RSS Feed MenuYouthful, S/W/M Exuberant Seeks Conservative Party, Answers. Serious Inquiries Only.
I was born during Jimmy Carter’s last week in the White House.
As such, I mercifully can’t/don’t have to remember anything about the man, those wide-as-a-Buick lapels he wore, or the stagflation over which he presided. I also don’t remember much about Ronald Reagan other than that he had a warm, grandfatherly voice and I knew that my parents seemed to like him a lot.
Still, conservatives my age—no longer mere children, we!—were raised on the veritable Bread of Life that is Reagan. That almost biblical narrative upon which we base our political worldview is that of Reagan bringing America out of the lean years of a strange, feckless, played-out liberalism and into the fat years low taxes, low crime, and a defeated Evil Empire. (Plus, the Reaganites did look sharp, no? America’s rediscovery of Brooks Brothers and thinner ties in the 80’s were achievements on par with an ICBM treaty. Let there be no debate.)
So how come we 20-somethings didn’t get a Reagan? No one would seriously argue that George W. Bush or John McCain were Reaganite conservatives, or even all that inspiring. Where was our Knight about whom we could get all misty-excited, who made us believe in America and ourselves? We want a better America: who shall lead us there?
His name, we are told, is Barack Obama. Our rendezvous with destiny moment has passed, and it was replaced by hope and change.
I didn’t buy it in November and I don’t buy it now. Despite his seeming new-found centrism, Barack is a liberal. Liberalism almost always creates more problems than it actually fixes (See, welfare, unionism, stagflation, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Roe, etc.) Perhaps more troubling, Barack is viewed not so much as a great politician, or even as a rock star, but rather as a kind of new manifestation of Jesus Christ—a Messiah whose words are the sole basis for the most amazing claims. (Quick test—which of these did Jesus say: “. . this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” or, “. . .in my Father’s house there are many mansions; I go there to prepare a place for you. . .”?)
But why, as a young person, do I stay with the uninspiring GOP? Because the problems of the present are starkly different from those when I was born, and I don’t trust the Democrats. We need new answers. About healthcare. About the environment. About fixing the financial system with more than a tax cut on capital gains. About wage stagnation. About a lot of things unfettered markets cannot fix. And Democrats offer the same Euro-style, statist answers they always have, so I look elsewhere.
Which means some crazy third party or the GOP.
Conservatism is a temperament and outlook, not a set of policies, and I believe the GOP still offers the best vehicle for conservatives to fashion new responses to these modern problems. The GOP has always lent an ear, if not a gavel, to those who see government as an effective means to create order and alleviate problems, but not as the central focus of society. The GOP brand, grossly tarnished in recent years, still conveys to me one of restraint and competency in government. The GOP has vulgarized and overcapitalized on evangelical/Catholic/traditional moral values in recent years, but it still offers the best mechanism to stand athwart what can only be described as radical liberal morality. The GOP has become far too anti-intellectual, but at its best it has always recognized that many of life’s answers don’t originate in the faculty lounges of Ivy League universities.
So, I’m still itching to fight. And man-oh-man, Barack Obama will give us plenty of chances to do just that by giving in to misguided policies like card check and yielding to the more unreasonable environmentalists of his party. Further, the Democrats—just like the GOP of a couple of years ago—will fall prey to the corruptions and laziness of total control of the government. As a result, I think the next few years will be kinda easy and fun: opposition politics rocks!
But I want… and need… the GOP to tell me why I should be excited about the GOP taking back over. When the GOP retakes power (which, even if not soon, it will), it should be because we have viable solutions to problems like healthcare and the environment and the financial system, not because–once again!–the Democrats blew it.
I’m soberly optimistic that the GOP can meet this challenge. But it’s going to take a lot of work and new ideas.
That’s what Frum Forum is all about.
MSheridan // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:58 am
New ideas? Okay, here’s one–if Republicans want to be the party of low taxes, then BE the party of low taxes. I’ve looked at tax rates, from lowest to highest, from 1913 to the present. When in power, Republicans have fairly consistently lowered marginal rates on the upper tax brackets, but not on the poor. The poor and lower middle class get a big raspberry. Yes, absolutely true, it was the Dems who hugely raised taxes on absolutely everyone in 1941, but starting in 1964 those rates did start coming down. Then when the Reagan Revolution came along, the top tax rates plummeted, for which Republicans can and do take credit. The rich and ultra-rich haven’t had a period of sustained low taxes this long (and I’m including the Clinton years) since 1931. Meanwhile, the average “Joe the Plumber” types making up most of the U.S. now pay a top marginal rate of 25% for the same amount of income (after adjusting for inflation) on which their grandparents paid rates ranging from
sinz54 // Jan 24, 2009 at 10:47 am
The reason we didn’t get a Reagan, is the same reason we didn’t get a vibrant, outreach-oriented, “big-tent” GOP. Namely, the absence of an outside threat to hold all factions of the GOP coalition together and attract new adherents. In 1980, what unified them was opposition to Soviet Communism–the foreign-policy hawks because of fear of Soviet nuclear attack, the economic conservatives because of communism’s restraints on economic freedom, and the social conservatives because of communism’s “godlessness.” The outside threat we face today–Islamic extremism–has not held that coalition together. Indeed, such staunch economic conservatives as Larry Kudlow and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal continue to favor free trade with Saudi Arabia (love their oil), and blasted critics of the Dubai ports deal as “Islamophobic.” You have economic conservatives willing to conduct free trade with Islamist nations and organizations, just as you had economic conservatives willing to trade with Nazi Germany before the Pearl Harbor attack. You didn’t see that with the communist Soviet Union. And while many Christian social conservatives consider the War on Terror to be Christianity vs. Islam, that view was flatly repudiated by Bush himself.
Entellus // Jan 24, 2009 at 12:44 pm
I think it would be best to dwell/contemplate on how most conservatives nowadays aren’t truly so, but are really simply anti-liberal (see News, Fox). Until the GOP have a propulsive view of their policies and agenda, rather than simply saying, “whatever the left is for, we’re against,” they … Read Morewill continue to flounder and offer up such blatantly ridiculous candidates as SP. Rockstar/Messianic figures work much better for lih-bruhls (as my step-mother pronounces the word) because they have such a hoge-poge of inane beliefs. The next conservative star will have one to two hardcore platforms and will beat everyone over the head with them until he has achieved submission.
I personally believe that in today’s overly-simplified, overly-reported world, it will take a celebrity (though one with a real stance other than being the “gubernator”) to break through, just as Obama’s celebrity has catapulted him into office.
NCMose1 // Jan 24, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Agreed that it will take a lot of work; new ideas would be great, although I would settle for actual execution of some tried and true OLD ideas, like say, small guv’mint. W grew the bloody enterprise! The old adage that people get the government they deserve is certainly proving out once again, but to lead people in a direction against their worst gimme gimme gimme impulses will take a GOP leader who has yet to emerge, at least nationally. Any ideas? Jindal? Coburn? Sanford?
InTheMiddle12 // Jan 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm
The Reagan economic myth mystifies me. No doubt he was a strong leader who brilliantly captured and restored Americans feeling good about themselves and the country but, there was tremendous economic damage he oversaw. The deficits he ran up we are still dealing with and he began the march toward pushing the middle class toward the poor. Something that greatly influenced this current election.
I may very well be wrong, but it feels like the American people just voted in, White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats to fix the economic mess that 6 of 8 years of GOP rule of all three spots drove.
Whether that be fact or not, it’s clearly the perseption of the average American. At least those of us in the middle who overwhelmingly voted against the GOP in this last election to allow them to go out to pasteur and think things through until they refine their party’s platform into a more palpable position.
Whenever anyone is hurt, they reach for their core and there’s nothing wrong with reaching for classic conservatism, but I’m not sure the GOP knows what that is at this point.
nealjking // Jan 25, 2009 at 3:22 am
Cheves: “The GOP brand, grossly tarnished in recent years, still conveys to me one of restraint and competency in government.” Huh? Have you been watching or reading the news over the last 8 years?
Many years ago, I switched from Democratic party to Republican; even though I was not enthusiastic about their social direction, they seemed to be “adult” about economics. Since then, they have emphasized what I most disliked about their social attitudes, and abandoned what I would consider financial/economic restraint and governmental integrity.
I would be happy if the GOP would come forward with real ideas about health care, the environment, and the financial system. So far, all I have seen is focus on the profit incentive for CEOs.
MetryJen // Jan 25, 2009 at 8:18 am
I think the author of this piece has the same problem many conservatives do – a misty memory of Reaganism that still dictates his beliefs, despite the fact that the Reagan eras been over for decades. I do find it hilariously ironic that he disparages the idolatry of Obama as he worships Reagan, though
ChevesLigon // Jan 25, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thanks to you all for posting! Some reponses—
MetryJen: the entire point of my article is that we need new ideas. Reagan is dead, and we now have new problems. Perhaps I didn’t explain that part well enough, but New Majority exists to foster new ideas than simply tax cuts and unfettered markets. The “Bread of Life” of Reagan is a joke: Jesus referred to HIMSELF as the Bread of Life, and when people like me were growing up, Reagan was nigh-on God. That has to change.
Neal: I, sadly, have been watching the last 8 years and it’s been a nightmare, no? They have behaved shamefully and deserved to lose your vote. However, if you got back past 8 years (something my generation is not very good at!) you find that historically the GOP was the “adult” party, the more serious party. That’s changed, but it can change back. And you’re right about the need for new ideas: stay tuned to this web site; that’s what we’re going to be all about.
InTheMiddle: I agree that the perception is that the GOP hasn’t been particularly interested in the middle class. Indeed, over the last 8 years—amidst a period of impressive GDP growth—the middle class barely kept up. That’s a problem. And the biggest problem is: no one within the Bush Administration thought it worthy of focus. We’re trying to change that.
Sinz54: Clearly, you’re right about the Soviets, but why didn’t terrorism provide that glue to the factions?
ChevesLigon // Jan 25, 2009 at 11:10 am
NCMose1: clearly, you’re right that spending restraint went out the window, and that W was strangely hypocritical about it all. I think the problem is that spending became a stand-in for ideas—rather than speak to many of the problems, they did the time-honored political trick of simply hurling money around.
We also can’t forget how hampered the Administration was by Iraq; W took such enormous policy risks abroad he HAD to give in at home. Remember the rather modest Social Security reform he tried to get through in 2005-06? He didn’t have the political capital to push it through, and that spelled the end of our hopes of more limited government.
Sanford has been what I term a “ceremonial conservative” because he’s accomplished next to nothing in SC. He has failed to even restrain the growth of government, much less reform how money is spent. He’s used his veto pen a LOT, but that’s really it, as even the Republicans in the State House have now refused to work with him. Jindal holds hope because he’s 1) very smart and 2) able to get more things done. Plus, he’s young and more appealing personally.
Anonymous // Jan 25, 2009 at 11:45 am
Bush was a disaster, and if he had pushed through his Social Security reform we would have lost 30% of it’s value in the stock market crash he caused by his dumb policies.
NCMose1 // Jan 25, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Fair point about the realities of W’s poltical capital, although I wonder if that was the cause of his largess or rather a lack of true commitment to the principle. Can’t know and I’m not suggesting it’s profitable to argue / speculate the point. I did omit a notable figure from my previous short list of future GOP hopefuls. A certain individual from the Northeast with substantial private sector experience; one who has made “connections” across the aisle and it must be allowed, has great hair. That’s right: Jack Donaghy.
ChevesLigon // Jan 25, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Look, Fredrick. Your posts get deleted because you refuse to use civilized language. If you don’t like what I say, fine. But keep the comments there.
Gracias.
InTheMiddle12 // Jan 25, 2009 at 12:51 pm
As I’m reading the posts I’m reminded that elections are determined by the middle class in this country and within the middle class there’s 10% middle group that swings. That group always wants a positive inclusive message that connects to their lives. The GOP needs to spend a lot of time undersanding the rality of these people’s lives and stop judging them for them.
ChevesLigon // Jan 25, 2009 at 12:51 pm
NCMose1: I think you’ll find that, upon further inspection, Jack is a “TV charachter” from a show called “30 Rock.” It’s played by a guy named Alec Baldwin (should he be renamed “Alec Hairwin” now?). However, he’s got experience and panache, I’ll give you that.
Anonymous // Jan 25, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Merci Beaucoup mon ami!
Anonymous // Jan 25, 2009 at 1:50 pm
As to why young people went way Democrat this election. It’s simple, they had a candidate they could believe in and were invited to actually be a part of the process. The GOP put up an old white geezer and Caribou barbie, had no ideas that were attractive both turned off the young big time.
NCMose1 // Jan 25, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Oh. Then I respectfully withdraw my comments. Any thoughts on Jack Bauer for Homeland Security?