submitted for publication by IR reader
Republicans have always been a house divided. In 1854, as the Whig party breathed its last, anti-slavery forces cobbled together a new coalition made up of widely-differing groups who nonetheless shared one priority: ridding the country of slavery. All other differences, including economic and moral ones, shrank next to the enormity of the slavery question.
Oh, that the 2008 Republican Party had the same moral clarity that it did 154 years ago. Today we are faced with a multitude of truly significant moral issues, of which abortion is king. And yet, despite the evil of abortion, Republicans have gathered around another single principle of apparent tremendous moral significance, thereby unifying so-called RINOs with the Religious Right: tax cuts.
From whence comes this single-minded devotion to reducing government revenue? There is a long and well-developed literature explaining why low taxes are good policy, but it is unlikely that most Republicans have read it. Instead, we have learned it from our heroes that, we hope, we can someday clone. The modern Republican Party has modeled itself after its last successful President, Ronald Reagan. Every aspiring politician is vetted as “the next Reagan” or “Reaganesque,” putting enormous pressure on successors to reproduce his charisma, approach, and greatness.
In 2008, for example, Sarah Palin drove the base into a frenzy by throwing out Reagan quotes at a tremendous pace: during the vice-presidential debate she quoted Reagan three times in 90 minutes. One of those quotes was, of all things, an attempt at Reagan’s “There you go again” jab from his 1980 debate against Jimmy Carter. George W. Bush tried the same thing while debating Kerry in 2004, though with significantly less aplomb than either Reagan or Palin. Quoting Reagan, however, does not Reaganesque make.
My point is this: We, as a party, have ceased to think for ourselves. We have rested on Reagan’s laurels, as decorated as they are, for too long. How many times have we heard the famous quote from Reagan’s First Inaugural, that “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”? But the actual quote, as delivered, was: “In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Our quote books have made Reagan into a libertarian.
Reagan was never opposed to government in the boneheaded way that many Republicans like Grover Norquist have adopted. In fact, later in the First Inaugural, even after he had labeled government as “the problem,” Reagan went on to say:
"Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it."
Far too often we have treated government as if it is an evil to be confounded and a problem to be solved, but not, as Reagan also said, as something to work “with us.” How can we honestly expect to make government work with us if we are constantly trying to stab it in the back?
But the problem goes deeper than just our elected representatives. How often have you had just a twinge of distrust when a Republican proposed a new government program? How many times have you thought to yourself, “RINO!” when you heard a Republican suggest raising taxes? Neither of these is essentially un-conservative, unless you think “conservative” means “libertarian.” This instinctive anti-governmentalism, on balance, is not a bad thing, but we must recognize that it prejudices us against real solutions to real problems. We are quick to say that government is not the answer, but we are unwilling to look for another answer. If we fail to take real problems seriously, we should not be surprised when people refuse to elect us.
At their best, conservatives have aggressively applied common sense and realistic expectations to actual problems in their communities. Is it any wonder that conservatives have little to no traction in urban areas, except where they figure out ways to make local government work? As a party, we have found it easier to remain in the suburbs and exurbs than to rethink how to reform cities. This may be comfortable for now, and win elections for now, but it will not always be this way. The statistics show a growing generational trend of urbanization, despite the explosion of the exurbs. We cannot run from urban areas forever, nor should we.
The question that will occupy the next generation is: Do conservatives believe that their way of viewing the world is actually better for everyone, or just for the white suburban middle class? Has the movement been about nothing more than self-interest? If our ideas are so great, why don’t we do something about Black-on-Black crime instead of tut-tutting about it at brunch? Why don’t we find a way to alleviate the stress on families whose primary breadwinner is a migrant farm worker? We always used to say that churches and not-for-profits were the best way to provide for the poor; given the constant decline of church attendance over the last 50 years, are we ready to look elsewhere yet? I have a suspicion that we are beginning to use ideology as an excuse not to bother.
In recent decades, as conservatives have found themselves increasingly alienated from traditional cultural institutions, we have adopted an odd populism that considers elite status to be prima facie evidence of unfitness. But consider Reagan’s example: Reagan was successful at running the government because he appointed experienced bureaucrats from twelve years of previous Republican administrations (Nixon and Ford). These people exemplified the highest ideals of conservative statecraft. These people also had the best educational background of that generation, mostly from elite institutions. Many had given their adult lives to non-military government work. They knew the bureaucracy, and they knew the unique challenges that it presents. They would have scoffed at the populism of the modern grassroots. Lenin was wrong: any cook cannot run the State.
The cultural ground has shifted under our feet, too. Fifty years ago, people believed that they were responsible for their own future through savings, investment, and care from their children. One hundred years ago, debt was considered a sign of moral weakness.
We used to assume that parents would teach their children values and morals that would keep them from becoming wards of the state; that is no longer true. We used to assume that prosperity came through hard work; that it came slowly, and maybe not at all; the rising generation believes it is entitled to riches and fame. Either we will find a way to correct for the quaking foundations of the American economic system, or the whole thing will collapse into a European-style welfare state.
Artists and entertainers used to be perceived as a vaguely disreputable sort; teenagers (and some adults) now emulate them. Twenty years ago, gay marriage was not even plausible, and it is now on the verge of being granted full faith and credit in every state of the Union. We can complain all we want about the abandonment of Judeo-Christian values, but are we going to prepare for the inevitable? Are we going to quit because the culture changed, or are we going to try to keep this ship afloat even after the mutiny?
I am not suggesting that we declare the end of the Reagan era, or surrender to the welfare-state mentality, or raise taxes, or any number of other superficial ideas floating around in the current soup of postmortem analyses of the 2008 elections. I am suggesting, at root, a return to the spirit of Ronald Reagan: the pragmatic, hard-nosed, calculating realism that undergirds conservatism. We must end this habit of substituting ideology for thought, and populism for policy. We cannot satisfy ourselves with the agenda of 1980; we must take current problems seriously, and treat them seriously.
These next four years give us an opportunity to step away from defending and critiquing the Bush Administration and think about what ails us. If we do that, we’ll get the leaders we need.
