Comeback

Kicking off our "Party of Sam's Club" piece for the Standard way back when, Reihan and I wrote, of our slightly-dubious hodgepodge of ideas: "The proposals that follow are neither perfect nor exhaustive, but they offer a starting place for a discussion that the Republican party desperately needs to have." I'm pleased to report that David Frum's new book, Comeback, is the smartest long-form entrant into that discussion to date, and whether you're a conservative interested in what ought to come after Reaganism for the GOP, or a liberal interested in how a revived Right might set about beating your side silly, I highly recommend it. It's more focused, less idiosyncratic and less historically-sweeping than our own book (which is due out in June), but there's significant overlap between Frum's domestic-policy vision and ours; where we differ, I would say that his emphases tend to be slightly more centrist and technocratic - save on immigration, significantly - whereas ours are more populist (in the short run) and libertarian (in the long run). (Though Reihan might have a different take.) His book also deals much more with foreign policy than ours does, where obviously he and I have our share of disagreements, but you don't have to be a neoconservative (or believe in, ahem, "an end to evil") to find much of what he says worth taking seriously.

You can turn up a quick rundown of the Frum domestic-policy agenda here, but really you should go out and buy the book; after all, you'll need something to fill the gaping void in your library between now and Grand New Party's release date.

Comments

For the past 8 years the GOP - almost unanimously - has been assuring one and all that massive tax cuts for the rich were all that was needed to make the economy great for everyone. Dumbya got them, all right, and since the 2004 re-election campaign began all we've heard is THE ECONOMY IS GREAT, THE ECONOMY IS GREAT, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ECONOMY! Anyone saying otherwise was derided as "liberal" or better yet "socialist."

Then 2006 came around, and the GOP got its collective ass kicked in, and deservedly so, considering the fact that the Dumbya Era has been one long series of minor fuckups punctuated by major disasters. The immediate electoral future for the Grotesque Old Party looks grim.

So all of a sudden the party's Serious Thinkers have decided that maybe trickle-down was a bucket of piss all along and they're going to go out among the little people with their message of, "This time we're REALLY going to take care of you!" They'll pretend the last 7 years were an aberration, and that things like family medical leave are A-OK with them and always have been, and even that stepped-up governmental involvement in health care might not be - gasp! - socialism - double gasp! - after all.

Yeah, let's trust them.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 12:57 PM

I'll read both with interest. There are, clearly, a lot of problems with contemporary conservatism. This, though, is at the center of it, or so it seems to me: over time, culture (which is more powerful than politics) has changed to the point where even people who imagine themselves to be small-government conservatives believe that the government should provide them with certain social programs and safety nets which fall outside of the purview of traditional conservative government. I'm often amazed to meet people who swear up and down that they are fiscal conservatives, and yet ardently support Social Security, Medicare and similar programs. (And, more and more, believe that the government should provide a guarantee of health care to those who can't afford it. That's a conservative/Republican revolution that's in its infancy, if you ask me.)

I think that those are the most profound shifts in this country, the ones that happen slowly, outside of the arena of the politics of resentment, and amount to less a policy shift than a change in culture and framework. I think as more and more traditional conservatives age (as the country is aging), they will find their lives deeply dependent on Medicare and Social Security, and that could, it seems to me, change the conservative attitude towards social programs. I'm interested to see how a long-term libertarian vision deals with that.

Posted by Freddie | January 6, 2008 2:34 PM

Freddie writes: "There are, clearly, a lot of problems with contemporary conservatism. This, though, is at the center of it, or so it seems to me: over time, culture (which is more powerful than politics) has changed to the point where even people who imagine themselves to be small-government conservatives believe that the government should provide them with certain social programs and safety nets which fall outside of the purview of traditional conservative government."

The tug of war over economic issues is one thing, but I's like to see a more honest appraisal of the fact that "conservatism" in this country has become the refuge of bigots, idiots, and violent xenophobes. The deepest contempt many of us have for Dumbya's administration has nothing at all to do with economics. It has to do with the stain they have left on our national honor.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 2:49 PM

MoeLarryAndJesus: Please post on Dem sites. Your rudeness is distracting.
Freddie: I think you're on to something. It's about culture, a country growing older, and a need for smarter government. The GOP can and should step up and figure out to how run things, stop running against the running of things.
Huckabee and Paul are very appealing because they speak to a strong libertarian impulse and a desire to banish the smugness of Bush/Cheney/Fox News. The Clintons are just as smug.
Frum? He's a tenured professor in The School of Abramoff, another high IQ pushing the neocon vision of things. One of Hillary's problems is that everyone knows, deep down, she's a cold warrior, neocon-lite. Forget the Middle East, focus on the midwest and the middle class, and we can still win in '08. McCain is going to keep the focus on the Mideast. He's exciting but he's a loser.

Posted by fougasseu | January 6, 2008 3:02 PM

fougasseu writes: "Huckabee and Paul are very appealing because they speak to a strong libertarian impulse and a desire to banish the smugness of Bush/Cheney/Fox News."

Bush/Cheney/Fox News aren't objectionable because they're "smug." They're objectionable because they're malignant war criminals and cheerleaders of same, and because they pursue an agenda dedicated to accelerating the redistribution of wealth upwards. Conservatives may want to reinvent themselves because Bush has been such an unpopular failure, but they'll never succeed unless they first acknowledge their own complicity in each and every mistake Dumbya has made. It's not like he didn't have help.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 3:10 PM

MoeLarryAndJesus - Conservatives aren't complicit in each and every mistake made in the last eight years. Quite a bit has been published about the Establishment's ignoring of the social conservatives and their toadying to various foreign and corporate interests. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ailes, Romney, Rudy and the other multimillionaires running the show aren't conservatives, they're Tories.
Members of exclusive clubs: country clubs, golf clubs, think tanks, and on and on. By the way, smug is not a smug criticism, it does carry a bit of gravitas - think Vernon Jordan, think Harry Reid, think the Bennett brothers. Shrum, Frum, what's the dif? When the smuggles show up, the body politic suffers.

Posted by fougasseu | January 6, 2008 3:49 PM

fougasseu writes: "Quite a bit has been published about the Establishment's ignoring of the social conservatives and their toadying to various foreign and corporate interests. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ailes, Romney, Rudy and the other multimillionaires running the show aren't conservatives, they're Tories."

I guess the conservatives you're imagining were invisible in 2004. Y'all seemed happy as clams in mud with Dumbya and Cheney back then. The party you're imagining doesn't exist, and if you think "social conservatives" like Huckabee have what it takes to build it, I'm saying you're nuts.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 5:25 PM

Given that the Hispanic and black populations are growing faster than whites and the U.S. will soon be a country with less than 50% whites, there is no chance that the Repubicans can survive. Blacks and Hispanics are two of the most loyal groups to the Democratic Party.

It would be better to write a book about how the U.S. can function as a one party state without a massive amount of corruption, without turning the U.S. into a third party country, or without people voting with their feet to move to other countries.

Posted by superdestroyer | January 6, 2008 7:04 PM

superdestroyer writes: "people voting with their feet to move to other countries."

The scumbags at Halliburton are moving their headquarters to Dubai. I certainly hope the despicable Cheney family goes along for the ride, though I do hope Dick's exit is delayed by some well-deserved prison time.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 6, 2008 8:25 PM

To keep wages high, we're gonna keep teh gays from marrying!

Yes, sounds like a winner to me.

Posted by SavageView | January 7, 2008 12:57 PM

Shorter Frum, Douthat and Salam: Republicans can win again if they stop being so darned, um, conservative, and start being more, um, liberal.

Now, there, you (and I) don't have to shell out the $29.95 for the books...

Posted by Al | January 7, 2008 7:27 PM