Exile as therapy for conservatives

As a liberal who feels like he's been in the wilderness for at least the last 7.5 years (I'd really says since '94), I think they will not like it.

As a Canadian conservative, I can assure you that the wilderness is overrated. But it may still be necessary, especially if this (i.e., 2003 onward) is the best the G.O.P. has to offer.

In Canada, we elected a Liberal government in 1993 which governed on the right for about five years (had to solve a severe structural budget deficit problem - don't like the way they did it, but I'll give credit - they did it). Then the leftward lurch on fiscal and social policy began, and gained steam in 2000. It was horrible, and the damage is, to a great extent, permanent. Only in 2006 did the bums finally get thrown out of office, just to be replaced by a Conservative minority government which has governed from the (mediocre) centre in order to win votes and stay in power.

The wilderness is over, but just barely. American conservatives won't mind if it lasts two or four years, but if it goes on longer, it shall be gut-wrenching.

Best of luck, and stock up on bottles of rye. You're going to need them, with McCain or Obama in the White House.

As an anti-war rightie, I'm already there. At any rate, every party eventually goes into the wilderness. It's often a good thing, both for the country and the party itself, as it induces reform. It's going to happen, if not in 2008, then in 2012. Considering how richly McCain deserves a good loss for his numerous acts of political treachery, this is as good a year as any. Truthfully, any program Obama would pass, McCain would probably sign on for as well, and Obama at least has something of a coherent plan for Iraq beyond sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I'm not listening!!!!"

With Derek, in one sense it's harder to feel more in the wilderness than I already do. I mean, the Democrats have Congress, our Republican President has not governed as a conservative in many important ways, and our culture is presently dominated by political liberalism. I live in South Carolina, but having a McCaniac like Lindsey Graham for a senator makes me feel like I'm in the wilderness already. I'm sure I'll be depressed to see another Democrat in the White House, but at present I'm more depressed by how big the GOP has blown it (earmarks, corruption, Iraq, yada yada) and heartened by the emerging signs of a dissident (though not homogenous) conservatism as represented by crunchy cons, Paulites, reformists like Ross Douthat, etc. So in that sense, I suppose I find hope in the wilderness.

By the way, I'm reading CrunchyCons for the first time right now, and am loving it.

It's difficult for me to speak about my party (the GOP) without descending into bile and bitterness. I hate the establishment like a spurned spouse sitting at home and reviling his wayward wife as she plays the town whore, night after night.

I hope the GOP and that phony McSame get the clap -- an incurable strain.

They so richly deserve it.

The religious conservatives already are to the Republicans what the blacks are to the Democrats, an interest group they need to win but which is utterly despised by the party elite and everyone else.

Conservatives have been in the political wilderness since Reagan left office. The exception that proves the rule would be the 1994 election and the Contract for America a la Newt.

The Class of 1994 dropped the ball, and it's been downhill since then.

The current president is NOT a conservative. A conservative would never have coined "compassionate conservatism". He would know instictively that: 1.) The phrase is redundant, and 2.) The libs would jump on it like a duck on a June Bug and call it an oxymoron. It's called leading with your chin.

Conservatism doesn't need re-thinking; it needs application.

Perhaps more Republicans and self-styled conservatives will ponder (during the "exile") what conservatism means and should mean rather than what having and retaining power in Washington has meant. I have been a conservative for many years, and a great deal of empirical "Republicanism" all this time has left me cold: the fascination with power, the gloating over "enemies" who have been defeated, and so on. There might be quite a bit of such "conservatism" that will perish during the "exile." Maybe some recognition of opportunities missed, vanity indulged, voters betrayed or at least let down, on the part of some in the party. As Rod (I think) has suggested, a renewed focus on family, community, etc. may be forthcoming for some conservatives. And that could be very good.

I'm not a social conservative, so I don't belong to Rod's "we." But I'll try not to be too obnoxious a troll.

Just today, the religious conservatives who control the Iowa GOP denied a voting seat at the national convention to Sen. Charles Grassley, the state's senior elected Republican. The Club for Growth, the economic-conservative interest group, brags about the several GOP congressmen it has bumped off in primaries. The neocon foreign-policy wing has gone after office-holders and others who don't adhere to the party line on Iraq, "aggressive interrogation" and extraconstitutional executive and police powers. These are all signs of a party and conservative movement (one in the same by now) that seems intent on suppressing what the Soviets used to call "deviationism."

No such outfit has any business running the country under our system of government, which was carefully devised to prevent a dictatorship of the majority - especially the kind of bare majority that put Bush in office. An ideologically rigid government cannot hope to sustain consent of the governed in a society as pluralistic as ours. Thus, Bush's consistently high negative ratings except during the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

The only thing the GOP is good for now is obstructionism, either through Senate fillibusters in an Obama administration or vetoes of Democratic legislation in a McCain administration.

That may be good enough for the Grover Norquists, who like the idea of a paralyzed federal government; but sooner or later - I'm guessing sooner - it's a prescription for long-term marginalization of this country's conservative party, and a consequent lurch too far to the left.

I'm sort of opposite to "allbetsareoff." I think the last few years have been too exciting so it's sort of time for gridlock and nothing getting accomplished. This can happen with Obama as Prez with Republicans in at least one of the houses or McCain as Prez with the Democrats in both houses. I have no strong preference, but I still kind of like McCain. (As much as he's unpopular with conservatives I know) Also I think him winning, although unlikely, is more likely than Republicans taking the House or Senate.

Republicans entering "the wilderness" means many things happening I don't want and some things happening that'd be hard to undo. And to get nostalgic about the '70s strikes me as bordering on lunacy. During the Carter administration rates of murder and abortion were both higher than today. Those rates remained high throughout the Reagan years. There was also the "Starland Vocal Band", which admittedly did not survive in the Reagan years. Now I'm not saying the Dems caused all that, but still it means "the wilderness" wasn't a great time or its problems easily fixed.

"If they lose a parent and have to sell the family home to pay the death tax, that will take a bit of the bloom off the rose."

Indeed, because they will have entered a bizarre alternate reality where the estate tax effects anyone besides the embarassingly wealthy.

i Indeed, because they will have entered a bizarre alternate reality where the estate tax effects anyone besides the embarassingly wealthy.

And where the Bush tax cuts had a positive impact on a the economy. Again, maybe if your uber-wealthy and $4 a gallon gas, a gutted housing market, and rising food costs have no impact. Of course, the uber wealthy were the primary beneficiaries of said tax cuts.

These idealists are in for a very, very rude awakening if they think that a stretch in "the wilderness" under a Barack Obama Imperium will be at all pleasant. At the very best, it will be a regime of deal-cutting politics, Chicago-Mobs-of-the-Twenties-style, where Obama will horse-trade with a Marxist Congressional majority. At worst, it will be radical Jacobinism run amok, where Hillary Clinton will be seen as a voice of moderation and Al Gore will come into his own.

We're going to get massive tax hikes, the return of the Fairness Doctrine, and Greenie-Weenie Whack-Job environmentalist hectoring like you wouldn't believe. Stylistically and policy-wise, an Obama regime will be disastrous.

That having been said, I suspect a McCainist White House won't be a whole heck of a lot better. With McCain, we get the environmentalist stuff and a probable war with Iran---which we will lose, and lose badly; our troops in the area are over-extended as it is, and our financial structure will not be able to stand the strain of paying for it on top of all the other bailouts we'll be in for over the next four years.

The long term problem is this: neither one of these clowns is saying a single thing about the longer-term problems we face, particularly on entitlements. This government is ALREADY financially overextended, and no one in a position of power responsible to voters is doing anything but clamming up and sticking their heads deeply into the political sands. We're heading for a crash that's going to make 1929 look like a day at the beach, and fairly soon.

I see this: In 2008, Obama. (Gotta keep the Carnevale going !!) In 2012, Gov. Jindal (or a similar GOP-type) will try to start cleaning up the mess.

In 2016 ? There may be no election. Our overseas creditors may not allow one.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Are you implying GW Bush or republican congress who spent like drunk sailors are "conservatives" ...if so what brand? The liberal type of conservative? Ok you get my joke. They were spotty conservatives at best.

I'm looking for the 2nd coming of Ronald Reagan. I do not want to be coerced into paying for the lamed brained government programs. National Defense is all you can wrangle out of me. The rest is pure waste.

Great post, Augustus Johnson. I, too, believe that both the Left and the Right need some years in the political wilderness in order to grow and change. BTW, those who are waiting for the second coming of the Reagan Revolution are like liberals who are waiting for the second coming of the New Deal. But, exactly.

"And where the Bush tax cuts had a positive impact on a the economy. Again, maybe if your uber-wealthy and $4 a gallon gas, a gutted housing market, and rising food costs have no impact. Of course, the uber wealthy were the primary beneficiaries of said tax cuts."

Dude, get real. Throw your liberation theology crapola out the window and learn some real economics. Can you imagine how things would be, with gas prices the way they are, if the economy HADN'T previously picked up because of the tax cuts?

The Bush admin. has gotten a lot of things wrong, but the tax cuts aren't one of them.

"It's strange economics that says to make the poor happy you must make the rich miserable."

You find many on the Left who labor under the misapprehension that economics is a zero-sum game. Of course I, as a graduate of an inner-city Christian private school, was disabused of this notion as a junior in high school. But Leftist college grads tend to still believe it.

"Except that Reagan was hardly a conservative either"

I don't think Reagan was an ideal conservative, but that doesn't disqualify him from being one altogether (Same for Mrs. Thatcher, btw). Just because a given politician is not an ideal conservative doesn't mean he isn't a real one, anymore than if a given politician isn't an ideal liberal, he's not a liberal at all. It's not like you have to score 100% on some imaginary conservative checklist to be called one, in other words.

Rob G
I don't think Reagan was an ideal conservative, but that doesn't disqualify him from being one altogether (Same for Mrs. Thatcher, btw). Just because a given politician is not an ideal conservative doesn't mean he isn't a real one, anymore than if a given politician isn't an ideal liberal, he's not a liberal at all. It's not like you have to score 100% on some imaginary conservative checklist to be called one, in other words.

But how was he a conservative beyond Reaganomics? In what manner? Pointing to the past and saying 'I want it like that' is just weird. You want another collapsing Soviet Union? You want amnesty for people here illegally? No?

Maybe you want us tied up in the Middle East in the middle of an unwinnable civil war, attacked by suicide bombers and religious extremists, while Iran laughs at us? Or perhaps you want a banking crisis? No, I have it...you want record budget deficits and out of control military spending while we have tax cuts?

Hehe...sorry, couldn't resist. But the fact conservatives seem to be longing for people and times instead of actual specific policies, would appear to indicate that they do not, in fact, know what they want.

Now, of course, this is the point where conservatives start talking about 'exile'. But I think a fundamental point of 'exile' is that, when you come back, you aren't really the same party as the one that left. It is like being a phoenix...a party will arise from the ashes of the Republicans, but it won't be you guys. It will be the people with the ideas, who can take the increasingly dissociative 'conservative' identity and make something that a significant minority of voters can support.

Everyone in the Republican party right now likes to imagine that the 'new guys' will be 'real conservatives', by which they mean 'conservatives according to my definition of the word, with all other meanings of the word gone', but in reality it's rather unlikely. Because American doesn't believe in the 'pure' filtration of libertarians or theocons or neocons or moral progressives or whatever else the current Republican party is filled with, as evidenced by the fact those all have other parties they can call their own, parties which are wildly unsuccessful.

I'm not trying to spit in your face or anything, I just honestly don't understand the 'Well, we need a decade in the wilderness' concept. Yes, the party that is not the Democrats will end up in the wilderness, where almost the entire population will die. And then a new party, possibly consisting of some of the old, possibly entirely new, possibly with the name 'Republican', will show up. This is not a good thing for 'conservatives', whatever they mean by that.

It's especially bad for people here, as almost all the 'moral issues' are going to be gone in a decade. (Honestly, gay marriage is already gone as an issue.)

"But the fact conservatives seem to be longing for people and times instead of actual specific policies, would appear to indicate that they do not, in fact, know what they want."

Although I liked Reagan in general, I'm not one of those who thinks he was the be-all and end-all. He was conservative in that he was anti-Communist, anti-collectivist/statist, anti-regulation, etc., and pro-democracy, pro-business, pro-life, etc. These are, of course, generalities, and I have qualms with Reagan policies here and there. But overall, I think you must classify Reagan as broadly conservative.

Conservatism is not based on policies but on principles. The principles stay the same but the policies, unlike those of liberalism/progressivism, can vary according to times and circumstance. I realize that this is difficult for Libs to grasp, seeing that their social and economic plan requires specific policies, (policy being the manner in which they believe the progressive vision will be achieved), but there it is.

"a party will arise from the ashes of the Republicans, but it won't be you guys. It will be the people with the ideas..."

The ideas are there already. The problem is that there is a certain amount of sifting that needs to be done to separate true conservatives from the hangers-on. This is what the 'exile' bit is about. Basically you have in general two large "tendencies" right now in the conservative universe. One on hand you have the neo-con tendency -- that of Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Weekly Standard, the Bush Admin. One the other hand you have the paleo- or trad-con tendency, which includes the crunchies. This side of the thing includes Roger Scruton, Pat Buchanan, the American Conservative, Chronicles Magazine, and much of what's associated with the Kirk/Weaver stream -- Modern Age, ISI Publishing, the Kirk Center, etc.

Now you seldom hear anything from or about the latter (except for Buchanan) in the media because Fox and the conservative talk guys are almost all neo-con leaning. And even though there is a certain amount of overlap between the two groups, there are also serious disagreements. I think that what the 'exile' could do would be to sort this division out and give the GOP some time to determine which direction it really wants to go. Does it want to continue to go the neo-con direction (which is really a species of liberalism -- a friend of mine has defined a neo-con as a liberal who wants to keep his money) or to coalesce around the social conservative vision, which it often pays lip service to, but doesn't try to advance?

This is no doubt an oversimplification. But it seems to me that if McCain loses, this is what conservatives will have to think about. Don't expect Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. to talk about this though. They'll be too busy preaching to the choir about how bad Obama is.

The most important thing, however, at least IMO is that conservatives need to stop thinking that their fortunes are tied to the success or failure of the GOP. If we end up distancing ourselves from the GOP, and find ourselves in the wildnerness as a result, so be it. Principle is far more important than party.

"You say 'conservative' is more a 'principle' that actual policies...but politics is policies, and with all due respect, why the hell are you you fighting policies you don't actually care about? More to the point, why are you even in politics if policies aren't important?"

The fact that conservatism is more about principles than policies doesn't mean that policies are not important at all. That's a false dichotomy. Likewise, politics is important but that doesn't mean that 'all is political.' That's false dichotomy number two.

"What do you think we're fighting over, abstract moral principles, or 'what the government is going to do'?"

Both, actually, since policy is always based on some moral principle or other. When the principles inform the policies they can no longer be called 'abstract,' right? What's so hard to understand about this?