Sleepwalking Toward Disaster

It should go without saying that I like David Brooks' column yesterday about the Republican malaise, but that doesn't change the fact that it's really good. Here's the money quote, which you may have already seen:

The party is blessed with a series of charismatic candidates who are not orthodox Republicans. But the pressures of the campaign are such that these candidates have had to repress anything that might make them interesting. Instead of offering something new, each of them has been going around pretending to be the second coming of George Allen — a bland, orthodox candidate who will not challenge any of the party’s customs or prejudices.

But I also think this line is important:

Conservatives have allowed a simplistic view of Ronald Reagan to define the sacred parameters of thought. Reagan himself was flexible, unorthodox and creative. But conservatives have created a mythical, rigid Reagan, and any deviation from that is considered unholy.

Ramesh Ponnuru makes a similar point in his advice to Fred Thompson, which is worth reading in full (and not just because he quotes me):

... a lot of conservatives have been telling themselves that Republicans lost the election because they were insufficiently committed to conservative orthodoxy: that if they had just eschewed pork and prescription-drug benefits, the voters would have been kinder to them. It is a comforting theory with almost no basis in fact ... Running on a strictly conservative platform has not won Republicans the presidency since at least 1988. Since that campaign was heavy on flag-waving, it might be more accurate to say “since 1980.” Even in 1980, moreover, Reagan made some innovations to conservatism: adding supply-side tax cuts to the mix, and backing away from opposition to entitlement programs. More to the point, Reagan succeeded not because his platform conformed to a philosophy, but because it applied that philosophy, creatively, to the problems of the day.

If the conservative movement's domestic policy vision ran from Ponnuru on the right to Brooks on the left, well ... Andrew might not be happy with the result (though I think his differences with both men are often more a matter of emphases and rhetoric than policy substance), but I'm pretty sure the GOP wouldn't be staring disaster quite so squarely in the face.

Comments

Brooks is a left-wing shill. He just uses "conservatism" as a Trojan horse to promote left-wing ideas.

Real conservatives don't buy into it:

http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/

.

Posted by Patriotic Pete | April 30, 2007 9:19 AM

And Ponnuru is a neocon wackjob who despises Western Civilization.

Posted by Patriotic Pete | April 30, 2007 9:25 AM

Ross,

The commenters above should give you and David Brooks pause--they represent the mass, popular voice of modern conservatism and the modern Republicanism to which it is inextricably linked. Brook's column yesterday was a shrewd piece of work overall. But there's one key point he missed: Nothwitstanding Brook's disappointment, for the leading GOP candidates to cravenly try to clone themselves into George Allen is an
entirely rational strategy. The median Republican voter shares the world view of George Allen--reflexively militarist; socially
conservative with a particular fetish about maintaining conventional gender roles, i.e. "strong men", "supportive, caring women"; religio/
ethno-centric; and advocates of regressive low taxes and unregulated, rather than social welfare state, i.e. not the kind that is likely to assist the citizens of Sam's Club America. All of this
sits atop an anti-intellectual, low information base. Brooks seems to think that Fred Thompson is hiding something profound from the voters, but he strikes me as George Allen with 50 more IQ points.

In short, the modern GOP is a Bolshevik undertaking which, to this point, has done remarkably well--but this confection of Fox News and Limbaugh represents only 1/3rd of the nation. Yet even this 1/3rd is the Faustian bargain that conservative intellectuals made to cleave themselves to a popular base, rather than leave themselves languishing in a dour, elitist ivory tower, along with the remaindered, collected works of Russell Kirk.

For the presidential candidates of this reactionary party, however, it makes utter sense to assert the world view embodied by Allen if they wish to win the Party's nomination. Who Brooks thinks is the voting bloc for his "new
ideas" besides himself, yourself (in part), and the even more eclectic Reihan is anybody's guess. There really is no party--as opposed to a faction--for people like yourself in modern America, so you're going to have keep telling yourself that the idiot wind from these yahoos merely needs to be redirected, rather than turned off. I suspect the candidates and their advisors know better.

Posted by yeselson | April 30, 2007 10:56 AM

Who says the internet is not educational? Today I learned that the Bolshevik's were "reflexively militarist; socially conservative with a particular fetish about maintaining conventional gender roles, i.e. "strong men", "supportive, caring women"; religio/ethno-centric; and advocates of regressive low taxes and unregulated, rather than social welfare state".

More to the point, Reagan succeeded not because his platform conformed to a philosophy, but because it applied that philosophy, creatively, to the problems of the day.

That is spot on, and is what many people are missing. It's not 1979 and the GOP cannot run on cutting taxes, anti-communism, and Carter's ineptness. In fairness the Democrats are ignoring the problems of today also.

Posted by James | April 30, 2007 11:48 AM

The point, James, an obvious one if you had minimal close reading skills, is that, like the Bolsheviks, the conservative movement is minoritarian movement which nevertheless has successfully consummated much of its program, e.g. deep tax cuts for the rich. Thus the observation that it represents only 1/3 rd of the country.

And given how Reagan eventually raised taxes and entered into detente with the Soviets and did nothing to restrict abortion, it's not altogether clear what was conservative about Reagan anyway, beyond his rhetoric. If Reagan had actually tried to destroy the welfare state, i.e. medicare and social security, he would have been trounced as surely as Bush II and Gingrich were.

Posted by yeselson | April 30, 2007 12:05 PM

George Allen may have been the ideal Republican candidate-- but he lost. And he didn't just lose, he went down to defeat in a self-destructive pillar of electoral fire. Today's candidates ought to reflect a bit on that, I think...

Posted by MattF | April 30, 2007 12:15 PM

As far as I can see, the only popular part of the Republican/Conservative program right now is social conservatism.

This yeselson fellow views a third of the country as a bolshevik rump. However, those conservatives are about twice or more of the number of hard core lefties in this country. Given that the chosen weapon of the Left is the "commanding heights" of the media and the judiciary which can be operated by a tiny, like-minded elite. And the chosen weapon of the social right is the state and federal legislatures I think the "minority" charge is pretty risible. On economics I think its closer to the mark. Don't forget the division of the country at Independence as remarked by John Adams 1/3 Patriots, 1//3 tories, 1/3 undecided.

Finally, the things America elected conservatives to do since the election of Ronald Reagan have mostly been done. Communists are gone. Marginal rates have been cut. The size of the federal government relative to the economy has been held steady. The endless infliction of the sexual revolution on society through the courts has been slowed (see recent marriage decisions even in such places as N.J. and N.Y.). Abortion has not become the equivalent of an appendectomy as the Left hoped in the 70's.

The American people do not believe Arabs can ever have a decent Goverment and absent a direct threat to America want out of the middle east and have a "devil take the hindmost" view of our allies there. This may win the Democrats power for a while.

However, we reactionaries are around because flouting of our warnings all leads to ruin. The 70's is a perfect storm of liberalism. Disorder, weakness and "a flouting of traditional gender roles." People can be as socialist and deliciously gender ambiguous as Mr. Yelson may like but the consequences will be as conservatives have always said they would be and we will be reelected once we have our house in order.

Posted by jjv | April 30, 2007 12:29 PM

George Allen may have been the ideal Republican candidate-- but he lost. And he didn't just lose, he went down to defeat in a self-destructive pillar of electoral fire.

Well, I'm no fan of George Allen, but in spite of a truly stupid, weird series of moments caught on tape and widely seen and a near-total lack of substance, homeboy did get within 1% of re-election. If your definition of "self-destructive pillar of electoral fire" includes spending two days scrutinizing military absentee ballots with an actual hope that there's enough there to overcome a razor-thin difference, well, I think it's overly broad, bordering on meaninglessness. You should also remember that it took a former Reagan staffer who love guns, hates immigrants and has written a passionate history of rednecks to beat (barely!) Allen in Virginia, which is pretty conservative, but no Utah or Kansas.

Posted by Tyler Simons | April 30, 2007 12:56 PM

The point, yeselson, one which would be obvious to you if you had minimal skills at reasoning, is that all political movements in this country are "minoritarian". This is hardly a trait uniquely common to the Bolsheviks and conservatives, as you try to suggest. There has never been a majority demanding the liberal agenda be implemented either, yet they have been quite successful in pushing it through against public opinion. This does not make the liberals
Bolsheviks. It simply makes you a fool.

Posted by James | April 30, 2007 1:30 PM

Yeselson, I would have expected more from you than simplistic broadbrush nonsense. You must necessarily accept one of two propositions; either the great mass of voters are idiots or the great mass of voters are merely self-interested and do a reasonably good job of discerning what those interests are and which candidates suit them. For if you want to decry the average Republican voter as a reflexive militarist, a social reactionary and a nativist cum free marketeer than you open yourself up to similarly broadbrush generalizations about the particular party you favor, namely that Democratic voters will do whatever their union rep/race-baiting demagogue/professor tells them to do. Both sets of generalizations roughly correlate to the expressed policy preferences of party voters, but beyond that they are gobbledygook in a pseudo-intellectual guise. Allen lost because in evaluating him and his opponent as individuals and as representatives of their parties in a specific place and time voters preferred Webb. Neither man was particularly distinguished for new ideas, just as neither party is particularly distinguished for new ideas.

The contemporary political scene is a morass in which Republicans attempt to answer each question by consulting the Oracle of Reagan and the Democrats by trying to distinguish their policy platforms from initiatives that have failed miserably in different times and places. There are few if any deeply original political thinkers and with the exception of a handful of relatively new problems, eg environmentalism and international terrorism, there are precious few opportunities for such a thinker to apply creativity to political questions. The depressing truth is that virtually all alternatives have been exhausted and the near future, absent cataclysm, drifting to and fro like an all but inert pendulum while trying to steer clear of two economically and socially unpalatable extremes, while maintaining a relative stasis of 2-3% growth, 1% inflation and managed social decline.

Posted by Anonymous Conservative | April 30, 2007 1:31 PM

Cripes. One wonders exactly what kind of a conservative candidate would help these poor depressed Republicans recover from their "malaise" ...

To repair the fusionist foundation that Republican have relied on in the past (see Ryan Sager's "Elephant in the Room") , they'd obviously prefer a bona fide fiscal and social conservative, ideally with good family values and married to one wife. A real limited government Republican in the Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater tradition would be a welcome relief. As long as we are builidng a conservative's dream candidate, someone who had experience in the private sector, and even better... lets make him a wealthy self-made enterpreneur. He must be tough on crime, strong on defense, pro-gun with an "A" rating from the NRA, support low taxes and limited spending, be rated a "Taxpayers Friend" by the NTU, be pro-business with an 85%+ rating from the US Chamber of Commerce, and a 0% rating from NARAL indicating a perfect pro-life voting record.

Gosh, wouldn't it also be great to also have a candidate who is an intellectual, an idea man, articulate, comfortable and coherent at a podium? Lets add those traits.

What the hell, lets go all out. Let's make him a decorated Vietnam war combat veteran who served with distinction and honor.

Sigh, Now that would be a conservative candidate!

And that is Chuck Hagel.

To bad he screwed it all up by being completely right about the Iraq war since the beginning of the war. Then making it worse by saying exactly what he believed at every opportunity to try and change the direction of the country before Iraq turned into a complete disaster.

Too bad. He should have known that Republicans would find that unforgivable.

Posted by mw | April 30, 2007 2:04 PM

mw, reading along, I thought you were describing Duncan Hunter. "a decorated Vietnam war combat veteran", "tough on crime, strong on defense, pro-gun with an "A" rating from the NRA", etc.

I get the impression that Sager is more interested in undermining the fusionist alliance than repairing it. The dominant ideology in the GOP at present is neither conservative nor libertarian, it is good old-fashioned Rockefeller Republicanism - socialy liberal and pro big business. Big business, in turn, does not behave in the way that people who've read Ayn Rand might expect it to. It's main preoccupation seems to be harnessing the power of the state to its own ends.

Posted by James | April 30, 2007 2:22 PM

James,
I think you are shooting the messenger as far as Sager is concerned. He is just a reporter. It is not his doing that the fusionist alliance has cracked. The alliance was undermined by those in this adminstration that betrayed both the evangelicals and the libertarians that elected them.

Regarding Hunter, you may be right. He does not carry the burden that Hagel must shoulder, that one defining characteristic that prevents Hagel from being supported and nominated by the Republican base i.e. - being right about the war since the beginning. Perhaps Hunter can indeed rally Republicans to his candidacy.

Of course, it is exactly that characteristic that would insure his loss in the general election. The President has us on a path that insures the war in Iraq will be the only issue that matters in 2008. The Republican right is now so out of step with the majority of Americans over the war, that I cannot see how it is possible for Republicans to nominate an electable candidate. So, we are on a hell-bound train for a return to single party control of the federal government in 2009, but this time with the Democrats in control. Too bad, this divided government thing seems to be working quite well.

Posted by mw | April 30, 2007 3:48 PM

mw, I can think of a lot of words to describe Sager, but reporter is not one of them. I'm pretty sure he would not apply that tag to himself. I've seen him singing the praises of some very unlibertarian Democrats, such as Brian Schweitzer. (Ranked "F" by Cato)

being right about the war since the beginning

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The war is not some fixed, unchanging constant, like pi, which people can be right about in your sense. It's quite conceivable that the war was the right idea in 2002, AND that its the right idea to start withdrawing now or in the near future.

Posted by James | April 30, 2007 5:31 PM

James,
Hmmm. Apparently what we have here, is a failure to communicate. Let me try again.

I don't know Ryan Sager. Ryan Sager is not a friend of mine. I don't know what he calls himself. I just read his book. Perhaps I should have used the word journalist. I consider the words synonymous. This is what he says in the book:
"... and Ira Stoll, my old bosses at the New York Sun, who, when there were perilously few jobs for young journalists, started a new paper and gave a lot of us our starts. ...".

If you don't like that, perhaps we can agree on my use of the word as a verb, not a noun - "reporter" like "decider".

"I don't know what that is supposed to mean. The war is not some fixed, unchanging constant, like pi, which people can be right about in your sense. It's quite conceivable that the war was the right idea in 2002, AND that its the right idea to start withdrawing now or in the near future." - j

While I agree that your statement is conceivably, hypothetically possible, I don't think it contradicts what I said.

I also don't think my meaning is all that hard to understand. I am utilizing conventional english usage of the words "beginning" and "right" in a simple sentence.

I use "beginning" in the chronological sense. The "war" I reference started in March, 2003. In February, 2003 (chronologically at the "beginning" of the war but technically "before" it), Chuck Hagel spoke about the impending war in a Landon Lecture series speech at Kansas State University. You can watch a video of the complete speech here (fair warning it is long - some 50 minutes).

In that speech Hagel recommends prudence and caution before going into Iraq, and warns about almost every single thing that has gone wrong as a consequence over the last four years. Not hindsight, real foresight. In that speech at the beginning of the war, Hagel was "right". I mean "right" in the conventional english sense of "absolutely friggin' 100% correct".

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

Links to a shorter YouTube video excerpting portions of his 2003 Landon Lecture, as well as a transcipt of the speech, are in my blog post "It's the war, stupid."

Posted by mw | April 30, 2007 8:32 PM

Chuck Hagel supports the third-world invasion of the U.S.

http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=NE&VIPID=510

He's a liberal globalist shill.

Posted by Patriot | May 1, 2007 11:32 AM

The "Bolsheviks," as yeselson calls them, do seem to believe that the Republican Party can continue its inexorable march if only it continues to reflect the desires of the movement itself. And the movement is indeed doctrinaire and inflexible; to an extent that's been part of its success in the past, but it's a hindrance now as the public, I believe, has come to associate that inflexibility with the war in Iraq. And that's a legitimate association.

So the party really does face a choice. Is it going to continue to pander to the populists, or is it going to say, look, we need and want you as part of this coalition, but times have changed and we need to be a little less dogmatic in our approach. But the populist conservatives, of course, are unlikely to tolerate that.

Posted by bgno64 | May 1, 2007 12:45 PM

Thanks Patriot (a proud member of the 17%er club), for providing another really great example of how far the right has drifted from the mainstream of American political thought. They seem intent on driving this country to a single party controlled democratic government in 2009. From the NY Post:

"If there were any doubts, two recently released polls should do wonders to dispel them. The first was a nationwide survey commissioned by the National Immigration Forum and the Manhattan Institute. It found that voters are more interested in passing comprehensive immigration reform this year than in 2006, with 75% in favor and just 17% against. In July of last year, 71% supported reform and 23% opposed it."

"The second poll, from USA Today/Gallup, showed that 78% of the population is solidly behind a law that would provide a path to earned citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S."

- mw [Conservative Globalist Shill]

Posted by mw | May 1, 2007 1:01 PM

Those polls are so biased and you know it.

Posted by Authentic Conservative | May 1, 2007 2:40 PM

"Rising inequality in the United States is linked to rising immigration, falling union membership and rising international trade according to economists. But, these three trends are not independent of each other, and the rise in the immigrant population contributes to the other two trends.

Since 1970, the country’s immigrant population has grown by about 26 million persons — a 272 percent increase. Over the same period, the spread between mean and median family incomes — an indicator of increasing income inequality — has grown by nearly four times the rate of increase during the prior period (1947—70) when the immigrant population was fairly stable.

Since mass immigration was unleashed by the 1965 immigration law, increases in average inflation-adjusted family income have steadily shrunk and are approaching no growth, or — if the trend continues — negative growth.

The Bush administration’s proposal to increase immigration and increase both skilled and unskilled temporary foreign workers would increase the labor supply and, thereby, accelerate the trend in rising income inequality and the erosion of the middle class."

Posted by America First | May 1, 2007 2:41 PM

"The illegal alien population residing in New Jersey is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly $2.1 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. This estimate is derived from analysis of public expenditures on just three of several areas of expenditures for about 372,000 illegal alien residents. That annual tax burden amounts to about $800 per New Jersey household headed by a native-born resident. Even if sales, income and property taxes that may be collected from illegal immigrants — estimated at $488 million — are subtracted from the fiscal outlays, the net costs to New Jersey’s taxpayers still amount to nearly $1.6 billion per year. "

Posted by America First | May 1, 2007 2:42 PM

Illegitimate Births Among Immigrants

Study: Overall Rate Now Nearly the Same as Natives, Hispanic Rate Higher

WASHINGTON (April 24, 2007) – President Bush and others argue that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans. However, a new analysis of birth records by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that about one-third of births to both immigrants and natives are now to unmarried parents. Illegitimate children are at higher risk for social problems, and the risk may be even greater for those with immigrant parents because they need strong families to adjust to life in America.

The full report, entitled ‘Illegitimate Nation: An Examination of Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives,’ is available at http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back507.html.

Among the report’s findings:

*Births to unmarried women have increased dramatically. >From 13 percent in 1980 for immigrant mothers (legal and illegal) to 32 percent in 2003, and from 19 to 35 percent for native-born mothers.

* The rate for immigrants is higher than for natives in Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina.

* The modest nationwide difference disappears when teenagers, who have the highest illegitimacy rates, are excluded. There are relatively few immigrant teenagers because immigrants tend to arrive older. Without teenagers, the rate is about 30 percent for both immigrants and natives.

* Hispanic immigrants have seen the largest increase in illegitimacy – from 19 percent in 1980 to 42 percent in 2003. This matters because 59 percent of all births to immigrants are to Hispanics.

* In addition to the 42 percent rate for Hispanic immigrants, 39 percent of births among black immigrants are to unmarried women, 11 percent among Asian/Pacific Islander immigrants, and 12 percent among white immigrants.

* There is no indication of improvement over the generations. The illegitimacy rate among the native-born is 50 percent for Hispanics; 30 percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 24 percent for whites.

* 2003 is the first time that the absolute number of illegitimate births to Hispanic women (immigrant and native) outnumbered illegitimate births to black women (immigrant and native).

* Out-of-wedlock births are highest for those with the least education; among immigrant mothers who lack a high school diploma, 45 percent of births are illegitimate.

* The country is currently debating whether to legalize illegal aliens or, alternatively, to enforce the law and cause them to return home. Since 60 percent of illegals lack a high school diploma and 80 percent are Hispanic, legalization would likely contribute to the illegitimacy problem by enabling illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

“Some want to see immigrants as paragons of virtue, others view them as morally deficient in some way. When it comes to family values, neither view is correct,” said Steven Camarota, the report’s author and the Center’s Director of Research. “Immigrants are subject to the same social forces as everyone else. Thus, the idea that immigration will reinvigorate traditional family values is unrealistic.”

Other findings:

*The children of unmarried immigrants often have to overcome their parents’ very low levels of education as well. In 2003, 56 percent of illegitimate births to immigrants were to a mother who also lacked a high school diploma; for natives the rate was 33 percent. For Hispanic immigrants specifically, the rate was 65 percent.

* There is no evidence that illegitimacy is related to legal status. It is common in many sending countries, regardless of how their immigrants arrived here. According to the UN, 38 percent of births are illegitimate in both Mexico and Canada, 73 percent in El Salvador, and 86 percent in Jamaica.

* The high rate for Hispanic immigrants also seems unrelated to legal status because only one-fifth of non-Mexican Hispanic immigrants are illegal aliens, yet their illegitimacy rate is 45 percent. This compares to 41 percent for Mexican immigrants, fully half of whom are illegal.

* The high levels of out-of-wedlock births among native-born Hispanics also suggests that cultural factors play a significant role in explaining high illegitimacy among that group.

* Another reason to think illegitimacy is more related to cultural factors than legal status is that college-educated Hispanic immigrants, only a small share of whom are illegal, still have triple the rate of illegitimacy as college-educated natives.

* Birth records used in this study count all births, unlike Census Bureau surveys that are more likely to miss poor and less-educated immigrants, who have the highest illegitimacy. Thus Census Bureau data tends to understate family problems among immigrants, and does not specifically report illegitimacy.

* Looking at family structure with Census Bureau data shows that 75 percent of the U.S.-born children of immigrants live in a household headed by a married person, compared to 70 percent for natives. The rate is 70 percent for Hispanic immigrants and 79 percent for white natives.

* Among teenagers, who are at the greatest risk for getting into trouble, there is less difference – 70 percent of U.S.-born teenagers with immigrants parents live in a married household, compared to 68 percent for those with native parents.

* Like the birth records, the Census Bureau data show that neither immigrants nor natives can be said to be exemplary when it comes to marriage and children.

# # #

Posted by America First | May 1, 2007 2:44 PM

"Chuck Hagel: Liberal Globalist

A couple weeks ago Andrew Sullivan, referencing two recent articles in the American Conservative, called Chuck Hagel the “great paleocon hope.” I take issue with this classification on a number of grounds. In no way, I think, is Hagel representative of paleoconservatives or the Old Right.

First, Hagel is not a non-interventionist. He merely disagrees with the way the war has been implemented in Iraq.

Second, Hagel’s position on immigration is better representative of the American Enterprise Institute than the Old Right, whose legacy included the Immigration Act of 1924, a corps to which Hagel does not belong.

Americans for Better Immigration gives Hagel a career grade of D-. On reducing chain migration, he receives an F-; on reducing unnecessary foreign workers, F-; on reducing amnesties, F-; and on reducing other enticements, F-. In short, he’s an embarrassment.

On free trade, which is destroying our economy and sovereignty, he is giving a 92% by Cato, which indicates that he does not support an America First economic policy, thus putting him at odds with paleoconservatives.

Neocons have made support of the war a litmus test for membership in any mainstream conservative organization. It seems that some of the opponents of the war have fallen into the same wrongheaded reasoning. Simple opposition to the implementation of the Iraq War, especially taken conjointly with other globalist positions, does not a paleocon make."

Posted by Hagel = Globalist Shill | May 1, 2007 2:51 PM

vrwdzej stjzymi

Posted by the electric chair | August 7, 2008 6:42 PM