(This is the first in a series of (irregular?) posts on the debate over the future of the Republican Party in the wake of both the Bush administration and the November 2006 and 2008 elections).
I. Intro: The Basic Actors. The debate as to the shape of the Republican Party going forward is currently taking shape, and David Brooks in today’s NYT outlines the basics: the Traditionalists v. the Reformers.
The Traditionalists:
the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.
This group consists of people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Grover Norquist and R. Emmett Tyrrell and groups like the Federalist Society and the Family Research Council. No doubt groups like National Right to Life and Focus on the Family can be included as well. In terms of issues the most prominent ones at the core of this faction are support for tax cuts and opposition to abortion, gay marriage and immigration reform. They also are going to be the ones most likely to assume that things like Guantanamo, renditions and “enhanced interrogations” are all vital to the very survival of the country (and I exaggerate only a little, if that much).
The Refomers, Brooks identifies as follows:
argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.
The Reformist view is articulated most fully by books, such as “Comeback” by David Frum and “Grand New Party” by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, as well as the various writings of people like Ramesh Ponnuru, Yuval Levin, Jim Manzi, Rod Dreher, Peggy Noonan and, at the moderate edge, me.
Brooks goes on to argue that the Traditionalists are likely to win the day in the short term, and I think that he is correct. Limbaugh, for example, will no doubt stay over and over that “conservatism wins every time it is tried”1 and then go on to argue that McCain wasn’t a real conservative, and hence the loss. Indeed, one expects that the preponderance of the Republican/conservative-oriented mass-media (Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, blogs like Red State and so forth) will all attempt to bring conservatives and the GOP in that direction. On balance, that will represent like-minded people speaking to a like-minded audience all made up of politicians and voters who lost in 2008. This hardly sounds like a recipe for political victory in 2010 onward.
Part of the problem with the “we weren’t conservative enough” argument is that I am of the position that it is wholly unclear these days as to what “conservative” means in our national discourse, apart from a fairly narrow set of policy preferences (as noted above). Now, if the Traditionalists want to have a very limited, minority-status party, then they can continue to focus on those issues and those alone.
As such, the issues of how abortion, tax-cutting, gay marriage, national security and the like play into both the short- and long-term direction of the party are worth thinking about.
Another way to look at the notion of what binds the Traditionalists together is that of looking to reclaim Reagan (or to find the “new” Reagan). There are several problems here that I also want to address in the broader discussion. First, looking backwards as a means of looking forward usually is a recipe for failure. Yes, I realize that we are talking about conservatives, who, by definition, extol elements of the past. However, neither the party nor the conservative movement can simply look backwards (it is one thing to say that there are time-honed traditions and institutions that ought to be preserved, it is yet another to simply worship idealized versions of that past). Second, in regards to the Reagan coalition, it has to be remembered that a substantial portion of his foundational appeal was anti-communism, a position of limited saliency in the current situation (to put it mildly). Sure, one can try (arguably as Karl Rove did) to transform anti-terrorism/national security in general into the new communism, but it is ultimately a difficult analogy to make for a number of reasons.
So, at least one portion of the Reaganite glue is not available for use. The other major portion, tax-cutting, isn’t as viable as it may initial seem, as the next post in the series will argue.
In terms of the series, next-up: income taxes.
Also worth noting, some posts over at OTB by James Joyner on the subject of what’s next for the GOP:
The posts themselves hit some of the main issues at hand, and the comments from readers are enlightening in terms of representing different factions within the GOP coalition. There are also some links to dissenting (i.e., more Traditionalist) positions (in terms of the Brooksian dichotomy, James belongs in the Reformist camp).
Sphere: Related Content- He used to say that all time back when I would listen to his program—I suspect that he still does. [↩]
November 11th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I suspect that if the Republican Party wants to see what can work as a viable governing alternative, it should look to the current Governor of California as a model.
To see how such a retooling might be taken by established forces within the party, one need only look to how his own party has responded to the Governor.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Indeed.
My guess is that not only will the Traditionalist win in the short term, they are likely to persist in dominance over the medium term as well. It will likely take a massive loss by a Traditionalist candidate in 2012 to result in serious retooling.
It will be interesting to watch, in any event.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Good post–although one element that is missing in this debate and which supports your argument–is the the fact that in every other Western democracy, conservative parties have largely moderated over the past 15 years. Certainly this is the case with the Tories in both Candada and the UK, the CDU in Germany, the UMP in France, the LDP in Japan, etc…
All of these parties are moderate on most social issues and, in fact, many would be to the left of the Democrats.
While parties are stronger in those countries, I think that the global nature of policy diffusion and the interconnectedness of global economic structures will continue to make the US electorate a bit more “cosmopolitan.”
The Republicans’ strongest support is in the rapidly depopulating rural counties and amongst the more nativist elements of the electorate (who are declining in percentage).
November 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Ratoe,
Thanks. And yes, I think you have a point, and it is something I hope to address.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
[...] too happy with David Brook’s column about the coming fight within the GOP that I noted in the previous post, and pretty much makes my point about where a lot of conservatives think they should be going: That [...]
November 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I think the more basic question is whether a programmatic party can govern in the United States without the situation degenerating into anarchy or authoritarianism.
Our political parties have been catch-all parties almost since the beginning of political parties. Over the last 30 years both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have slowly been transforming themselves, expelling the heterodox, changing into programmatic parties. That’s resulted in the present situation in which 30% of the people really truly support the Democrats’ program, 20% of the people really truly support the Republicans’ program, and 50% of the people feel are disenfranchised.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
There has been a closer alignment between ideology and partisan identification, yes–especially with the realignment of the south over the last several decades. They are still,
however, large coalitional parties of the “catch-all” variety.
Indeed, while the percentages you cite may apply to the programmatic goals of the hardcore ideologues in both parties, the fact of the matter is that both parties as less programatically pure than you are suggesting.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Okay, I’m a Democrat. I did vote for 2 Republicans in this last election–Rob McKenna and Alan Martin. I know very little about them other than they are eminently fair and well qualified for the offices they ran for. National Republicans, however focused on fear and hate–they never claimed to be competent. The Republican saint, Ronald Reagan, initiated many of the policies that resulted in the economic nightmare that we’re living today. He was a union buster who cared nothing for the middle class. His trickle down theory actually was a version of another scatological function which involves what the rich do to the poor. I’ll be thrilled if the Republicans continue the same policies. Their base is composed of haters and liars. Tell me that Limbaugh is a truth teller and that James Dobson preaches Christian love. Yes. Palin in 2012.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:27 am
(I’m a republican btw) The party is aimlessly spinning in circles like deer in the heads lights, having just been run over by the juggernaut of the american public. It can only be the residual stupidity of the actions that got us in this mess, that prevents the party from waking up!
The problem, ladies and gentlemen, is Ethics! If Expediency wins over Ethics, as it has in the last 8 years, we get what we got. Even though the formula, perfected by Bush Sr. during Regean’s term, having GW front for Dick “angler” Cheney works, you cannot have the perception of wholesale looting of the country, whether it is no-compete KMPG contracts, Carlye Group companies, or Hedge Fund/Oil Speculation, along with rampant Mortgage fraud, hit the american people and not expect disaster.
While the “third rail” of congress might be touching social security, the Lighting Bolt of Almighty Damnation happens when destroying the 401(k)’s and other retirement plans by creating a non-regulatory permissivness that has the appearance of leaving a Hyena in charge of the henhouse.
The absolutely one thing that will wake the people up out of their hypnotic daily trance, is destroying their future retirement and current paycheck. That will, most definately focus their attention on WHO was in charge, since fixing BLAME provides a transistory distraction from the pain of their long term situation.
A gimlet eye is then cast upon the party, where the degree of responsibility, ethical and fiduciary, are measured against the edge of a rather sharp sword.
Having found us in great measure lacking, the inevitable ‘thunk’ of the mass beheading of republican candidates, was assured. The only way Obama could have lost, was to not be breathing at the time we lost Ohio.
If there is any lesson to be taken from this, it is to get that ethical and moral self responsibility, demonstrated in the actions that show that is a operational, internalized principal, is the ONLY route to resurrection of the GOP.
Foaming at the mouth demagogs, talk show hysterics, blame gaming, will just not do. There is no mileage to be had by finger pointing or attempting to paint the other side w/ a broad brush. If we are not to go the way of the Whigs, then ethics and principals better take center stage asap, showing that we can LEARN something from this, as we still have some time before the post-election “concrete” sets in the minds of the people.
If the principals and ethics are enunciated clearly, a separation and distinction made from the lapses of the past, then we can set the conditions for a re-invigorment of the party. That starts with setting standards that are un-impeachable, showing that we mean that by calling even our fellows to task, and meting out appropriate punishments, objectively, when called for.
Otherwise, we sink into irrelevancy and default all to the left.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I agree with the first comment. In fact, I wrote a column asserting the same in Sunday’s Jackson Clarion-Ledger:
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008811090314
November 13th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Ratoe,
Thanks. And yes, I think you have a point, and it is something I hope to address.
FYI: Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian has an OP-Ed in today’s NY Times on how the UK Tories reinvented themselves: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/13freedland.html?ref=opinion
November 13th, 2008 at 10:34 am
[...] is going to continue to go through as it tries to cope with electoral losses in 2004 and 2008. As I noted the other day, I think that David Brooks’ dichotomy between Traditionalists and Reformers has some [...]