Is the Republican Party dead? If you listen to the media and political pundits, the resounding conclusion is that not only is the Republican Party dead, Reaganism and traditional conservatism is dead. In fact, many political “experts” now say that the only way the Republican Party can experience resurgence is to learn from Arlen Specter and other “moderates” by adopting liberal stances on many social, environmental and economic issues. Is this true? Jeb Bush recently stated that “it’s time for Republicans to give up ‘nostalgia’ and look forward, even if it means stealing the Democrats’ winning strategy.” Are Republicans doomed to an existence of lukewarm conservatism?
Republicans that feel their party is doomed should look back at history and feel some reassurance. For at least a century, Republicans have had an internal debate regarding whether the party should moderate its conservative principles. You only have to look back 50 years to see the most recent example of the “moderation” debate that is occurring today. Barry Goldwater ran for President against LBJ in 1964. LBJ won the election in a landslide (6th most lopsided election in American history) by carrying 44 of the 50 states. LBJ’s victory was decisive (22.6% margin of victory and 61.1% of the national popular vote). Many Republicans (i.e. Nelson Rockefeller and other “Rockefeller Republicans”) understandably analyzed this defeat and similar electoral defeats during this time as a sign that Republicans must become more and more “moderate” in order to remain relevant. However, Goldwater and other principled conservatives understood that the American people lived their lives based on conservative principles and understood that Republicans must remain true to those principles. Otherwise, Republicans and conservatism becomes nothing more than watered-down liberalism. Goldwater and other conservatives pressed forward with their conservative message by laying the groundwork for Reagan’s gubernatorial and presidential elections. Imagine if Goldwater and other true conservatives had decided to throw in the towel and give up their conservative principles? What if they decided to moderate their views by adopting New Deal/Great Society, welfare, and other entitlement programs? What true legitimacy would they have had and would the Republican Party have ever been relevant again?
This brief history lesson illustrates that Republicans must not “jump the gun” when it comes to decisions to abandon conservative principles. Perhaps the best evidence that Republicans should not abandon their philosophy comes in the form of polls showing strong support for conservative principles and the example of President Barack Obama’s public perception campaign he has been waging since his election. Although polls continue to show a high approval rating for President Obama related to his job performance, polls show a lack of support for a number of policy and ideological stances taken by the President: a majority of voters believe the economic stimulus and auto bailouts were a bad idea and a large percentage of voters believe a smaller and limited government are more beneficial for our country. Additionally, Pres. Obama’s April 29th press conference illustrated his understanding that the American public still adheres to conservative principles (at least as related to economic principles and the size of government). During a portion of Pres. Obama’s speech he mentioned that he did not want to run auto companies and banks and that he wants a smaller, leaner and more efficient government. It is obvious from the President’s policies that he believes in growing government and allowing government to take a larger role in the lives of its citizens. So why say this? President Obama is attempting to play the role of the thoughtful and “sober centrist,” while underneath enacting radical policies in an attempt to transform America through an ever-growing federal government. Obama can read the polls and knows that America may like his personality and demeanor (as shown by his approval ratings), but the gap between personality and policies/ideology shows Americans do not believe many of his radically liberal policies are good for America.
Republicans must take full advantage of this opportunity to show the American people the distinction between Pres. Obama, the personality and rhetoric, and Pres. Obama the ideologue and liberal. After all, what value does a President provide to the People if he is not judged by his policies and ideology? Republicans must remember that the “moderate” candidate, John McCain, was a failure and lost the election precisely because he presented the American people with watered-down conservatism. Why should Republicans water down conservatism even more? Why do Republicans think that will somehow result in victory? The Republican Party can become a broader party by being a purer party – the goals are not mutually exclusive. Liberals are not apologizing for their views. Similarly, conservatives have no reason to apologize for being conservative by diluting the conservative message and philosophy by adopting liberal tendencies. Conservatives must boldly reclaim their position by articulating what it means to be conservative and how conservative policies differ from Obama’s radical liberal agenda. Conservatism can win the battle on substance; where conservatism is lacking is in form and perception. Conservatism doesn’t need defenders; it needs articulate and charismatic mouthpieces to voice conservative philosophy. By remaining true to conservative principles and unashamedly remaining a purely conservative party, Republicans can broaden its base of support and reclaim its influence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you really think the majority of americans live their lives according to conservative values? You talked about welfare in earlier posts and how people get complacent. Seems to me many americans like big government b/c it makes it creates this perception that it will be easier on them. While it is not easier, this is the magic trick liberals have been playing for years. If republicans become more conservative it will polarize this large portion of americans. Traditionally this has not been a concern b/c this portion of the population did not vote. But you get a young charismatic liberal to run for office that can "relate" to the people, they will get out and vote.
ReplyDeleteGood question. I do believe most people live their lives based on conservative values: personal responsibility, a respect for others property, fiscal responsibility, etc. However, there is a big difference between how people live their lives and what they expect from their government. I do believe that welfare recipients and many other citizen groups believe that our gov't should be paternalistic and provide all the needs and wants of its people. Why has this happened? I blame this mentality on a failure of conservatives within the Republican party to articulate the cost of such a paternalistic government: the loss of liberty and choice when you give more and more of your daily life choices to the gov't. Instead, Pres. Bush was fiscally irresponsible and failed to provide the distinction Americans were looking for when they looked for conservative principles. Your comment highlights the importance of a conservative leader that can articulate the stark differences between liberal and conservative policies. Why aren't conservative Republicans talking about the disaster of a health care system the paternalistic govt's of the UK and Canada have created and how such policies grow gov't, limit choice and lower the level of care? The big area all the polls show Americans favor is the need for a smaller, less intrusive government. Clearly, conservatives aren't showing (or leading by example) the American public that Obama's policies lead to bigger gov't. I disagree with you that remaining conservative will polarize "this large portion of America." What is the result of becoming more moderate? Pretty soon you blur the lines between what a moderate or a liberal is - you already see this by politicians attempting to mask their ideology under the guise of being a "centrist" or "moderate." Many of the same concerns you mention were mentioned when Republicans were debating whether to accept Reagan's bid for the Presidency. People felt he couldn't win on pure conservative principles, they felt he had to "mask" them or moderate them. We already tried moderate conservatism and American's rejected it with McCain’s bid for the Presidency. Just as a charismatic liberal won by relating to the people; a charismatic conservative can do the same thing if he can articulate true conservatism and show how those principles empower the American people - just like Reagan did!
ReplyDeleteAlso, I believe that as the gov't continues to bail out others and makes moral judgments regarding who should be given help and who should not, the more Americans will believe gov't should get out of the business of making such decisions and allow people to determine their own fate. This provides a golden opportunity for an articulate conservative statesman (if we can find one) to relate to Americans by showing conservatism adheres to this popular sentiment. The more the liberals overreach, the easier it will be for Republicans to make these distinctions - after all, large numbers of Americans do not agree with Obama's policies and we are only in his first 100 days.
ReplyDelete