R.R. Reno’s article about the culture war today—that the Democrats are becoming the party of culture war, a transition confirmed by the decreasing power of economic interests in the party—is further confirmed by this observation: The Republicans are becoming the party of economics. They’re not going to drop their social conservatism, but if you’ve been keeping track of the conversations about the future of conservatism and the Republican party (which are two distinct but not entirely separate conversations), maybe you’ve noticed that the conversation is all around reframing the movement’s and the party’s economic message in various ways. To the extent that social issues are discussed at all, it hasn’t really gotten beyond “don’t say stupid things about rape.” The usual chorus of libertarians complaining that the social conservatives have to be kicked out of the movement/the party, while present, has been surprisingly marginal. All the real conversation is about how to deliver a message of economic hope that resonates with people who haven’t made it yet—as Ted Cruz famously put it, to counter “you didn’t build that” not with “you built that” but with “you can build that.” Or as Henry Olsen put it, to stop talking about free enterprise in ways that sound like it empowers management at the expense of labor.
The big question to my mind is whether the GOP follows the pattern of the Democrats in the last generation and becomes a party of economic interests, or manages to find a voice for an economic ideal that can at least partially subordinate those interests. That, in turn, will probably be settled by the outcome of the distinct-but-not-separate conversation going on in the conservative movement.
February 12th, 2013 | 10:40 am
In Michigan and other states, Republicans seem to have some social conservatism going on.
February 12th, 2013 | 2:01 pm
Libertarians have no standing to argue that social conservatives should be kicked out of the “Movement” — if by “Movement” you mean the Conservative Movement — for the simple reason that they are not part of the movement and therefore should have no voice in who is in and who is out. We conservatives should always keep in mind that libertarians — while they are sometimes our allies — are not us.
February 12th, 2013 | 2:14 pm
The feeling is mutual. As Lord Acton remarked in his History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877),
February 12th, 2013 | 4:13 pm
The big question to my mind is whether the GOP follows the pattern of the Democrats in the last generation and becomes a party of economic interests, or manages to find a voice for an economic ideal that can at least partially subordinate those interests.
Individual members of Congress are commonly advocates (if not puppets) of the signature commercial interests in their district, and, one suspects, used to be worse than they are now. To some extent, this is not bad, inasmuch as ham-handed regulatory agencies can do damage and Congress is a way to resist without tying things up in litigation. The Republicans differ from the Democrats in that they do not tend to forge these sorts of relationships with the teachers’ unions, the trial lawyers, or Hollywood. Nowadays, Big Finance also tends to be a Democratic constituency group (Robert Rubin, Lloyd Blankfein, James Dimon, Vikram Pandit, and Warren Buffett all being Democrats).
The somewhat pig-headed and unfortunate focus on income tax rates is a hopeful sign, as is resistance to guest-worker programs and the like. The first neither benefits nor injures any commercial sector and the latter is a rebuke to selected commercial interests.
February 13th, 2013 | 7:42 am
At this time of decision for Republicans I can’t help but look to the example of Ronald Reagan.
This greatest president since Roosevelt (take your pick!) was well-schooled in conservative thought, and though not always a conservative, his “conversion” was clearly not out of opportunism, but was heartfelt. He was principled and consistent.
He also, very importantly, knew how to communicate his principles in plain language, and managed to stay above the petty diversions that the popular press and popular culture always try to drag our leaders into. He could compromise and be satisfied with incremental progress, but never lost sight of the principles which animated his vision.
When he left office he passed on a winning hand to his successors, who unfortunately had no idea how to play it, most eggregiously the surprisingly inept Bush the First. What seemed in the 80′s to be the dawning of a conservative ascendancy in the public debates, was frittered away. No one since RWR has been able to articulate the conservative message, and as a result the enticements of the welfare state have re-emerged as the ground on which the debate is joined.
February 22nd, 2013 | 12:53 am
[...] via Re: It’s the Culture » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact