Crunchy Con

Third way conservatism

Friday May 15, 2009

Categories: Conservatism

Must conservatives choose between Arlen Specter and Rush Limbaugh? Can't they both lose? Jim Antle says, "Hey, why not paleo-ish-conservatism without the prefix?" Excerpt:

Fortunately, there is a third option. There is a flavor of conservatism that has not been discredited by the events of the past eight years. If anything, its criticisms of loose monetary policies, overconsumption, reckless private and public borrowing, uncontrolled immigration, and foreign adventurism now seem prescient. It is a conservatism unburdened by the Iraq War, the "heckuva job" response to Hurricane Katrina, and the financial meltdown, which are really the biggest contributors to the GOP's decline. Most of all, it is a conservatism that does not need to rehabilitate the Bush legacy since its leading exponents were never full-time Bush apologists.

An objection is likely to enter even the minds of sympathetic readers. This sounds a lot like paleoconservatism, whose adherents are too quirky, too cantankerous, and too small in number to put together an effective political movement. But we needn't call it "paleo" anything. It's the ideas that matter. Not so long ago a platform along these lines--limited government, decentralism, a national interest-based foreign policy, and resistance to multiculturalism--would have been considered conservatism without the prefix. And is it really that outlandish compared to the leading alternatives? Right now, Republicans are arguing about whether they want to remain the party that is in the minority now or go back to being the party that was in the minority for decades after the New Deal.

Moreover, a conservative political movement can be informed by certain paleo-friendly insights without reducing itself to a debating society on the relative merits of Bill Bennett versus Mel Bradford. Austrian economics has some things to say about the current financial crisis that mainstream economic theories, Left and Right, do not. Restrictionists have valuable observations about our immigration policy. And in today's world, there is a great case to be made for a strong American military used sparingly.

Such a new old-fashioned conservatism agrees with the Limbaugh listeners that the Republican Party lost its way on spending without pretending that the Bridge to Nowhere was a bigger liability than Iraq. It agrees with the Frum followers that there are fundamental problems with the Republican brand without repudiating conservatism. Best of all, it addresses head-on the main reason for the recent GOP electoral debacles.

Republicans are in trouble because a majority of Americans view George W. Bush as a failed president. There is simply no other credible explanation for the party's dramatic drop-off from 2004 to 2006. Worse, the strategies that helped Bush eke out narrow, short-term victories have hurt the Republican Party over the long term. Treating social conservatism as a form of identity politics was supposed to help the party win evangelical votes without alienating moderates. It has instead inflamed feelings between these groups. Amnesty for illegal immigrants was supposed to appeal to Hispanic voters. Instead it set up a debate that pitted them against the bulk of the Republican base. Tax cuts combined with spending increases were supposed to be all gain, no pain. Instead they discredited Republican economic arguments.

The GOP has angered its true believers by being unprincipled and has alienated nonideological voters by seeming hypocritical, tone-deaf, and incompetent. The trap the party has set for itself is that whatever addresses one problem only makes the other worse. A potential way out is to appeal to the center with style and the Right with substance. Ron Paul was able to win liberal esteem despite opposing abortion and holding views about government that made Barry Goldwater look like Nelson Rockefeller. Perhaps a more mainstream figure with greater credibility among Republicans could do better.

Excellent piece. Read the whole thing. And see, this is why we need The American Conservative to survive -- because they publish articles like this. Please consider a donation. (Unless you think a certain someone is "the frigging Republican pope.")

Advertisement
Comments
Travis Mamone
May 15, 2009 6:29 PM
http://anotheropinionatedloudmouth.blogspot.com

I have a co-worker who is a paleoconservative, and he's given me a lot of insight into what conservatism really is. I actually just started reading The American Conservative online (love your Barbarian piece, btw), and I think I will donate. It's good to hear another conservative voice.

Will Hinton
May 15, 2009 6:54 PM
http://www.goodwillhinton.com

stefanie,

That isn't necessarily a problem if conservatives can figure out how to better approach hot button social issues like abortion. A good stance on abortion that would clearly delineate a difference with Democrats that most in the country would agree with would be to advocate for more restrictions on abortion. Not a complete ban (even though that is what many conservatives want). Our abortion laws are radically liberal; women can get an abortion up until the day before birth.

Conservatives would also be smart to advocate for limited civil unions.

I don't believe that the GOP is as narrow on social issues as you seem to believe.

Peace,

Will Hinton

Kit Stolz
May 16, 2009 7:23 PM

Antle calls for "an appeal to the center with style and the Right with substance." But as Stephanie points out, the center in America does not want to fully prohibit abortion, and appears ready to consider some form of gay marriage. If there is some way to "finesse" these issues nobody appears to have thought of it yet.

Frankly, even as a lefty, the appeal of the paleoconservative foreign policy as advocated by Andrew Bacevich is so strong that if some kind of compromise was possible on these sexual/social questions, I would ready and willing to give a candidate espousing such a philosophy real consideration. But based on the views and comments routinely seen on this site, I see no possible compromise.

Suggestions? Anyone?

Katherine
May 17, 2009 12:09 AM

Abortion and same-sex marriage are not, I think, necessarily the big problem issues for Republicans. Based on a Gallup poll from a couple years back, a majority of Americans would like to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest, danger to the mother's health, or a potentially-fatal illness of the fetus. A poll in 2008 showed half supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That puts people at least as close to socially conservative positions on these issues as liberal ones - and it's not as if the Democrats are any closer to compromising their positions on unregulated elective abortion. Social issues have always been a liability for the Dems.

The Republican problem is more in the way these issues are talked about. When the people advocating your positions are cruel, hypocritical, loudmouthed, close-minded, and incapable of admitting they are ever wrong, and the party has no new ideas on issues people find important, like education and health care and the environment, the party will do poorly. In terms of gaining public opinion, it's a better idea to reform who your spokespeople are and reach out to the lower-middle-class with economic policies that would benefit them than to try to attract wealthier social liberals, whose importance as a demographic is regionally limited. It isn't abortion and same-sex marriage that's killing the GOP in the rust belt.

Oh, and stopping making people who say racist things their spokespeople would also be a step forward for the party.

Kit Stolz
May 17, 2009 3:50 PM

Agree that racism, cruelty, hypocrisy, blowhardness, close-mindedness, and other aspects of leadership provided by the most popular of Republicans, Rush Limbaugh, do not help the party with the general public.

Do not agree that abortion and gay marriage are easy issues for Republicans. Here's statistician Nate Silver on recent polls:

"In fact, the remarkable thing about abortion is precisely how steady public opinion has been on it for many, many years. [About 50-40 pro-choice over pro-life.] Perhaps this in and of itself is interesting -- as Ross Douthat pointed out, there is some decent evidence that Gen Y'ers are less inclined to take the pro-choice position than Gen X'ers or Baby Boomers -- although they are still more pro-choice than the voters they are gradually replacing in the voting pool, which are members of the Silent Generation. This is in spite of the fact that young Americans are considerably more liberal than their peers on issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, issues on which there is more tangible evidence of "momentum" in favor of the liberal position. There are evidently an increasing number of pro-life, pro-gay marriage Americans, particularly among Generation Yers, a position it would have been very unusual to encounter just a few years ago."

Read All Comments

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.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.