Bush adopted his “compassionate conservative” agenda on the theory that the harsh rhetoric and self-consciously anti-government conservatism of Gingrich’s “Contract with America” was unpopular and unlikely to win. There may be some truth to this. But, at the same time, Bush downplayed conservative positions on everything from abortion to affirmative action. He instead emphasized his support for No Child Left Behind, help for those suffering with AIDS in Africa, and an aggressively pursued, but ultimately liberal, neo-Wilsonian agenda of democratizing the Middle East.
Elections are funny inasmuch as we don’t know whether people voted for or against someone for any particular view or position they held. Each candidate always advances a grab bag of positions ranging, which many voters do not fully understand and upon which much of the campaign machinery is designed to put a positive spin. But if anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives can succeed in such liberal states as California, does this not suggest that the libertarians have it all wrong and the social piece of the traditional conservative coalition is not only popular but the most likely wedge with which to pry away socially conservative democratic voters. Instead in the 90s and now again, many of the professional pundits such as David Frum counsel that conservatism must abandon many of its “red meat” issues while also failing to fulfil its traditional role as the “tough medicine” slowing down or stopping profligate new entitlements. Instead of elections being referenda on gun control and gay marriage, we’ll instead have dueling neologisms such as “Compassionate Conservatism” and “Change We Can Believe In.” I doubt we’ll win any of those battles, not least because some of us at least don’t want to see the welfare state expand, nor do we have much use for “compassionate” conservatism other than as the punch-line for a joke.
Subscribe To This Feed
The social issues may still have resonance, but our culture is still moving steadily to the left and the best we can do (in an electoral sense) is stay just to the right of where the culture is at the moment.
For a sense of just how swift the current is moving, think about how a gay marriage vote would have turned out in 1985. I doubt support for gay marriage would have topped 25%. I can pretty much guarantee that in 10-20 years arguing against gay marriage will be an election loser, and conservatives will instead be fighting the next brave frontier (polygamy or some such).
So the pundits are wrong to argue that culture isn’t a winning issue, it’s just that it doesn’t really matter in the long term, so long as we can’t effect all of the other factors which are moving the culture leftward.
Actually, Frum did not say that the GOP “must” abandon those issues. As I showed in my comment on the Takimag page to which you linked, Frum all but endorsed the “Sailer strategy” (increasing the share of the white, “Joe the plumber” vote) as a viable alternative to his own! Frum’s “approval” was implied and presumably unintentional, but clearly there in the article. After presenting the Sailer strategy, Frum neither suggested that it was flawed (to the contrary: “that’s one path”) nor gave any reason at all for preferring his own strategy of courting college-educated voters instead. Presumbably it just comes down to which platform, and which voters, one feels more comfortable with.
Only part of our mission is winning elections. The other part is resisting and changing and at least denouncing the toxic aspects of the now dominant counter-culture. If we lose, we lose, at least we’re fighting for the right thing. That said, most people’s views are amorphous. I doubt most Americans even though much about gay marriage or reparations or any number of other stupidities until they were actively promoted by the left. But the leftist governing philosophy is a loser, leading over time to poverty, corruption, and high crime. These things are tangible and have resonance, and so long as we can connect them to policies of the left, we have a fighting chance. Neither John McCain nor Bush could do that or wanted to.
I don’t believe that the conservative social agenda is in trouble. When you ask the question of people if they are pro-life or pro-choice in a poll, pro-choice wins by a narrow margin. Yet when you filter that down and ask about different abortion positions, amajority think that only the exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother should be used. This includes pro-lifers and a significant number of people who call themselves “pro-choice”. The problem isn’t the issue — it’s the way that Conservatives approach the issue.
Fret not, Roach.
By the time this neo-Marxist brigade exits DC in ’16-assuming we’re still kickin’-the first “no more government” voice then heard will be crowned messiah ad infinitum.
Book it.