Posts in the "The Next Right" Category

• The Term “Moderate” – Lets Clear A Few Things Up

  The Next Right

  NOTE:  Cross Posted At Political Capital

  Ah, moderates.  I’ve been hearing that term thrown around a lot lately, but unfortunately I haven’t seen a great deal of exploration of the concept – instead it seems like the "go to" word when describing a faction of the party which is not of the socially conservative ilk. 

  It is unfortunate that this article is necessary, but alas in many recent readings (such as here) I have come across descriptions of the friction within the Republican Party, and what has struck me has been the remarkable lack of understanding of basic political philosophy in not only the media, but in the right as well, including honestly grasping what a moderate is, and who exactly is about to "go to war" inside the right.

  The upcoming “war for the soul of the GOP” as its being called lately is being described almost universally as “Moderates vs. social conservatives”.

  ::sigh::

  First of all, lets get something straight – there are a lot more than just two factions within the Republican Party, and it is certainly a hell of a lot more in-depth than “moderates vs. conservatives”. Such descriptions hearken to the notion that politics is bi-polar, which is born of a two party system I suppose. You are apparently either left or right, or somewhere in the middle.

  Sorry folks, but there is no "right" and "left" and "center".  Those concepts are artificial creations.  We keep hearing, "does the republican party need to go further right?" – but what are they asking?  Should the party go more right economically, socially or both?  If you go left on one and right on another, does that make you a "moderate"?  (no it doesn’t)

  Such descriptions, as I’ve noted before, are completely divorced from reality or critical thought. There are at lest four main “groups” of political thought across the landscape of political philosophy, popularized by the libertarian party’s two dimensional model of political thought. For the sake of reference, I’ll be referring to them as such:

  • Authoritarians – Economic statism, Social statism
  • Libertarians – Economic liberalism, Social liberalism
  • Progressives – Economic statism, Social liberalism
  • Conservatives – Economic liberalism, Social statism

  This isn’t just a theory, this is more or less the general makeup of everyone’s political brain. Yes, there are variations on all of these things – I’ve met libertarians for example that range from isolationists to broad internationalists on foreign policy – but lets not use those fractures distract from the fact that most people fall in these general categories. We can deal with the dozen or so verifiable “strains” of Republicanism at another time, but for now, lets deal with the three main factions that we see competing – conservatives, libertarians, and true moderates. I say true moderates for a reason that I will outline below.

  When somebody says the war within the Republican Party is “moderates vs. conservatives” – what in the living hell are they talking about?

  The only thing they can be talking about is social policy and the culture wars.

  Why? Because primarily the grassroots of the Republican Party is made up of a collection of conservatives and libertarians, both of whom agree on economic liberalism. Yes, I know the leaders of the party have acted like authoritarians – who cares? We know they don’t represent the actual grassroots of the party, so lets just set that aside and agree that nearly everyone in this country who would be predisposed to vote for a Republican would be either a libertarian or a conservative. But then again, there are the “moderates”.

  So what is a moderate? A true moderate is somebody who can’t make up their damned mind and just blows with the wind on any and all issues. These are the real cancer within the party – the folks who conspire with Democrats to increase spending, expand entitlements, raise taxes, support earmarks, and the entire litany of state loving activities of the left. They do so because they see compromise on those government issues as “the center” and don’t want to be extreme. They do the same thing with social policy as well for the exactly same reason.

  These are the people that need to be excommunicated from the party. These state loving, compromising, wishy washy, sail where the wind blows you lawmakers are the ones who don’t belong with us, and aren’t helping us anyway.

  But it isn’t where the war within the party is going to be fought. True moderates as I just described are widely hated by everyone within our party – libertarians hate them because they compromise all freedom oriented principles, both economic and social, as they run to the politically safe road. Conservatives hate them because they tax and spend like Democrats, and they are much more liberal on social issues. I think we’re all on board with not liking these people.

  But the coming war isn’t with this definition of moderates, which is the essence of my problem with the description I keep seeing in the media about the Republican schism.

  No, the real war is between the culture warriors and the libertarians, about what role, and how much of a role, social issues will play in the Republican Party’s new strategy. Since both libertarians and conservatives are agreed on economic liberalism, this is the only place they can fight – but since the media needs to label something they don’t understand, they do the intellectually lazy thing and say it is “moderates” vs. “conservatives”.

  I’m sorry, but moderates aren’t going to war with anyone. They’re out of the equasion, and to even bring up that label when discussing the future of the party is a dis-service to the conversation. If for no other reason that it irritates the living hell out of libertarians to be labeled as moderates, because they are moderate about nothing.

  In any event, social issues is where the friction really is within the party – but the continual, inaccurate description of the conflict that is coming as “moderates vs. conservatives” feeds into the insanity that Soren Dayton talked about the other day – the idea being propagated by Rush Limbaugh and others that the problem with the party is that “true conservatives” have been betrayed, and that “moderates” have corrupted our core principles.

  This gets us into people within the party labeling other people RINOs, when some of those “RINOs” are anti-government crusaders that would just as soon eliminate 10 executive departments, cut taxes by 20% across the board, and institute market reforms on every entitlement we have, but simply have a disagreement about the role of social warfare within our politics.

  This is an ideological contest between people who want to almost exclusively fight the Republican political war on the culture battlefield vs. people who want to downplay the culture wars, and focus on what unifies the two camps, economic liberalism and good government reform.

  Count me squarely with the libertarians in this fight – and not just because I am one. I, nor anyone in this camp is a “moderate” about anything – indeed I would argue it is likely I am more hawkish on economic liberalism and government reform than 95% of the Republican Party.

  We simply see that stressing a message of economic freedom, low taxes, spending restraint, balanced budgets, government reform and a strong national defense are much more effective in uniting people across multiple regions than the culture wars are. Hell, I’m a religious person (Catholic), militantly pro-life, and I’m not exactly the biggest fan of the homosexual lobby, but that doesn’t mean I want that to be my sales pitch to the American people.

  Many social conservatives that I know are in this line of thinking as well, because they recognize that no matter how “right” the Republican social agenda is, it remains divisive and will shrink the base of support of the party if it is the focus and lead argument for the party. Such fights may be appropriate to make – but by defining your movement by them, you give the impression that you aren’t really interested in serious governing, you simply want to use the government as a tool of social control.

  For better or worse, my friends, people want to elect people they believe will be good stewards of government. They want it to be as efficient and minimalistic as it can be, they don’t want it to waste resources or profit on its existence, they want common sense, good solutions, they want their money protected, and they want to feel safe living in this country. They don’t like power being more important than protecting the people, and they want to trust.

  That appeals to our common agreements between libertarians and conservatives. Moderates do in fact have a place, and I would not dream of throwing them out with the bathwater (no political party in a two party system competing with such an unbreakable wall in entertainment and education as the Democrats have, could ever hope to be viable without at least a few moderates) – but the real division in the party has nothing to do with moderates.

  Ronald Reagan built an electoral model on unifying the splintered, broken and seemingly defeated Republican Party, and he didn’t do it by campaigning on a gay-marriage ban in the constitution. He did it by asking us to believe in ourselves, take individual responsibility, fight the growth and power of the Federal Government, and reform our most basic institutions so they serve the people.

  Unifying narratives work.  If you think that somehow not fighting the social wars as a central theme of campaigning will somehow mean we cede those issues, or "give up" on them, you are a political novice.  Messages to voters that unify and inspire are what work – things that inherently divide us (like culture) do not work.  This is why Barack Obama has thrived on quite literally nothing.  He got people to buy into a message – and for better or worse, he portrayed it as a message of pragmatic unity. 

  Well, the right has its own unifying message of common sense and pragmatism, and its about time we stopped sniping each other over social and cultural issues, and set out to push forward with a unifying message – such as what was done during the Reagan Revolution and the 1994 overthrow of Congress.  Those movements were about common sense, good government ideas, and a positive inspiring vision of America.

  We’ve lacked "that vision thing" for quite some time now, and become little more than economic statists increasingly fighting one battle – culture.  Lets hit the reset buttom and understand not only what our common causes are, but what any random generic American – yes independents and democrats – can see about our agenda that they like.  Small government, reform, efficiency, and intelligence.

  That is a message we can all come together on (hell, even the moderates can probably hop on board that train), and if the Republican Party had any sense left in it, this would be the focus of our party as we pick up the pieces from 2008. But more than that, we can’t just sell ourselves that way, we must behave that way once we regain power.

  I for one am hoping that this is the consensus the party arrives at after the election. But for the love of all that is holy, lets stop speaking about ourselves as though there are “true conservatives” and “moderates”, because politics is not bi-polar, and the people being labeled as moderates are not moderate by any definition of the word.

  Average:

  4

  Your rating: None Average: 4 (3 votes)

  Read More...

• The History Of One Party America

  The Next Right

  It has become very obvious over the last month or two that Barack Obama is on the verge of a monumental landslide, and the democrats in congress are poised to push the envelope on supermajorities as well.  We are looking at a one party state, and not only that – its one that has been thirsting for power and will have a great deal of it in January.

  Because of this reality, I think it is more than appropriate that we consider what has happened in the past when one party has taken over control of all levels of government.  This is important, because whenever one party gets beat that badly, they always feel as though the world is ending, and they will be permanently relegated to irrelevance.

  What is interesting, though, is that this is hardly the case.  When you look back at history, one party dominance does not maintain itself for very long, and it often leads to utter disaster for the party that commands said unbridled power.

  Why is that?  Perhaps its because the party in power over-reaches, believing they have more support of the American people than they actually do – as detailed here.  Perhaps it is because the minority party ends up looking at themselves in the mirror and diagnosing their issues, actually addressing the problems that caused them to be so roundly defeated – as I recommended here.  Perhaps its a little of both.

  But one thing is for sure – one party controlling the government is not something that the American people tend to like very much.  Lets take a gander at some examples.

  <!–break–>

   

  Republican Dominance 2001-2006

  This is slightly inaccurate because of all the weirdness of the Senate between 2001-2003 in that first session, but for all intents and purposes, the republican party was the only viable, real party operating in the United States for this period.  Democrats were widely demoralized, weak, leaderless and on the run – with the 2004 election marking their lowest point, as President Bush was re-elected as the first president to receive over 50% of the vote since 1988, a Senate packed with 55 republican senators, and a house that was 232-201 republican as well.

  But, even despite the fact that viable leaders didn’t really emerge (outside Howard Dean at the DNC) this utter domination wouldn’t last.  We can blame it on any number of reasons, but for the purposes of this article it doesn’t matter.  What does matter is that this domination wouldn’t even last through the next election.

  After only five years of practical governance, the domination of the republican party died in the 2006 midterm elections.

  Personally, I believe this five year period would have been a lot shorter had September 11th not happened, and the republican party not so effectively used the incident to convince people to vote for them for two election cycles.

  Regardless, the complete domination of the White House, Senate and House didn’t last for very long.

  Democratic Dominance 1993-1994

  Boy it sure must have felt great to be a democrat around November of 1992.  Bill Clinton, in a three way race against an incumbent president and the most magnetic third party candidate in decades, managed to capture 370 electoral votes, and register a historic win.  Democrats had won 57 Senate seats, and the House sat comfortably in democrat hands by a 258-176 margin.

  Wow – those numbers look eerily like what 2008 might look like.  Interesting.

  Regardless, for all the pronouncements in 1992 that "The Reagan Revolution was dead" and all the articles about a permanent liberal realignment, that couldn’t have been further from the truth.  This unbelievable and monumental victory was short lived (again, for any number of reasons).

  Only 2 years later, President Clinton had failed in a major initiative (Health Care), his approval sat at 42% and Newt Gingrich and company stormed onto the national scene, crafting what became known as "The Republican Revolution", winning 54 Senate seats, and 230 seats in the House.

  The permanent liberal realignment was dead only two years after it had been declared.  The typically bad year for the president’s party in midterms (a historical trend that goes back decades) was especially bad for Clinton and company, and all their dreams disappeared in favor of divided government.

  Two years – not exactly a permanent movement.

  Democratic Dominance 1977-1981

  This one really looked permanent.  In 1977, the democrats had already had a stranglehold on congress unbroken since 1955 and added to their majorities with 61 Senators (there is that dreaded supermajority) and a whopping 292 House members (that’s 67% of the House – another supermajority).  Jimmy Carter, the genial southern governor had won nearly 300 electoral votes and defeated the incumbent president Gerald Ford.

  On top of all that, the republican brand was utterly destroyed.  The country still had the memory of Watergate fresh in their mind, and the stain of Nixon was all over republicans everywhere.

  But there’s more.  At this point in the country’s history, since the 1932 election democrats had won the house out of 21 out of the last 23 times, the Senate 21 out of 23 times, and the presidency 8 out of 12 elections.  When republicans won the White House, it was moderates like Eisenhower and Nixon, and when they won in Congress – it was an aberration.

  Seeing Carter elected in 1976 with two supermajorities in Congress must have been devastating.  Honestly at that point, I don’t know how republicans didn’t just give up – Carter was a nice guy with command of a unified party that had domination over the entire country.  Kind of puts what it is to be a republican today in a bit of perspective.

  But alas, it is always the darkest before the dawn, and as depressed as republicans were in 1976 – they would be rewarded with adulation in 1980 as Ronald Reagan won 489 electoral votes and the republicans recaptured the Senate.

  4 years.  Yet another domination by a single party that ends in ruin within only a short time.  This one was especially noteworthy, because the figure that emerged from the carnage of the republican party in 1980 became a transformative figure that conservatives have since latched on to as their political hero.

  Previous One Party Domination

  I’m not going to detail every single instance where one party controlled the entire government, but some of the others at least deserve mention.

  From 1961 through 1969, democrats controlled the White House, the Senate and the House.  This spanned the entirety of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and ended when Richard Nixon won in a landslide in 1968.

  That was a relatively successful period of party dominance – it lasted eight years.  Yes, a long time, but still it isn’t exactly unbearable for a minority party.  That "unbearable" period would come a little further in our past.

  Before the Kennedy / Johnson years, Dwight Eisenhower enjoyed an electoral sweep in 1952 as the republicans re-entered majorities in Congress and retook the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover.

  Sadly, this only lasted for two years – during the mid-term 1954 election, democrats retook Congress, and would build on their majorities every election thereafter.

  But easily the most astonishing period of one party dominance in the 20th century was the period between 1933 and 1947 – a fourteen year window of absolute, total, complete control of every level of government under one of history’s most noteworthy presidents, Franklin Roosevelt.

  This period was somewhat unusual, and driven by the earth shattering change to electoral politics instituted by FDR, coupled with the second world war and its "don’t change horses in mid-stream" logic.

  Lessons Learned

  I think it is clear that the Armageddon many people are predicting is not exactly as devastating as it could be.  In the past, many one party periods in our history have seen more dominant majorities – and they still go down in 2-6 years.

  Liberals can claim that this election is some kind of permanent realignment if they want, but history has shown us that such levels of control are not tolerated by the American people for very long, and the minority party almost always makes important adjustments to its strategy and message to be more appealing to the electorate.

  So republicans, stock up on your whiskey and vodka for November 4th, but try not to drink yourself into a coma.  The aftermath of this election may in fact be what we need to reset this party on a path of sanity that it has been lacking for years, even when it was in the majority.

  My advice?  Take a look at the domination of Congress by the democrats between 1933 and 1995 and say to yourselves, "never again".  The White House is important, but I believe congress is more important.  The best economic management we had in the 20th Century was with a republican congress and a democratic president – so its clear that control of congress will allow the party to reign in the excesses of a democratic president.  No such balance occurs when a republican is in the White House and there is a democratic congress.  I would focus all of my efforts on retaking congress and keeping hold of it this time.

  But whatever happens, take solace in the fact that some time within the next decade republicans will in fact come roaring back, and the democrats will have a turn at feeling depressed.

  This, like most things political, is cyclical.

  Average:

  4.333335

  Your rating: None Average: 4.3 (3 votes)

  Read More...