GOP In Need of Soul-Searching

The GOP needs to get its act together. All across the swirling sea that is the media, pundits, hosts, and editorial writers have been lamenting, pondering the likelihood of, and even joyously proclaiming the end of the Republican Party. Since the 2006 midterm elections, the Republicans have seen repeated repudiation of their ideas by the American people, or so it has been said. With the election of President Obama, his continued popularity, and the polling data that suggests our generation (“the millennials” as we’ve been dubbed[i]) overwhelmingly favors the Democratic Party in general and Obama in particular. With the added defection of Sen. Arlen Specter to the Democratic party due to his being “at odds with the (current) Republican philosophy”[ii], it seems as though the Republican Party and Conservative ideology are both doomed for extinction.

But wait! What about the tax revolt tea parties? The nearly sixty million voters who voted for McCain over Obama? The Republicans may be in trouble, but I contend that is due to corruption, cronyism, and incompetence. At this point, no Republican politician or their relatives are trustworthy, and if they all go the way of the dodo and the quagga, so be it and good riddance! Conservatism — to be precise, the loose association of ideas, beliefs, groups and individuals roughly lumped together under that term in American political life — is alive, but suffering from a grave malady. That illness that afflicts it is not one of the body but of the mind, a combination of long and short-term amnesia, coupled with multiple-personality disorder! Conservatism is shattered, fragmented, and corrupt; as anyone who has experienced finding a “corrupted file” on their computer knows, something that is corrupted will not work properly.

Now, the major non-elected leaders of American conservatism — of course, I mean, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, both of whom have seen fit to appoint themselves as the voices of American Conservatism, as have the editors and writers of National Review magazine — have some solutions that work. The dilemma, however, is that they are part of what is plaguing American Conservatism, and, if they truly are committed to it as an ideology and a movement and wish it to prosper and endure, then they must cease to influence it and the people who follow it.

What are Conservatism’s ideals? Well, as Rush and Sean tell it, Conservatism sounds very attractive: individual rights balanced with individual responsibility, an efficient, just, and unintrusive government that obeys the constitution; life, liberty, property, etc. It’s all well and good. But as one goes along the list, one encounters problems. Many think that opposition to abortion on demand should be part of the central party platform and lament that, while the Democrats are almost totally committed to the pro-choice side, there are almost as many pro-choice Republicans as there are professedly pro-life ones, and many of the pro-life ones only claim to oppose Roe v. Wade in a cynical effort to garner votes. Others see the abortion issue as harmful to the Republican party, and that the party platform ought to be, if not pro-choice, then silent on the issue of abortion. That is politically stupid, as Rush proclaimed in a rare moment when the pills, cholesterol, and nicotine were not blocking the supply of oxygen to his grey matter, and I concur. Gallup’s latest polling shows that Americans remain almost evenly divided in terms of whether they consider themselves to be pro-life or pro-choice[iii]. So, if the majority of politicians the other party fields are preaching to the half of the country that supports abortion, don’t be all wishy-washy to the other half that opposes it! The voters feel strongly about the issue, and so should the politicians they elect to represent them. Another poll by Gallup shows that, despite overwhelming approval of President Obama as an individual, a majority of Americans oppose his rescinding of the Mexico City Policy that had prohibited American tax dollars going to promote abortion overseas. Why didn’t the Republicans grab that ball and run with it? Perhaps a leading senator could have said something like this:

“Our nation is evenly divided on the issue, and yet President Obama, who was elected on a platform of reconciliation and ending the divisions of the past, is effectively going against the will of half the nation! Can’t we as a nation at least decide conclusively how we feel on an issue before we start taking it overseas? Our nation needs a dialogue on abortion, and instead President Obama decided that his side already has the answers, nuts to the other half of America.”

Other issues that the Conservatives and the Republican Party have to make up their minds on are economics, trade, immigration, guns, the environment, gays, and the War on Terror.

On economics: Is the least regulated system always necessarily the better system? Are some regulations necessary? When you have a monopoly, should you break it up, as it is hindering competition and diversity, or would that be unfair involvement by the government? Is the government more efficient at times at allocating capital? When, if ever, should the government do so? Does globalization, Free Trade, NAFTA, et al. really help the American people, or have they suffered as because of them? Should the United States, the most powerful nation on earth, have all its factories overseas in countries that might not always be friendly?

As for immigration, it’s estimated that we have 10-20 million illegal immigrants living within the borders of the United states, with thousands arriving daily. FAIR estimates that, just in the state of California (the state with the most illegal immigrants), illegal immigrants cost the state $8.8 billion a year[iv]. As the website states, that was for the years 2004-2005, and the site’s more recent figures place the cost as over 10 billion. George Bush, and even the now-deified Ronald Reagan were lax on immigration, much to the chagrin on their electorates. Remember the “Amnesty Bill” that was defeated by grassroots opposition? That was during Bush’s presidency and conducted largely by people who had voted for him! McCain lost support during the 2008 election because they knew he was weak on gun rights and immigration, not because he was too conservative! (Well, that, and he was coming on the heels of the least popular president in decades who happened to be of the same party. And he was like, hella old).

As for the environment, so help me, whenever I’m listening to Rush’s show (I’m a political editorial writer, what’s your excuse?) I have to cringe and turn off the radio whenever he brings up the environment. As long as he’s influencing the minds of large swaths of the Republican party, there is no hope. Sure, he’s right that the Democrats are in bed with the environmentalist wackos who want to ruin our economy, but what he fails to mention is that he, and the Republican party as a whole, are in bed with the big coporations that want to rape the ever-living crap out of the planet, and don’t care what long-term effects their actions have as long as they make profits in the short term. He and others lambast “smart growth” and environmental regulations, but I, and many others, see them as necessary. I’ve seen too much good farm land in my home town eaten up by cheap, cookie-cutter houses, many of which are now vacant or facing foreclosure. Even if those houses are pulled down and the pavement ripped up, that land won’t ever be as productive. And yet Limbaugh et al. would have more of that?

On the war, opposition to the war effectively halved the conservative base. Even old leaders like Pat Buchanan, and Joseph Sobran, former writer for the National Review, opposed it vigorously, often with the typical language of Conservatism. Many of the same individuals opposed the Patriot Act and Bushes massive increases in government size and spending, again, on conservative principles. And the numerous political scandals, including Newt Gringrich’s now-famous infidelity, are those the fulfillment or the abandonement of so-called “family values” ? The latter, the rational person must conclude. So, in fact, Rush is right for a change, and the general disgust that Americans have for Republicans and Conservatives is because they failed to live up to their principles, not because their principles are no longer relevant, or because they were too conservative. The problem is that, even as Rush says that, he is part of that problem; Morbidly obese, smug, chomping on a cigar, popping pills, hiring illegal immigrant house keepers, supporting the Iraq war, opposing environmental stewardship even as the results of man’s poor stewardship surface in front of his eyes each day, and serving as an uncritical cheerleader to all that Bush did all eight years, Rush is part of the problem.

For that matter, so is the GOP. The GOP began as a fairly radical party — the Jacobins of the United States, as one writer called them. Somehow, during the last century, Republican and Conservative came to be synonymous, although plenty of Republican voters, and politicians, remained moderate or liberal, and plenty of conservatives were not members of the GOP. Perhaps a split is needed, an end to the old two-party system, and a move towards a more multi-party system, one where coalitions of like-minded parties play a key role in voting for each issue. It seems to work just fine in most other democratic countries, except for Japan, which has effectively been a one-party state under the LDP since the end of the last World War (although, like the Republican party, that too might be coming to an end).

I urge those who consider themselves Conservatives to follow Richard A. Viguerre, author of “Conservatives Betrayed”, when he calls them to “no longer look to Republican policiticians for leadership and should assume the role of leading the opposition to Obama and the Democrats. We believe we have…a county to save, and the GOP establishment is in our way. Let the rebellions begin”.[v]