The Rise and Fall of the Republican Era

Posted on November 19, 2008
Filed Under Politics |

One of the podcasts I typically listen to is bloggingheads.tv. Each day they take two academics to discuss some issue. Sometimes it’s a liberal and conservative, sometimes two liberals, sometimes two conservatives. Sometimes it’s philosophy, sometimes science, often politics. You can subscribe to it from the iTunes store or watch the video at the website. Today there was a fantastic show with Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute and David Frum discussing the rise and fall of the Republican party.

It’s not what you think though. Even if you are tired of all the handwringing of conservatives this one is worth listening to. It’s really not about whining.

The thesis is that modern conservativism wasn’t simply due to Barry Goldwater losing the election but winning the argument. Rather Democrats overstretched under Johnson pushing their successful policies well beyond what was justified. It was the failures of the late 60’s and 70’s that allowed Reagan to usher in a Republican era. Primarily the failures in economics, war, and crime. Their thesis is roughly that had the Democrats not failed Reagan could not have succeeded.

The Republicans though then fail in the same way the Democrats do. Just as the Democrats were successful in many areas (the New Deal in the 30’s, Internationalism in WWII and its aftermath, race, etc.) but were victims of their own success and then overreaching so were Republicans. By the 90’s the Cold War was over, crime was dropping, and the economy was booming. (Even the recessions in the 90’s were pretty small) Republicans had lost their issues.

This led to two things. One is the overstretch that I think we’re all familiar with. This is the idea that if something worked in the past then more of it will purportedly work in the future. The more important though was that the issues that led to Republican success simply weren’t a concern for America.

They argue, persuasively to me, that by 2000 traditional Republicanism had already been rejected as a losing proposition. The 2000 primaries were primarily between Bush and McCain both of whom were running as a different kind of Republican. This was because of Republican loses in Congress which led Republicans to look for success by promoting moderates (in the idealological sense). When Bush one he attempted to maintain elections by focusing in on working (not poor) but relatively uneducated whites. The main way he did this was via a focus on the religious wing of the party.

Now there are some problems with this model. For one I think Republican failures can be tied very much to Bush’s governance just as Democratic failures by the end of the 70’s can be tied to Johnson and Carter. Yet the bigger problem is that the new rising generation simply isn’t attracted to Republican ideas. Partially because the percentage of that population that shares the social conservative values is shrinking. Partially because Republicans were successful and people don’t care about the issues they once owned.

Anyway, listen to the discussion. I’m probably not doing it justice.

The question then becomes, to me, whether Obama will be more a Nixon or a Reagan. That is will he create a new Democratic ascendancy or simply give Democrats temporary control. My guess is that Clinton was the Democratic Nixon and that Obama will be their Reagan.

The main message though is that Republicans have to get down into policy issues and the reality of governing. There is still a sense in the party that it is all about identity politics. (i.e. we’re religious or we’re “not socialists”) But that’s no way to keep a movement let alone win elections. (Yes, I know there were a lot of identity politics to Obama but he also seems quite focused on the mechanics of governance)

One thing is for sure. It’ll be interesting to see who emerges as the leader of the conservative movement. I suspect that, as with Democrats in 2004, it won’t be apparent what the revised Republican party is like until 2012.

Comments

17 Responses to “The Rise and Fall of the Republican Era”

I’m wondering what type of tent the Republicans will be left with? As the nation swings its pendulum left and right, both on fiscal and social matters, where will the Republicans land?
Will they abandon moral issues, like abortion, as long defeated and unwinnable battles? Or will they hunker down, as they have in the Bush years, trying to hold onto a legacy they lost more than a decade ago?
Will they become economic conservatives, moral conservatives, or moderates in all areas? Will the term “socialism” be stricken from their vocabulary, now that they’ve become adjuncts with the Democrats as big government spenders?
Can they regrow the party with the same uninspiring faces running things in Congress? Or will it be like the CEOs of the Big Three flying into DC on their private jets, seeking largesse from the never-empty buckets of Washington money?

Moderate republicans are losers in elections. Dole. McCain. The next guy in line at the party headquarters top brass who seems to think its his turn. When safely in office they insult republican voters and cannot articulate any great differences between them and democrats. As a conservative I took a second (but as it turned out) short look at Kerry in ‘04 because I didn’t want to blindly vote for Bush because of a few issues: probably better in the war on terror, judge appointments, perhaps others. I voted bush reluctantly. More like an anti-vote. Which is what this year’s vote was. I didn’t vote for the republicans as much as try to keep the other guy out, and resign to a long grueling fight on some issues if McCain had won. Republicans need to fervently believe in cutting spending, keeping the bureaucracy small, and not switch their support to democrats to oppose conservative republican candidates. Otherwise, they’re just democrats. And yes, I believe in lower taxes, as I’m completely blown away by the conduct of our government’s handling of the money. They have no clue. The world economy almost melts down, among other crisis, my 401k pummeled, and once again, no one is held responsible. All our income will someday be their entitlement, as they have gone from public servants to treating us like servants. I better stop there.

Frank, I think they actually had a compelling argument against that. They argued that the reason the moderates were pushed forward was because traditional conservatives were doing quite poorly. 2000 reflected the first attempt to reinvent the Republican party but didn’t work simply because of the demographics. Bush won (and just barely) primarily because of that social conservative (i.e. Evangelical) vote. But that demographic just is getting smaller and smaller.

Now I think where I find Frum and Lindsey’s presentation a bit too unconvincing is primarily because it’s just too Hegelian. That is we have this natural movement of liberalism solving problems, becoming corrupt/overreaching and then conservativism having its movement. Then a new neo-liberalism emerges (first Clinton then Obama) that keeps what was successful of Republicanism but offers something more. Then the same thing happens there.

I think the problem is that I don’t think corruption and overreach is inevitable. Likewise I think that elections are often decided on non-ideological grounds. That is did Obama win because of the natural ebb of conservativism or because Bush was incompetent and there was a backlash and Obama was charismatic?

There’s simply too much going on to make the Hegelian move I think.

I think though that the real problem with the Republican party is that it emphasized ideology but without a focus competence in running the practical day to day aspects of government.

Rameumptom, I think abortion is probably the one social conservative issue they can keep. Although I note even there the landscape is changing when one of the main Democratic leaders is pro-life. Democrats are starting to be open to pro-life candidates in a way they didn’t use to be. I don’t think it’s enough to keep that aspect from primarily voting Republican.

On other moral issues that arose in the 70’s I think the Republicans are in much deeper trouble. Demographically most of the traditional moral issues are losers. If Republicans attempt to maintain social conservatives as a key aspect of the party they’ll have trouble with younger voters. And I’d note that the greatest division according to exit polls in the last election was age.

I’m not sure how Republicans can form a new winning coalition. A lot of it will depend upon the mistakes Democrats made. (Remember in 2004 all the claims that Democrats were done for - the greatest thing to provide Democratic success in 2008 was Republican overreach and incompetence)

I think that modern Republicans over the last few elections lost because the leaders weren’t fiscal and social conservatives combined. I want make some comparisons. Romney (though I support him above anyone else) really does have real credential problems because of how he ran as a moderate Governor. Yet, there is no question he is a fiscal conservative. Huckabee is a social conservative (at least he talks like one) in an almost stereotypical way. Yet, fiscally his ideas are closer to liberal “social justice” Democrats - take from the rich and give to the poor. If there could be a hybrid of a fiscal and social conservative Republican then I think the Republicans could be in ascendancy again. If nothing else I think the core constituents would come in large enough numbers that independents would matter only because you couldn’t do without them no matter what political side.

The dislike of Bush by conservatives is for very different reasons than liberals, regardless of what the media thinks about why Bush ratings are low. He started to act like a big government fiscal liberal. So did the other Republicans (thus voting for “bailouts” of Wallstreet with as much enthusiasm as Democrats).That we were still in Iraq was not as much of a problem as his horrible ability to either conduct it(the positive changes too late although better than not at all )or make cogent arguments in defense of it that conservatives felt existed.

McCain won because he was a little of both, but not enough of either. He split the ticket between fiscals and socials, but never with enthusiasm. He represented the worst of both sides. He was an economic conservative who didn’t understand the economy and he was a social conservative who didn’t have any real ideology. This allowed him to win because he had something for everyone, but not enough of it to get the base excited. He was NOT Bush lite. He was, as many conservative commentators and a few others said, another Bob Dole. He was boring and predictable with nothing to offer in tradition or ideas.

Conservatives didn’t lose this election; Republicans did. Most that put Bush over the top didn’t participate. They saw few differences (although I think this was short sighted) between Obama and McCain. If anything, minus Sarah Palin, he was seen by conservatives as Obama lite. I agree with Romney that the winning strategy for Republicans is stick with the three legged stool. Problem is his past political conduct (that I think overblown by partisans) kicked those legs from under him in the primaries. So did his Mormonism, but the past enabled the bigotry to have plausible deniability.

Conservatism isn’t dead or gone. It is simply looking for a leader. It would need to be someone who can speak for all sides. They would need to articulate that conservatism to the America that voted for Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and frankly the second term Clinton. The question is who exists in the Republican landscape like that right now?

Nate, I think your points about Bush are well made. I still remember the summer of 2001 when a lot of conservatives were up in arms about how Bush was starting his Presidency. While conservatives by and large weren’t as focused on competence, especially with regards to the war, I think some “elites” were. And the biggest problem by Bush was his competences. (I agree that for him everything was about political attacks and not persuasion which ultimately came back to haunt him - he was unable to sell the war after 2004)

McCain won primarily because Huckabee acted like a spoiler. I think this ended up being best for Romney for a slew of reasons. But there really weren’t a lot of good candidates. I mean who wanted to be the guy to lose against Clinton (which is what it appeared like when you had to make the decision)

That said I think conservatives are a bit delusional if they don’t look at the changing demographics. Social conservatives simply make up a smaller piece of the pie. There’s no way to get a majority with them. I’m not say ignore them, but you can’t just be a Palin and expect to win.

I think traditional conservativism is dead but what the Republican party really needs is a rejection of the “anti-elitism” that has grown up the last decade or so. That is the idea that so long as your heart is in the right place running government really isn’t that hard. Surely 8 years of Bush taught us competence is important. That the competency issue still isn’t being raised by more Republicans is deeply troubling to me. It reminds me of how after the big Congressional loses in 2006 Republicans didn’t get it. They still don’t get it.

Obviously Clark I disagree with you about traditional conservatism as dead or becoming a changing demographic as you explain. If true, I would like some concrete statistics. It never died. It was thrown overboard by the Republicans a little before Bush’s second term.

I think anti-elitism is still a winner, but I agree that it must be championed by competence. Obama won by his “anti-elitism” rhetoric about Washington D.C. at the same time he is filling up his cabinet with the same. Both Democrats and Republicans use that theme - just with different targets.

On the other hand, if it is true that conservatism is really dead in the United States then count me as a future anti-American.

Totally Disagree

Why did Republicans fail at the ballot on Nov 4th?
Because they have abandoned their fiscal conservative base!

For the last 8 years they were suppose to reduce government spending, reduce taxes and manage the economy. They run up the federal deficit up the Wazoo.

Instead their big banking buddies led us to a giant mortgage meltdown.

I feel really betrayed by the republicans this year.

I feel betrayed by all politicians - all they do is approve special earmarks to reward their big campaign donors.

How come none of them follow the footsteps of Washington, Adams and Jefferson?

Nate look at the exit polls on age versus support for Obama. Look at the religiosity of America by age. (Sorry, don’t have time to lookup a link for that) But what are the social conservative issues? Whether it is SSM, sexual behavior or so forth there is a huge gap between the young and the main body of social conservatives and it’s getting bigger.

Now perhaps the meaning of social conservative can be rethought. But right now you basically have a fight between social conservatives (many of whom, like Mike Huckabee, are economic liberals) and libertarians. The Reagan coalition which survived until the mid 90’s was basically centrist libertarianism, cold war hawkishness, and mild social conservativism primarily aimed at abortion. The hawkishness fell apart with the end of the cold war such that many former Reagan supporters are now Obama supporters. The social conservativism of Reagan has largely collapsed both because things like stem cells split it but also demographic changes. And a large portion of the party has rejected the more libertarian aspect of Reagan’s coalition.

While I’m no Libertarian with a capital L I think that Reagan styled libertarianism (with a small l) is a good thing. If that’s what you mean by conservativism then I’m all for it except that it’s running into trouble with the economic problems of today. (Even Alan Greenspan admitted that his libertarian idealism was probably mistaken in terms of avoiding the current situation)

Clark,
I agree with the last sentence in your response. I’d have typed more but had to run. I can take back something I said about moderate republicans. But I also must mention, that with the gravity of the giant and ever growing US government, the largest employer in the country, and permanent distortion field in washington DC, incessant lobbying, I’m not impressed at all with moderates who either copied big spender democrats or just didn’t oppose liberal initiatives (or did so only after a major prodding from citizens) since 2000. I’ve been wondering what to do about this moderate republicanism, and the future of the party, they can stay, but I just don’t know if they’ll even stay on the MODERATE republican course. The tide of government growth and erupting regulation, will suck them in the wrong direction if they don’t have a firm anchor in republican (not necessarily conservative) values. And as we’ve seen from this year’s election, journalism and the free press are dead. We can expect no help from them, they are a political institution now, and are too willing to savage moderate republicans into submission to liberal or democratic ideas. Even they see moderate republicans as the weak link.

To add I think the youth issue is more complex than it first appears. Churchill’s joke that everyone is a liberal when young and a conservative when old holds some truth. Just because the under 30 crowd aren’t attracted to conservative issues now doesn’t mean they won’t change their views. (Especially if Obama overreaches the way Bush did)

Social conservatives are still a pretty influential voting block, but there is little or nothing that can be done at the federal level in their favor. Huckabee style big government evangelicalism might have been a winner forty or fifty years ago, but for now it turns off major segments of both parties, which is why Huckabee himself seems to have abandoned it. Beyond the abortion issue, which is fundamentally a judicial complaint, I don’t see Republicans candidates advancing social conservatism, or suffering because of it at all.

I think what happened is that in the mid-nineties Gingrich et al over-reached in favor of radical conservative reforms that they had not prepared the ground for and lacking control of the presidency, they were not in a position to implement. Lacking principled conservative leadership, control of the party passed back into the hands of the squishy middle, whose only compromise with conservative principle was support for tax cuts.

Tax cuts without corresponding spending discipline isn’t remotely conservative except as a temporary expedient. You might as well just print money. Bush did not have a conservative domestic policy. As Nixon was with Johnson, so was Bush to Clinton. In dthe domestic arena, more of the same, bigger and better. Bush certainly did not have a conservative foreign policy. Conservatives do not look for excuses to start wars on Wilsonian grounds.

If the Republican party doesn’t want to be based on the defense of a coherent set of conservative principles, they deserve to lose. Other than a couple of Supreme Court justices, it is hard for me to imagine how eight years of President Gore and a Republican Congress would have been worse.

The bright side is that the near total rejection of namby pamby Republicanism gives an excellent opportunity for the real conservatives in the party to build a base for principled victories in the future. If that means a generation in the minority, so be it. Nixon-Ford-Bush style governance isn’t worth having.

Yeah, I agree Mark. The problem with most aspects of social conservatives (assuming no major movement in the status quo) is that they are a shrinking demographic. I think the rise of the social conservatives was largely in opposition to the excesses of the counter-culture movement in the 60’s and 70’s along with the issues of Roe v. Wade. By the 90’s we’d reached a status quo and the main changes were demographic in how college kids view things. And there social conservatives frankly are losing.

The other problem is that within the social conservative movement are more extreme views. (Interestingly Palin represents them although the press never really got into it) That is a more extreme view of abortion regulation such that there aren’t rape/incest exceptions.

I actually don’t think Gingrich overreached in “extreme” positions. His overreach wasn’t ideological. (Indeed I’d argue that after the Contract With America he really didn’t try to do much that got him in) Rather Gingrich represented the beginning of Republican extremes as “win at any cost” without much “big game planning.” That is, in a certain way, winning became more important than ideology and short term expediency more important than any coherent achievement.

I agree on taxes. One problem I think is Republicans just relinquished any kind of responsibility. While I think Bush gets a bit of a bum rap (much of the deficit is due to the war - and while Bush is responsible for the war and overruns clearly it’s a special problem)

I think one problem with talking about “real conservatives” is that it isn’t clear what that means. Indeed much of the current debate in the Republican party is over the meaning of real conservatives. Then there is the question of governance. There are a lot who say that doesn’t matter - that a massive Democratic control of Congress is preferable to ideological heresy. I’m not sure I can agree with that. I think I’d prefer some very competent moderates. My problem of the choices of the part since 2000 with Bush/McCain is that both are incompetent not that they were moderates.

Clark, I don’t have a problem with the Contract with America or the objectives of Newt Gingrich et al. I just don’t think you can do things as radical as eliminating the federal Department of Education or eliminating federal funding for PBS without a multi-year public debate that ends with a clear majority supporting your position. Same goes for trying to win a budget war by shutting down the government for a couple of days. As a rule, you need the Presidency, control of Congress, and public support to make controversial changes.

With regard to spending, it is not just defense spending - domestic spending has ballooned during the Bush administration. Clinton did much better - with a Republican Congress of course.

I think identifying true conservatives is easy enough - they are the ones serious about limited government and individual responsibility. No one who voted for the recent Farm Bill, for example, has any serious claim to be a legitimate conservative.

I don’t want massive Democratic control of Congress either. I just think the Republicans should get their act together if they ever expect to be trusted with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress again. It is a matter as simple as brand name identity. “Republican” these days means little more than “not a Democrat”.

Yeah, those were some really good examples of overreach. So I’ll concede your point. Gingrich did do controversial things without trying to get a mandate.

With regards to Bush I’m not really defending him. I agree with your basic point. It’s just that I don’t think he’s quite as bad as some portray.

I don’t think Bush is remotely as bad as many on the left portray him either. I think he has mostly been a status quo, caretaker president with one big idea that got him into trouble. Namely Wilsonian interventionism.

The problem is that the federal status quo is largely the creation of Democrats. Anyone who acquiesces in the expansion of the welfare state (and easy money and lax lending standards…) might as well be one. That way the right party gets the blame when the downside of such policies becomes apparent.

I think Bush’s problem (and the problem of much of the leadership) was less ideology than it was competence. I mean on a lot that Bush said I agreed with him.

Leave a Reply