Which party are conservatives supposed to support these days?

[Steve_MB]

@Happy Clam

Yes, the Democrats have gun control and business regulation

The Democrats have gotten better on the former point (no doubt because enough of them realize that if they hadn’t gotten themselves entangled with gun control, Al Gore would be President).

[Steve_MB]

@UncleBeer

Do you have anything specific in mind? I can’t really recall any significant civil rights or personal privacy incursions advocated by the Clinton administration. Little bit of a flap about the so-called assualt weapons and the Brady Act, but that’s about it.

Dereliction Of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton

Clinton’s Record on Civil Liberties

So Long, Civil Liberties - Pres. Clinton’s Stance On Crime

The Clinton Administration Builds its Campaign Against Privacy

[BrainGlutton]

Modern American “conservatism” – as it has been understood from Goldwater’s 1964 presidential bid to the present day – is something radically different from “conservatism” as it was understood pre-1964 in America, and as it is still understood in Europe. From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004):

The exceptionalism of the American Right is partly a matter of its beliefs. The first two definitions of “conservative” offered by the Concise Oxford Dictionary are “adverse to rapid change” and “moderate, avoiding extremes.” Neither of these seems a particularly good description of what is going on in America at the moment. “Conservatism” – no less than its foes “liberalism” or “communitarianism” – has become one of those words that are now as imprecise as they are emotionally charged. Open a newspaper and you can find the word used to describe Jacques Chirac, Trent Lott, the Mullah Omar and Vladimir Putin. Since time immemorial, conservatives have insisted that their deeply pragmatic creed cannot be ideologically pigeonholed.

But, in philosophical terms at least, classical conservatism does mean something. The creed of Edmund Burke, its most eloquent proponent, might be crudely reduced to six principles: a deep suspicion of the power of the state; a preference for liberty over equality; patriotism; a belief in established institutions and hierarchies; skepticism about the idea of progress; and elitism. Winston Churchill happily accepted these principles: he was devoted to nation and empire, disinclined to trust the lower orders with anything, hostile to the welfare state, worried about the diminution of liberty and, as he once remarked ruefully, “preferred the past to the present and the present to the future.”

To simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three. The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility towards the state than any other modern conservative party. . . . The American right is also more obsessed with personal liberty than any other conservative party, and prepared to tolerate an infinitely higher level of inequality. (One reason why Burke warmed to the American revolutionaries was that, unlike their dangerous French equivalents, the gentlemen rebels concentrated on freedom, not equality.) On patriotism, nobody can deny that conservatives everywhere tend to be a fairly nationalistic bunch. . . . Yet many European conservatives have accepted the idea that their nationality should be diluted in “schemes and speculations” like the European Union, and they are increasingly reconciled to dealing with national security on a multilateral basis. American conservatives clearly are not.

If the American Right was merely a more vigorous form of conservatism, then it would be a lot more predictable. In fact, the American Right takes a resolutely liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism. The heroes of modern American conservatism are not paternalist squires but rugged individualists who don’t know their place: entrepeneurs who build mighty businesses out of nothing, settlers who move out West, and, of course, the cowboy. There is a frontier spirit to the Right – unsurprisingly, since so much of its heartland is made up of new towns of one sort of another.

The geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism. In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo. They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities. And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past. By contrast, Burke has been described flatteringly by European conservatives as a “prophet of the past.” Spend any time with a group of Republicans, and their enthusiasm for the future can be positively exhausting.

As for elitism, rather than dreaming about creating an educated “clerisy” of clever rulers (as Coleridge and T.S. Eliot did), the Republicans ever since the 1960s have played the populist card. Richard Nixon saw himself as the champion of the “silent majority.” In 1988 the aristocratic George H.W. Bush presented himself as a defender of all-American values against the Harvard Yard liberalism of Michael Dukakis. In 2000, George W. Bush, a president’s son who was educated at Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, played up his role as a down-to-earth Texan taking on the might of Washington. As a result, modern American conservatism has flourished not just in country clubs and boardrooms, but at the grass roots – on talk radio and at precinct meetings, and in revolts against high taxes, the regulation of firearms and other invidious attempts by liberal do-gooders to force honest Americans into some predetermined mold.

(emphasis added)

If that’s the kind of conservatism with which you identify, by all means support the Pubs; they still stand for it, foursquare. (Rhetorically, at least; in practice, the Pubs-in-office are elitists, drawn from the overclass and concerned primarily with its interests; and the Dems-in-office only slightly less so, more’s the pity.) But note that fiscal conservatism, as such, is not even mentioned in the above analysis. In fact, it has never been much more than a talking point in the modern conservative movement; remember Reagan’s deficits?

[BrainGlutton]

@Sage Rat

Vote none of the above?

Getting enough republicans (or democrats) to do it would probably be the most effective course, without vote switching.

That might send a message, but nothing mpre. If a majority vote for “none of the above,” the office still goes to whichever candidate comes in second to that choice. What, did you think they would call another election, or leave the office vacant for that term?

[Steve_MB]

@BrainGlutton

If that’s the kind of conservatism with which you identify, by all means support the Pubs; they still stand for it, foursquare. (Rhetorically, at least; in practice, the Pubs-in-office are elitists, drawn from the overclass and concerned primarily with its interests

Also, in practice the Republicans in power display “suspicion of the power of the state” about as much as Bill Gates displays suspicion about the value of Windows XP.

[Loopydude]

America First party? Constitution Party?

[BrainGlutton]

@Bobotheoptimist

Vote independent. Death to the two party system!

I agree heartily with the sentiment, but you can’t kill the two-party system by voting independent; best-case scenario, the party for which you vote will simply supplant one of the major parties in a new two-party system, the way the Republicans did. It’s not even a “ballot access” problem. The way our electoral-political system is set up naturally tends to produce two big-tent parties and freeze out all others; that would remain true even if our ballot-access laws were liberalized. If you want a multiparty system, you need to fight for basic systemic reforms: Instant-runoff voting, ballot fusion, and proportional representation. Vote for anybody who promises any of those, and we might get somewhere.

[BrainGlutton]

@Loopydude

America First party? Constitution Party?

Both are fiscally conservative – but neither is socially libertarian.

[Loopydude]

Well, certainly that’s true of the latter. I get the sense the America First party cleaves to a relatively faithful paleoconservative ethic, though, and I should think that might limit the damage a socially conservative candidate could do simply by limiting govt. power. Limited govt. is also fairly high up in the list of virtues of the C.P., is it not? You cut out the Ten Commandments nonsense, and it’s “starve the beast” all the way.

[BrainGlutton]

@Loopydude

I get the sense the America First party cleaves to a relatively faithful paleoconservative ethic, though . . .

True, but they’re not above legislating “morality,” especially WRT abortion. Read Part III of their platform.

[rjung]

The first thing to do is to stop the airplane from nosediving towards the ground and putting some grownups in charge – that means voting Democrat to counterbalance the runaway insanity of today’s GOP.

The second thing to do (after the crisis has stabilized, probably in a decade after the GWB era has ended) is to vote for the candidates that support your views. But that’s secondary to the immediate problem, above.

Meanwhile, I just find it amusing to see so many “independent-thinking” conservatives throwing out the same unsubstantiated stereotypes about Democrats. At least those of us who denounce today’s GOP as fiscally irresponsible war-mongering incompetents can point to recent history for evidence.

[Renob]

@ElvisL1ves

On what do you base that assessment? Government spending has risen not only to record levels but at record *rates of increase * under single-party GOP rule.

Yes, and you still have Democrats who are complaining that the Republicans aren’t spending enough and you have a slew of amendments from Democrats to both budget resolutions and appropriations bills that seek to increase spending.

What examples are you referring to?

Someone has already posted some good examples, so let me just mention a few. One was the Branch Davidian mess. The second was the stonewalling of the Ruby Ridge investigation. Clinton also supported breaking down financial privacy laws, and the IRS hearings held in 1998 showed how far the IRS went under the Clinton Administration to infringe on people’s rights.

Again, I don’t necessarily blame Clinton for this. It’s just what the government does, no matter who is in power. And of course the party out of power screams about it, but then when they are elected to govern the executive branch nothing changes.

There is good reason to believe that. So go with the *lesser * evil, not the greater one.

Right now the Republicans are only the greater evil because they are in power.

But then won’t *they * “be in favor of spending more money and increasing government power at the expense of the individual”?

Frankly, if some of the looney Libertarian candidates were actually elected, I think this would be the least of our worries. Their usefulness is in providing an outlet for a protest vote. If they get a large enough percentages, the two major parties may start actually trying to limit the size of government in order to win some Libertarian voters.

[Renob]

@rjung

Meanwhile, I just find it amusing to see so many “independent-thinking” conservatives throwing out the same unsubstantiated stereotypes about Democrats.

If it’s the “tax and spend” liberal stereotype, this is easily supported by simply looking at the statements of Democrats in Congress seeking to raise taxes and increase spending. If it’s the anti-gun stereotype, it’s also easy to point to statements by a wide variety of Democrats seeking to enact more gun control.

[BrainGlutton]

@Mtgman

Political parties are one of the worst things about the US election system.

Can you name any modern democracy without political parties? Parties are useful. They articulate policy along the lines of broad ideological tendencies. We need that, to give us real alternatives to choose among – and to circumvent the daunting, chaotic challenge of trying to choose among candidates solely as individuals.

I repeat what I’ve often said on this board: A multiparty system is better than a two-party system. It is also better than a nonpartisan system. (Assuming such a thing were even possible. We have “nonpartisan” elections in many municipalities, but they’re not, really; everybody knows who is the Pub and who is the Dem.)

[Loopydude]

@BrainGlutton

True, but they’re not above legislating “morality,” especially WRT abortion. Read Part III of their platform.

Echh. OK. Well, not sure if the OPer actually would object to certain “restrained” forms of “values-based” legislation, but, yeah, echh.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Renob

If it’s the “tax and spend” liberal stereotype, this is easily supported by simply looking at the statements of Democrats in Congress seeking to raise taxes and increase spending.

But not supported by the actual spending numbers. Take a look at this chart from the Heritage Foundation. Notice that after Johnson (who was, I admit, a classic “tax-n-spend” Democrat) ALL of the spending increases occur during Republican administrations. And since the Republicans have gained control of Congress as well as the Presidency, new spending has exploded.

The “tax-n-spend” label was already wrong when Carter was President. Reagan was almost as big a spender as George W. Bush. But, by all means, continue to spread the untrue stereotype! Continue to vote for the party that LIES about what it stands for, the party that PRETENDS it stands for fiscal responsibility while SPENDING and SPENDING and SPENDING.

[OneCentStamp]

@BrainGlutton

That might send a message, but nothing mpre. If a majority vote for “none of the above,” the office still goes to whichever candidate comes in second to that choice. What, did you think they would call another election, or leave the office vacant for that term?

It’s an important message. The message is, “hey, look how many of us might vote for your candidate if he or she better represented our interests and values!” The day that 20% of the popular vote goes to a Nader or Perot, you can damned well be sure that the two parties will pay attention. Unfortunately, while so many of us choose to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” that message is never sent.

[Renob]

@Pochacco

But not supported by the actual spending numbers.

I’m well aware of the fact that Republicans are big spenders. It’s my primary problem with the GOP. However, what I’m saying is that the current crop of Democrats in Congress support higher spending and higher taxes. It’s reflected in their statements and their votes. I’m going to take them at their word and assume that if they were in office, we’d have both.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Renob

I’m well aware of the fact that Republicans are big spenders. It’s my primary problem with the GOP. However, what I’m saying is that the current crop of Democrats in Congress support higher spending and higher taxes. It’s reflected in their statements and their votes. I’m going to take them at their word and assume that if they were in office, we’d have both.

Democrats spend less, but are upfront about what they want to spend and how they’re going to pay for it. Republicans spend more and lie about it. That’s what’s really going on. And the Republicans will continue to win elections and drive this country into the ground until people start paying more attention to what a politician actually **does ** and less to what noises come out of his mouth.

[Renob]

@Pochacco

Democrats spend less, but are upfront about what they want to spend and how they’re going to pay for it.

No, Democrats in Congress want to spend more and raise taxes, but lack the votes to accomplish this.