Comments on: The GOP Destroyed Conservatism

By: Leif

Leif — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:08:52 +0000

I think you’re a bit off base here, Chris. The Republican Party has been the more conservative of the two parties, in many senses, for some time, but it is not a conservative party of itself. Unlike a parliamentary system, the factions in the United States make their deals and coalitions before the election in the form of relatively big-tent political parties. Political conservatives, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, foreign policy realists, foreign policy “American idealists,” business interests, and most libertarians constitute the coalition of the Republican Party. Political conservatives – by which I mean those who subscribe to the political philosophy of conservatism a la Burke – have never been the dominant faction of this coalition, though they have contributed a good amount of the heavy thinking that has gone into Republican policy. What we have seen since Republicans have taken power is that other factions – those that find the power more useful or instrumental than political conservatives – have ascended further within the party. It is neither surprising nor odd; we would expect that those with the most to gain from power would seek it most forcefully. It is disheartening to those of us who hoped that political conservatism would be more of a force within the coalition.

By: Roach

Roach — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:18:04 +0000

I’m not sure I agree. Maybe the system is just self-correcting in this respect, and this is only a problem if you think there is some institutional contrivance to prevent this sort of thing. Kings, dictators, aristocrats, representatives, judges, and the like all seem to suffer from a certain amount of corruption and drift from principle when they’re in power too securely for too long.

It’s true, the government is too big, too powerful, and too involved in too many things not to invite a great deal more corruption than is healthy. And this seems to have corrupted a group that at least for a number of years managed to keep government from growing too large under Clinton. Maybe the answer is divided government. But in a time of war that division is ordinarily best to put an executive in the hands of a Republican. That has gotten kind of screwy with Bush, who has essentially had a liberal and activist foreign policy. It seems he is trying to rectify some of that with Baker & Gates & co., but that remains to be seen. The real solution is to get real conservatives elected in Republican primaries and for conservatives not to sacrifice electability for principle. This was a conscious decision with Bush, especially in 2000. No more.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:39:17 +0000

‘Far from betraying its conservative core, the Republican Party has returned to its roots: a listless, nonideological vehicle of the business class, clasically denominated at Rockefeller Republicanism. It has drifted into unprincipled mediocrity, electing Republican cheats, pederasts, and war-mongerers solely for the sake of keeping the party leadership in power and, to a lesser extent, to pursue the pseudo-conservative principles of the neoconservatives–a bellicose bunch of highly ideological ex-liberals.’

Interesting rhetorical hyperbole, but how are these criticisms fundamentally any different than those the Republicans hurled at the Dems in 1994 when they took their turn at the top?

I think it’s interesting that no matter what ideology is swept into power, they all end their term of power looking pretty much the same.

If I were a libertarian, I might invoke Lord Acton’s famous quote, and let it be done at that.

But, I don’t think that answer is sufficient. I think there is something structurally in the American system that demands these kinds of politics from anyone who is in power.

That’s the structural questions conservatives need to address. Some kind of “return to the roots” approach won’t ever solve this problem.

By: David

David — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:55:49 +0000

I’m betting the Democrats don’t realy change anything about Iraq, or globalization or economic policies that benefit the CEO classes. Instead we’ll get more multiculturalism and diversity, and Immigration DEFORM, welfare for non-citizens, boondoggles for Education cartel, etc… Bush is the gift to Liberalism that will keep on giving for the next 20 years….