A Way Out of the Wilderness

[roo_ster]

Jeff Flake (first article below) has a good idea of where the GOP ought to go from here.

Such a retrenchment could also lead to another alliance with the small-"L" libertarian types without jettisoning larger coalition partners. (Second article below)

My ideal would be to work the gov't down to a size where the citizenry doesn't much care what it does, as it is not a large factor in their lives.

Feel free to log into washintonpost.com with the foll0wing bogus logon:
Logon: anonymous@banschwerk.org
Password: irwinocity

A Way Out of the Wilderness

By Jeff Flake
Wednesday, November 5, 2008; A26

Well, we Republicans have just made history. Not the type of history we wanted to make, mind you, but history nonetheless. Not only did we lose the White House but, after losing our House and Senate majorities in 2006, we followed it up last night with even steeper losses in Congress.

In January, Democrats will enjoy lopsided congressional ratios not seen since the 1970s. Let's face it: We Republicans are now, by any reasonable measurement, deep in the political wilderness.

The temptation for Republican members of Congress today will be to assume the role of the post-Watergate Republicans of 1974 and accept minority status as a permanent condition. Indeed, the terrain is more difficult for us now than it was in 1992. Then, Republicanism was still largely defined by the Reagan years. Today the party is defined in the public mind by the Bush presidency. We've got a steep hill to climb.

Much of the backroom maneuvering and media speculation in the coming weeks will focus on identifying new standard-bearers for the party. This is important, and after a second straight drubbing, the House Republican leadership should be replaced. But the far more critical task is determining what standard these new leaders will bear.

I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government. After eight years of profligate spending and soaring deficits, voters can be forgiven for not knowing that limited government has long been the first article of faith for Republicans.

Of course, it's not the level of spending that gets the most attention; it's the manner in which the spending is allocated. The proliferation of earmarks is largely a product of the Gingrich-DeLay years, and it's no surprise that some of the most ardent practitioners were earmarked by the voters for retirement yesterday. Few Americans will take seriously Republican speeches on limited government if we Republicans can't wean ourselves from this insidious practice. But if we can go clean, it will offer a stark contrast to the Democrats, who, after two years in training, already have their own earmark favor factory running at full tilt.

Second, we need to recommit to our belief in economic freedom. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" may be on the discount rack this year, but the free market is still the most efficient means to allocate capital and human resources in an economy, and Americans know it. Now that we've inserted government deeply into the private sector by bailing out banks and businesses, the temptation will be for government to overstay its welcome and force the distribution of resources to serve political ends. Substituting political for economic incentives is not the recipe for economic recovery.

Most House Republicans opposed the recent bailout and will be in a strong position to promote economic freedom over central planning as the Obama administration stumbles from industry to industry trying to determine which is small enough to be allowed to fail and which is not. Since timetables will be in vogue, perhaps Republicans could even insist on a timetable for getting the government out of the private sector.

There are, of course, other pillars of the Republican standard -- strong national defense, support for traditional values and the Second Amendment -- but these are not areas where voters question Republican bona fides. In any event, as we have seen over the past several months, economic woes tend to subsume other concerns. We shouldn't complain. We can now play our strongest hand.

In some respects, raising a new standard was made easier by yesterday's rout. The Republican Party is not bound by election-year promises made by its presidential nominee. More important, the party is finally untethered from the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration.

This is not to say that it will be an easy transition. Congressional Republicans picked up some unattractive habits over the years in an effort to hold on to power. Whether it was relying on the redistricting process to help us choose our constituents, using the appropriations process as an ATM or passing legislation -- such as a generous prescription drug benefit and a bloated farm bill -- to pacify individual constituencies, these habits and voting patterns will be hard to break.

But there is reason for Republicans to feel optimism. Politically, America remains a center-right country, and America loves a chastened and repentant sinner. As surely as the sun rises in the east, the Democrats will overreach.

As long as we Republicans are willing to admit our folly, get back to first principles and work like there's no tomorrow, we've got 'em just where we want 'em.

The writer, a Republican, represents Arizona's 6th District in the U.S. House.

[Ilya Somin, November 6, 2008 at 12:18am] Trackbacks
Return of the Conservative-Libertarian Coalition?

It's no secret that the Bush years have severely strained and perhaps broken the conservative-libertarian political coalition. Most libertarians were deeply disappointed by the Bush Administration's vast expansion of government spending and regulation, claims of virtually unlimited wartime executive power, and other departures from limited government principles. As a result, many libertarian intellectuals (and to a lesser extent, libertarian voters), actually supported Barack Obama this year, despite his being a very statist liberal. Republican nominee John McCain had opposed some of Bush's excesses, including rejecting Bush's stance on torture and being one of the very few GOP senators to vote against Bush's massive 2003 Medicare prescription drug program. But McCain had numerous statist impulses of his own, including the most famous piece of legislation that bears his name. Even those libertarians who voted for him (myself included) did so with grave reservations.

With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats enjoying large majorities in Congress at a time of economic crisis, it is highly likely that they will push for a large expansion of government even beyond that which recently occurred under Bush. That prospect may bring libertarians and conservatives back together. Many of the items on the likely Democratic legislative agenda are anathema to both groups: a vast expansion of government control of health care, new legal privileges for labor unions, expanded regulation of a variety of industries, protectionism, increased government spending on infrastructure and a variety of other purposes, and bailouts for additional industries, such as automakers.

Even if conservatives and libertarians can find a way to work together, it would be naive to expect that they can block all the items on the Obama's agenda. Many are going to pass regardless of what we do. However, a renewed libertarian-conservative coalition could help limit the damage and begin to build the foundation for a new pro-limited government political movement.

Obviously, a lot depends on what conservatives decide to do. If they choose the pro-limited government position advocated by Representative Jeff Flake and some other younger House Republicans, there will be lots of room for cooperation with libertarians. I am happy to see that Flake has denounced "the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration." Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others. It is even possible that the latter path will be more politically advantageous, at least in the short term.

Much also depends on what the Democrats do. If Obama opts for moderation and keeps his promise to produce a net decrease in federal spending, a renewed conservative-libertarian coalition will be less attractive to libertarians. However, I highly doubt that Obama and the Democrats will actually take the relatively moderate, budget-cutting path. It would go against both their own instincts and historical precedent from previous periods of united government and economic crisis. If I am right about that, we will need a revamped conservative-libertarian alliance to oppose the vast expansion of government that looms around the corner.

Reforging the conservative-libertarian coalition will be very hard. Relations between the two groups have always been tense, and the last eight years have undeniably drawn down the stock of goodwill. But if we can't find a new way to hang together, we are all too likely to hang separately.

[longeyes]

The only thing that is going to bring back a conservative Republican hegemony in the current configuration of America would be a nation militant, dealing with survival issues in a world gone hot and mad.  So long as the bulk of the American people are insulated from the necessity of militancy and mobilization, as they have been for almost five decades, the cultural winds will not change.  And those winds blow from the Left.  De facto open borders have only accelerated the momentum.

[Standing Wolf]

I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government.

That hits the nail squarely on the head; unfortunately, the Republicrat party has a long and storied tradition of issuing high-sounding press releases stating it's going back to first principles and embracing the idea of limited government, only to resume tip-toeing and sashaying "back toward the center" in the hope of gorging at the public trough again.

It's time to abandon the Republicrat party and found a conservative party. No, a genuine conservative party probably won't win 51% of America's votes in another two or four or 25 years; conversely, trying to "reform" or "fix" or "take over" or "rejuvenate" the Republicrat party has given us two leftist Bush presidency, the far leftist Clinton presidency, and now an all but openly declared socialist Obama presidency, plus the prodigious growth of government power and squandering brought to us by the House and Senate.

Clearly, the Republicrat party has accomplished nothing for America; equally clearly, trying to "fix" it amounts to doing the same thing over and expecting new results.

[griz]

Gotta agree with S Wolf here.  I keep finding myself in talks with Rep.s such as this:

Me..The republicans aren't the party for small gov, they have spent money like drunken monkeys everytime they've had the power to do so.
R-voter..But limited government is a core principle of the republican party, it's the Dems who want a bigger government.
Me..What good is a core principle that is rountinly ignored?
R-voter..It's either R or D.

Yes, I know my third party vote is a "wasted" protest vote, that's why I voted that way.

[longeyes]

The idea is noble but limited in practical efficacy.  How do you expect to get a political majority when voters under 30, Hispanics, and single women all went for Obama by two to one?  (That doesn't include African-Americans, who favored Obama by 97 to 3) How can a true blood conservative party, which I endorse, become a plurality in a nation with an increasingly leftist culture, institutions, and demographic momentum?

[Fjolnirsson]

The idea is noble but limited in practical efficacy.  How do you expect to get a political majority when voters under 30, Hispanics, and single women all went for Obama by two to one?  (That doesn't include African-Americans, who favored Obama by 97 to 3) How can a true blood conservative party, which I endorse, become a plurality in a nation with an increasingly leftist culture, institutions, and demographic momentum?

Education. We have to do what the Left did. We have to infiltrate and take over the institutions of learning in droves. It will be a long, hard road, but it can be done, if we start now, in large numbers. Either that, or frankly, we need to outbreed them, and homeschool those children while we still can.

[mtnbkr]

A friend of mine, who claims to be an independent, but voted for Obama, asked me a few days ago why there was so little effort placed in promoting McCain, why nobody came by her house to talk to her about McCain like they did for Obama, etc.  That's part of the problem.  Nobody really tried to convince others to vote for McCain like they did for Obama.  There wasn't much good reason to vote for McCain other than he wasn't Obama and that wasn't enough to convince anyone who might have honestly been on the fence.

Chris

[longeyes]

Education. We have to do what the Left did. We have to infiltrate and take over the institutions of learning in droves. It will be a long, hard road, but it can be done, if we start now, in large numbers. Either that, or frankly, we need to outbreed them, and homeschool those children while we still can.

The time to initiate those processes was a generation ago or more.  It would take draconian measures to dislodge the liberal education establishment at this juncture; I can't imagine that being accomplished by ordinary means.  The red states are already outbreeding the blue, but that won't mean much after the next amnesty.

I think--at the risk of repeating many earlier posts--that to preserve our principles we will need a moat around those who believe as we do.  That means, in some form, a nation-within-a-nation, semi-autonomy, states' rights on steroids, secession, be it whatever it has to be.

[ronnyreagan]

nobody came by her house to talk to her about McCain like they did for Obama, etc.  That's part of the problem.

Obama had an advantage there with the youth - not that they voted in huge numbers this time (although it did increase) but that he had them to volunteer, knock on doors, and put in work. The elderly may be reliable voters, but they don't get out there and spread the word like young people do.

[Waitone]

I'll develop and interest in a "new" republican party when I see "first principles" is coupled to "roll-back".  It does no good to pontificate on libertarian and free market principle standing on a large statist soapbox.

[Eleven Mike]

No, no, no.  We'll just throw out those awful religious conservatives.  That will save our party.   :rolleyes:

[zahc]

There wasn't much good reason to vote for McCain other than he wasn't Obama

QFT

[Manedwolf]

Looks like Boehner isn't going to leave his seat unless someone brings a crowbar.

[ilbob]

No, no, no.  We'll just throw out those awful religious conservatives.  That will save our party.   :rolleyes:

I get a kick out of those who blame the religious right for their problems. The vast majority of the religious right are directly in tune with the limited government philosophy.

The problem is that there are not enough people of any political viewpoint to win a national election. The democrats are exceedingly good at finding a coalition with enough votes to win.

The rest of us fight among ourself over minor issues that really don't really matter much while the left laughs at us.

[Lonest@r]

Nobody really tried to convince others to vote for McCain like they did for Obama.

Obama had an advantage there with the youth - not that they voted in huge numbers this time (although it did increase) but that he had them to volunteer, knock on doors, and put in work. The elderly may be reliable voters, but they don't get out there and spread the word like young people do.

+ spending was 2:1.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008&type=SF