Rick Moran’s GOP: A Party Doomed by Triangulation
I just finished reading Rick Moran’s “Remaking the Rightroots,” an article that I can only describe as a long, rambling, open question asking “how is the GOP going to make use of the blogosphere in the course of rebuilding itself post its destruction in 2008?”
Rick points out that conservative bloggers are typically more interested in punditry than “shilling political causes,” but if the GOP is to reassume power any time in the next decade then we’re going to have to replicate the behavior of the leftist Netroots and rally around common communities and advance causes and candidates beyond our own opinion. He also has this to say about the likelihood of conservative bloggers forming a cohesive, organized movement being slim due to “nascent anti-intellectualism:” (Emphasis mine)
I have written that this smacks of a nascent anti-intellectualism (to go along with the anti-science notions pushed by some of the social cons) and that this is an argument as old as the republic itself (populists vs. elites). Questioning the conservative bona fides of Peggy Noonan or David Brooks – two conservatives who have done more to promote conservative ideas than all of their critics combined – doesn’t make sense in any other context except as an indication that many on the right prefer purges to debate and the guillotine to reasoned discussion.
For their part, the elites are, well, acting like elites – seeking a top down, “Live from Mount Olympus” here it is, rubes, take it or leave it analysis that inherently questions the ability of “ordinary folk” to think and act in their own interest and march to their own drummer. The fact that the conservative movement needs both sides to reinvent itself and thrive is lost in recrimination and threats of excommunication.
I have taken my own shots at the anti intellectuals because I think their [take-no-prisoners] attitude is destructive. And if Ruffini et al believe that these purists will be able to see beyond the end of their own nose and participate in any community or movement that isn’t in absolute lock step with their precious notions of who and what a conservative is, they have a lot to learn. Perhaps, as Hawkins points out, the [Netroots] coalesced because they were in the wilderness for so long and that maybe a few years on the back benches in Congress will bring some sobriety to “the base.” I am not confident that will occur.
If I am to take Mr. Moran at his word, he believes that the problem with the traditional conservative blogosphere is that we are too quick to excommunicate folks like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan from the sacred Church of Conservatism due to their sins. Instead, we should reopen the big tent to include people who have more “modern,” “nuanced,” “intellectual” views on what it means to be a conservative in order to bring about a political realignment with more solidarity and intellectual candor. If the right wing blogosphere fails to shrug its anti-intellectual tendencies, then it and the GOP are doomed to watch America slowly slide into socialism from the sidelines.
Why Mr. Moran is Wrong
Let me respond to Mr. Moran’s open question with another open question: the GOP has unquestionably opened up its tent to include more socially and fiscally left-leaning candidates and policies nationwide – what good has it done us?
What good has becoming more inclusive of “modern,” “nuanced” conservatives in the GOP gotten us so far? Packs of rogue senators and congressmen who snatch defeat away from the jaws of victory in order to do nothing more than add a “bipartisan” descriptor to their resumes? Presidential candidates who pin the “Global Warming Believer” button onto their lapels? Intellectuals supposedly representative of the GOP who openly endorse unrepentant socialists?
What Rick wants is for the GOP and the Rightroots to have some intellectual leeway for what it means to be a conservative. Since he hasn’t noticed apparently, this already happened and it has resulted in the near-ruin of the Republican Party. The philosophy that he proposes has delivered us a party that doesn’t stand for anything, a party that tries to triangulate itself into the exact middle so as to appeal to as many groups as possible and effectually appeals to none.
A handful of Republicans stick to the core tenets of conservatism and voters enthusiastically turn out for them in most cases. These politicians are the exception, not the rule, sadly. The most recent classes of Republican politicians are mere self-promoters who adopt the Republican label merely because having that “R” tag appear on the left-hand side of their name when they appear on Fox News happens to be currently more favorable among their respective constituencies. Do you think for a single second that Mayor Bloomberg wouldn’t flip that R to a D if he thought it more politically expedient?
To illustrate just how far the party has deviated from conservatism, consider the Republican Party of California who endorsed several multi-billion dollar bond packages and alternative energy subsidies this election cycle. California is a state on the verge of bankruptcy, and I mean for-real bankruptcy, the kind where your Republican governor tries to ride the coattails of a Federal bailout package in order to maintain the solvency of his state. Rick Moran, please tell me: should the Rightroots adopt a broad definition of conservatism, should the California GOP be included despite promoting fiscal behavior that typically considered liberal?
If it’s a singular, cohesive political movement among the right-wing blogosphere that Rick Moran wants, he’s not going to get it by having thirty different groups of people who define that movement fundamentally differently. In order to have solidarity among conservatives you have to have core fundamental values that are consistent across the entire organization – we don’t think like liberals – they’re group thinkers. We’re rugged individuals, and we will march to our own goddamn drum if we don’t like what we hear from Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, or any other conservative person of influence.
Intellectual discourse is great and good, and conservatives can disagree on any number of cosmetic issues, but never on our core values. In order to have a conservative political movement that actually means something, you have to have a set of core values that are unchangeable and utterly inflexible. Triangulation is a strategy doomed to failure – it doesn’t excite people and people see it for what it is. The GOP triangulates because it has no core set of values, and neither would Rick Moran’s vision of a Rightroots-supported conservative movement. It’s not anti-intellectual to reject people who aren’t conservative from being part of a conservative movement; it’s preserving the integrity of the movement.
It’s the same old story. We’re the dumb party clutching our guns and religion, and if only we would wake up and become “modern” we would realize that the left is the true place to be… especially if you want to be invited to all the right cocktail parties.
And yet the Right has bent over backwards to the Left to be invited to these parties for years and years and years, and what is the cornerstone of Obama’s campaign? “Change.”
I think the greatest anti-intellectual pain in this country is that the Left have absolutely no idea that we are once again the party without leaders, as lost in the wilderness as we were in the 80’s. They should be rejoicing, instead they won’t be satisfied until none of us exist at all. And thus Sarah Palin is the worst thing since holy water for vampires.
Will
October 31, 2008 at 6:59 am
To Moran, the party’s base of social cons and religous cons exist only to provide votes and fundraising money, and should just shut up and allow cosmopolitan elites like himself to set agenda and decide policy. This “plantation” mentality mirrors the way that the Democrats have traditionally treated minorities.
Sorry, Rick. Geniuses like yourself have taken the Republican Party from having a shot at becoming the permanent majority in 2002 to complete destruction less than six years later, and in the process are about to hand complete control of the United States to a group of people who avowedly hate it. I think I’ll stick to Social Conservatism, Rick; if you don’t like it… LEAVE.
DaveP.
October 31, 2008 at 11:24 am
Man, good point, DaveP. We really are the new minorities for the Republican party. Good for donations, but otherwise embarrassingly backwards. I wish I knew what our parties true statistics were. Are we really a minority opinion and everyone else wishes we were more willing to be “moderate,” or is it the other way around? Obviously, I know what I think…
Will
November 1, 2008 at 12:36 am
I read the post by Rick Moran and I don’t understand his construct of “intellectual” vs. “anti-intellectual”. It comes dangerously close to calling me stupid for my commitment to conservative ideas. I certainly acknowledge that these ideas can differ, as can the levels of commitment, but how do I disagree with Kmiec or Parker or Noonan without being called anti-intellectual? He seems to say the only ones allowed to “differ” are the outliers. Basically this is a load of crap. Not to sound anti-intellectual or anything.
brobin
November 2, 2008 at 11:00 am
If anyone on the right has been anti-intellectual in the course of this election it’s been the pundits who shut their ears to Palin and began writing snide commentary about her without any regard for who she is or what she represents. As soon as they found out that she was from Wasilla, AK it was game over for them.
I’m a strong fiscal conservative; I always have been. I understand why many other fiscal conservatives look at social and religious conservatives with disdain; it’s for the exact reasons that Moran was chirping about: fiscal conservatives assume that social cons are anti-intellectual fanatics.
I think the Moranian take on social conservatism is wrong. Social and religious conservatives want the exact same thing that fiscal conservatives want: a government that you don’t have to be afraid of, and one that knows how to stay out of the way. Social conservatives are really the heart and soul of the all-encompassing conservatism movement. They’re victims of Liberalism, just like fiscal conservatives, but the attacks against them are even more egregious and perverse.
They’ve been oppressed by years upon years of unchecked judicial activism to an extent where their rights as individual communities are imposed upon by Federal and Supreme Court mandates. Essentially the notion of “Separation of Church and State” has been perverted to a point where a community of Christians can’t display the 10 Commandments on public property because one Zoroastrian might move in and become “offended.” That’s never what SCS was meant to be about – it was meant to keep Government out of Religion, not oppress the notion of Religion out of the public sector in its entirety.
The problem that Religious conservatives run into is they try to market their pain to the public at large on the basis of morality, and that goes over like a lead balloon. What they should do, and we the greater conservative movement should do, is market it as loss of personal freedom, which is really what it is. If a small town of 50 can put together a majority of 26 people who say that they want to have a Nativity set up in front of City Hall, they should be able to do so without the ACLU starting a ruckus. At the same time, if a small town of 50 had 26 people who wanted to celebrate Ramadan, they should be able to do that. Social and fiscal conservatives might have different legislative priorities, but we ultimately have the same goal and we’re going to need each other to get there. Fiscal conservatism alone would be a lonely, futile movement.
So to all of you social conservatives and religious conservatives out there who might be feeling excluded, let me tell you this much: it would be DOOM for the Republican party were they not to include you. I for one will be pushing for my own little conservative agenda and movement from this site, and your vision of America is the same as mine. I urge you to subscribe, comment, and contribute and help me define a platform that we can sell to the conservative blogosphere.
Let’s hope McCain wins on Tuesday.
Tacitus
November 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm
As a Canadian observing the American election, I have been pondering the state of the world lately and while I was beginning to fall asleep last night, one simple question popped into my head.
Who would Ronald Reagan vote for?
It is something that every Republican, whichever camp they belong to, should think about in the voting booth.
Unless, of course, he is now considered a footnote in American political history.
Northern Right
November 2, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I think Mr. Moran is overlooking an important aspect. Peggy Noonan, et al, were not “ostracised” from the company of conservatives because there was a difference of opinion on some tenet or other. People were upset with them because they endorsed Obama–a candidate who repudiates conservative values. That has nothing to do with whether one would be considered an intellectual or not, it’s a matter of keeping to core values in one’s philosophy. If a “conservative” can look at Obama’s proposals and say, “Hey, that sounds good, I’m gonna vote for that guy,” then “conservatism” has no value at all to distinguish it from liberalism.
BeckoningChasm
November 3, 2008 at 9:48 am