Finding Your Way Out Of The Wilderness: Republicans Are Doing It Wrong
by Kyle Moore
This post is crossposted from Comments From Left Field. As such, I apologize in advance if some of the rhetoric and phrasing is a little too fiery and partisan for the purposes of this site–antagonism or no, I still think that the basic precepts here are worthy of the League.
Two other things before I drop the Italics. Above the fold will be content unique to the League as a means of an introduction that may not necessarily be needed at CFLF. Also, by now it has been confirmed that the movie in question below is Bull Durham. Yes, I know this, but I’m leaving the original article written as is for style purposes.
If you know me as well as I know myself, and at this stage of the game, a few other people as well, then you would understand that the biggest thing that draws me to politics is a love of puzzles. This is why I gravitate towards the electoral side of politics as opposed to the gossip side, or the actual governance side. Neither aspect of modern American politics tweaks my puzzle nerves quite like electoral analysis.
This has unfortunately led to a severe downshift in my political writing overall considering that all of the elections are over for now (with the exception of Minnesota). But in the ashes of the 2008 elections cycle, an interesting phoenix has arisen.
That phoenix takes the shape of the Republican party, and its first few months in what we like to call “the wilderness,” a political limbo that my party has dwelled in for some time as navel gazing is doled out in generous proportions as those doomed to the wilderness attempt to figure out how they got their in the first place, and how in the hell to get out.
After the first publication of this essay, I had an interesting and enlightening conversation with an old friend who is a self-identified conservative, but not one who pays nearly the attention to politics that I do. He said that the problem with the Republican party is that it has abandoned conservative principles and that’s why it is currently in the wilderness.
The only problem with that is that that is what EVERYONE in the Republican party is saying. There is, of course, a question as to what is convservatism? Is it the modern movement conservatism coalition of neoconservatives, fiscal conservatives, or social conservatives, or are we talking about the more Jeffersonian/Libertarian precepts of limited government. The two general classifications of conservatism do not, as you know, necessarily equal each other.
But it would seem that the implied meaning of conservatism would be the former three-legged stool version. To me this comes as somewhat ironic because President Bush was in many ways a perfect embodiment of said three-legged stool. In any case, the people that we are seeing rising to the top of the Republican party at this stage; Sam Wurzelbacher, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal (though his star seems to have collected quite a bit of tarnish over the past few days, hasn’t it?), Eric Cantor, Rush Limbaugh, etc., when these become the stars of the movement, it is hard to take seriously anyone who says that the Republican party has “abandoned” conservative principles (of course assuming conservative in this instance means modern movement conservatism).
What this has to do with the rest of the post is, I suppose, up to you. Consider it perhaps a little background; the establishment that the thoughts that follow have a twofold foundation:
1) The Republican party at this time is, if anything, becoming more dogmatic than ever before.
2) This Republican dogmatism stems directly from a desire to return back to power as quickly as possible.
“Don’t think, Meat.”
It was my dad’s favorite movie line of all time and comes from one of those Kevin Costner baseball movies… Field of Dreams? Bull Durham? I don’t know, I’m neither a Kevin Costner, nor a Baseball fan.
The point behind the quote was that wise catcher Kevin Costner was telling the young but talented pitcher not to think about his pitches. When the kid did what came natural, he was fine, but when he stopped to think about the pitch, he was terrible. Something like that anyway, and I think something that is important to this story.
Getting out of movies I don’t care about, on my way in to the office, NPR had some guy who I guess is integral to CPAC talking about an oft debated topic these days: how can conservatives and Republicans find their way out of the wilderness? He went on and on about conservative values and articulating those conservative values in a way that is attractive to the electorate and the most important part of the discussion struck me like a kick to the head…
…he was talking about all of this in the context of finding the conservative’s way out of the “Wilderness.” Political redemption was the end game, and this strikes me as a losing strategy, especially if Republicans hope to find their way out of the wilderness any time soon.
Let us hop in our intertube powered time machines to late last year. The general election was in full swing when the economy flashed all of America the bird before doing a swan dive. It was at this time that Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain did something that left many political watchers stunned and scratching their heads…
…he suspended his campaign to save the economy. A cynical person might have mistaken this for a last ditch attempt to improve his electoral chances against a Democratic opponent that was continuously out performing him on virtually every measure.
A gullible person might have taken John McCain at his word that this was nothing to do with presidential campaigning. Or, they would have had McCain not turned around and continued campaigning for president, doing a whole bunch of media interviews and deploying his vice presidential candidate to keep up the stump speeches.
Now I don’t profess to know exactly what McCain was thinking at this period of time. It is, I suppose, feasible that he really did intend to suspend his campaign to save the economy, and all these reporters and interviews and the Bill Clinton thing all got in the way. But let’s assume that the “campaign suspension” was, as some not so trusting of McCain’s motives may believe, just a stunt to drag up failing poll numbers.
Can anyone guess what McCain might have done wrong? If your answer was that he kept on campaigning and reminding everyone that he was suspending his campaign to save the country, then you get a gold star (which I guess I can draw and email to you or something at a later time and date).
Doing what was right for the country in order to save his political skin may have been a nifty idea, but the problem that got in the way was that John McCain couldn’t let go of the fact that he was trying to save his political skin. In the end, the campaign suspension looked like a poorly executed political ploy and solidified McCain as someone who was erratic and not of the temperament that belongs in the Oval Office.
So what does all of this have to do with Republicans and conservatives finding their way out of the wilderness? Easy; they are thinking about finding their way out of the wilderness. While most Americans are worried about keeping their jobs, or finding new jobs, or whether they get to keep their house, or if they’ll be able to afford their kids’ school supplies (shorter: the ECONOMY), Republicans are worried about how to unbrand themselves as the party of suckage.
Their focus is on political leverage and chess games, and they are playing these games against a popular president who is better than the whole lot of them at expressing himself as being concerned with the same problems the rest of the country is concerned with.
Put another way, the country is facing a time of peril, but the curious thing about perilous times is that opportunities for political redemption are always lurking just around the corner. The trick is to not worry about political redemption, but instead worry about the problems we’re actually facing.
No one cares if the people who face the problem have a D or an R behind their name, they just care that the government is working to fix things, and at this stage of the game, the R’s in the equation seem only concerned with fixing their own party.
So, to my Republican… friends. A bit of advice where for once I won’t tell you to move to the middle (like I normally do). Nope, no preaching about your messed up principles. Just a simple morsel for you to chew on; quit worrying about the fate of your party, and start worrying about the fate of your country. If you work hard enough, political redemption and a way out of the wilderness may just follow.
Or, put another way, “Don’t think, Meat.”
And Kyle returns with a vengeance! So your recommendation is to just let party discipline go to hell, and essentially be a leaderless party? IOW – the best way out of the wilderness is to not think about how to get out of the wilderness? Zen-like! There may be something to this…Report
Well, this is weird for me because I don’t think I would lose sleep if the Republican party dissolved, or, even better, just stayed way the hell out of power.
But the thing is, they are trying to get back into power, and everything they do comes with that context which severely undermines anything they do.Report
…it is hard to take seriously anyone who says that the Republican party has “abandoned” conservative principles
Are those the principles of Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich or George W? I think part of the problem is that the Right, much more than the Left, seems to gel around people instead of ideals. When they set a weird or confusing agenda, we feel compelled to follow blindly, or at least refrain from asking tough questions. The Left, to their credit sometimes, gel around ideas. I remember seeing a panel interview with all the candidates for the RNC spot and when asked who their favorite republican president was, all answered Reagan. That actually kind of scared me.
In many ways, President Obama will set the tone for the GOP, just as Bush did for the Left for eight years, at least in the short term. At some point, there’s reason to believe that a clear line of attack will present itself. Democrats spent 2000-2003 mostly flailing around for direction. After Iraq they began to gel around intelligence failures and then expanded that into FISA, Guantanamo, Abu Garib, water-boarding, etc. Basically a complete trashing of everything Bush did with the war on terror. The economic recovery is the Left’s Iraq. The inevitable blunders will most likely give the Right a signal as to how to proceed.Report
What no one seems to have noticed (yet) is that the Democratic party has blundered into the wilderness as well.Report
As evidenced by their capture of the Senate, House, and Presidency?Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlI3zZk5UGIReport
lulz @ Kain.
On a more serious and substantive note, I wanted to address Mike’s points earlier up in the discussion and I think he is very much correct, and this point has led to many frustrations as both a liberal and a Democrat.
The fact that liberals tend to be more individually minded often times is a political handicap as liberals tend to misunderstand politics and frequently lack cohesiveness even at opportune moments. The liberal blogosphere during the 2008 general election was simply amazing to me and very uncharacteristic for liberals in general. Outside of that, it’s not overly difficult to find liberals fighting just as much amongst each other as they will with Republicans.
What Mike touches on with Republicans may be better addressed by the League’s conservatives and libertarians, but I have observed much more of a tendancy towards developing a cult of personality, for the time being, that personality is Ronald Reagan.
In fact, as I was covering the presidential primaries, I remarked numerous times just how frequently Republican candidates attempted to establish themselves as the next Ronald Reagan, invoking the late President’s name over and over again, almost as though, if you said it enough, people would believe you were him reincarnated.
The funny thing is, I think these canonized figures of both parties will do more harm than good politically. If you are comparing yourself to Ronald Reagan or JFK, if you are using them as yardsticks, does that not only show your own shortcomings all the more?
On a final note, I do so love making the distinction between the different kinds of conservatism. From my point of view, there are actually only two types: actual conservatism based upon the conservative (dictionary definition) principles or Jeffersonian principles. To me, this kind of conservatism is equal across the board–smaller government in terms of foreign policy, economy, and social issues.
The other kind of conservatism with a broad stroke is much more malleable, and is defined as anything right of center which chooses to self identify as conservative. And now I must leave.Report
Kyle, I’m sorry you don’t find my commentary on the political wilderness that we — Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else — have blundered into serious and substantive.
Also, I am confused. Are we now calling Thomas Jefferson a conservative?Report
Tony, I’m sorry if you misconstrued my intent with serious and substantive. That was directed more at my “lulz” comment and not at your comments at all.
As for Jefferson, I consider him a libertarian which, in my mind is the intellectual center of true conservatism.Report
Kyle, apologies for my pique. My feeling is that 10 years from now “liberal”, “conservative” and “libertarian” are going to mean very different things than they mean now, if they mean anything at all. (Actually I think that’s were we are now, ie in the wilderness.)Report