Who says Daniel Larison is a pessimist? Here the Dark Paleocon Lord sees the upside in the recent GOP House losses:
One thing about the Mississippi election that has puzzled me is why so many conservatives have expressed some form of despair or anxiety about what it portends. Suppose for a moment that this means the decimation of the Republicans in the House and Senate as many more conservative Democrats are elected. Conservatives have some reason to take solace from this, since it means at once the repudiation of a party that abandoned restraint, prudence and wisdom and the opening up of something like a real competition for the votes of cultural conservatives. Republicans betrayed their promises, and so another people shall inherit what they were given.Conservatives have suffered from the effects of living with a political monopoly, since they have felt compelled time and again to swallow their disagreements with the GOP and continue backing it for fear of the alternative. The lack of a tolerable alternative made this seem unavoidable. But what if the alternative begins to include ever-larger numbers of blue dog Democrats and the like? They may take cultural issues no more seriously than the GOP, but their mere existence creates more competition for conservative support and so might potentially give conservatives some minimal leverage and might lead to the GOP serving their interests more faithfully than they have done.
I think he's onto something. Like my pal and ex-LSU Tiger John Zmirak, I would have voted for Cazayoux over Jenkins had I been back home. JZ says:
I’m delighted [Jenkins] failed, and that instead of that plastic Oliver North knock-off, we have one more of what this country really needs—a conservative Democrat.Of course, as others on this site have pointed out, such Democrats once elected tend to “go native” and start toeing their party’s mass-murderous line. Still, this doesn’t have to happen, and wouldn’t happen as often if conservatives weren’t so wretchedly tame and partisan. (Remember when National Review used to criticize Reagan from the right? When Rush Limbaugh savaged George Bush I, and offered initial enthusiasm for Pat Buchanan’s run?) It would be a very good thing indeed if pro-lifers and social conservatives sometimes had the option to choose between two different candidates based on… I dunno, considerations such as their character, competence, prudence, judgment, and all those other “side” issues which our Founders naively thought might come into play in American elections. However, since the Democrats managed their slow but effective purge of social conservatives, and Republicans learned to take “values voters” for granted, this hasn’t been an option for voters like me.
More conservative Democrats sounds good to me.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Kittens. As long as they're conservative kittens. Heh."
Kittens are all monarchists, and so are always ultraconservative. Puppies...let's just say that they remind me of the specific group of libertarians whose pet issue is the legalization of drugs. :)
But to the topic--the conservative Democrat is still a lonely and almost mythic creature; while he may do a lot of good at the local level, he'll have little impact on his party's rancid platform.
Sadly, the conservative Republican is nearly as mythic, and almost as powerless--unless you're talking about fiscal and military conservatives who wish the whole "social conservative" thing would just go away. They, alas, are in ready supply, and I'd be happy to share them with the Democrats if only to get rid of our surplus.
"More conservative Democrats sounds good to me."
That will produce only FRUSTRATED conservative Democrats. They'll go to Washington and find that the party caucuses are dominated by the hard-left activists from moveon.org and the other Soros-funded and Hollywood-funded groups. They'll be fed a few crumbs.
The worst thing that can happen to these newly elected conservative Democrat Congresspersons is the election of a liberal Democrat President this fall. Throughout 2009 and 2010 they'll have to choose between the conservative voters back home and the liberal Democrat President in the Oval Office. However they choose, they lose. If they too often side with the liberal legislative program of their national Party, the GOP will use those liberal votes to defeat them for re-election in 2010. If, instead, they side with the conservative GOP to oppose the liberal legislative program, they'll annoy their Party leaders and earn the contempt of the left-leaning Washington press corps.
Good luck to them. They'll need it.
the conservative Democrat is still a lonely and almost mythic creature;
A minority but not mythic. Sullivan's book (Amy that is) was quite encouraging. There appears to be a sizable group that are willing to work on the social issues (including abortion) that you would favor. If the Dems ever figure that out and reach out to them nationally as they have done in places like Michigan Republicans will finally have to deliver or shut up.
Steve
More conservative Democrats sound good to me, too. And more liberal Republicans. Our form of government functions badly unless both parties tack toward the center. Not only the elected officials and party machinery, but the voting base as well.
That's not to say there shouldn't be a right-of-center party and a left-of-center one. But the 50-50 split of diametrically opposed factions in which the most extreme voices exercise vetoes over moderates, now going back nearly a generation, has poisoned public discourse and stymied reform - turning checks and balances into chronic checkmate.
Gridlock is no substitute for compromise and consensus. That's true even if you buy the modern rightist meme that "government is the problem." Yes, it often is; but it's also the only institution we have to speak and act for the whole country, to address common problems, balance competing interests and provide some semblance of justice and equity.
If government is dysfunctional, then we are at the mercy of forces that are indifferent to the common good and are more concerned with short-term results than long-term consequences. In a global economy, these forces may even be hostile to this country. (Think about the Asian and Arab creditors now holding so much of our public and private debt.)
I'm afraid we are getting close to some crisis - a financial crash or radical reorientation of the economy, a major natural disaster, an epidemic - that will require significant government intervention. If those who govern us behave as they have for the past 20 years, arguing and maneuvering to a standstill, the crisis will get out of hand. The consequences could be catastrophic.
Our politics must regain the center, and soon.
allbetsareoff @ 12:38 PM writes:
"Gridlock is no substitute for compromise and consensus. That's true even if you buy the modern rightist meme that "government is the problem." Yes, it often is; but it's also the only institution we have to speak and act for the whole country, to address common problems, balance competing interests and provide some semblance of justice and equity."
Allbets, you commit a fundamental mistake of this sort of discourse; you treat an institution as a unitary and monolithic thing. "Government" is an organized collection of individuals, no more nor less, and each and every one of those individuals has their own agenda, memory, knowledge-base and set of incentives.
That having been said, I refer you to Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy: "[I]n any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. (Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent.) The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions."
What this means is that eventually, those individuals in leadership-cadre positions in the organization will come to see the goals of the organization (providing education, providing military power, etc.) as secondary to the goal of maintaining their own power, positions and tenure in office. There is more than enough evidence that the individuals comprising the leadership cadre of the American Empire has long since reached and passed that point.
Under those circumstances, do you really wish to assume that said individuals have your best interests at heart ? What evidence can you cite to assert that they even know what your interests are ? Given the sheer size and scope of the American state apparatus, such an assertion of blind faith is little short of ludicrous. The safer, more survival-oriented approach is to assume that the interests of the individuals in the State apparatus (especially at the upper echelons) are diametrically opposed to yours until pragmatically demonstrated otherwise.
In other words: "Be safe. Politick Defensively."
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.