This post is more in line with what you can expect the other diaries on this blog to look like. Here, I’m going to talk a little bit about the context the 2008 Presidential primaries are taking place in. This post focuses on the recent history of the Republican party, a group that has dominated the modern political landscape but suddenly finds itself in a fractured state. The conservative movement that started in the 1960’s and accelerated in the 1980’s took firm control of Republican party in the 1990’s and the country as a whole in the early 2000’s. In 2004, the Republicans enjoyed a majority in both houses of Congress, earned George W. Bush a second term in office (with clear victories in both electoral and popular vote tallies) and had started shifting the Supreme Court to the right. On the backbone of incredible patience, resolve, and talent, they finally had the right-wing majority they had been working towards for over 4 decades.
The conservative movement was built upon a great coalition between libertarians, supply-side economists, hegemonistic foreign policy supporters, and fundamentalist Christians such as Southern Baptists and Born Again Christians. These various groups saw the values they prioritized within the policies of the Republican party. The acceleration of this movement in the ’80’s was due in large part to the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, who translated Republican policies into moral values the majority of Americans agreed with… even when the majority of Americans disagreed with and were harmed by these policies. He was a tremendous orator, probably the best in the television age. He convinced most independents – and even a significant number of Democrats – to vote for him, and set the foundations for the right-wing, conservative coalition that was the political paradigm for almost 30 years.
However, that foundation upon has begun to crumble under its own weight. When the Republicans finally achieved their great mandate, they overestimated the strength of this mandate and in so doing overstepped their bounds. The first 6 years of the Bush administration witnessed far right-wing policies on almost every issue. The degree to which they were effective in promoting a radically conservative agenda alienated many independent voters. Worse still, they alienated quite a few conservatives. For example, many small government conservatives weren’t very comfortable with a hegemonistic approach to international relations or government programs explicitly driven by religious doctrine. On the other hand, many social conservatives weren’t convinced that we should be giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest members of our society and many economic conservatives were appalled at huge government spending and tremendous budget deficits. While there are some Republicans who agree with all the tenets of the conservative movement, many of them disagree with parts of it. (If that weren’t the case, there would never have been a need for the coalition in the first place. The fact is, most Americans are “liberal” or “progressive” on most issues, and it was only by building a coalition between people who held certain issues at a high priority that the Republicans ever had success.) Thus, the aggressiveness of the Republican party from 2000 to 2006 has driven many conservatives away from the broad coalition that has been built and into separate factions that are now fighting for control of the party.
That is the historical context that this election is taking place in. For the Republicans, this is a dangerous time where the future of their party is up for grabs. For the Democrats, opportunity presents itself: they have a chance to not just take over the Oval Office and make tremendous gains in Congress, but also to realign the political landscape for the near future. Finally, supporters of third-party candidates have a chance to split the Republican party in two, thereby making room for a legitimate third party for the first time in nearly 100 years. In my next three posts, I will take a look at when I think the best long- and short-term strategies are for Democrats, Republicans, and third-party voters in the 2008 Presidential election primaries, given the context described here.
6 Comments
And for those wondering where the “modeling” in this is, the above is what one would call a “conceptual model.” This is a model, in words, of what I think has controlled politics recently. I’ll be using this “model” to give the advice in my next few posts.
This is fun. I’m glad you’re doing it, so we can continue our old conversations about politics.
You’re description of the evolution of the Republican party is nice. Naturally, I disagree with your perception of the history of the conservative movement. You don’t define a “conservative,” and are obviously using only the modern perception of what a conservative is, i.e. a religious fanatic and war hawk. That definition is quite different than what it was under Reagan and the “contract with America” congress under Clinton.
Also, many comments about the movement are either blatantly or subconsciously negative, especially comments like…
“[Reagan] he acceleration of this movement in the ’80’s was due in large part to the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan, who translated Republican policies into moral values the majority of Americans agreed with… even when the majority of Americans disagreed with and were harmed by these policies.”
Makes it sound like Reagan was duping people. He was not, but I guess you’re free to describe it that way.
But, of course, it’s your blog, and I enjoyed reading it. I look forward to commenting in the future.
Well, I didn’t mean to come off as strongly against conservatives as I did. If it makes you feel any better, I think Obama is doing basically the same thing right now that Reagan was doing in the 80’s. Its not as much about “duping” people as it is about being a great statesman. Reagan was a tremendous leader because in a nation bitterly divided by politics, his rhetoric allowed him to break through partisan barriers to make people agree with the values he had. That’s what a great statesman does. I think Obama is doing the same thing. Instead of “triangulating” with policies, and attempting to move one’s platform to the middle of the road, these two men have moved the middle of the road towards their side of the debate. And that’s something that is truly amazing. So, you can look at it as “duping” people. I tend to view it as “statesmanship.”
Oh, and as the the “most Americans… were harmed by these policies.” That’s just my bias sneaking in. But you knew that much, right?
Hrm… how to define a “conservative.” That’s a tough one, especially given the negative sentiments towards the far-right wing of the country at the moment. I think the point I’m trying to make is that the tag conservatives includes much more than bigoted, wealthy, power-hungry, corrupt, war-mongers. That’s a “liberal’s” characterization of that group. But that ignores the fact that many in the “conservative” movement only shared values with one or two of the sub-groups within the movement. I guess the point I was trying to make about conservatives is exactly that: there are (or at least were) many different kinds of conservatives. I think the problem with the conservative movement is its most radical members (G.W. Bush et al.) have taken control of the movement, and that’s both breaking the coalition and the strength of the coalition. So, yes, right now, the movement is defined by its worst aspects, but that has more to do with who is leading the group than it has to do with who has been a part of it over the last 30 years.
And here’s one question for self-defined conservatives that is really driving the coalition apart:
What is the role of the United States in the world?
Many conservatives (including G.W. Bush back in 2000) argue that we shouldn’t be the “world’s police,” and that we should only limit our involvement overseas. Others (including G.W. Bush since 9/11) argue we have to have an aggressive foreign policy that actively promotes democracy throughout the world.
They are two very different positions, and many conservatives are truly conflicted about it, as one could make an excellent argument as to either one being the true “conservative approach.” I think the movement as a whole is, as well, and that’s a big part of why the movement is showing cracks right now. There are lots of “conservatives” that cannot stand the Iraq war.
OK, I’ve got to get back to work…