What We Should Do
Never one to shirk away from aping my betters, I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Joel and Feddie. I also have enough hubris to think I can wrap it all up in a neat package: We do not need pro lifers, pro gunners, and anti taxers. What we need is a return to what our forefathers believed. We need to have an overriding philosophy. Part of the problem is that we keep electing people by using a checklist. Is she pro-life? Does he agree that estate taxes are morally reprehensible? While we are quibbling over details, politicians on both sides of the aisle are making off with the store. I do not think I have to detail how far we have slid in 230 years. Suffice to say that our federal government has become the black hole at the center of our political universe — sucking in powers and rights that were once reserved to the states and growing exponentially with each passing year. Republicans now routinely vote for multitrillion dollar budgets loaded with home-district perks. They support massive new spending programs and encourage more and more regulation under the name of “security” or “fair elections.” The party is fat, dumb, and despondent. It has somehow found its way out of the Promised Land and back into the wilderness where it will remain for another 40 years if something does not change.
So, what is the answer? To my mind all we need to do to claim the legacy of our forefathers is to take two simple steps.
First, we must reaffirm the basic principle that was the mortar of our country: That centralized government is, at best, a necessary evil and should exist solely to provide standardized facilities that the states cannot and to protect our inalienable rights. It is that simple. No more mohair subsidies. No more Prescription Drug Benefits Acts. No more Robert C. Byrd Intermodal Transportation Centers.
I am not calling for abolishing the Fed or returning to the gold standard. What I am suggesting is that we need to remember that politics is nothing more than determining the proper role of government, and we have too often traded our ideals for Big Tents, logrolling, and the politics of pragmatism. We elect leaders who believe first and foremost in their re-election; who grow too accustomed to being called “Congressman” or “Senator”; and who are all too quick to trade the principles they espoused as candidates for the club-mentality they encounter when they reach the marble-floored hallways in the Capitol.
Republicans used to stand for something other than military quagmires and budget deficits. I am old enough to remember Reagan’s “Shining City upon a Hill.” Despite his flawed presidency, Reagan reminded us that we had the ability to do anything and that we did not need the government to be our nanny and nursemaid. He reminded us that we were a party of growth, personal liberty, and, when necessary, law and order. His message resonated with Americans; Conservatism resonated with Americans. It was a political death sentence outside of the Northeast to be labeled a “liberal.” Now, 20 years later we have nominated leaders who have traded our inheritance for war and spending, and we have resorted to horse-trading our votes for the promise of crumbs off the table. We turn a blind eye to skyrocketing budgets and deficits and warm ourselves in the thought that we may actually get a good nomination for the Supreme Court. We have gotten into bed with so-called “moderates” and bartered away legislative power for the promise of future judicial fiat, which is the political equivalent of trading a tank for a musket. We need to break free of these limited, self-imposed chains, return to our roots, and remind our country why Conservatism is the answer.
We need the second step . . . which I would like to discuss tomorrow.
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
(NB: I’m commenting here far too much for a 1L with finals in a week, so I’ll post this and bid the SA crew adieu.)
Although it would be nice if the path to a successful political party was as simple as two steps, I’m inclined to believe it is not albeit I cannot consider Centinel’s argument in full.
He opens by stating that we need to return to an overarching philosophy and stop “electing people by using a checklist.” However, to successfully judge the existence of the former you must have the latter. Counting votes and examining them for consistency is the only way to determine how strongly a politician believes in something. Otherwise, the only data a voter is left with are the politician’s own words, and since when has it been a wise idea to trust those? So call me a Catholic and give me the ol’ “both and”… I’ll take both an overarching philosophy and list of votes to test whether or not a politician is governing according to it.
Centinel’s call to “remember that politics is nothing more than determining the proper role of government. [W]e have too often traded our ideals for Big Tents, logrolling, and the politics of pragmatism.”
Here, here! But wait… “We turn a blind eye to skyrocketing budgets and deficits and warm ourselves in the thought that we may actually get a good nomination for the Supreme Court.” In truth I’m pretty OK with skyrocketing budgets if it gets me a court that will finally say that there is no constitutional right to kill babies. Sure I’d like smaller budgets at the same time, but the one is only money and the other is life. (Of course this gets back to my earlier points about prioritizing principles.)
Centinel closes by saying “We need to break free of these limited, self-imposed chains, return to our roots, and remind our country why Conservatism is the answer.” OK, but at our roots we didn’t have a Dept. of Education, HHS, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, HUD, or Veteran’s Affairs. While Centinel doesn’t say how we can return to the roots without cutting away all the things that grew out of them, I trust that he’ll deal with that tomorrow. But in doing so he’ll have to explain the contradiction between opposing an expansion of government on the principle that the Framers would oppose it, while funding all these things that the Framers did not envision, and do it without appealing to a “politics of pragmatism.”
Finally, I’d close by noting that Reagan’s message resonated in part because of the mismanagement that preceded it. For example, it’s much easier to convince people about the need for lower taxes when they are being taxed at rates of more than 70%. It’s much harder to do the same when the rates are under 40%.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
First, let me say that this post is partly tongue in cheek. I do not have the answer, but I believe I may have an answer. Or at least something to ponder. The things I’m going to talk about tomorrow, should I have the time, are not going to be novel to those who know me or have read my rants. I beat this horse quite frequently during the last election and, truth be told, Bush has made me look like a genius.
Addressing your concerns with my setup. I realize that this forum does not allow my ideas to be fully fleshed out. I am offering the “Cliff Notes” version, if you will. Suffice to say, compressing the air out, I am complaining that we are turning into single issue voters, such as SB, or we are weighing the scales, but we are not electing individuals who have a clear Conservative philosophy that guides their actions. I’ve met many of these individuals — I dare say that Feddie is one — yet I have never seen one of them cast a legislative vote. I believe this will make more sense tomorrow.
Also, do not confuse my cut against the “politics of pragmatism” as a slur against working within the constraints of reality. Should everyone follow my suggestions, we will not wake up tomorrow with a reinvigorated Tenth Amendment or an end of the Department of Labor. As I stated, I am not seeking return to the gold standard, but an incremental approach to changing government for the better.
Nor do I contest that Reagan drew much of his apparent light from the contrast with the darkness before, but that does not mean we have to re-elect Carter to remind people of the benefits of smaller government — just look at 1994.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“We do not need pro lifers, pro gunners, and anti taxers. What we need is a return to what our forefathers believed. We need to have an overriding philosophy. Part of the problem is that we keep electing people by using a checklist. Is she pro-life? Does he agree that estate taxes are morally reprehensible?”
It’s ironic that I am about to argue that the philosophy you’ve articulated in half an article is only half of the answer, and I do so humbly and with the promise to read part II. But, as to the narrow question of picking candidates, we must recognize both positive and negative criteria. Checklists are negative in nature because they serve as disqualifiers: failure to meet the listed requirements means no vote for you. Matters of philosophy are essentially positive in nature: you vote for the candidate who more clearly shows his adherence to a desirable philosophy.
This push/pull balance is necessary, I think. Furthermore, especially because conservative political philosphy addresses a Hobbesian (or fallen) human nature, only a balance between positive and negative rubrics will lead to selecting people who can govern in the face of the paradoxes such a philosophy requires. Consider Alexander Hamilton: revolutionary, but not always radical. His moral checklist (i.e., don’t allow mobs to kill civilians or take Congress captive) balanced the revolutionary rhetoric he fostered. Or consider the failing of John Adams: philosohpically solid but he failed to see how the Alien-Sedition Acts violated his principles.
We need both, or (more specifically) we need the good sides of both and the weaknesses of neither. We need a philosophical engine to drive conservatism, but we don’t need “rubber meets the sky” politicians.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Heh. That will not be a concern at all, TR. I wish I could have gotten to it today, but, alas, work called and I foolishly answered. Even more foolishly, my interweb is fried at home due to “improvements” I made to my system. Translation: you may have to wait a day or two longer for the storm that follows the calm.