The Art of Losing
TAS alum Ross Douthat’s much-anticipted debut is today, and I can’t believe I beat Reihan to the punch in offering my congratulations. And it’s a good, well-written column, though one whose sentiments offer no suprises to long-time Douthat fans.
Do I agree with it, though? Not really. I’m not sure the kind of “decisive battle” Douthat thinks would have been salutary – for the GOP and the country – ever actually happens in politics.
Start with the fact that the landslide losses of 1964 and 1972 did not decisively defeat the Goldwaterite or McGovernite factions in their respective parties – rather, the losers in those general election contests went on to become the dominant factions within a couple of decades.
It seems to me that the way to defeat a faction is not to let it win so it can lose a general election but to defeat it in an intra-party contest. I supported McCain in the primaries (knowing I’d probably vote Obama in the general) in significant part because he was not the candidate of supply-side economics and stress positions. I saw the GOP seriously considering making support for torture a litmus test, and I thought: that’s got to be stopped. If McCain had represented some specific vision of the GOP future – if he hadn’t become a faction of one by that point – then a McCain primary victory would itself have proved that the Cheney faction was no longer dominant – would itself have represented a repudiation by the party of that tendency. Right? And that would have been good. Right?
At this point, there’s very little about the GOP with which I can identify, and I don’t expect to be voting for it much in national elections. (I’d happily support a good GOP nominee for Governor – and no, Rudy Giuliani is not a good nominee.) The things I’m least-happy about with the Obama Administration represent continuity with the Bush Administration; my favorite national politician is a Democrat (Senator Jim Webb of Virginia); and the GOP appears to be fully in thrall to crazy people.
But I want America to have two healthy political parties. And there’s plenty of material in the GOP DNA, howsoever unexpressed or poorly expressed in the party’s current form, that still speaks to me. So I care about the question that animates Ross’s column. I’m just not convinced that giving them enough rope to hang themselves is the way to beat the ultras. Give ‘em enough rope and you never know who they’ll wind up hanging.
Give us an example (can be by link) of something in the Republican party’s “DNA” that appeals to you. I know it isn’t tax cuts, it isn’t interventionist or unilateralist foreign policy, and it isn’t social conservatism. Opposition to immigration and/or affirmative action? That’s all I can think of.
— y81 · Apr 28, 04:22 PM · #
I owe readers a post about what I see as the deep DNA of the two parties – an adaptation and updating of something I wrote for my old blog.
What I would say is that none of the things you mention can really qualify, as they aren’t deep enough – with the exception of the last, they are policy prescriptions, which, properly, cannot be true now and always but must be responsive to actual conditions.
— Noah Millman · Apr 28, 04:31 PM · #
Who are the “crazy people” the GOP is “fully in thrall” to?
— Phil · Apr 28, 05:25 PM · #
Yo.
— Adam Greenwood · Apr 28, 06:00 PM · #
If you have any doubts, just check out my website, the Junior Ganymede. I talk about Jeeves today, Michael Steele is quoting Wodehouse tomorrow.
(That establishes thralldom. The crazy part goes without saying).
— Adam Greenwood · Apr 28, 06:04 PM · #
The question for conservatives needs to be whether it would be easier for them to reclaim the GOP, or just start a new party from scratch.
The fact that that’s even a question is amazing to me, really.
— Erik Siegrist · Apr 28, 06:25 PM · #
The Republican Party did to conservatism what America did to St. Patrick’s Day.
— Sargent · Apr 28, 06:31 PM · #
I’ll wait for the promised post. I’m not sure what Mr. Millman is talking about. However, I find politics based on transcendent values, or ethnic or cultural identities, or anything other than interest group coalitions, deeply distasteful. I’ll probably stop voting if both parties become like that.
— y81 · Apr 28, 06:33 PM · #
I’ll be interested to read the forthcoming post as well. One deep fissure in American politics is the difference between the welfarist mentality and the willingness to grapple with reality, as difficult as it is sometimes. I’d like to come up with something more concise for the latter, but nothing springs to mind. IMO, this division straddles the DNA/policy divide, because it happens to be the fork in the road that we’re facing at this moment, and also the culmination of the difference between the parties at least since the New Deal.
— Koz · Apr 28, 07:02 PM · #
GOP economic problems will solve themselves. The pendulum seems to be swinging to the left now. Eventually it will be left of center, and trying to push it back to the right will look reasonable again.
Which makes the stress positions all the scarier. Eventually the GOP will gain power again, and they show no sign of repudiating any aspect of the Bush WoT years.
Worse, abuse of power for its own sake now seems to be a conservative value. That means Dems can actually expand their own powers and cite that as an example of moderation and respect for conservatism. Accepting limits on your own power is now a radical, left-wing agenda.
Interesting times ahead.
— Consumatopia · Apr 28, 07:21 PM · #
Accepting limits on your own power is now a radical, left-wing agenda.
How did that happen?
— vimothy · Apr 28, 08:56 PM · #
It is easier to believe that there is still some virtue in the GOP DNA for those with a little historical perspective. For example, I can personally remember when the Mayor of San Francisco was a Republican. Not because it was a much more conservative city then (although, like the whole country in the 1950s, it was), but because a moderate, or even a liberal, Republican was not only not unthinkable, but not even particularly exceptional.
What we see, today, is the final culmination of Nixon’s “Southern strategy”: the worst arch-conservative nut cases left the Democratic Party (especially in the deep South), and proceeded to devote a few decades to trying to drive everybody else out of their new home. They haven’t totally succeeded, of course. But it is going to be a long, slow struggle to reclaim our party.
— wj · Apr 28, 11:50 PM · #
My political memory goes back to late Eisenhower and I’ve never seen the GOP in this state before. Even when Goldwater won the nomination the moderate wing of the party remained strong and vibrant. They didn’t lose too much sleep over the Goldwater candidacy because Johnson was going to win whoever the GOP nominated. But this is different. Basically as part the polarization strategy Rove and all these other geniuses some of whom are now whining about the outcome let the Morlocks out of the basement and they’ve taken over the house. This is going to take a generation to work itself out.
— John · Apr 29, 02:12 AM · #
Yes, DNA the Democratic and Republican parties, that should prove, hmm…. stimulating.
— MNPundit · Apr 29, 03:36 AM · #
I confess, I’m an unabashed liberal, but your Elizabeth Bishop references has completely won me over.
I’m looking (and have a vested interest) in an intelligent conservatism. Besides this site and NewMajority, what are some places you would recommend?
— Marc · Apr 29, 05:46 AM · #
I’ve just decided to leave the Republican Party, mostly on the basis of the torture revelations and the GOPs defensive reaction. I want no part of a pro-torture party. However, this decision has been a long time coming. I’ve been increasingly disgusted by the direction, tactics, and tone of the GOP over the last 12 years or so.
The conservative DNA that kept me in the GOP was a the principle of Liberty, which is the basis of the smaller government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility planks. Unfortunately, a principle which is supposedly a foundation became at best empty words, especially as the party promoted the religious right’s agenda in order to win votes. The religious right’s agenda is antithetical to liberty. Part of the reason the party is in thrall to crazy people is that it seems only crazy people can handle the cognitive dissonance without blinking.
I’m not entirely comfortable with the Libertarian Party, either, but they seem a lot less crazy and cranky than they used to seem, when compared to the current GOP. Perhaps I’ve not met and exchanged ideas with the right people in the LP and am being unfair in comparing them to the current GOP. I do believe that Liberty should be the #1 guiding principle*, but it should be just that, a guide. Free markets are a good thing because they tend to promote personal liberty, but a pure free, open, and transparent market (the ideal) is not now a possibility. We need some regulation to curb excesses and abuse.
Market regulation is a pretty good example of why we need both conservatives, liberals, and moderates, and why we need our politics to come from the center. Just as too much regulation threatens the economy, too little also threatens it. An appropriate point of balance must be found and can be found if conservatives and liberals work TOWARDS the center and away from extremism.
*Social Good comes in second and should always be a major consideration. Personal liberty doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
— Marcos El Malo · Apr 29, 05:01 PM · #