The Coming Conservative Civil War

Michael Tomasky, on the GOP's future:

Despite Bush's failures and the discrediting of conservative governance, there is every chance that the next Republican president, should the party's nominee prevail next year, will be just as conservative as Bush has been—perhaps even more so.

How could this be? The explanation is fairly simple. It has little to do with the out-of-touch politicians and conservative voters ... and reflects instead the central hard truth about the components of the Republican Party today. That is, the party is still in the hands of three main interests: neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers, clustered around such organizations as the Club for Growth and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. Each of these groups dominates party policy in its area of interest—the neocons in foreign policy, the theocons in social policy, and the anti-taxers on fiscal and regulatory issues. Each has led the Bush administration to undertake a high-profile failure .... And yet, so far as the internal dynamics of the Republican Party are concerned, they have been failures without serious consequence, because there are no strong countervailing Republican forces to present an opposite view or argue a different set of policies and principles.

From this perceptive beginning, Tomasky's essay goes a bit astray, I think, in its analysis of how and from whence reform - or at least ideological division - is likely to come to the Republican Party. He treats the alliance between the three interest groups listed above as a near-immutable fact of conservative politics, and argues that any realignment of the GOP must, perforce, be driven by Republicans who are "outside" the conservative movement. (He offers the names Chuck Hagel and Arnold Schwarzenegger as examples of the sort of politicians he has in mind.) Tomasky acknowledges the unlikelihood of this "revolt of the moderates" scenario; what he doesn't acknowledge, I think, is the growing likelihood of fissures within the conservative movement reshaping the ground of GOP politics.

It's true that the current conservative intelligentsia, forged in the crucible of Ronald Reagan's successes, is heavily invested in keeping the triple alliance intact - hence the Thompson bubble, the anti-Huckabee crusade, and the "rally round Romney" effect. And it's true, as well, that if the Republican Party recovers its majority in the next election the alliance will be considerably strengthened. But such a recovery is unlikely, and already, in the wake of just a single midterm-election debacle, it's obvious that the Norquistians and neocons and social conservatives aren't inevitable allies - that many tax-cutters and foreign-policy hawks, for instance, would happily screw over their Christian-Right allies to nominate Rudy Giuliani; or that many social conservatives don't give a tinker's dam what the Club for Growth thinks about Mike Huckabee's record. (So too with the neocon yearning for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, which would arguably represent a far more radical remaking of the GOP coalition than anything Chuck Hagel has to offer.)

The "movement" institutions, from the think tanks to talk radio, have resisted these fissiparous tendencies, and if Mitt Romney wins the nomination they'll be able to claim a temporary victory. But if the GOP continues to suffer at the polls, in '08 and beyond, the (right-of) center can't be expected to hold, and the result will be a struggle for power that's likely to leave the conservative movement changed, considerably, from the way that Tomasky finds it today. Like most such struggles, this civil war is beginning as a battle of the books - Gerson vs. Frum; Sager vs. Sam's Club, Norquist contra mundum - but it's likely to end with political trench warfare, and the birth of a very different GOP.

Comments

"the party is still in the hands of three main interests: neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers"

In other words, thugs, wackaloons, and cheapskates.

Abraham Lincoln would be so proud!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 31, 2007 2:59 PM

Ross, I am only saying this because it is a pet-peeve, so please let me be the grammar police for a moment.

While "from whence" is often said, it is not necessary--and probably wrong. Moreover, from my perspective it mars the beauty of whence which already contains the meaning of the preposition "from" within it.

I'll hand it over to the OED:

I. Interrogative uses. (Now replaced in ordinary colloquial speech by where...from.)

1. From what place? a. in a direct question.

a1300 K. Horn 161 (Camb. MS.) Whannes beo e, faire gumes, at her to londe beo icume. 1382 WYCLIF Gen. xvi. 8 Whens comyst thow, and whithir gost thow? c1430 Syr Tryam. 431 What do ye here, madam? Fro whens come ye? [ed. Copland (c 1550) Of whens be you..?]. 1526 TINDALE John vi. 5 Whence shall we bye breed that these might eate? 1540 PALSGR. Acolastus II. v. Nij, From whense haste thou brought hym hyther? 1547 BOORDE Introd. Knowl. xxvii. (1870) 192 Of whens be you? I am of England. 1596 SHAKES. Tam. Shr. II. i. 103 Of whence, I pray? Tra. Of Pisa, sir. 1697 DRYDEN Æneis x. 945 Whence am I forc'd, and whether am I born? 1720 DELANY News fr. Parnass. 19 From whence is this Fool? 1773 GOLDSM. Stoops to Conq. v, My wife, as I'm a Christian. From whence can she come? 1855 TENNYSON Brook 22 O babbling brook,..Whence come you?
b. in an indirect question.

c1300 St. Brandan 288 We nuteth not bote thurf God whannes hit is i-brout. 1377 LANGL. P. Pl. B. v. 532 is folke frayned hym firste fro whennes he come. c1450 Merlin 44 They axed hym of whens he was. 1526 TINDALE John ix. 29 Thys felowe, we knowe not from whence he ys. 1579 SPENSER Sheph. Cal. May 261 The Kidd..Asked..who, and whence that he were. 1697 DRYDEN Æneis VI. 1193 He..ask'd his airy Guide, What, and of whence was he. Ibid. VIII. 150 Resolve me, Strangers, whence, and what you are. 1710 DE FOE Ess. Public Credit 6 We..hardly know whence it [sc. the wind] comes, or whither it goes. 1802 M. EDGEWORTH Moral T., Forester v, He inquired whence the water came. 1886 STEVENSON Kidnapped xxv, There was no question put of whence I came or whither I was going.
2. gen. and transf. From what source, origin, or cause? a. in a direct question.

c1305 Pop. Treat. Sci. (1841) 139 Loke hou crokede thu were ther,..Whannes [earlier text Fra wam] cometh hit siththe to bere the so hee? 1382 WYCLIF Matt. xxi. 25 Of whennes was the baptem of Joon; of heuene, or of men? 1526 TINDALE Luke i. 43 Whens hapeneth this to me, that the mother off my lorde shulde come to me? 1697 DRYDEN Æneis x. 9 From whence these Murmurs, and this change of Mind? 1759 STERNE Tr. Shandy II. xvii, But whence..have you concluded..that the writer is of our church? 1853 DICKENS Bleak Ho. xix, From whence have we derived that spiritual profit?
b. in an indirect question.

1485 CAXTON Chas. Gt. 53, I am wel admeruaylled fro whens that cometh to the suche presumpcion to speke so hastyly. 1599 Broughton's Lett. viii. 28 There are some that can tell..from whence you borrow..your much bragd~of Concent. 1667 MILTON P.L. v. 856 Strange point and new! Doctrin which we would know whence learnt. 1718 PRIOR Solomon I. 459 Ask Reason now, whence Light and Shade were giv'n. 1781 COWPER Truth 237 An apt similitude shall show Whence springs the conduct that offends you so. 1849 C. BRONTË Shirley vii, The laughter and mirth of her uncle, and Hannah, and Mary, she could not tell whence originating. 1859 TENNYSON Pelleas & Ettarre 520 For so the words were flash'd into his heart He knew not whence or wherefore. 1867 F. HARRISON in Questions Ref. Parlt. 255 No man can say from whence the greater danger to order arises.
II. Relative or conjunctive uses.

3. From which place; from or out of which.
Also with ellipsis of there or thither in the main clause.

1382 WYCLIF Ps. cxx[i]. 1, I rered vp myn een in to the mounteynes; whennys [1388 fro whannus] shal come helpe to me. 1535 COVERDALE Deut. xi. 10 The londe of Egipte, whence ye came out. 1560 Bible (Geneva) Isa. li. 1 Loke vnto the rocke, whence ye are hewen. a1700 EVELYN Diary 30 June 1644, A dreadfull cliff, from whence the country and river yeald a most incomparable prospect. 1728-46 THOMSON Spring 910 Mossy rocks, Whence on each hand the gushing waters play. 1838 DICKENS O. Twist xxxiv, The little room..looked into a garden, whence a wicket-gate opened into a small paddock. 1887 SWINBURNE Stud. Prose & Poetry (1894) 141 The quarter from whence the following lucubration is addressed.
1590 SHAKES. Com. Err. III. i. 37 Let him walke from whence he came. 1591 Two Gent. II. iv. 122 Now tell me: how do al from whence you came? 1611 Bible Job x. 21 Let me alone that I may take comfort a litle, Before I goe whence [COVERDALE thyther, from whence] I shall not returne.
b. as compound relative: From the place in which, from where. poet. Obs. rare.

1601 SHAKES. All's Well III. ii. 124 Come thou home Rossillion, Whence honor but of danger winnes a scarre, As oft it looses all. 1607 Timon I. i. 22 Our Poesie is as a Goume [printed Gowne] which vses [i.e. oozes] From whence 'tis nourisht.
4. gen. and transf. From which source or origin (as a product); from which cause (as a result); from which fact or circumstance (as an inference).

a1568 R. ASCHAM Scholem. I. (Arb.) 61 This opinion is not French, but plaine Turckishe: from whens, som French fetche moe faultes, than this. 1590 SPENSER F.Q. III. iii. 1 Vertue..Whence spring all noble deeds and neuer dying fame. 1678 CUDWORTH Intell. Syst. 32 To lay down such Principles, as from whence it would follow, that any Real Entity in Nature did come from Nothing and go to Nothing. 1731-8 SWIFT Pol. Conversat. Introd. 29 From whence I did then conclude..that Wine doth not inspire Politeness. 1781 COWPER Expost. 111 Faith, the root whence only can arise The graces of a life that wins the skies. 1859 JEPHSON Brittany vi. 81 St. Ive..became a successful advocate, whence he is now venerated by Breton lawyers as their patron. 1885 G. L. GOODALE Physiol. Bot. 400 During its revolution a tip bows or nods successively to all points of the compass; whence the name nutation.
III. 5. as n. (nonce-use.) That from which something comes or arises; place of origin; source.

1832 MOTLEY in Corr. (1889) I. 18, I was summoned before the Senate of the University, and then wrote my name and my whences and whats, etc., etc., in a great book. 1869 MRS. WHITNEY Hitherto xviii. 242 We start from some whence, and are expressed through to somewhere. 1875 E. WHITE Life in Christ I. iv. (1878) 30 Uncertain as to the Whence and Whither of humanity.

Posted by David | December 31, 2007 5:19 PM

I think there are two subtle, but important, mistakes in Tomasky's assessment of the "Three Main Interests" of the GOP.

The first mistake is in assuming that "neocons" have an iron grip on GOP foreign policy. It's more accurate, I think, to say that nationalists are the key foreign policy faction in the party rank and file. These voters are generally suspicious of the UN, value a "strong" defense, and blanch at the merest suggestion of retreat or surrender in any military or political confrontation. But on narrower foreign policy questions they run the full gamut from anti-immigration isolationists to pro-stability realists, to neocons who want to bomb Iran, to the nutbars who think "Eurabia" is on the verge of falling into dhimmitude and we ought to nuke Mecca.

This leads into my second criticism, which is the assumption that each of these three voter blocs has equal pull with Republican elected officials. In any analysis of a political party, it needs to be understood that ideological voters are loosely aligned with elite interest groups who lobby for specific, tangible favors from the government. Party insiders want to weaken the federal regulatory state, increase defense spending, and eliminate the estate tax... thereby they make common cause with people who want to end abortion, push foreign countries around, and reduce their own middle class tax burden. But party insiders also want cheap immigrant labor, whereas most rank and file Republicans from all three ideological blocs do not.

After the Iraq War fades away, I'd expect the Republicans to toss the neocons overboard and return to their more traditional approach of promoting massive military spending and keeping defense contractors fat and happy, but being relatively risk-averse when it comes to actually using the military. However, the marriage of economic elitists and cultural populists is going to be on the rocks for the foreseeable future.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 31, 2007 5:28 PM

But party insiders also want cheap immigrant labor, whereas most rank and file Republicans from all three ideological blocs do not.

I know this is a thread on the GOP rather than the Democrats, but THE biggest unremarked political change in America these last few decades has been the Democratic parties abandonment of Americas's poor and working class. Nowdays the people calling the shots within the Democratic party are drawn from the same class as those within the GOP. This is best exemplfied at present by the Democrats eagerness to flood the country with cheap immigrant labor, in defiance of all the party used to stand for in terms of the economy and the environment.

Posted by James | December 31, 2007 6:42 PM

many tax-cutters and foreign-policy hawks, for instance, would happily screw over their Christian-Right allies to nominate Rudy Giuliani

That's probably an accurate summary of the way some people think, but it just shows how stupid people are. Giuliani's actual record on fiscal issues is not that of a small government fiscal conservative. From opposing Pataki as NY governor on the grounds that he might cut taxes, to going to court to get the line item veto tossed because it threatened NYC pork, Rudy has racked up a record as being a Rockefeller Republican. Which is exactly what he descibed himself as being.

Posted by James | December 31, 2007 6:49 PM

I don't buy the argument that there's a GOP crackup underway. For one, that argument gets trotted out every election year, regardless of the GOP's electoral fortunes. 2006 was less a shifting of the political tides than it was a typical 6th-year election. The party in power usually takes a beating. While there's no doubt that the Republicans did a lot to assist in their own defeat (by not being sufficiently reformist on earmarks and spending), that doesn't mean that there's a crackup in the conservative coalition.

The deeper reason is that conservatives are broadly unified on three basic principles: a strong national defense, lower taxes, and "family values." A "Country Club Republican" doesn't typically want abortion on demand any more than a social conservative wants to see their tax bill jump dramatically. For all the talk about how the Republican Party is abandoning the middle class, the reality is that the GOP is increasingly the party of the middle class while the Democratic Party is the party of the super-wealthy and the lower classes. The sort of middle-class entrepreneurs that represent the bulk of fiscal conservatives also tend to be regular church-goers with strong family backgrounds. Economic success and social values are far more strongly correlated than people might think.

As a point in contrast, what does a union steelworker and a coastal vegan activist have uniting them? The Democratic tent is filled with all sort of disparate interest groups from gay rights activists to union members to environmentalists to single women. The only thing that keeps that tent together in increasingly hatred of the other side. As President Bush fades into history, those fault lines could rip apart as they did in 1968 when the Democratic Party lurched leftward and abandoned the JFK-Truman tradition in favor of modern "liberalism."

For all the talk of a conservative crackup, the GOP is exactly in the same position that the Democrats were in at this time in 2003. There was no clear winner, there were major differences of opinion over what the face of the party should be, and there was even talk of brokered conventions and splits in the party.

There's a danger in trying to derive broad principles from one moment in time, and those predicting a conservative civil war are seeing the normal process of primary politics for something its not.

Posted by Jay Reding | December 31, 2007 7:10 PM

Michael Tomasky: Despite Bush's failures and the discrediting of conservative governance, there is every chance that the next Republican president, should the party's nominee prevail next year, will be just as conservative as Bush has been—perhaps even more so.

How could this be? The explanation is fairly simple. It has little to do with the out-of-touch politicians and conservative voters ... and reflects instead the central hard truth about the components of the Republican Party today. That is, the party is still in the hands of three main interests: neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers...

What in the world is this idiot talking about?

DUBYAH IS A LIBERAL!!!

If it weren't for the WOT, we [the GOP rank & file] would have long since tarred & feathered the guy.

As it stands, we hate his guts, but we grit our teeth and bear it, knowing that a wingnut eco-freak pagan - nursing a really bad messianic complex - who worships at the alter of a fantasy like "Global Warming" [or at least pretends to worship at that alter, when he isn't burning jet fuel in his Gulfstream, or diesel fuel in his Hummer, or running up the largest residential electricity bill in the state of Tennessee] - would have been far, far worse.

PS: Is the phrase "there is every chance that the next Republican president" supposed to have been some sort of a Freudian slip?

Didn't he mean to say "the next Republican nominee"?

Posted by Lucius Vorenus | December 31, 2007 7:30 PM

re: Nowdays the people calling the shots within the Democratic party are drawn from the same class as those within the GOP.

Which matters why exactly? FDR and JFK came from the uppermost stratum of our socioeconomic register. So of course they were notorious elitists concerned only about their own class. And for that matter Bill Clinton's roots were decidedly not upper class; they were a lot closer to "trailer trash" than "To the manor born".

Re: I don't buy the argument that there's a GOP crackup underway.

Having read the internecine squabbling and scapegoating on some conservative blog sites I think there is indeed something to it. And check out the venom directed at Huckabee for an example.

Re: A "Country Club Republican" doesn't typically want abortion on demand any more than a social conservative wants to see their tax bill jump dramatically.

A Country Club Republican may very well want liberal abortion laws in case his daughter comes home pregnant: that might hurt her chances of getting into Harvard after all. And a religious right voter probably doesn't care about things like the inheritance tax since s/he will never pay it. (Of course the leadership of the Religious Right cares very much about those sorts of isuses since they are themselves members of the economic elite, which probably accounts for most of the comity between religious and economic right.)

Re: The sort of middle-class entrepreneurs that represent the bulk of fiscal conservatives also tend to be regular church-goers with strong family backgrounds.

Succesful entrepreneurs are NOT middle class people: they are decidedly upper class. You seem to be confusing the middle class with the upper middle class and lower echelons of the upper class.

Re: the GOP is exactly in the same position that the Democrats were in at this time in 2003.

The GOP is more or less where the Democrats were in 1968: they are out of programs and positions since all their truly popular proposals have been enacted, and their unpopular ones (e.g., Social Security privatization) have a snowball's chance in hell. They can only look back (to Reagan, as the Dems looked back to FDR), but the voters are looking forward, and none too happy with what they see. Throw in an unpopular war with no end in sight, and the fact that the party has been partially co-opted by radical ideologues elbowing aside the pragmatists, and the analogy is complete. But it may even be worse: in 1968 the economy was still sound and the energy crisis was not even a cloud on the horizon. Whistle past the graveyard if you want, but the GOP is in deep, deep doo-doo.

Posted by JonF | December 31, 2007 7:48 PM

MLJ-

In other words, thugs, wackaloons, and cheapskates.

Abraham Lincoln would be so proud!

May God bless your whiteness...

Posted by Bob Byrd | December 31, 2007 8:41 PM

Ross:

I have little to add here. However, by using both "fissaparious" and "contra mundum" you have made the ultimate Harvard-man blog post.

Also, the last time we were this split the Soviet Union bound us together. While the Soviet Union is gone, we do have Hillary. Perhaps she can rejuvenate our lost cohesion. If even non-ideological Americans can dislike her, surely we can find it in our hearts to dislike her more than each other?

I am a National Seurity/Social Conservative but think the libertarans are right on most non-family issues. I don't see a need for a crack-up, although it seems one is here.

I know all the reasons to be against but I also wish in the New Year that John McCain is our nominee.

I thank you for a year of great blog posts even when I want to strike you.

Posted by jjv | December 31, 2007 9:39 PM

1. One fallacy in Tomasky's original comments is that the three components of the GOP are discrete. As some of the commenters above have demonstrated, there is much overlap. Remember that the original '70s neocons (which really just means, formerly liberal) were just as concerned with social and fiscal affairs as they were with foreign policy. (If you don't believe me, peruse a back issue of Commentary or the Public Interest). Moreover, many (though by no means all) Christian conservatives are also conservative in terms of foreign affairs and fiscal policy.

2. I'm not really sure what Tomasky means by "high-profile failures" made by "theocons" and "anti-taxers." Taking these in reverse order: the economy recovered incredibly fast from the 2000-2001 recession, especially considering 9/11, and is still going strong, despite the sub-prime mortgage fallout (which can hardly be blamed on low taxes).

I'm at a complete loss as to what he considers to be the theocon-driven fiasco. Thinking of what social conservatives want in their federal government -- continued lack of government sanction of gay marriage? Check. A ban on abortion? Okay, no check. But I don't think social conservatives are so naive as to expect a Roe v. Wade overrule overnight. And I think most are quite pleased by Bush's Supreme Court appointments.

I can, of course, safely sumrise that Tomasky considers the Iraq War to be a failure, but with the surge's success and the absence of a follow-up 9/11 attack, history may be kinder than he realizes. This war may be unpopular now, but its unpopularity is skin-deep compared to Vietnam. Nearly 60,000 Americans lost their lives in that latter conflict, while fewer than 4,000 have died in the present war (with the U.S. population 50% larger). And there was the matter of a compulsory draft during the Vietnam War. Looked at strictly in those terms, it really is a remarkable testament to the power of the mainstream media that they have managed to transform a relatively (please take note of that prior adjective) benign conflict into a "disaster" and a "quagmire."

3. The antiquated term "Country Club Republicans" was wielded above, but they are a virtually extinct species. A Republican in Harvard is as rare as a conservative at the Atlantic Mo..., well, considerably rarer. Gore and Kerry both won a majority of voters who earn more than $200,000. As someone else mentioned, electoral statistics show that the GOP is predominantly a party of the middle class, while the Democrats draw most of their support from the upper and lower ends of the economic stratum.

In fact, I would wager there is more (though hardly perfect, of course) overlap between the various Republican interest groups than among the Democrats. For instance: exactly how much does a married-with-children West Virginia miner have in common with a single San Francisco web designer?

This is not to argue that the GOP has smooth sailing in 2008. Obviously they remain the underdogs. But I just don't think that the Democrats can count on the Republican coalition collapsing. They still have more in common with each other than with the Democratic Party. And a polarizing candidate like Hillary Clinton will do much to remind Republicans of what's at stake.

Posted by Cato | January 1, 2008 3:37 AM

"the party is still in the hands of three main interests: neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers"
In other words, thugs, wackaloons, and cheapskates.
Abraham Lincoln would be so proud!
Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus

Liberals are so funny! "Radical anti-taxers?" LOL! "cheapskates?" BAAWWHAA!

Is that what you call someone who believes he should be able to keep more of his paycheck, instead of funding an ever-growing federal budget full of pork projects and wasted spending?

George Bush is not a conservative, he just has some conservative tendencies. He's almost as much liberal as some of you guys.

My gosh! I can't imagine how you would whine if a real conervative got into the Oval Office.

Posted by f22strike | January 1, 2008 10:12 AM

The problem with the GOP isn't that we are wrong - losers can be right - but that we are outnumbered. Our core problems are ones of demography, not philosophy. The earlier posting that suggests we are nationalists is spot-on. However we are are not nationalists vs. internationalists (e.g., Clintonites, the UN, etc.), but nationalists vs. hyper-individualists (e.g., myspace, sports addicts, etc.).
The GOP is fundamentally a political party, not a spiritual movement, but deep down, many of us want to use the GOP to "fix" America. Unfortunately, a political machine isn't the answer. Political machines are better suited for secular purposes.
I'm supporting Huckabee. He may gum up the GOP political machine that Romney seems best-suited to lead, but a cleverly managed, well-funded political machine isn't what America needs.

Posted by fougasseu | January 1, 2008 10:45 AM

Re: I'm not really sure what Tomasky means by "high-profile failures" made by "theocons" and "anti-taxers."

Should be very obvious: Terri Schiavo and Social Security privatization.

Posted by JonF | January 1, 2008 11:08 AM

Neither of those are failures for the conservative side. The are opening salvos of batttles yet to come.

Posted by f22strike | January 1, 2008 12:38 PM

fougasseu: The problem with the GOP isn't that we are wrong - losers can be right - but that we are outnumbered. Our core problems are ones of demography, not philosophy. The earlier posting that suggests we are nationalists is spot-on. However we are are not nationalists vs. internationalists (e.g., Clintonites, the UN, etc.), but nationalists vs. hyper-individualists (e.g., myspace, sports addicts, etc.).

The GOP is fundamentally a political party, not a spiritual movement, but deep down, many of us want to use the GOP to "fix" America. Unfortunately, a political machine isn't the answer. Political machines are better suited for secular purposes.

I'm supporting Huckabee. He may gum up the GOP political machine that Romney seems best-suited to lead, but a cleverly managed, well-funded political machine isn't what America needs.

You are correct about the demographics, although I don't see what good it does to drink the snake oil being pushed on you by a con man like Huckabee.

[And, quite frankly, if Huckabee's con isn't transparent to you, then you ought to be just a little ashamed of yourself.]

In the next few decades, people [or at least the tiny handful of people who persist with IQ's much greater than that of a walnut] will come to realize that Demographics isn't the most important thing: DEMOGRAPHICS IS THE ONLY THING.

The last time the world faced a demographic catastrophe the likes of which it faces today, it took just about exactly a millenium [from circa 454AD, to circa 1454AD] to right the ship - and there were a few times there when the ship damn near sank and civilization damn near was lost forever.

This time, though, I have my doubts - I suspect that the Second Dark Age might be much longer & nastier than the first, and I'm not so sure that humanity will even be able to crawl its way out this time.

PS: Alter = altar.

Posted by Lucius Vorenus | January 1, 2008 1:27 PM

Speaking of tax money that I would like to have back:

Jan 1, 12:34 PM EST
Feds Share Coupons to Help TV Transition
By JOHN DUNBAR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of $40 government coupons become available Tuesday to help low-tech television owners buy special converter boxes for older TVs that might not work after the switch to digital broadcasting.

The converter needed is only $40-$70 and is not even needed if you have cable or satelite t.v.
It's your tax money taken away from your family.What could YOU have done with the money?
But, don't mind me, I'm just being a "cheapskate."

Posted by f22strike | January 1, 2008 1:44 PM

The Moors taking over Southern Europe (well, more of it) would have sunk civilization? Having decent medicine and astronomy, as well as the preserved works of the Greek ancients, constitute the loss of civilization ?

Posted by Quietus | January 1, 2008 1:51 PM

The three branches of effective conservatism today are essentially defined by three competing interpretations of the true nature of Ronald Reagan. Hermeneutic debates like this one are never settled on their own terms, nor do they just burn themselves out. Ending them requires the advent of another Original Man (to use an Emersonian phrase) who will not try to interpret but will simply act and succeed - and prompt yet another battle of interpretations after his departure. At the moment, there are no Original Men on the conservative horizon. On the liberal side, Barack Obama has the potential to be a paradigm-swamping figure of this sort.

Posted by lampwick | January 1, 2008 2:33 PM

To prosper in the long run, the GOP needs to wean itself off its addiction to neocon money and media influence, which has been so disastrous in foreign policy. But that's hard to do because of, well, neocon money and media influence. (E.g., Krauthammer and Kristol get fired at Time, but Kristol pops up instantly at the NY Times).

It will be doubly hard for the GOP to wean itself off the neocons because anybody who points out the mere fact of neocon money and media influence is denounced as an anti-Semite, and most people in public life would rather let America blunder into more Middle Eastern wars than be denounced as an anti-Semite.

Of course, neocon/neolib loyalty to the GOP is a lot less of a sure thing -- they are maneuvering already to try to dominate the foreign policy of the next Democratic administration.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 1, 2008 2:57 PM

In response to Cato's statement above, "Gore and Kerry both won a majority of voters who earn more than $200,000."

This is totally wrong and easily debunked with 5 seconds of effort (Google "2004 election demographic breakdown" and follow the link to CNN's page). Bush won the $200,000 and up category 63-35.

Why do conservatives endlessly recycle such easily refuted nonsense? And given this whopper, why should anyone take the rest of what you say seriously?

Posted by zeke | January 1, 2008 3:02 PM

"Bush's failures and the discrediting of conservative governance, there is every chance that the next Republican president, should the party's nominee prevail next year, will be just as conservative as Bush has been—"

This is crazy-talk to start with, and not very perceptive.

For one thing, you won't find much conservative governance in the governance that failed, so it can't be discredited as such. Surely it's a Pro-Life Anti-Abortion warhawk movement in power, but it's also a Big Government Left-Wing How-Can-the-Gov-Help-You movement, which is the opposite of conservative governance.

It wouldn't be difficult for the next GOP nominee to be as conservative as Bush has been because he hasn't been that conservative. He is an Anti-Abortion pro-death penalty tax-cutting Big Government Liberal.

Point 2 is that if the American electorate votes against the GOP, whatever its flaws, then it will very effectively putting into power a bunch of know-nothings, who all propose "change" and say they're all knew-type folk but all have old damned ideas. Not feeling cynical yet? Then start thinking!

Posted by Chris Arndt | January 1, 2008 4:06 PM

f22strike writes: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of $40 government coupons become available Tuesday to help low-tech television owners buy special converter boxes for older TVs that might not work after the switch to digital broadcasting.

The converter needed is only $40-$70 and is not even needed if you have cable or satelite t.v.
It's your tax money taken away from your family.What could YOU have done with the money?
But, don't mind me, I'm just being a "cheapskate.""

Yes, you are. I'd rather have back the hundreds of billions that malignant sphincters spent on the totally unnecessary Iraq War, but of course you probably cheered that atrocity on.

It's hilarious that what you choose to bitch about is a program which may - and that's a big MAY - end up costing 80 million or so. They've lost hundreds of times that amount in Iraq. Just lost it - they have no idea where the money went.

So not only are you a cheapskate, you're a stupid one with twisted and retarded priorities. I have no sympathy for you or your kind.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 1, 2008 4:12 PM

Re: Neither of those are failures for the conservative side. The are opening salvos of batttles yet to come.

You're smoking some good stuff. Those battles are already lost, as witness the fact the public began turning against Bush and the GOP over precisely those two policy fiascos. Keep pressing that sort of unpopular extremism and you folks will be down there with the Constitution Party in electoral successes.
By the way, I am not criticizing the basic concepts of fiscal conservatism and certainly not the pro-Life cause in general. But your motto needs to be "Nothing in Excess". Keeping a brain-dead woman ghoulishly alive (and on the public dole!) is excess and has nothing to do with saving healthy, viable fetuses, and it probably hurt that cause. Nor will it you serve the interests of the country by trying to destroy (or at least corrupt) a popular and extremely important retirement program that only needs some minor tweaks to be solvent indefinitely.

Re: DEMOGRAPHICS IS THE ONLY THING.

Hardly. Demography is not destiny because humans are not deterministic robots, chained to hard instinct. Culture (let alone politics!) is not hereditary.

Re: The last time the world faced a demographic catastrophe the likes of which it faces today, it took just about exactly a millenium [from circa 454AD, to circa 1454AD] to right the ship -

Huh? do you know something we don't? Major asteroid collision coming up? Massive volcanic explosion looming? Nuclear war in the offing? For sure, the gently declining fertility rates over much of the world is hardly a calamity; if anything it will keep Malthus (and Ehrlich) at bay. Moreover even the catastrophes of the 6th century did not hamper most of the world for very long: China, India and the Americas recovered in a generation or two, the Middle East after about a century, and Europe by 800 AD (not the 1450s as you posit).

Posted by Jonf | January 1, 2008 4:26 PM

David I. - Please don't do that again!

Posted by Vita | January 1, 2008 5:02 PM

Lucius Vorenus: As Jane Jacobs has written, we have already entered the next Dark Age. It's a gradual process, not a turning off of the lights, it's a forgetting. We forget what's important, only seeing the new and now.
I take your point about Huckabee. But I'd rather have a snake oil salesman than the sophisticates selling Middle Eastern oil for $100 a barrel, paid for in blood. The blood of our soldiers and the blood of innocent Iraqis.
Remember Max Headroom? Now we have Mitt Headroom. Rudy? I saw the movie and prefer Coppola's casting. Bloomberg, Hagel, McCain...help me sort it out.
The Irish saved civilization last time, who's turn is it?

Posted by fougasseu | January 1, 2008 5:24 PM

amazing how people who claim to have special knowledge or insight into our political process forget history (or are just plain ignorant of it).

barry goldwater was a true conservative in 1964, although by today's standards he'd probably be drummed out of the gop. when the intra-party revolution succeeded in 1964 (yes, against the "country-club" or "rockefeller" republicans mentioned above) and he won the nomination, his rhetoric scared the crap out of people, and he lost in a landslide to lyndon johnson, a true inheritor of fdr and the new deal. yet the war so divided the democrats (and wallace took enough of the southern vote) that nixon won in 1968, not because he was republican or conservative, but because so much of the country hated the war (or the recently-enacted civil-rights laws) and humphrey was the first of decades of weak dem nominees.

now we have an analogous situation. the gop has moved many degrees to the right, and the various alliances which have been mentioned once again scare the crap out of people. folks of many faiths and no faith are frightened of all of the implications of a christian theocratic government, abetted by a supreme court which apparently never read the constitution or the federalist papers despite all their blather about "strict construction" and "original intent."

additionally (and not mentioned above except tangentially) is the sheer criminality and corruption of today's gop ruling class. this isn't the old-fashioned graft of democratic machine politics, but rather wholesale theft and corruption of the grandest sort.

any dem congressional candidate against a gop incumbent should do two things: point to his opponents votes on the war, and find a picture, any picture, of the incumbent with jack abramoff, and put it on the tv over and over.

what the dems shouldn't do, for now, is get into abstract arguments about execuitve power. while it is true that bush/cheney have taken it to unconscionable heights, it is too abstract for electoral strategy. once the dems get a more workable majority, the problem takes care of itself.

Posted by efgoldman | January 1, 2008 8:28 PM

It's my fault. Sorry.

I'm a token representative, of course, but emblematic.

I'm a Christian evangelical who believes that Jesus would generally avoid using the sword of the state to enforce moral behavior, and that He would instead prefer for people to voluntarily change their hearts first. That gives a streak of libertarianism to my ideas about social policy.

I'm a Christian evangelical who believes that the term "compassionate conservatism" is and has always been redundant. Conservative economic policies are intrinsically compassionate, because poverty is always reduced by them, and simultaneously so is the culture of dependency which perpetuates poverty. Therefore, any deviation from free-market principles is inherently non-compassionate. G.W.Bush's "compassion" is far worse for the poor in the long run than, say, Steve Forbes' doctrinaire defense of financial markets, because in the long run, concessions to the Democrat welfare culture will only impoverish more. This makes me a friend to Wall Street.

I'm the problem because I haven't done enough to teach my fellows. I haven't helped them to understand that populist economics (a la Huckabee) inevitably lead to dependency and poverty, and that no matter how well-intentioned his heart is, he fails to live up to his Christian morals by not simultaneously using his head. Jesus would rather see less actual poverty, than a bunch of mushy-headed social programs executed in the name of reducing poverty, but which actually increase it!

I'm the problem because I haven't done enough to teach my fellows. I try sometimes to show them how Jesus could have used displays of miraculous power -- or fear-inducing rains of hellfire -- to enforce obedience, but didn't. He didn't line up the swords of the Romans or the temple guards to enforce his moral dictates either. He went around forgiving -- and having lunch with -- all the most egregious sinners. They (some gradually, some suddenly) responded to his generous love with repentance and moral living. But I haven't succeeded in getting them to draw the moral: That if gays, pornographers, looters, embezzlers, tightwads, tax evaders, gossips, pacifists, gambling addicts, and workaholics (all the gamut of human frailty) don't see Christians as loving them without expectations, we've failed to emulate Jesus. And that using the force of the state to enforce morality in situations where no one's rights were violated is not Jesus' style! If it's anyone's, it's Mohammed's. Or Stalin's.

Every Christian evangelical should be -- has no excuse save ignorance for not being -- a free-marketer and a libertarian to some degree. But I fail to make the case. Many of us fail to make the case.

If there is any reason the GOP's coalition is in danger of falling apart, it's because of a lack of educating those in our ranks. It's a lack of helping all those in our ranks keep in mind that THE WHOLE PACKAGE is logically required by our core principles.

Attack the free-marketers in favor of protectionism, or the small-governmenters in favor of nanny-state-ism? If you do that, you shouldn't bother saying, "But I'm pro-life" as if that allows you to maintain your identity as a conservative or a Christian. No, you're not, for these are not just options selected independently from salad-bar of ideas. They either are congruent with one another, or not. Abandon any part of the mix (free-market, small-government, sanctity-of-life, individual-liberty) and you're abandoning your principles for a mishmash that will ultimately contradict itself.

I'll try harder to teach and preach. We all should. For when we neglect to transmit our core principles to others, ignorance and self-contradiction result.

Posted by R.C. | January 1, 2008 8:33 PM

Re: Conservative economic policies are intrinsically compassionate, because poverty is always reduced by them, and simultaneously so is the culture of dependency which perpetuates poverty.

I wish you were a bit more of an empiricist rather than just taking that sort of thing on faith. Exhibit A disproving your claim is Herbert Hoover. Other examples can be cited as well.
By the way, we are all dependent on others; none of us are self-sufficient. Even the air we breathe comes to us from other living things. And Christians who know that they are dependent on Jesus ought not complain about a "culture of dependency". This fetishization of the Lone Self borders on heresy, or at least on the old sin of Pride, of the Luciferian sort.

Posted by JonF | January 1, 2008 9:13 PM

Today there is not a natural link between the wings of the party. It may be that the party has to atomize and re-assemble just as it did when it was formed from the wreckage of the Whig party in the mid 1800s. At that time there was a natural commonality between the "moralists", farmers, and big business types. All for their own reasons disliked the expansion of slavery.

The Democratic party has its own issues as well. There are a lot of promises that have been made that aren't going to happen. One of the essential ingredients in the original formation of the Republican party was the splitting of the Democratic vote in 1860.

It could well be that the parties will do another "population exchange" like they did in the last 20 years (Southern Conservatives to the GOP/Northeastern Moderates to the Democrats) or there could be a full scale rebirth of one or both parties.

Posted by Don | January 2, 2008 12:57 AM

zeke - You're right about the income demographics for the 2004 election, I was wrong. My sincerest apologies. I was citing that claim from (a champagne-fogged) memory, I should have verified it first. I recall reading somewhere that at some high income level (higher than $200k, I suppose) the voting pattern tips toward the Democrats, but 15 minutes of Googling failed to turn up a citation, so I will drop that for now.

As for the rest of the hard numbers cited in my previous post, I actually did confirm the casualty comparisons between the Vietnam and Iraq wars. You're welcome to double-check them yourself.

JonF - Exhibit A is Herbert Hoover? I realize that it is Democratic Party gospel to believe that Hoover was a laissez-faire enthusiast whose free-market policies helped cause the Great Depression. But just because it is gospel doesn't mean it's true. Hoover was a progressive through and through, as it was understood at the time.

From Wikipedia: "It is not accurate, as was routinely claimed by his Democratic opponents, that Hoover 'did nothing' in the face of the crisis, nor that he was a believer in laissez-faire policies. He explicitly denounced laissez-faire in his 1922 book American Individualism, took an active pro-regulation stance as Commerce Secretary, and saw tariff and agricultural support bills through Congress."

In fact, many economists blame the Great Depression on misguided Federal Reserve monetary policy and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (the latter deeply anti-free trade). Hoover also signed into law a tax increase raising the rate on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. (Ironically, in the 1932 campaign FDR criticized Hoover for spending and taxing too much.)

Posted by Cato | January 2, 2008 4:21 AM

The main issue that could bring about permanent division in the "conservative" coalition is the War. The neocon policy of big-government interventionism isn't the least bit conservative. Interventionism used to be the default assumption. Now, esp. with the success of Ron Paul, real conservatives are starting to realize that the truly small-government conservative foreign policy is non-intervention. These two positions, inteventionism and non-intervention, are not reconcilable.

The Ron Paul campaign has also emboldened the less pragmatic Constitutionalists elements of conservatism. (That every conservative SHOULD be a Constitutionalist is nearly self-evident.) How sadly clueless is Tomasky that he thinks inside- the-Beltway pragmatists like Norquist and the Club for Growth are "radical anti-taxers." Give me a break.

Posted by Red Phillips | January 2, 2008 10:57 AM

JonF:

You missed the point of my references to "culture of dependency"...not that I was particularly clear, so no dishonor to you!

First, Christians are dependent on Christ. Of course! And they are also dependent on the (voluntary) charity of others, when they are not in a position to give abundant (voluntary) charity to others, themselves. And Christ -- who could call a thousand angels to defend him -- was certainly not forced to die for us, and yet did so: The greatest act of voluntary charity in the history of the universe, unless it was also done for some other race elsewhere in the universe with the same ignominy as our own (the status of being "fallen").

So all of this patten of dependence on the love that is exhibited by voluntary charity displays the nigh-on-blasphemous irony of saying that dependency on government programs is even remotely similar. For government programs are not remotely voluntary for their contributors. Welfare/Redistribution Programs, apart from the fact that there is no authorization for them in the Constitution and are an afront to the rights of liberty and property ensconced therein, are Compulsory. Resist paying that portion of your taxes that are to be redistributed for the common good, and you will be imprisoned; resist imprisonment and you will be overpowered, resist being overpowered and you will be shot.

Imagine what a different Jesus the world would know had He come to earth to say: "Give of your wealth for the benefit of the poor...and if your neighbor does not do the same, threaten him with a sword until he does. And if he complains he was planning to use that money to send his kid to college, tell him that you know how to use the money he earned better than he does."

That, of course is the nature of "dependence" from the "giver's" side when government is involved. But what about "dependence" from the "receiver's side?"

There, non of the humbling or humanizing or Christlike qualities of "dependence" are present, either. For the receiver of such payments invariably has one of two attitudes. He either (a.) takes the handouts as something to which he has a "right" and for which he owes no one any gratitude, or (b.) knows that the monies were taken involuntarily from those who earned it, and is ashamed of his participation in such a scheme, and yet violates his own conscience by benefiting from it. The latter is a little more excusable: The person has a conscience and it has been pricked, even if he disregards it.

Contrast this with the man who receives charity from an anonymous (secrecy always being best: "let not your left hand know what your right is doing") voluntary contributor. He knows he is living in dependence, but it is upon the love and generosity of his fellow man. He will have increased faith in the goodness of his fellow man; he will not know which fellow man so his feelings of goodwill are generalized. He will be prompted by his conscience to do likewise at some later time when he sees another in need. He has not learned the art of taking from others through the politics of covetousness or mau-mauing or the use of racial or class resentments.

This contrast is why, despite the surface similarity (they both use the word "dependence") there is no commonality between Christian charity and obligatory redistribution programs enforced by the sword of the state. Only God, speaking through the consciences of individuals, has the knowledge (as the only omniscient one) AND the authority (as the giver of all good things) to use force to cause one man to cede his belongings to another. And yet, even He does not generally exercise that authority. If we try to exercise it, not only are we ignoring His example, we are arrogating power to ourselves which is only justly wielded by Him; we are setting ourselves up as little gods.

So, again, this model of government behavior is anti-Christian. That a minority of Christians are unaware of the discrepancy is usually no failing of theirs, for we have failed to teach.

BTW, re: Hoover: Surely you don't pretend his is an example of laissez-faire! Smoot-Hawley by itself makes Hoover ineligible for that accolade. And while his attempt to handle the monetary problem through public works expenditures was small compared to FDR, they exceeded that of any federal administration before him. He was part of the dawn of the Progressive Era, and (like, but to a lesser degree than FDR) contributed to the deepening of prolonging of the Depression through his avoidance of free-market reforms. Not that I assign much blame to him, either: The whole thinking world was swept up in a wave of enthusiasm for centralization which dominated the intelligentsia too thoroughly to allow for "classical liberal" policies to prevail.

Posted by R.C. | January 2, 2008 12:28 PM

Failure without consequence--the essence of today's Republican Party message.

Posted by Daddy Love | January 2, 2008 3:05 PM

GW Bush is a liberal?

This illustrates a portion of the point. The GOP RnF (rank and file) is trying to convince themselves that GW isn't a "real" conservative (which must be true, because conservatism never fails), while their candidates tie themselves to him and to his policies and flay each other for any trivial criticism of Dear Leader. They have no one to choose from and are pretty sure they'll lose in 2008, but when they do it will be because the candidate (let's call him Mitt McHuckabee) wasn't conservative enough (see "conservatism cannot fail" above).

It's gonna be a fun year.

Posted by Daddy Love | January 2, 2008 3:21 PM

Daddy Love:
(From your post)

1. "GW Bush is a liberal?"
No. He is more liberal than conservative (especially for my taste) and is FAR more conservative than anything in the Democratic Party.

2. "The GOP RnF (rank and file) is trying to convince themselves that GW isn't a "real" conservative"
Most of us always knew it. The rest found out after the amnesty bill debacle.

3. "(which must be true, because conservatism never fails)"
You got it. Gold star for that.

4. "while their candidates tie themselves to him and to his policies"
You don't "tie yourself" to someone whose position you agree with. He was right on the War on Terror, and I support him on that. No "tie-ing" was needed.

5. "and flay each other for any trivial criticism of Dear Leader."
NO. There was no "flay-ing" each other. As Bush strayed to the left to follow his "new tone," "reaching out to the left" debacle, conservatives were there to remind him and the "squishie 'moderates'" in the party that conservative ideas were best -- far better than anything the Democrats had going -- and still is.

6. "They have no one to choose from and are pretty sure they'll lose in 2008,"
2008 is up for grabs. There is no shoe-in candidate for either party.

7. "...but when they do it will be because the candidate (let's call him Mitt McHuckabee) wasn't conservative enough."
If a majority of America believes a liberal idea is wrong, and you pursue the answer America doesn't like, what do you expect?

BTW...
What an amazing example of how many things libs can get wrong in only a few sentences.

Posted by f22strike | January 3, 2008 3:11 PM

Failure without consequence--the essence of today's Republican Party message.

You mean like pouring more money into a school system that consistenly fails to educate even a majority of it's children?

OR

8 years of doing nothing while Islamic nutjobs set off bombs, killing Americans in a war THEY declared? Hello? -- Clinton?

Posted by f22strike | January 3, 2008 3:16 PM

fougasseu; I take your point about Huckabee. But I'd rather have a snake oil salesman than the sophisticates selling Middle Eastern oil for $100 a barrel, paid for in blood. The blood of our soldiers and the blood of innocent Iraqis.

If you care about these things [and, granted, the vast, overwhelming majority of people do NOT care about these things], then you need to admit to yourself that the fire which Huckabee is stoking is a damnable abomination: He cannot hold, simultaneously, both the title of "Caesar" and the title of "God".

He needs to choose between the two masters who are courting his soul, and anyone with half a brain can see in which direction he's heading [which is giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he hasn't arrived at his final destination already].

Posted by Lucius Vorenus | January 3, 2008 5:19 PM

Daddy Love: GW Bush is a liberal? This illustrates a portion of the point. The GOP RnF (rank and file) is trying to convince themselves that GW isn't a "real" conservative (which must be true, because conservatism never fails), while their candidates tie themselves to him and to his policies and flay each other for any trivial criticism of Dear Leader.

Yes, and, quite frankly, if you can't welcome Dubyah into your ranks as the liberal he is, then you're a lunatic.

Posted by Lucius Vorenus | January 3, 2008 5:23 PM

Quietus: The Moors taking over Southern Europe (well, more of it) would have sunk civilization?

Yes, it would have sunk civilization - FOREVER! - and if the tautology of it isn't manifestly obvious to you [or if it is obvious to you, but you lack the strength of character to admit that it's obvious], then you can't even participate in the conversation.

Posted by Lucius Vorenus | January 3, 2008 5:28 PM

Isn't Sunday morning fun? Tim Russert pretending to be impartial (he's a HUGE McCain fan), George S. failing to veil his delight in seeing the Clintons stumble. And the FOX crowd struggling to keep the dust in the air, fueling the chaos, until their candidate, Rudy Capone, is ready.
Obama did well last night, and with Edwards stepping up to step on Hillary, it's looking tougher for the GOP. If only every independent and Republican could vote in all of these primaries for Hillary and get her the nomination. She'd be easier to beat than Mondale.
I wish we could take everyone's eye off the extraordinarily weak GOP field and put the focus on getting Hillary the tiara.
Didn't you love that photo with Wes and Madeline standing behind Hillary? Priceless.

Posted by fougasseu | January 6, 2008 11:23 AM