I will wrap this up.
The point I’m making is that conservatism, in so many ways, needs to let the past go to some extent, and start thinking about the future. Conservatism, perhaps due to the negative incantations of its most popular radio and TV pundits, perhaps due to the unnecessary secrecy of the Bush/Cheney administration, has become a cynical and unpleasant movement. I can barely read half the conservative blogs these days, they have become so hopeless, so negative. Isn’t it time we decided to make Conservatism the party of Individuality, Reason, and Hope? Can’t we woo the younger voters by appealing to that very American quality of self-determination? Appeal to the American family by pushing policies that will actually help the American family? And appeal to the entrepreneurs of America by pushing policies that will free them to do business the way they see fit?
Conservatism has lost its way. It is time we went out into the wild and meditated for a while. Let’s talk about the future.
I would argue that what the Republican party has been practicing the last 8 years or so hasn’t been conservative values. I think that’s why the 2006 elections went the way they did. People were faced with a choice–big government Republicans vs big government Democrats. No one does big government better than the Democrats, which is why they won. True conservatives don’t like voting for Republicans if they’re as bad on big government as the Democrats, so the conservatives sat on their hands in 2006.
A similar thing happened last week. The Republican party nominated a liberal-leaning Republican senator as the presidential nominee. McCain ran on a platform attempting to win the center of this country. You can see how well he did at it. 2/3 of “centrists” in this country voted for Obama. Despite what any in the media might say, this is still a center-right country.
I don’t think you can win a national election as a centrist and McCain just demonstrated it. If McCain had a record of being a true conservative with none of this McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Leiberman record, he very well might have won. If he had run on a platform of true conservative values (which he didn’t) he likely would have won. What resulted is exactly what you described above…many true conservatives in this country voted against Barack Obama instead of voting for McCain. A fair percentage stayed home because they didn’t have a candidate, and McCain received 6 million votes less than Bush did four years ago.
Conservemuss last blog post..Plumber Joe and Barack Obama: The Full Video
Conservemus, (great name by the way)
You are right. There’s a reason why less Republicans showed up at the polls this year than they did in 04. The questions aren’t have we become too conservative, or is Reagan era conservatism over.
The real question is, why did the Republicans abandon their fundamental principles in which they were elected on while alienating their base?
McCain could not really draw out any sharp contrast with Obama. And when he could he refused to.
Bankrupt the coal industry, Obama says? McCain supports cap and trade.
Obama the radical socialist? McCain tells thousands at an event that they had nothing to fear about Obama and that he was a good man.
The list can literally go on and on. So let’s stop with the nonsense that the Republicans must redefine themselves. When all we really need is a return to basic principles and reform minded agendas. If we start acting like Republicans and embrace the principles and ideas that have made men free and prosperous and proud, we’ll be back in power very soon.
One question then: Why did the GOP pick McCain as their man if his centrism is the problem? And why did he come so close to the popular vote? And why didn’t Palin put him over the top? She is staunchly “conservative” isn’t she?
Well, if the Gods of the GOP would have descended and plucked a candidate from the list of available options at the first light of the primary, I don’t think McCain would have been picked, they would have un-Mormoned Mitt Romney and ran him. However, we have this squirrelly process involving months of primaries among slightly enlightened masses of voters who likely pick the name on the ballot that they actually recognize or have not heard something bad about.
I would also say that the expansion of government and deficits under the GOP administration has weakened their position as the small government party. They came through with some tax cuts but without spending cuts to put the equation in a state of equilibrium.
The unfortunate truth uncovered by the “Joe the Plumber” incident, is that the majority of voters are not aspiring entrepreneurs or perhaps even aspiring to wealth that they feel they should be able to keep. Rather it appears that even those aspiring to wealth have been educated to see a certain amount of wealth as excessive and perhaps evil (kind of like windfall profits). Our children are being taught from a young age that fairness is not about working hard and expanding the pie for you and those around you, but it is about measuring and distributing the pie in an equitable fashion. In short, a lot of the country has been taught socialism without it being called such and has been taught that it is a higher moral position.
After reading a good bit of “The Party of Sam’s Club” article, it seems that even those supporting the conservative cause really want to be tucked in at night by President Government who will eliminate risk from their portfolios and put bread on their tables with regulation and redistributive justice. It seems as a whole we are becoming more risk averse with a greater innate sense of entitlement that is fed by a disconnect between our money when it leaves as taxation and our money when it comes back from the government in the form of goods, services, and cash. The aversion to risk and eventually freedom (we have sacrificed significant amounts of freedom to increase safety) will be met with expanding government and a shrinking economy as growth slows due to our attempts at reducing volatility.
Shane Eloes last blog post..Senator Government’s bake sale
I see the heartfelt post I shared has been deleted.
That’s the new Republican party all right, delete the voice of conservatism, suppress or remove their comments. You can not simultaneously wish conservatives would just go away, and still expect their votes. This is why more and more conservatives refuse to support the Republican party. What’s the value of a party that doesn’t care about it’s constituent’s values?
I see…actually while doing some routine spam work I mistakenly deleted about twenty comments. My mistake. Nothing sinister, just a little stupid…please, feel free to re-post your comments!
E.D. Kains last blog post..Comment deletion