Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

<< Public ownership? | Main | What are they up to? >>

Reformist vs Conservative?

I was reading an article on Townhall.com today, and through double layers of indirection learned that David Brooks said in the New York Times…

There is not yet an effective Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas. There is no moderate Club for Growth, supporting centrist Republicans. The Public Interest, which used to publish an array of public policy ideas, has closed. Reformist Republican donors don’t seem to exist. Any publication or think tank that headed in an explicitly reformist direction would be pummeled by its financial backers. National candidates who begin with reformist records — Giuliani, Romney or McCain — immediately tack right to be acceptable to the power base.

I have to wonder about this. I think that Mr. Brooks is confusing things rather than helping. He begins his opinion piece this way…

It’s only been a week since the defeat, but the battle lines have already been drawn in the fight over the future of conservatism.

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed.…

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration.

Are these really the core ideas of the G.O.P.? Perhaps, but they're not the core ideas of conservatism. These ideas are derived from the core ideas of conservatism: Ordered and yet individual liberty; Limited government; Personal responsibility; The rule of law.

Cutting government is a core idea for the G.O.P. because the base of the party is made up of conservatives, who believe that the scheme of limited government as laid out explicitly in the Constitution and implicitly in the Declaration of Independence allows the most personal freedom and happiness for the people while ensuring order and security. Cutting taxes is a core idea for the G.O.P. because a limited government confining itself to the duties and responsibilities laid out in the Constitution does not need to redistribute wealth or use the misguided notion of deficit spending to “stimulate” an economy. Restricting immigration is a core idea for the G.O.P. because it makes no sense to flood our population with people that have no respect for our laws and founding principles. This is not to say that immigration is bad, but rather that we need a sensible policy of that allows people who yearn for liberty in an ordered society to immigrate while blocking the immigration of those that would instead turn our country into a model of the ones that they couldn't abide.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

This poem, found on the Statue of Liberty, expresses the free immigration policy that some would espouse — let everyone in, especially the “wretched refuse.” I think that the “yearning to breathe free” should be our guide.

But to return to Mr. Brooks…

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety.

Mr. Brooks once again applies the wrong labels. We would call these people RINOs — Republicans In Name Only. The principles of today's conservatism are based upon ideas that work. The notion of individual liberty within an ordered society does not need modernization. It is at the core of our founding. The principle of limited government exists not so much because of a hatred of government — some government is needed after all to maintain an ordered society and to protect that society from external tyrants — but because a limited government infringes upon individual liberties less than an unlimited one. The so-called reformers, believing that “American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government” are really nothing more than socialists in disguise. They would be better served by the Democratic party than the G.O.P. The notion that “new policies are needed to address inequality” is not a conservative notion, and it flies in the face of the need for individual responsibility in an ordered society.

No government policy can address inequality without impeding progress, despite the label that so many would place upon such a policy — progressive. In order to ensure economic equality, or as some on the left mislabel it, “economic justice,” a government policy must take from those that engage in behaviors that result in economic success and redistribute to those that engage in behaviors that result in economic failure. It must punish success and reward failure. It must discourage innovation, investment and frugality and reward conformance, profligacy and consumption. It must pull down those at the top to try to raise those at the bottom. This isn't “economic justice”, it does an injustice to those that have done well.

The true reformers in the G.O.P. are those among us that believe that corruption in government must be rooted out. The true reformers in the G.O.P. are those among us that believe that our government has vastly exceeded its authority under the Constitution and seek to return it to its proper and limited role in our lives. The true reformers in the G.O.P. are those among us that believe that the principles upon which the framers crafted our form of government are principles that work, and that provide for the most happiness for the greatest number of people. The principles of individual liberty and individual responsibility in an ordered society are what made our nation great. American exceptionalism comes not from a powerful government ruling over its people, but rather from individuals exercising their liberty, pursuing their own happiness and showing responsibility for themselves and compassion for others.

Mr. Brooks and the so-called reformers want to see the G.O.P. become completely indistinguishable from the Democratic party. They'd like to see the party abandon conservatism.

It's clear that they don't believe in the country that our founders created. They'd rather sacrifice their liberty to a bloated bureaucracy that reduces us all to numbers and impersonal drones. That's not reform. It's just the same old story wrapped in a new name.

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1278
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/11/14/1278.aspx

Stanford Matthews responded with:

From the Weekly Standard to the NYT I preface this comment with my favorable impression of David Brooks and my interest in listening to his commentary along with Mark Shields and Jim Lehrer on PBS' Newshour. Go ahead, call me a liberal. I am not. But recently it seems Mr Brooks commentary has gone through some sort of metamorphosis as best I can tell. I am not sure if that has to do with the length of time he has been with the NYT or away from The Weekly Standard. The discussions on PBS over time occasionally demonstrated a willingness of Shields to agree with conservative comments and likewise Brooks to concede a point or part of one to Shields from time to time. It gave me the impression they were trying to be honest because in the real world minus political posturing both sides of the aisle make a valid point from time to time. It's just hard to locate them. Perhaps Brooks is attempting to hop on someone's bandwagon who suggested the GOP needs to incorporate changes that attract demographics in the voting public which they may have lost recently. That seems to be a political discussion rather than a philosophical one and may account for the difficulty. Not only in terms of analyzing Brooks' opinion but the state of affairs for conservatives these days. As far as RINOs go, I had reason to revisit one of my earlier posts this week as Jim Leach was in the news again. If my data was accurate, he spent 30 years in Congress representing a staunchly liberal district from Iowa and while being labeled as conservative on fiscal issues it was also stated he never saw a program he didn't want to fund. On top of that he was liberal on social and foreign policy issues yet seems to have received positive marks from many people. I'm sorry Mr Leach you look like a liberal to me. So much for my punditry.

Perri Nelson responded with:

Perhaps Brooks is attempting to hop on someone's bandwagon who suggested the GOP needs to incorporate changes that attract demographics in the voting public which they may have lost recently. You're probably right about this. I think, and it's just my opinion, that we need to stop focusing on demographics, and start focusing on foundational principles once again. We need to do this with an eye to how those principles can be applied to help the people that have somehow become convinced that larger government and socialism are the keys to happiness. Abandoning our principles is likely to cause us more losses until we truly have a "uniparty" in government (like some say we have already). If we give up on the notion that the Constitution means what it says, and not what some judge or politician wants it to mean, then we've lost our way and our liberty. A lot of people are willing to do that, but the real difference between "liberals" and moderates is in the rapidity with which they want to move us toward socialism, not in the direction they appear to want us to move. That's why I make the distinction between real reformers and Mr. Brook's "reformers."

Stanford Matthews responded with:

That makes me think of Field of Dreams. If you build it they will come. Ignoring the immense lure in the act of governing of catering to political considerations i.e., re-election, and instead focusing on the principles as you stress might solve both problems. The support from those who appreciate conservative principles would increase and the bonus could be others in search of the right path, no pun intended, would participate in turn and the success of that effort would allow the political considerations to work out at they should by taking care of themselves as the politicians make a habit out of doing what they should all the time. It's a dream but don't wake me.

Stanford Matthews responded with:

Based on our recent exchange of comments here and on my blog on the topic of principles, largely focusing on this nation's founding and the relative merits and history of both liberal and conservative philosophies, it may be a good thing for me to follow your lead and publish more posts on such matters. Who knows, if enough people do the same we might actually move the discussion to things that matter. Wow, how crazy is that notion? :-)

Marshall Art responded with:

Returning to, or rather, trumpeting conservative principles is absolutely the direction the party should be going. There does seem to be too much concern about who we are attracting, rather than articulating what conservatism is, what it means, how it has served us in the past and can as well in the future. I've been disturbed by hearing Michael Medved speak of attracting more minorities to the fold. I believe if the minorities heard and understood what conservatism is, they would be attracted by default. Indeed, that's how I got here. The more I understood, the more firmly my paradigm was shifted (actually, it was always here, but I never realized the distinctions between where I thought I was, and where I came to know I had been). So the problem is how to get this message out there. How can we point out the differences in a manner that is compelling and undeniable to the minds of the lost? Articulate and dynamic speakers for the cause must be found, or rise up, or pointed out. Speakers that have the charisma and charm that has so easily duped the 52% of the voting public that went left and lure enough of them to the message. Once heard, it's hard to resist because of the downright truth and righteousness of it. I think also more than ever before we must hold the feet of our own more closely to the fire. Accept no charlatans and nonsense. And we must expose the failures of the other side in a manner that is easily understood as constructive, rather than spiteful criticisms. All in all, an invitation open to all to see what the right is really all about. We've allowed the other side to define us without making them prove their charges. It's time we took charge of our own marketing.

Bookmark this on Delicious 

Comments to this entry are closed.

<< Public ownership? | Main | What are they up to? >>