Conservative Reform and the RNC

We are accustomed to thinking that all conservatives are Republicans, and that is roughly true. But we commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent when we assert that all Republicans are conservative. In fact, most are not.

Defining 'conservative'. Conservatives are persons who believe in principles of liberty, the rule of law, small government, capitalism and a free-market economy, the sanctity of private property and contracts, and, above all, respect for the Constitution as it was originally conceived and formulated.

Measuring the actual performance of our elected and appointed officials against the standards of conservatism, though, can be dicey. The American Conservative Union (ACU), which rates congressmen by voting record, is a useful resource. A 100% record of conservative votes leaves no doubt about the principles (and courage) of a legislator. Conservative voters may see voting records at, say, an eighty or ninety percent rating, as a strong endorsement of their elected representatives, but here one must be cautious.

The rub of analysis lies in exactly where (on what issues) a congressman deviates from conservative principles. In the case of my senators, they had spoken in favor of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, and, absent the angry groundswell of public opposition, I suspect they would have voted for it. For that and other reasons I have serious doubts regarding their conservative fides.

I have come to realize that any rating below 100% leaves room for a lot of mischief and requires careful analysis. What to do? In order to assure a majority of principled conservatives in Congress it seems to me that constituents providing incentives for the RNC and liberal Republicans to align politically with conservatism holds promise.

The Republican Party and Conservatism

For some time I have seen the Republican Party leadership (RNC) as bureaucratic, ingrown, contemptuous of conservative principles and thoroughly feckless. Like their opposite number (perhaps by emulation) they have come to embrace statism as the expedient way to win elections. To be sure, winning elections is properly the business of the party, but at what cost?

Republicans have become the party of appeasement in domestic politics as Democrats long have been in foreign policy. As conservative principles have been allowed to languish, the party has become defensive -- reactive -- to political opposition. (1) By doing so they implicitly communicate that Democrats are in control of the rules of debate. Representatives of the Senator John McCain stripe reinforce that impression by demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice principle in the interest of comity.

Too many, nominally on the right, seem to argue that conservative principles cannot attract the votes of independents and loosely committed Democrats, and they make the case for a "Big Tent" approach. Michael Medved, for example, asserts that voters in traditionally liberal northern states cannot be won over by conservative ideas; therefore, conservatives must agree to compromise on principle in their campaigns. He cites the example of Olympia Snowe and others, who as representatives of a liberal constituency, must not stray too far to the right. In other words, what good is it to uphold doctrine and lose elections?

Absent careful examination, the argument is appealing. But I find at least three flaws in this line of reasoning. In the first place, it fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that there will always be some (many?) who cannot be wooed away from hard-case liberalism. In this case targeting votes on the hard left amounts only to squandering resources. Second, it seems to ignore the fact that conservative principles, persistently and well articulated, appeal to the majority of Americans. Finally, the argument does not take into account the naturally conservative disposition of most Americans. (2)

But I will concede one point: liberal states, generally more populous, are heavily represented in the electoral college. But that fact suggests that these states are liberal monoliths. History shows us that they are not. (3)

Changing the Party

I began this essay with the intention of exploring only various (and unexciting) strategies for enabling conservatives to become the new (or renewed) face of the Republican Party. I have since come to recognize that unfolding events in the grassroots political arena may offer unexpected support to those strategies.

The tea parties, townhall confrontations and the steady ascendancy of conservative media at MSM's expense may be taken as signs that America is moving toward the right. Ironically, we have liberal overreach, seen in the bullying tactics of the hard left to undo traditional American institutions, to thank. I think citizens instinctively understand that the hastiness, scope and "foreignness" of legislation pushed so hard by the current administration, is a naked attempt to expand and consolidate extraconstitutional powers without practical restraints.

How to take advantage? It appears to me that the RNC has been typically slow to appreciate the popular movement towards conservatism (or away from liberalism), and it lacks the responsive agility to seize opportunities. Where one sees leadership is at the level of elected conservatives and the various organizations with which they are associated.
From that I conclude that it is conservative congressmen, with the support of like-minded constituents, who can change the party from within.

Another Strategy

In the past I have contributed money to the RNC and to representatives in my state. But about two years ago, I chose another course. I had come to recognize that the Republican Party, itself, undermines conservatism. So also, do candidates who, like the party, sacrifice principle for victory at the polls. Where once I would have made donations to the RNC and local Republican candidates, I now opt to support only hundred per cent conservatives from any state who a.) show outstanding leadership and b.) are in closely contested races.

This strategy is loudly opposed by less-than-robust conservative spokesmen in the media. They argue that hewing too closely to principle does not win elections; does not guarantee pluralities. While that assertion has merit in the short term, where is the benefit of a liberal-Republican majority? John McCain, Lindsey Graham (for examples) and many others demonstrate that the question has already been asked and answered. "Moderate" Republicans and their Democrat counterparts till the same soil, and the harvest, predictably, is not conservative. (4)

Leaners and standers. Many Republican politicians "lean" toward the conservative platform, but they have absorbed the liberal memes of the sixties that became popular orthodoxy, and they have been unable to think themselves out. Unconsciously and uncritically they have bought into the facile, seductive and intellectually specious (5) notions of Utilitarian philosophy -- the greatest good for the greatest number. Worse, they embrace the liberal perversion (6) of Jesus' admonition not to judge, believing that judgment must be suspended in all things. The result is a destructive combination of "touchy-feely" sentimentality that drives public policy accompanied by the inability to evaluate the need for it or the results that follow from it.

On the platform of conservative thought, standers, on the other hand, are not averse to the exercise of judgment. That is especially true in matters of social and fiscal legislation where conservatives recognize that public displays of pious "caring" seldom translate into actions that do not exacerbate the conditions they were meant to improve. The New Deal and Great Society programs being notable examples.

What Might Be Helpful

1. Conservatives should identify themselves more closely with Constitutional principles than with the Republican Party. Foremost among those principles, liberty.
2. To the extent that financial support is directed away from the RNC to bona fide conservative politicians, wobbly conservatives (and eventually, the party itself) will likely discover that their interests are best served by a political shift to the right.
3. Upholding conservative principles (clearly and consistently articulated without apology), will attract more support among voters than bargaining them away in cynical, expedient compromise. While they are privately (though often transparently) held in contempt by liberals, American voters have a remarkable ability to sort out hypocrisy. (7)



----------
(1) Stipulating to the multicultural smarminess that passes for liberal values, pro forma apologies or denials inevitably precede comments that might potentially offend some identity group.
(2) Pew Research Center, Gallup, Rasmussen and other polls.
(3) Consider Reagan's electoral votes: 1980 - 489; 1984 - 525.
(4) While the ideological shortcomings of McCain and Graham (for the latter most recently) are well documented, even Senate Minority Leader, John Boehner, though among the best spokesmen for conservative positions, seems not above short-term political compromise.
(5) The greatest good for the greatest number. This idea, associated with the work of Jeremy Bentham, cannot sustain the weight of logical analysis or practical application. Though it was quickly refuted by Bentham’s contemporaries, it persists as a favorite liberal mantra.
(6) One of many good analyses is found here. I chose this citation because it is concise and well documented. To the list of examples offered by the author I would add Jer. 5.1
(7) I argue here that Barack Obama was perceived by voters as less hypocritical – more devoted to principle -- than John McCain. The hypocrisy of Obama lay in his false representation of the principles he held rather than his fidelity to them.