Blogger’s note: I wrote this last week, and while editing it over a few days, it got lost in the shuffle of life, so I’m posting it now. As a preface, I’ll say that I’m not sure what Erickson’s ultimate purpose was- perhaps just to stimulate discussion, but possibly to raise some buzz before RedState had their big gathering. No matter, my opinions are what they are, and hope you enjoy and/or comment.
I don’t often agree with Erik Erikson, but I found this post of his especially good. I just think the underlying cause of the symptom he points out is different from what he identifies.
“The problem for the GOP is that it is in danger of fracturing, not because it has moved so far right, but because it refuses to actually practice what it preaches”
It is not that I disagree with him, per se. I’d be thrilled if the GOP was really all about a libertarian perspective. But I’m not so sure that is the real issue. There are three issues as i see it that the Republican Party has to content with if folks like Erikson are going to be happy.
Social Conservatives are running things.
The Republican party is fracturing because Social conservatives are running the show, and using tactics that are the exact opposite from the perspective of libertarians and fiscal conservatives. For example, the efforts by social conservatives to thwart women’s reproductive rights are predominately all about increasing government control over individual’s bodies and decisions. From requiring medically unnecessary procedures to increased regulations as a means to shut down clinics, social conservatives use the very things Erickson is ranting against. Social conservative’s attempts to control Education include taking control away from local school boards to the redistribution of tax revenues to religious and other types of schools which are not held accountable to the community. In other words, social conservatism is using the tactics of government control, where as the very basis of what Erikson laments is all about less government and regulation.
It could be argued that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives can not make a cohesive party, but I’m not sure that is true. I think rather, the issue is that as social conservatism have resorted to tactics that make them incompatible because they can find no way within more traditional conservative mechanisms to achieve their end goal, which is a Christian theocratic government. fiscal conservatives have enjoyed the money, and political force the social conservatives have brought, yet they fail to grasp this incongruence.
The perpetual campaign
Republicans also seem to be in constant “campaign mode” and they never seem to get around to real governing. The rhetoric and the actions are all about “the next election,” as opposed to doing those things that are needed right now to govern the country. The rationale may be: if they can gain total control of the government, then they can do whatever they want, but we have a two party system precisely to avoid that situation. Governing is a process of dialogue and compromise between all of the various parties involved. The desired outcome of total control is counter to the democratic process of actually governing. Because Republicans are in constant campaign mod, the country fails to benefit from conservative ideas that could benefit it right now. This has never been so evident than looking at the Health Care battle. At the very beginning, a Democrat President, took, off the table from discussion, a public option which would have been the most progressive option for real Health Care reform, and he adopted the individual mandate, and policy which was a Republican idea. Conservatives had never had more potential power in molding Policy being presented by the Democrats, and yet they failed to come out with the upper hand.
What is their real plan for governing?
One reason that the GOP may be in constant campaign mode is because they have no real ideas to put forward upon which to actually govern, and where they have had ideas, these have been abandoned as the Democrats have bought into them in an attempt to actually govern. In the 2010 election, the American people sent a strong message that the government wasn’t perceived as doing enough about jobs, and now with two years of controlling the House, the GOP can not show any progress on that front, nor can they really point to where their efforts have been thwarted by the Senate or the President. As much as I was never a fan of Newt Gingrich, he would have been able to take the House and the GOP majority and done something with it other than act in an obstructive manner.
As a progressive, I’m not so sure that the GOP is fracturing, or at least fracturing enough for my tastes. Perhaps neither Erickson nor myself realize how pervasive corporate control of government is. Any of us, who really want less government, or government that protects all Americans may be the ones wearing the blinders. The American people may have already lost control, and it isn’t to one party or the other, but to big money which has a whole different agenda than either Erickson or I would propose.