I thought that I’d heard it all, until this afternoon. “Cameronian Republican”
Initially I presumed this was this an epigram, or a poorly thought-out term used to antagonise many right leaning bloggers? It appears as if this is an actual conception from life-long “Conservatives”.
David Brooks, DaveG, and David Frum are (rightly so) calling for the reform and reconstruction of the Republican party, but to use David Cameron as the celestial model to clone? This is either desperate or completed misguided. Brooks and Frum are two good Canadian boys, born to the beliefs of red-toryism and Toronto liberal economic policy, but this is not the type of direction the Republican party must follow.
Brooks and Frum believe the policies of our social conservative wing should be evicted from the Republican party, replaced by softer, yet firm moral lecturing on our societies social ills, written by overbearing and nagging Jewish mothers (I have this type of mother, so I understand). To discard a major wing of the Republican party is not the first (or any) step to take to reform an outdated and out-of-touch agenda. But I digress.
What is with this adoration and obsession with King David of Oxfordshire? Why are so many ”Republicans” now touting his style and policies as the great white hope of the GOP? Let us take a look at his life, successes and policy positions;
- Mr. Cameron has been leader of the Conservative Party and Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in the United Kingdom, since December 2005. He has never governed, served in the military or been an executive. He has been a political hack his entire career, including beginning his career as a researcher in the Conservative party, shortly after graduating from school.
- Mr. Cameron is an elitist, from good blood. His fathers bloodline traces back to Sir Ewen Cameron, and his mother is the second daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronnet. In fact, Mr. Cameron’s ancestor is King William the IV. Not only was Cameron educated at Eaton and Oxford, his family is disgustingly wealthy. So Tory they are. The Cameron’s only hire “Joe the Plumber”, never visit his pub.
- Mr. Cameron’s voting record is mixed. Many of his votes can be considered, liberal. He voted against anti-terrorism laws, voted in favour of setting up a judicial inquiry into the Iraq war, and has been involved in discussions to build a political coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
It has been written that “Mr Cameron has abandoned the last significant difference between his party and the established left”, by embracing social liberalism.
Yes, Mr. Cameron is young, flashy, focuses efforts on P.R., not policy, and plays to moderate and establishment voters, and with an unpopular socialist as Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron may well be the next head of Her Majesty’s Government. But that is the United Kingdom, not the United States. Although it would be great to win Vermont again, we cannot capture the White House without Ohio and Missouri. The GOP is a fusion of reformers and the military and business class. We are the most religious, libertarian and anti-establishment nation in the world. Our demographics are significantly different from the United Kingdom or any nation in Europe. We think, live and work differently than old Europe, and we are better off.
The party the three Dave’s want the GOP to be transformed back to, is the party of infinite minority. Egg-heads, wealthy, urban, and non-evangelicals, who only win control of Congress and the White House when the Democrats significantly stumble. Our tent today is big, bloody and fracturous, but it works most of the time. The GOP wins when it understands it has to be pragmatic in its approach to governing and policy. The tent built by Nixon, Reagan and Gingrich has won, and will win again.
If you are looking for a strong, pragmatic, conservative reformer from outside of the United States to replicate, do not look east, look north for a proven track record.
So before we decide to worship and duplicate King David, while fumifugisting the conservative reform agenda of the last 30 years, let us at least allow the leader of the opposition to run in an election as a party leader, win, govern for two or three terms, achieve some success, and leave with strong polling numbers. I’ll listen then, if I am around in 15 years. Just do not expect the reformers to skulk around, waiting.
King David biking to work.
—————————-
I wrote this article with the greatest respect to DaveG, who I admire and respect greatly.
.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Heh. I didn’t know that David Brooks and David Frum were both Canadian. As you know, I’m originally from Michigan. Must be something in the air up there…
Anyway, I like and respect you too Kristofer and I’m glad we can disagree civilly (it’s so rare in the blogosphere these days). Lots to respond to and I’m about to go to dinner, but suffice it to say that I don’t desire Cameronism in the context of class (I mean, we had a Republican Aristocrat in the White House for eight years and look where it got us!). I actually don’t think class should be a part of it. Heck, I barely even know anything about my ancestry. That’s the beauty of being American. And American Cameronism would be distinct from UK Cameronism in a number of ways, as I’m sure Frum and Brooks agree. And while I didn’t have a nagging Jewish mother, I did have an overbearing Catholic grandmother, but all of that is neither here nor there.
More later…
October 20th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
DaveG, I look forward to your FPP. I am interested to learn more.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I like Stephen Harper quite a bit. His personal style and governing style are appealing. Canada is much more liberal than the US so Harper is to the left of me on a few issues.
I think Harper presents a good example of pragmatism and principle. In America that type of leader would be a bit more conservative on health care and social issues.
We could learn a lot from Canada’s fiscal conservatism and economic policy (excluding its welfare state).
October 20th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
The Liberal Democrats are not a bad party, Kristofer. That term doesn’t mean there what it means here.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Doug,
Interestingly, Harper is to the right of Bush, but he is also a reformer.
- Harper is an evangelical Christian. He kept his promise to have a free vote on same sex marriage (lost it), but also promised to not strip the marriage licenses away from exisitng SS marriages if he won.
- He is an economic conservative/an economist, has kept a balanced budget, paid down the debt, and cut taxes.
- He has made massive investments in military funding and expanded the role of Canada in Afghanistan and the war against terror.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Metro, other than social policy the LDP have opposite views as you and I do on foreign policy and (for the most part) economic policy. I like their tax cut proposal, but they still play the class warefare card.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I was under the impression they were pro-markets.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I appreciate that Harper has claimed sovereignty over his side of the Arctic and told the Russians where to go over it.
Harper is a liberal on healthcare and welfare but that’s a function of being a Canadian politician. He also has to support government funded arts and culture (because Canadians are worried about becoming Americanized
)
However when Harper talks about taxes and spending everyone believes him. Harper’s fiscal conservatism is entirely reliable and trustworthy.
Republicans can’t be trusted on fiscal conservatism.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
#7, Rich might be the best to answer, but I believe it is now the next day in London. The LDP seems to be populist on many of their economic policies.
http://libdemsinbusiness.org.uk/
October 20th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
#8, you are exactly correct. Harper was hammered in the last election for cutting arts funding. And yes, Canucks usually support policy if it distinguishes them from the US. It is a bizare cultural attitude. Something I cannot explain?
As for Health Care, he supports privitization, but in Canada Health Care is provided by locals levels, not the Federal Government. All I know is that Canadian’s drill for oil everywhere, did not implement a national prec. drug plan, and spend less taxpayers dollars on health care than the US.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
#10, so far our states have failed at providing healthcare (Hawaii, Tennessee, and in the future Massachusetts).
I think something will be done on healthcare. It would be best if local areas could find a workable system that saps the support for a national socialist healthcare system.
So far no state has done that.
October 20th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Kristofer,
I agree almost completely. A party of David Cameron’s is profoundly unappealing to me. As best as I can tell, Labor is to the right of Cameron on defense and only mildly to the left on fiscal issues. And for many of the reasons you outlined, I suspect it’d be a terrible loser. As I noted (I think) in response to DaveG’s Cameron post, the US is demographically much more rural then Britain and unlikely to be amenable to a hip, metropolitan, pseudo-conservatism.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
If you believe in something larger than yourself, if you believe not in a administration service-provider state but rather in the historic purpose of a nation or of a people, which I do, then Cameron’s “conservatism” is a risible caricature. I would rather be ruled by socialists or social democrats. At least they believe in something.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:11 am
And no single state can. Universal coverage requires a universal solution, i.e. a federal solution, and a solution in which everyone must participate so that the young and healthy can subsidize everyone else. The way the problem is articulated demands a so-called single payer solution. This is a game we cannot win because the game itself is fixed.
We subsidize demand for services when we separate the parties who pay for a service from the parties who enjoy the benefits of the service. This is the problem. This is why our healthcare costs rise faster than the rate of inflation. This is also why education costs rise faster than the rate of inflation. And this is the problem that no one wants to address.
Canada’s solution—and I live in Canada—is single payer with strict, strict rationing. You have to wait for months for certain services. There is only one children’s hospital in our province. The tax burden is enormous (believe me). But we’ve never seen a hospital bill in the 5 years since we moved here.
But think about it this way. Socialism for 30 million Canadians who are already accustomed to the straitened conditions of their system is far more manageable than socialism for 300 million Americans who are accustomed to the finest healthcare system in the world.