In this thread on Sarah Palin’s resignation, there is some discussion of what it means to be ‘conservative’. Some are asserting that the last eight years of Republican rule should be used to judge the merit of conservatism. Others are disagreeing, saying that while Republicans have been in power, they have not governed as conservatives.
This touches on something I’ve seen a lot of in the last few years: two people, both describing themselves as ‘conservatives’, disagree on an issue. Both vehemently claim that their position is the ‘true conservative’ stance.
Rarely do I see such debates among disagreeing liberals. I had thought for a long time this disparity was due to the electoral success of Republicans - nobody wanted to speak for ‘true liberals’ when they couldn’t win elections. But now that conservative politics are at a low point in influence, I still hear lots of different people claiming to speak for ‘true’ conservatives.
As pointed out by London Guardian correspondent Michael Tomasky few months ago, the current Republican party is not typical of modern political parties in the US. Forged in the wake of Goldwater’s 1964 defeat, the various factions were united primarily by their oppostion to communism. These factions included the religious right, laizzes faire capitalists and cultural nativists. (This is an incomplete, crudely-delineated list, but will serve for this discussion). Since all of these factions sincerely opposed communism, this political alliance took on the appearance of a unifying principle. Oppostion to communism papered over their differences, for the time being.
(It seems to me that barring such a unifying force, it’s unlikely that half of a country the size of the US would be united by a single ideology. Many European systems have ideologically-based party systems, but they usually have a lot more than two parties).
Whereas the Democrats of the same era were made up of various disjoint factions (organized labor, civil rights, certain cultural elitists) who never pretended to be ideological brethren. The lack of a single set of principles made the Dems less unified, but it did teach them how to compromise. Organized labor didn’t have much overlap with the civil rights movement, but they both usually voted Democratic. Culturally elite liberals didn’t have many shared interests with either of the others. But they all had to ‘go along to get along’. (Again, I am greatly simplifying the list and delineation of factions in the interest of time).
In the wake of communism’s downfall, the various Republican factions are still acting as if there is some principle tying all of them together.
And they all seem to be laying claim to this principle.
In my opinion, Republicans need to figure out where they stand (in the year 2009 and beyond) on the points of conflict between, say, laizzes faire capitalism and religion (do we or don’t we allow casinos, pornography, all-night liquor stores, etc?).
Or, between laizzes faire interests and cultural nativism: do we or don’t we want the cheaper labor resulting from lots of immigration? (Republicans until recently appeared posed to get increasing numbers of Hispanic voters, but vocal cultural nativists have made that less likely).
Or, between globalization and tradition: do you let Wal-Mart into your town, or don’t you?
To the small-town, red-state population that Republicans need to appeal to, these questions matter more than “angels-on-a-pin” debates about the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism. (And I should point out here that a major conservative tenet, oppostion to ‘big government’, doesn’t definitively answer these questions for the Republicans. The Republican party is not the Libertarian party).
I am an independent. I voted for Obama, but I sincerely want there to be a stronger opposition to the excesses that are inevitable with one-party rule.
But IMO, if the Republicans continue to ignore their own differences in their quest for an ideological purity that may not exist, they will never be able to put up this opposition.
So I guess that’s the debate: does the definition of ‘conservative’ really matter? Or should Republicans focus on compromising on practical, real-world differences?
