The GOP Looks West

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/the-gop-looks-west.html

 

The GOP Looks West

A party for cowboy constitutionalists.

 

One way to understand the divisions in the Republican Party is as a clash of regional philosophies. Northeastern conservatism is moderate, accepts the modern welfare state, and dislikes mixing religion with politics. Western conservatism is hawkish, hates government, and embraces individual freedom. Southern conservatism is populist, draws on evangelical Christianity, and often plays upon racial resentments. The big drama of the GOP over the past several decades has been the Eastern view giving way to the Southern one. To see this transformation in a single family, witness the shift from George H.W. Bush to George W. Bush.

 

Yet since the second Bush left the White House, something different appears to be happening in Republican-land: a shift away from Southern-style conservatism to more of a Western variety. You see this in the figures who have dominated the GOP since Barack Obama’s election: Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rand Paul. You see it in the right’s overarching theme: opposition to any expanded role for government in promoting economic recovery, extending health-care coverage, or regulating financial markets. You see it most strongly in the Tea Party movement, which has captured the GOP’s imagination and driven its agenda.

 

On many issues, such as guns, taxes, and immigration, Southern and Western conservatives come out in the same place. They get there, however, in different ways. The fundamental distinction is between a politics based on social and cultural issues, and one based on economics. Southern conservatism cares about government’s moral stance but doesn’t mind when it spends freely on behalf of its constituents. Western conservatism, by contrast, is soft--libertarian and wants government out of people’s way. Southern Republicans are guided by the Bible. Western Republicans read the Constitution. Seen in historical terms, it’s the difference between a movement descended from George Wallace and one that looks back to Barry Goldwater.

 

The GOP’s new Western tone harks back to Goldwater’s disastrous but transformational presidential campaign of 1964. Goldwater didn’t care about religion—he was a Jewish Episcopalian who once said that Jerry Falwell deserved a kick in the nuts. He wasn’t focused on racial politics; there weren’t many black people in Arizona then. What mattered to him was limiting government and preserving liberty. To Goldwater, political freedom was inseparable from economic freedom, a view distilled in his most famous phrase: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

 

Tea Party darling Rand Paul’s objection to the 1964 Civil Rights Act is Goldwater’s, not George Wallace’s. Wallace and his followers resisted civil rights because they wanted to maintain racial segregation. Goldwater favored integration, but thought the civil-rights bill infringed on private-property rights and free association. In a similar way, the Palin-Beck opposition to universal health insurance is based on their intrinsic dislike of activist government, rather than on a Southern-strategy argument that it helps poor blacks at the expense of working-class whites. Many reporters have gone to Tea Party rallies looking for expressions of bigotry. What they tend to find instead is a constitutional fundamentalism that argues Washington has no right to tell individuals or states what to do.

 

The new Western conservatism, though, is not simply a reincarnation of the Goldwater version. Lacking anticommunism as an organizing principle, it has been forced to invent a demon, depicting Obama’s centrist liberalism as socialism with an American face. Where the old Western conservatives had serious thinkers lurking in the background, the new wave is more authentically anti-intellectual. At the same time, Western conservatism has become more inclusive. The embodiment of its frontier spirit and commitment to exploiting natural resources is now a woman who proclaims, “There’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals—right next to the mashed potatoes.”

 

Palin and Beck are terrific entertainers and the Tea Party is a great show, all of which has made the conservative movement fun to watch lately. But cowboy-style constitutional fundamentalism is unlikely to prove a winning philosophy for Republicans beyond 2010. For that, they need a conservatism that hasn’t been in evidence lately—a version that’s not Western, Southern, or Eastern, but instead tolerant, moderate, and mainstream.

[darin3]

You forgot to add an insult about conservatives. Isn't that what we're supposed to be here?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

You forgot to add an insult about conservatives. Isn't that what we're supposed to be here?

 

I just thought it was a pretty interesting look at the shifting dynamics of a political party. Not trying to flame at all.

[darin3]

I just thought it was a pretty interesting look at the shifting dynamics of a political party. Not trying to flame at all.

I know, but the righties usually add some sort of lame insult towards the lefties when they post something political. Didn't know if you wanted to balance it out or not.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I know, but the righties usually add some sort of lame insult towards the lefties when they post something political. Didn't know if you wanted to balance it out or not.

 

I'm trying to focus on being a member of the radical middle here.

[Duchess Jack]

You forgot to add an insult about conservatives.

and Poland

[darin3]

I'm trying to focus on being a member of the radical middle here.

You are radical to the max.

 

Politi-pad!

 

 

and Poland

 

[driveby]

Lacking anticommunism as an organizing principle, it has been forced to invent a demon, depicting Obama’s centrist liberalism as socialism with an American face. Where the old Western conservatives had serious thinkers lurking in the background, the new wave is more authentically anti-intellectual.

centrist?

 

authentically anti-intellectual? Is that an insult?

 

Palin and Beck are terrific entertainers and the Tea Party is a great show, all of which has made the conservative movement fun to watch lately. But cowboy-style constitutional fundamentalism is unlikely to prove a winning philosophy for Republicans beyond 2010. For that, they need a conservatism that hasn’t been in evidence lately—a version that’s not Western, Southern, or Eastern, but instead tolerant, moderate, and mainstream.

tolerance and moderation gave us John McCain.

 

Speaking of 2010 and beyond.

 

Republicans take the Senate (and likely the House) in 2010.

 

Dare to dream

[westvirginia]

I just thought it was a pretty interesting look at the shifting dynamics of a political party. Not trying to flame at all.

 

See, when I look at it, I think the party machinations are being drug kicking and screaming into change. It's the people who want the change, as evidenced by the TEA party folks.

[SEC=UGA]

The guy that wrote that article is full of diaper dirt. Especially in making blanket statements about conservatism and the premise off of which it is based in certain geographies...

 

It would be no different than one of us biblio-centric, racist conservatives in GA saying that all blacks and mexicans are thieves and robbers who are only looking to suckle off of the government teat.

[Yukon Cornelius]

It would be no different than one of us biblio-centric, racist conservatives in GA saying that all blacks and mexicans are thieves and robbers who are only looking to suckle off of the government teat.

ive herd that before....... cant remember were.

[bpwallace49]

tolerance and moderation gave us John McCain.

 

And John McCain realized that in order to get Republican votes for President . . you cant be moderate. Hence his swing to the far right, which came off as very fake and contrived, and cost him the election (along with Sarah palin of course.)

[bpwallace49]

Responsible Republicans are nearly extinct.

 

Do you remember the Responsible Republicans? In the 1980s small herds of them still roamed around Washington. In 1982 they stampeded over Ronald Reagan's veto of a tax increase designed to mitigate the fiscal harm of his 1981 tax cut. In 1986 they passed bipartisan immigration reform. In 1990 they were spotted with President George H.W. Bush at Andrews Air Force Base, conspiring to reduce the deficit.

 

After the Andrews summit, however, Double-R glimpses outside captivity became increasingly rare. With their habitats in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific Coast under threat, their status moved from "threatened" to "endangered." During the battle over his health-care plan, President Obama was unable to find a single one to serve as a mascot. There continue to be rumors of their return around issues such as immigration and climate change. Yet we have now gone several years without a confirmed sighting.

 

If Responsible Republicans are in fact approaching extinction, I think we can identify the crucial event that signaled their demise. It was a December 1993 memo by conservative strategist and commentator William Kristol. Kristol's advice about how Republicans should respond to Bill Clinton's 1993 health-care effort pushed the GOP away from any cooperation with the other side. His message marks the pivotal moment when Republicans shifted from fundamentally responsible partners in governing the country to uncompromising, hyperpartisan antagonists on all issues.

 

 

In his five-page memo, Kristol took aim at Bob Dole and other congressional Republicans who were then working to find a compromise around the shared goals of universal coverage and cost containment. Kristol called for the GOP to "adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal." He argued that a bipartisan deal on health care would be a political victory for Democrats and a defeat for the GOP. "Unqualified political defeat of the Clinton health care proposal," Kristol wrote, " … would be a monumental setback for the president, and an incontestable piece of evidence that Democratic welfare-state liberalism remains firmly in retreat."

 

Slowly at first, then all at once, Republicans adopted this zero-sum view of politics. Newt Gingrich, the truculent House minority leader, had risen to power attacking the more conciliatory Republican leadership that preceded him. Dole soon stopped cooperating as well, responding to Clinton's 1994 State of the Union address by echoing Kristol's line that there was "no health-care crisis." Remaining Double-Rs were left out in the cold by their party, and hopes for a deal died.

 

Kristol's Carthaginian strategy worked politically, or seemed to. Gingrich and his "Contract With America" Republicans swept into power in the 1994 midterm elections on a platform of monolithic opposition to Clinton's agenda. But the Gingrich revolution soon failed. Its ideas were not enacted, its leaders fell to scandals, and Clinton won reelection in 1996. Congressional Republicans kept their opposition to government at the level of rhetoric, becoming bigger spenders than ever. Yet this did not dim the GOP's faith in the Kristol approach. Under Obama, Republicans have simply replayed the script, opposing everything the president proposes, looking for heretics to burn, and calling the other side extreme—though this time they have been without success in blocking the president's major initiative.

 

The politics of Republican implacability are based on what might seem an obvious insight that competition is a zero-sum game. But while elections are zero-sum, politics as a whole is not. Without some level of bipartisan cooperation, voters become increasingly cynical, the system becomes too paralyzed to function, and the whole country suffers as a consequence. Longer term, it is hard to see the politics of "no" as a winning Republican strategy.

 

The rise of hyperpartisanship is not one of those problems for which left and right are equally to blame. Democrats—who like legislating better than Republicans do, and who have seldom had the GOP's ability to march in lockstep—still instinctively prefer to work on a bipartisan basis. They continue to hope, against the odds, that Double-Rs will escape extinction and return as potential partners. Perhaps Ted Turner will find a way to breed them on his ranch.

[driveby]

And John McCain realized that in order to get Republican votes for President . . you cant be moderate. Hence his swing to the far right, which came off as very fake and contrived, and cost him the election (along with Sarah palin of course.)

I'm not so sure McCain swung to the far right, but he tried to be a "real" republican and the conservatives just weren't buying.

 

Pretty much what he's doing now in Arizona. It's sad and pathetic and not really fooling anyone I don't imagine.

[Azazello1313]

I know, but the righties usually add some sort of lame insult towards the lefties when they post something political. Didn't know if you wanted to balance it out or not.

 

complaining about others doing something you yourself are doing in the very same sentence, that is pretty impressive!

[Azazello1313]

what's funny is that all the lefties who pretend to be moderate used to complain, "if only the GOP would shut up about social issues and focus on fiscal conservatism and libertarianism, they'd have my vote!" another one you heard a lot, "the GOP is the party of detached rich WASPs, if they spoke for the people maybe I could get behind them."

 

now that things are moving in exactly those directions, "ZMOG scary anti-government populists!" sarah palin! glenn beck!!!

 

for me personally....the populist part always adds some idiocy along with genuine energy. it's not really my thing. but I've always wanted the party to move toward what this guy is calling "western" conservatism and away from what he is calling "southern" conservatism. if that is where the party as a whole is heading back to, I see it as great news.

[Duchess Jack]

what's funny is that all the lefties who pretend to be moderate used to complain, "if only the GOP would shut up about social issues and focus on fiscal conservatism and libertarianism, they'd have my vote!" another one you heard a lot, "the GOP is the party of detached rich WASPs, if they spoke for the people maybe I could get behind them."

 

now that things are moving in exactly those directions, "ZMOG scary anti-government populists!" sarah palin! glenn beck!!!

 

for me personally....the populist part always adds some idiocy along with genuine energy. it's not really my thing. but I've always wanted the party to move toward what this guy is calling "western" conservatism and away from what he is calling "southern" conservatism. if that is where the party as a whole is heading back to, I see it as great news.

 

I know this isn't the core of what you are trying to get at, but you can't think that Palin and Beck are good for the GOP or even the country, can you?

[darin3]

complaining about others doing something you yourself are doing in the very same sentence, that is pretty impressive!

Um, point me to where I was insulting again?

[westvirginia]

I know this isn't the core of what you are trying to get at, but you can't think that Palin and Beck are good for the GOP or even the country, can you?

 

How are they any worse than the likes of Olberman, Al Gore, et. al? And I've never seen you say those are "bad for the country".

 

In fact, I've seen a lot of nebulous "Beck is bad" stuff, but can someone enlighten me about what he lies about regularly, or I've watched very little of Beck, since I don't get home usually till after he's off the air. What is the reason for all the hand wringing?

 

ETA - I've seen Palin's idiocy, I just want to know what's wrong with Beck.

Edited June 2, 2010 by westvirginia

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

How are they any worse than the likes of Olberman, Al Gore, et. al? And I've never seen you say those are "bad for the country".

 

In fact, I've seen a lot of nebulous "Beck is bad" stuff, but can someone enlighten me about what he lies about regularly, or I've watched very little of Beck, since I don't get home usually till after he's off the air. What is the reason for all the hand wringing?

 

ETA - I've seen Palin's idiocy, I just want to know what's wrong with Beck.

 

Well, here's one example. The guy came out and said that the whole stimulus bill was put in place as super secret reparations for the blacks.

[bpwallace49]

How are they any worse than the likes of Olberman, Al Gore, et. al? And I've never seen you say those are "bad for the country".

 

In fact, I've seen a lot of nebulous "Beck is bad" stuff, but can someone enlighten me about what he lies about regularly, or I've watched very little of Beck, since I don't get home usually till after he's off the air. What is the reason for all the hand wringing?

 

ETA - I've seen Palin's idiocy, I just want to know what's wrong with Beck.

 

Sotomayor is a closet Nazi because she uses the term "empathy?"

[Perchoutofwater]

for me personally....the populist part always adds some idiocy along with genuine energy. it's not really my thing. but I've always wanted the party to move toward what this guy is calling "western" conservatism and away from what he is calling "southern" conservatism. if that is where the party as a whole is heading back to, I see it as great news.

 

+1 Though the author of that article if you can call it that was overly simplistic, and thinks that anyone that fits into what he calls the Western GOP are avid fans of Palin and Beck. I've never liked Palin. I've defended her a few times when I thought she was being grossly misrepresented but am on record saying McCain should have picked Romney for a running mate. Palin is too far out there, and too religious by half, or at least too willing to try to insert her morals into politics. Which fits more into that authors description of the Southern GOP, but hey he wasn't looking for accuracy there, just trying to get a lick in. Beck, is an entertainer and nothing more. He brings up some good points, but uses way too much hyperbole to be truly effective. He is just a less condescending conservative version of Olbermann. The fact that the author believes Obama is a centerist is almost makes you want to discount the entire article, if the condescending tone didn't already. I've lived in the South all my life, and while the authors representation of Southern GOP may be true for a minority of the Republicans in the South it in itself is hyperbole, the same thing that so often discredits Beck. There is no doubt that the authors description of the GOP by geography is true for the minority in each region, I think his description of the Western GOP is really where the rank and file of the GOP has been for quite some time. Unfortunately it is the fringe that up until lately have been the loudest and unfortunately that the leadership has listened too.

[Perchoutofwater]

Well, here's one example. The guy came out and said that the whole stimulus bill was put in place as super secret reparations for the blacks.

 

I'd like to see the video or hear the audio of that statement. I only listen to Beck for about 5-10 minutes a day on the short drive to work, but if he did in fact say that I would be willing to bet it was said tongue in cheek.

[bpwallace49]

Has anyone here actually defended Keith Olbermann so that people trot him out like a trophy? Seriously?

[bpwallace49]

I'd like to see the video or hear the audio of that statement. I only listen to Beck for about 5-10 minutes a day on the short drive to work, but if he did in fact say that I would be willing to bet it was said tongue in cheek.

 

That is the scary part Perch. Too many people think what he says is the gospel of the Republican party. Do you REALLY want him as the representative of the right?