The Believers, or Why we need reform conservatism
Andrew takes Ramesh to task in this blog post, and I honestly don’t get it. As far as I can tell, Ramesh is trying to explain to small government conservatives in his audience that they are at odds with a large majority of American voters. That doesn’t mean that small government conservatism is wrong or misguided — my understanding is that Ramesh is in fact very sympathetic to small government conservatism — but rather that conservatives need to pursue an incremental program of change, one that will address the concerns of voters who do not necessarily adhere to small government conservatism but who might, on some discrete issues, embrace more competition or more transparency, or other reforms that will advance small government goals while also deliver higher quality public services.
Andrew calls this “an exhausted excuse,” and in this regard he is allied with those voters Marc Ambinder aptly referred to as the coming Republican minority.
Looking to the future, a large majority of Republicans say the party needs to “move more to the right and back to conservative principles,” while an even larger majority of all voters say, it should move to the “center to win over moderate and independent voters.”
At the same time, these same voters believe things that are at odds with Andrew’s worldview:
Two-thirds of Republicans say McCain has not been aggressive enough, but a majority of voters think they have been too aggressive.
and
Over three-quarters of Republicans say Palin was good choice, while a majority of the electorate says the opposite.
Threading this needle will be difficult. My sense is that Andrew believes that supporting Palin is wrongheaded at the very least, if not dangerously deranged. But many of the voters who agree with him feel the same way about a rigorous adherence to small government ideology. Politics is certainly about ideas, but it is also about weaving together a coalition. Obama, I’ve been led to understand from people close to him, believes that compromise and consensus is good for its own sake — there is a value to the deliberative process of building democratic agreements. So while Ramesh could argue for small government conservatism and let majority-building be damned, he wouldn’t be participating in the hurly-burly of democratic politics.
Or Ramesh could stick rigorously to small government conservatism and use what Jacobs and Shapiro call crafted language to deceive voters into going along with a program that, when described forthrightly, wouldn’t prove very popular. I think that would be a shame.
Andrew asks:
When will Ross and Reihan and Ramesh start asking what they believe in, rather than what coalitions can be built around policies? They are not Rovian; but they breathe the stale, acrid, cynical air he has been exhaling for eight years.
I’m not much of a believer. My normative commitment is to the plain vanilla bourgeois democratic order that I think most people ranging from moderate libertarians to moderate social democrats basically agree with. Jeremy Waldron’s Law and Disagreement is one of my political bibles. This basic commitment doesn’t tell me anything about how we should organize, say, social insurance. I weigh arguments over how we should organize social insurance by considering the evidence I draw from a variety of sources, and I reserve the right to revise my view in response to new evidence. I hardly think that’s a problem.
Do I “believe” in consumer-driven healthcare, or do I “believe” that every society in which government consumes 40 percent of GDP is less free, open, and tolerant than one in which government consumes 35 percent of GDP? No. It depends. I’m for consumer-driven healthcare if it delivers better outcomes. I’m for smaller government if it delivers more real freedom. America today is freer than America in 1950 for many reasons that go beyond the end of Jim Crow — we’re freer because of labor-saving machines, among other things. The world is complicated.
There’s been a debate over the content of “reform conservatism,” and I tend to agree with Yuval Levin=:
I think that is actually the meaning of reform conservatism, as I understand it at least: it is a case for applying conservative principles in practice and arguing for a governing vision that offers people a particular sense of what it would mean to elect real conservatives again. It’s not about changing direction, it’s about proposing ways of actually moving in the direction we’re facing.
Yuval is reluctant to use the term reform conservatism
Reform conservatism, if that is what I must call what I’m arguing for, is NOT a move away from Reaganism, it is a call for Reagan’s kind of instincts and attitudes applied to contemporary problems, and especially the concerns of middle class parents, who are the source of America’s economic, cultural, and moral strength.
and with good reason. But let me explain why the term is useful: reform conservatism is, as Yuval suggests, just conservatism — a program reform that is designed to preserve what is best in our enduring institutions. Unfortunately, conservatism has become, for some, a rigid ideology: something one believes in regardless of changing circumstances rather than a rough guide to unfamiliar terrain. Hence the modifier, which will hopefully fade away over time.
But let me explain why the term is useful: reform conservatism is, as Yuval suggests, just conservatism — a program reform that is designed to preserve what is best in our enduring institutions.
A conservatism that makes accomodation with the future. Evolutionary conservatism instead of revolutionary conservatism?
— matoko_chan · Nov 4, 10:30 PM · #
“Do I “believe” in consumer-driven healthcare, or do I “believe” that every society in which government consumes 40 percent of GDP is less free, open, and tolerant than one in which government consumes 35 percent of GDP? No. It depends. I’m for consumer-driven healthcare if it delivers better outcomes. I’m for smaller government if it delivers more real freedom. America today is freer than America in 1950 for many reasons that go beyond the end of Jim Crow — we’re freer because of labor-saving machines, among other things. The world is complicated.”
Well said. However, this is not, in my limited experience anyway, what a lot of conservatives think. May our numbers increase.
— Matthew · Nov 5, 03:59 PM · #
Andrew Sullivan is a disgusting human being. Anyone who quotes him has my unremitting and unending contempt. I will never take seriously anything that Reihan Salam says.
— y81 · Nov 6, 03:08 AM · #
At issue are the definitions of the labels Republican and conservative and ultimately who shall define them. We can safely say that Republican is to conservative as Democrat is to liberal. I would assert that it’s broadly agreed a liberal point of view is a pro-government position, or certainly more socialist leaning position, and a conservative view is a pro-citizen and State position, or certainly more libertarian leaning position. The fundamental difference is that on one side the Government takes an active role and on the other a passive or more base role.
The Republican Party, or those who have as of late hijacked its stewardship, has, by pandering to extreme factions, created the appearance or stigma of a conservative “rigid ideology”. In truth the GOP has lost its way and the turning point may have been reaching out to the Religious Right for votes. Despite current appearances a True Conservative agenda does not desire a Constitutional amendment to define marriage one way or the other. A True Conservative is opposed to the endeavor in its entirety. A True Conservative opposes the entire endeavor because it believes it is not the Governments role or interest – and not because he opposes same sex marriage (contrary to the Lefts assertion). This is the area where the true divide exists. A Republican who wants a Federal definition of marriage is no different that the Democrat that wants one. Could it be that it is the issue that clearly illustrates the failings and limits of Federal authority when you can’t even get the Democrat party to coalesce behind this issue? Or have we created such a complex and burdensome system that we actually need to define such issues? I hope not. To me an atheist lesbian single parent is no more a Democrat than Jerry Falwell is a Republican. They are both special interests within a party, either party.
I believe that the “conservative” element of a True Conservative is not one that believes in something regardless of changing circumstances but one that believes the fundamental laws and tenants already exist to manage changing times and not in the form of a “rough guide”. The Framers of the Constitution were not creating a rigid document they were attempting quite the opposite, a base line on which to govern which is crystalline, not rough. Where we must be rigid is in our adherence to its principals and intent. What we have today is a political body that takes advantage of its simplicity through obtuse extrapolation and a Government that must continually define and redefine every rule, guideline, regulation, or law in every fair breeze or hint of “change” under the guise of the peoples will. It is today’s liberals desire to narrowly define at every turn, not that of the True Conservative. It is impossible for a Federal system to govern such a broad and diverse population on such a micro level. I do not want Federal answers to my neighborhoods changing needs and wants.
I would argue that the religious right, the far left, and a True Conservative share the same base American ideology but with different agendas and methodologies. We all want the same freedoms, rights and equal opportunity the question is how we want to achieve them. The problem is that today’s GOP and Democrat party share the same methodology – catering to extremist factions, socialist taxation, over-reaching legislation, and growing the government. It’s that spiraling methodology that will be our ruin, not our base American ideology. Reihan Salam and his Grand New Party are just selling out to the Left as opposed to the current GOP selling out to the far right. The play, and it’s been misplayed, is to market and communicate our shared ideology supported by a True Conservative methodology. Yes, our “conservative” nature tells us to look to the past and our founding principles.
This “reform conservative” argument that Republican should change their tune to one that accepts and works within a liberal pro-government system is asking a tiger to change its stripes or on a more base level to essentially sell out. A smaller government position is not unreasonable or foregone and to sentence it to the outer reaches of politics and the Libertarian party is short sighted and a knee-jerk reaction.
Today we have a Government that is a decidedly socialist industry with its own agenda that must be continually fed and funded, one that has become so large and burdensome it is collapsing under its own weight. We have an uphill battle in a system with a massive Federal employee and labor Union voter base. It is that base that is the welfare State, not the poor and disadvantaged. It’s a self perpetuating system that is not sustainable. As for current and recent developments, it will always appear that the Government has come to the rescue or provided a solution when cleaning up problems it created or facilitated but that is no argument for a larger Federal system.
A True Conservative can take no other view than a low flat tax. Any progressive tax system is a socialist system by definition. As far as I am concerned no Republican can be a True Conservative unless he has a flat tax agenda. Tax “cuts” are not the answer. I defy you to sit one citizen across from the other and explain why one should pay more in a progressive tax system. Surely you will choose Bill Gates and a convenience store employee but the truth is that one does pay more in any tax system, a lot more.
If a smaller Government is not a tenant of a Republican platform I am not a Republican. The Founders and Framers did not design or intend a large over-reaching Federal Government, that, they fled. I am an advocate of the people and the State. I am not an advocate of a large Federal Government and no matter how cleverly packaged a liberal pro-government agenda is a destructive and un-American socialist agenda. I will not rely on the GOP and its stewards to define me or my beliefs or to outline my platform. I am one of the 57 million that voted against Barack Obama and not one of the other 65 million. I am a True Conservative, capital T, capital C.
— Ashton Menefee · Nov 10, 04:59 AM · #