GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
In 1993, when I became a Republican, the Reagan years still felt like a revolution: a permanent sea change in the way Americans thought about the role of government in a society. Now, the Reagan/Thatcher years on either side of the pond are beginning to feel like a major yet temporary interruption on the trajectory of the West towards liberalism. I once postulated that conservatives should be concerned about the state of conservatism to the east in Britain, as well as to the west in California. In both cases, the populations that gave us Reagan and Thatcher have replaced conservatism with something that smells suspiciously like warmed over Rockefeller Republicanism. Just look to Arnold’s governance and David Cameron’s proposals for evidence of that. If the folks who gave us the two great conservative leaders of the supposed political revolution of the latter part of the last century have been reduced to liberalism-lite, a pessimist might ask just what hope there is for the rest of us.
A new survey by Fabrizio McLaughlin validates these fears with several lumps of coal for both fiscal AND social conservatives. Those of us who fall into one category but not the other, such as yours truly, can take this as an opportunity to share a moment of gloom and doom with one another. First, for my fellow fi-cons, Soren Dayton has the bad news. To sum up:
* Nearly half of Republicans were motivated by economic issues ten years ago. That number has fallen to 16 percent.
* “Free Marketers,” about 8 percent of Republicans, are primarily motivated by issues of economic freedom. “Heartland Republicans,” another 8 percent, are Bob Dole types who are concerned about the budget, the deficit, etc. That’s only 16 percent motivated by keeping government out of the economy. By adding the “Dennis Miller Republicans” to this group — GOPers like Ron Paul who are suspicious of government in general — another 14 percent joins the anti-government segment of Republicans. That’s less than a third of Republicans who vote first and foremost on keeping government out of our lives.
* A majority of Republicans support universal health care, while nearly half oppose Bush-style Social Security reform.
But wait, so-cons, don’t chortle yet. The poll has several lumps of coal for you too. According to Soren, “Moralists” make up 25 percent of the GOP coalition. The fair Liz Mair has more, as does The Hill. According to the poll, 53 percent of Republicans think that the GOP has spent too much time focusing on “moral issues” like abortion and gay marriage. Further, 49 percent support allowing gays to serve openly in the military. The number of Republicans who are primarily concerned with social issues has remained basically stagnant for the past decade, and doesn’t appear to be on the rise. And Mayor Giuliani leads all GOP subgroups in the 2008 horserace, including Moralists, a third of whom are willing to vote for a pro-choice candidate.
According to Soren’s analysis, Republicans that don’t vote primarily on size and scope of government issues or on social issues consist of retirees and soccer moms (13 percent) as well as voters who are along for the ride because of the GWOT (28 percent). That means economic, small government, and social conservatives combined now comprise a bare majority of Republicans.
And they call this a revolution?
We have no idea what the quarter of Republicans who are motivated by the war on terror will do once that ceases to be an issue, or whether they will leave if the Republicans continue to totally blow their advantage on defense by making poor strategic choices on the issue. Further, we have no idea what will happen to the party as older voters (41 percent of GOPers are now over age 55) continue to pass on. But all of this begs the question that, if the GOP is now a party that will nominate a pro-choice presidential candidate (which I support, despite his pro-choice status, not because of it), that will enact more gay-friendly policies (which I also support, but bear with me here as I make my point), that refuses to reform entitlements, and that enacts universal health care, how is that GOP any different than the party Rockefeller would have built? Did Reaganism and Thatcherism a revolution make? Or were those movements simply among history’s great speed bumps — the result of the public reaction to the massive economic and social changes of the West over the course of the 20th Century?
Consider the following theory. There was no great conservative revolution in the Anglosphere during the latter part of the 20th Century. Instead of a massive change in direction, the voters of the Anglosphere simply put the brakes on liberalism, not to change course, but to slow down societal change to a speed at which it could be absorbed by society. Oh, some policy changes were more long-term. We’ll never, for example, have 70 percent tax rates again. But all of that was to ensure the surivival of small-l liberalism, not to kill it off. A gloomy theory, but a reasonable one. After all, an America in which a Republican president signs universal health care into law is something other than Reaganesque. But then again, so is an America in which a Republican president expands the Great Society. Or pushes for amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants. Or nationalizes education even further. Or attempts to appoint his personal counsel with no constitutional law background to SCOTUS. Or…
June 30th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Each time period has its own political climate.
Todays social climate is one of decay and social isolation.
Most individuals tend to be involved in fewer community/social events and have fewer links with their neighbors. This is mostly due to immigration which inexplicably leads to temporary social disruption and an attitude of suspicion (research into this is startling).
The upshot is that individuals are increasingly turning to government because most of them lack the strong families, communities and social groups that stabilized and supported them in the past.
People are either going to seek support from private groups or they’re going to seek it from government. In this era government is likely to take over tasks as society continues to wither.
If private groups were meeting the publics’ needs they wouldn’t overwhelmingly ask government to do it.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
[...] suggests that the Rockefeller Republicans, a minority in the GOP for over 40 years now, may be on the rise again. I hope not, but clearly the warning signs are present. Posted at 4:17 pm in Category: American [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Ron Paul “Dream On” Video!!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
Ron Paul “Don’t Tread On Me” Video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform
Listen To Ron Paul Speeches: http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Review over 100 Articles Ron Paul Authored by Subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
How can you not love this guy listen to him he is truly a man who
tells the truth “We The People” are taking our country back and
restoring the original Constitutional Republic and returning Amerika
back to America not the Homeland.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor
moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents
familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and
he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He
rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so
that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
— Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and
philosopher of Ancient Rome.
“In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth
is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL
“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
– Goethe
June 30th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
DaveG: Frightening stats. Thankfully Rudy’s economic agenda is even farther to the right than Reagan’s or Thatcher’s was. I was ridiculed for such statements a few months ago, but you are seeing the specifics now that he is laying out his 12 Commitments.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
A part of me wonders if this is how FDR liberals felt upon realizing that the New Deal revolution didn’t end capitalism, and in many ways actually ensured its survival by preventing the movement of the world towards socialism from taking hold here. Movement conservatives always sort of expected the movement to culminate in massive entitlement reform and a general change in worldview about what government should actually do. Ironically, conservatism may have actually guaranteed the survival of the welfare state by removing enough of the tax and regulatory burden in this country for the economy to grow fairly steadily, bringing in lots of revenue for the government to spend on those very entitlements. And so an anti-government movement creates a world that’s safe for big government. Another of history’s great ironies.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article ron paul Rockefeller Republicans » Posted at race42008.com on Saturday, June [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I don’t think the stats are so bad. If forced to pick ONE issue, now, it’s understandable Republicans would pick the GWOT. Free market capitalism has been my main interest, politically, and as an Ayn Rand fan, philosophically, and as an entrepreneur, personally, my whole adult life. Yet I could see myself answering the GWOT is the defining issue, now.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
econ grad stud, I won’t give immigration that much of a blame. I think it has more to do with our educational system and the media. I have to go, but I will explain (maybe someone else can?) I just want to get these out to you all early in the discussion for your considerations.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Educational System of past couple of decades: The importance of self-esteem!
Media: Anything goes, so we have been desensationized and been bombarded with glorified liberal messages.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Well written article, DaveG. Very good job!
June 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I read the same survey last night and laughed at it.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Further to David B’s point above, the poll to some extent merely reflects back at us the strategic decision that many of us made post-9/11: We’d subordinate fiscal and most other issues to dealing effectively with the ongoing security emergency. It seems possible, however, that we, as in the US as a whole, lack the cultural and philosophical cohesion that would enable us to sustain an aggressive, pre-emptive, multi-leveled response in the absence of direct and demonstrable challenges to our way of life. To the extent that the problem is a failure of leadership, it’s potentially curable, but the populace seems largely to have convinced itself that the emergency has passed, that the threats are manageable, and that even the relatively small sacrifices we’ve been making (small in historical terms) aren’t worth it. In the meantime the effect of having a nominal conservative in office on 9/11 has been that the conservative movement lost definition on every other issue while identifying itself with a decreasingly popular one.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Tommy: Thanks. I didn’t laugh at it because I know Fabrizio is a Republican, so I don’t think it’s just MSM schtick.
David and CK make good points. Just because a voter is primarily motivated by the war doesn’t mean they aren’t secondarily motivated by other issues. But I agree that we’ve lost all defintion on the Right in this country. Another stat I saw recently is that among young people, it’s really hard to find an overlap amongst fi-cons and so-cons. This was my experience during my college years in the late ’90s. Most of the students who belonged to the campus religious groups were so-cons, but were leery of the GOP because they thought it was greedy and corrupt. Most of the fi-cons who believed in peace through superior firepower and hated the campus PC police were leery of the GOP because they thought it was too religious. The natural overlap may be gone. And the war and the Bush years have ensured that conservatism now stands for everything and nothing. At some point, things will have to naturally shake
themselves out.
Incidentally, I don’t think the American people have convinced themselves that there is no terrorist threat. I think that Americans view Islamism the way they viewed Communism when they soured on Vietnam. They still think the country should do something to end this menace, but they are no longer convinced the current method is appropriate. Americans presently view the Bush Doctrine the way they viewed the Domino Theory and using small wars for containment purposes back in 1968. That is, they suspect that there’s a better way to knock down Islamism, they just don’t know what it is.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Dave,
One telling note in this poll is that 50% of southern republicans don’t support the war. What some people don’t understand is that the war is not popular here. Many kids from the south enlisted, and many come back in boxes. After 9/11, a lot of us, including myself, jumped at the chance to enlist (I was turned down- health). In the small surrounding communities, we’ve had numerous funerals for those dead. Two of the soldiers who went missing a few weeks ago that was covered by the national news services were from around here. This could come back to bite the GOP.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Tommy - it’s not the fact that “many come back in boxes” that has soured the country on the war or the GOP, it’s the perception fed by the media, the Democrats, the enemy, and our supposed foreign allies that those soldiers died in vain in a losing, pointless, or immoral cause. We lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting World War 2 - many as a result of strategic, tactical, or other blunders that make anything we’ve done wrong in Iraq pale by comparison - and I’ve never heard anyone suggest that it came back to “bite” any political party.
At just this moment there’s something approaching consensus that the entire Iraq enterprise was critically mishandled, as even those of us who feel that the Administration has been judged unfairly in many respects will fault it severely in others. But there is also a new campaign strategy being implemented whose effects are not yet known (despite the efforts of some to forfeit the game before it’s been played), and that anticipates substantial withdrawals of combat forces. By this time next year, we’re very likely to have a much smaller presence in Iraq, though all aspects of our strategic predicament are subject to contingencies beyond our control.
In short, opinion on the war could very well be at its nadir, as the setbacks of 2006 are still being absorbed, and the counter-moves of 2007 have yet to bear fruit. Who exactly gets bit, how deeply, how long lasting the injury will be, and so on, is still to be decided. In a context in which America against felt challenged, an articulate and competent Republican would probably be able to re-assert the party’s recent historical lead on security issues - especially if the Democrats continue to overplay their hands.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Also, DaveG, I agree with much of what you say, except that I would re-phrase your last comments a little. You say, “[The American people] suspect that there’s a better way to knock down Islamism, they just don’t know what it is.” I think it’s more that the American people are HOPING that there’s a better way to knock down Islamism, would very much like to believe that there’s a less costly and unpleasant way to deal with Islamism and other strategic problems, and are willing to experiment with other approaches. In that sense, as has been observed many times, the Administration may be a victim of its own success combating threats to the homeland.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I use to have compassion for individuals who were “brainwashed” by
the likes of “Rudi McRomney” and cousin “Freddie” Plus Dem
Relatives “Obama” and “Hillary” (all of them CFR Globalist?)…
However, now I can only feel sorry for them..
Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position…
(It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at the
right time, neither define leadership).
It is defined by setting the example through taking action on such
Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity!
Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:
“Truthfulness� first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity,
Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion,
Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.
http://leadership2008.bravehost.com
Cynicism and defeatism are NOT options to be entertained.
“We are in the eleventh hour of losing this Nation…”
June 30th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Dave, I think your column is hugely important and some of the best work I have seen in a decade. Robert Bork’s “Slouching Towards Gomarrah” made similar points over 10 years ago. The general tendency of our affluent society is to the left. We are dealing with human nature. Slowing the process or arresting it during crises is the best we can hope for. Longevity of the republic is probably enhanced only by period crises. Long periods of affluence actually weakens us in the long run.
The Reagan induced prosperity is taken for granted and as a given and the collective memory fades as to what caused it and what it remidied. Our war ignorance leaves us vulnerable as a people to barbarians at the gate. Government grows bigger.
But we must not surrender. It is not as bad as polls suggest. The press conducts the polls with a purpose to discredit conservatism and traditional values. We can sell conservatism. Its just harder than selling imaginary free lunches.
The Supreme Court bore fruit this week in spades. It will correct many problems liberalism imposed.
I, at present also lean to Rudy. But I fear what his election would do to the life and conservative movements.
more later
Dave, what you have written must get wide circulation. This message is vital.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Dave, I have to second Gamecock here. Great article. To ruminate on it a bit, the point it makes (whether intentional or not) is that run-of-the-mill Americans desire moderation from their leaders. Most Americans WANT to see their leaders reach across the isle to get something done. Few believe that one party owns a monopoly on the truth. This is the appeal of people like the Governator and McCain - they certainly don’t please the “base” but they are hugely popular amongst unaffiliated and moderate voters precisely because when they propose a policy, they tend to be hand-in-hand with the other party. This assuages fears that the politicans are up to “no good” because voters expect one party to call the other out on “no good” policies. When that doesn’t happen, many people are inclined to think “they must have gotten it right this time.” I think that the Rockefeller Republican tradition embraces this notion and is really another name for what many would simply call “moderation.” So, in that light, it’s not surprising that those politicians are among our most popular, nor is it surprising that many Republicans embrace that line of thought.
All that being said, I’ll weep the day a Republican signs into law universal health care and tax hikes.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 am
Trying to follow the links I couldn’t immediately find the original poll, but if I were asked to “self-define” I don’t know what I’d do. I feel like I’m the point of overlap. I’m a free-marketeer, and a social conservative, and think a really big bullet point in the short list of Federal duties is to be real good at blowing things up. Just how do I answer?