In response to President Bush and the neo-con travesty of so-called “Big government conservatism”, most true conservatives have become used to explaining to folks “I’m not a Republican- I’m a conservative”. To which a common, and apt, reply is, “But you only ever vote Republican, right, so what’s the difference?”
We’ve continued to vote Republican because the consequences of Republican policies have been considered to be less damaging to American society and culture than the Democrats’ policies. So far.
But then came “Big government conservatism”, followed by an apparent reversion to the pre-Reagan era of “me-too” copycat liberalism and a governing philosophy no more creative than “Let’s just split the difference”.
As one wag put it (whose name I can’t recall), we are living in a world where 2+2=6 because we’ve been continually willing to ’split the difference’ with folks who insist that 2+2=8.
Conservatives appear to face indefinite marginalization within the Republican Party, being told, in essence, we’re stuck on the plantation. “Where ya gonna go?” Mr. Republican says. “I might not be as conservative as you’d like, but overall I’m less liberal than that other guy.” And how has that worked out for us and for the country?
If the main objection to leaving the Republican Party for third-party status is that it would result in Democratic victories and permanent irrelevance, one has to ask how that would look different than the situation we see ourselves in right now.
“But if you don’t win elections you can’t implement your policies!”.
First of all, what conservative values have we seen implemented when Republicans won the elections? What conservative values are we likely to ever see implemented under a “go along-get along” Republican party leadership?
Second, it simply isn’t true that you can’t get your policies implemented without winning elections. Consider the history and experience of the American Socialist Party and their perennial Presidential candidate Norman Thomas. They never won a single election, and yet the modern Democratic Party has embraced and implemented virtually the entire Socialist Party platform- programs that are not only accepted by most Americans, but endorsed, expected and demanded. Mr. Thomas was the butt of jokes and dismissed as a fringe gadfly, but who’s laughing now?
So, whats there to prevent conservatives from doing the same thing in the 21st century that socialists did in the 20th? Ego? Too proud to take the Norman Thomas route? That would be unfortunate indeed, and rather contrary to the professed belief that conservatism offers the only assurance for the survival and success of the American enterprise.
……………………………..
If Republicans and Democrats have become two sides of the same statist coin, then the natural counterweight to that would be a party that consists of anti-statist advocates of liberty and individual freedom. I understand that many social conservatives and the “Religious Right” object to the Libertarians’ perceived laissez-faire morality, for instance. I would suggest that the focus be kept on what unites us, rather than what divides us, if we are to succeed in presenting a coherent, easily understood, attractive alternative to the all-embracing “nanny state”.
Liberty is that message, and that must be where the focus is kept. All else is secondary, and must be kept secondary. There is that old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. It isn’t necessarily so- success in politics often means making common cause with people you might have nothing else in common with. The cause of Liberty ought to be a sufficient unifying principle.
Filed under: Elections, Politics, Society, Culture
