Jonathan Rauch’s article alleging that the Tea Party will tend to have a marginalizing effect on the GOP, and that small-government politics are likely to be favored, strikes me as partially accurate, but overly alarmist. For one thing, I take issue with its assumption that voter categories are static (especially the fact that it writes off Millennial voters as irrevocably liberal, even though the gap in party ID is narrowing according to Pew). Moreover, I think the worry that conservatives are marginalizing the GOP is scarcely new, especially with regards libertarianism, which has often been seen as an electorally weak ideology. On this note, I think my fellow contributor Austin Bramwell makes a good point that believing a particular iteration of the government to not be functional is not the same thing as believing the concept of government itself to be nonfunctional.
However, we have to be very careful with this subject, since it’s not clear that either increased moderation of the GOP’s message or increased conservative messaging is necessarily what the voters want. The article points out that Republicans have been declining in market share since ’03, with one of its lowest points (graphically) being in ’08. Interesting that this decline coincides precisely with Bush’s second term, which, while it’s often tarred for being too “extreme,” was scarcely a time of fiscal conservatism. Indeed, according to Vice President Cheney, Bush wasn’t extreme enough during that time. Either way, not all GOP “extremism” is created equal.
Moreover, the article notes that while Republican-leaning independents have swung drastically to the Right on economic issues, their positions on social issues have remained basically unchanged. This may explain the success of figures like Scott Brown, who ran as basically a pro-choice extreme fiscal conservative. This combination might be incoherent in theory, but in practice, it seems to be doing fairly well. Moreover, it might blunt the advantages Democrats enjoy with some socially liberal but economically disappointed voters. I’m thinking especially of the “liberal” Republicans who are willing to forgive Ron Paul for his (copious) excesses.
Does this mean we should go Paulite? Absolutely not. Just because voters are favoring libertarian policies doesn’t mean they’re willing to go all the way with praxeology, public choice, isolation and open borders (and if that last pair of concepts seems contradictory to you, join the club). However, it may be that voters are more willing to trust a government that acknowledges its limits (or that it has any), and that does not strike me as a message designed for extremists.
rbottoms // Jul 30, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Is there some anti-stupid pill you plan to issue to Independent voters to counteract the effect teh massive crazy spewed by Michelle Bachmann, Zack Wamp, and the rest of the Clown Car Right?
You have a hell of a lot of balancing to do.
Striking a Tea Party Balance | FrumForum | The Daily Conservative // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:07 pm
[...] the rest here: Striking a Tea Party Balance | FrumForum Share and [...]
SkepticalIdealist // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:15 pm
To write off Bush as if he weren’t a Fiscal Conservative is typical, but fundamentally dishonest. Reagan left us with about a 200 billion dollar deficit, and Bush Sr. made it worse with a 300 dollar deficit. Clinton came into office and his advisors basically told him that he wouldn’t be able to invest in education, healthcare, and infrastructure like he promised on the campaign. All that had to put on the back burner because Clinton, the so called tax-and-spend liberal, had to take care of the deficit. He did exactly that, he left this country with a large surplus. Bush comes into office and he leaves the economy in a worse condition than it’s been since the 1930’s. The champion of fiscal conservatism left us with a trillion dollar deficit.
That’s not an accident. It’s by design. Conservatives do that on purpose, so when the Democrats get into power they can fear monger about the deficit and prevent them from helping the working class. Why? Because that sometimes results in growing the size of government. And that is unacceptable, no matter what the result may be. For liberals the ends of helping the poor justifies the means. For conservatives, it is the means of small government that justifies any ends. Even the destruction of middle class America.
Again, this is the deficit created by the right-wing movement that elected right-wing politicians. So riddle me this, why is it that we can pay off military contractors, give the wealthiest Americans massive tax cuts, abolish the capital gains and the estate tax, and put that ALL on our tab – yet when it comes time to invest in every day working Americans, that is the time conservatives choose to scream about the deficit?
A Fiscal Conservative is someone who cuts taxes, increases spending, and leaves us with a massive deficit. All I know is I’m voting for a tax-and-spend liberal because they seem to be the only ones who know how to balance a freakin budget.
JimBob // Jul 30, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Ron Paul does not favor open borders and he’s certainly not an isolationist. Not supporting NeoCon wars in the Middle East is hardly isolationism. The real isolationist are those that support economic sanctions and blockades. Cuba a small country 90 miles from the United States and we don’t trade with them.
Ron Paul’s message of limited government peace, commerce, and friendship has broad appeal that crosses party lines.
BoolaBoola // Jul 30, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Ron Paul is a right-to-lifer. That means he is by definition not libertarian.
sinz54 // Jul 31, 2010 at 11:59 am
Mr. Holt,
There is nothing “incoherent” about being a pro-choice fiscal conservative.
It can easily be defended on the grounds that the government shouldn’t be running either your business or your bedroom. Provided that one also accepts that a first-trimester fetus’s brain hasn’t yet developed to the point that it can be considered a person capable of intellectual thought.
rbottoms // Aug 1, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Tough crowd for a message of economic common sense, especially if your leaders make not having any a badge of honor.
The Democrats biggest hope in November is the the GOP will continue to try to out-crazy each other in order to kiss teabagger ass.
rbottoms // Aug 1, 2010 at 9:13 pm
What’s incoherent is being a pro-choice fiscal conservative who supports the GOP, home of religious zealots and anti-intellectual nuts.
JimBob // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:37 am
Boola, I guess you’re not that up to date on libertarianism
http://www.l4l.org/
JimBob // Aug 2, 2010 at 6:39 am
bottoms, government spending doesn’t create growth or wealth. How many times throughout history do these so called top economist have to be proven wrong before people realize they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Fairy Hardcastle // Aug 24, 2010 at 1:16 pm
JimBob, good point on pro-life. Boola, you are clearly wrong. The ultimate expression of a too-powerful government is the depersonalization of humans. Thus libertarian thought must be against any government attempt to depersonalize a human being. Abortion depersonalizes an unborn boy or girl who has a natural right to life.