It's pretty clear now that the conservative coalition - that triumvirate of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives responsible for the Republican party's fortune over the past thirty years - is coming apart at the seams. Prior to recent years there was much agreement and overlap between the conservative camps, and if disagreements existed at all they were suppressed in the interest of electoral success. For the most part, though, the tensions were slight and there was a general consensus among all conservatives regarding how we should live, and what the proper limits and duties of government were. Indeed, at its height, the modern conservative movement integrated the thinking of all three camps under a single tent and a coherent philosophy. We were Reaganites.
But the great man is dead, and, it appears, so too is the movement he spawned. The election of George W. Bush and the implementation of his "compassionate conservative" policies - a massive prescription drug entitlement, the "no child left behind" education bill, the "faith-based" initiatives that sought to support private religious endeavors with public money - probably caused the first large cracks in the coalition. The idea of using public funds to sponsor endeavors of these kinds, no matter how compassionate or benevolent, was anathema to many us. Conservatives knew that government has no aptitude in these areas, and more importantly, no business there.
The Iraq war, of course, and Bush's Wilsonian foreign policy, have been even more divisive among conservatives. Most conservatives initially supported the war as a punitive exercise against an intransigent country that supported terror and as a defensive exercise against a regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Nation-building, had it been part of the administration's initial justification for the war, would have caused many conservatives to pause and consider the wisdom of such an endeavor. Bush's second inaugural address, in which he stated that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world" and that "we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom", caused many of us to blanch, and reconsider both the war and this president. Thinking of this kind is Pollyannish, at best, and dangerous always. While support of free and democratic nations has always been a pillar of conservative thought, the over-heated rhetoric caused many of us to believe that George Bush had more in mind than the security of the United States. Peggy Noonan alerted us to her concerns the following morning and shortly thereafter Bill Buckley and George Will, the two people I consider the most important figures in the conservative pantheon other than Reagan himself, both expressed their opposition to the war.
Four years worth of futility in that war surely didn't help matters. A quick victory that put in place a pro-American regime in Iraq and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Victory is within reach now but the damage is done, and the cracks have widened.
Into the cracks steps Mike Huckabee with a hammer and chisel, ready to complete the job. George Will's comment the other day that Huckabee represents the wholesale repudiation of Reaganism has been called an exaggeration but I don't think so. At the very least, Huckabee understands little of Reaganism, and he cares less. If he's ready to make common cause with anyone, it's with the left. His Foreign Affairs article hearkens back to Jimmy Carter's naivete and America-blaming, and some of his rhetoric on the campaign trail comes straight from the netroots playbook. He's been on the left on crime, taxes, education, and immigration. Beyond that, he apparently has no concept of limited-government, stating that he would impose a federal ban on smoking and a cap on corporate executive pay.
For many of us, the simply will not do. If Mike Huckabee gets the Republican nomination for president, most, though not all, evangelical voters will follow him, simply because they share his faith and his position on abortion. But it will leave the rest of us convinced that we no longer have a home in the Republican Party. George Will's comment will no longer be seen as an exaggeration but a truism. Huckabee's nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan coalition. And we will have a decision to make. Do we vote for Huckabee in November in the slim hope that we can return a Republican to office, simply because he is a Republican, and no matter how much we disagree with him? Or do we stay home, guaranteeing that Huckabee and the Republican party at large lose in a landslide? For myself, since I believe Huckabee has little chance of winning against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the decision is easy. I'll watch from the sidelines as Huckabee is repudiated. The future will take care of itself.
But the great man is dead, and, it appears, so too is the movement he spawned. The election of George W. Bush and the implementation of his "compassionate conservative" policies - a massive prescription drug entitlement, the "no child left behind" education bill, the "faith-based" initiatives that sought to support private religious endeavors with public money - probably caused the first large cracks in the coalition. The idea of using public funds to sponsor endeavors of these kinds, no matter how compassionate or benevolent, was anathema to many us. Conservatives knew that government has no aptitude in these areas, and more importantly, no business there.
The Iraq war, of course, and Bush's Wilsonian foreign policy, have been even more divisive among conservatives. Most conservatives initially supported the war as a punitive exercise against an intransigent country that supported terror and as a defensive exercise against a regime bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Nation-building, had it been part of the administration's initial justification for the war, would have caused many conservatives to pause and consider the wisdom of such an endeavor. Bush's second inaugural address, in which he stated that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in the world" and that "we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom", caused many of us to blanch, and reconsider both the war and this president. Thinking of this kind is Pollyannish, at best, and dangerous always. While support of free and democratic nations has always been a pillar of conservative thought, the over-heated rhetoric caused many of us to believe that George Bush had more in mind than the security of the United States. Peggy Noonan alerted us to her concerns the following morning and shortly thereafter Bill Buckley and George Will, the two people I consider the most important figures in the conservative pantheon other than Reagan himself, both expressed their opposition to the war.
Four years worth of futility in that war surely didn't help matters. A quick victory that put in place a pro-American regime in Iraq and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Victory is within reach now but the damage is done, and the cracks have widened.
Into the cracks steps Mike Huckabee with a hammer and chisel, ready to complete the job. George Will's comment the other day that Huckabee represents the wholesale repudiation of Reaganism has been called an exaggeration but I don't think so. At the very least, Huckabee understands little of Reaganism, and he cares less. If he's ready to make common cause with anyone, it's with the left. His Foreign Affairs article hearkens back to Jimmy Carter's naivete and America-blaming, and some of his rhetoric on the campaign trail comes straight from the netroots playbook. He's been on the left on crime, taxes, education, and immigration. Beyond that, he apparently has no concept of limited-government, stating that he would impose a federal ban on smoking and a cap on corporate executive pay.
For many of us, the simply will not do. If Mike Huckabee gets the Republican nomination for president, most, though not all, evangelical voters will follow him, simply because they share his faith and his position on abortion. But it will leave the rest of us convinced that we no longer have a home in the Republican Party. George Will's comment will no longer be seen as an exaggeration but a truism. Huckabee's nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the Reagan coalition. And we will have a decision to make. Do we vote for Huckabee in November in the slim hope that we can return a Republican to office, simply because he is a Republican, and no matter how much we disagree with him? Or do we stay home, guaranteeing that Huckabee and the Republican party at large lose in a landslide? For myself, since I believe Huckabee has little chance of winning against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, the decision is easy. I'll watch from the sidelines as Huckabee is repudiated. The future will take care of itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment