The First Principle Of Conservatism
Posted June 1st, 2008 by Da King
There's been a lot of debate among those on the Right about where Conservatism went wrong (even though it's pretty obvious). I'm going to abdicate my soapbox today in order to print something from Ed Morrissey of hotair.com. In my opinion, Morrissey has captured the essence of the problem with the Republican party, and also the essence of my political philosophy. Without further ado, here's Ed:
May 30, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
With so many people writing about what ails conservatism, and so much disagreement, the basic tenets of conservatism seem to be overlooked. In attaching an ever-broader policy base to the first principles of conservatism, we have not added to our base but have increased our opposition. In fighting on the flanks, we have ignored the center, and as a result, have lost momentum through poor definition and irresponsible governance.
What is the first principle of conservatism? Limited government. Our founders understood this, which is why they tightly constrained the jurisdiction of the federal government in the Constitution. Henry David Thoreau famously wrote “That government is best which governs least”, and that encapsulates what has been the overarching philosophy of conservatism as applied to governance. Furthermore, it exists in opposition to and as a counterbalance for the competing philosophy of socialism, which postulates that government improves as it governs more.
These days, however, so-called conservatives in government appear more inclined to act on the latter philosophy than the former. Those running as conservatives from either party vote for ever-increasing federal roles in education, agriculture, the arts, and especially health care and retirement planning, despite the increasing deficits that the federal government has racked up. Entitlement programs will have a catastrophic collapse in the future, and instead of hitting the brakes, conservatives and progressives alike keep hitting the accelerator.
One might think that conservatives would at least recognize the perils of corruption in a bloated and overbearing federal government, distant from the oversight of individuals. Think again. The pork-barrel spending increased when so-called conservatives took power, pushed in no small measure by efforts to woo lobbyists who rely on increasing federal power and spending in order to get paid.
How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence. It’s not to say that there aren’t other issues that should concern the citizenry, but it is a matter of priorities, and the first priority of the “conservatives” who ran DC from 2001-2006 was re-election and spoils, not reducing government to a manageable and affordable level.
Take gay marriage as one example. In relation to the first principle of conservatism, why should this even be on the conservative radar screen, especially as a national issue? Instead of drumbeats for federal constitutional amendments, we should have insisted that government get out of the sacrament-recognition business. Let the churches determine the sacramental value of relationships, and let (state) governments enforce partnership contracts.
With every added issue, conservatives gain allies but also opponents. A narrow focus on reducing government would attract many more people than it repels. Most Americans believe that the federal government spends too much money, is too corrupt, is unaccountable to the citizenry, and creates massive inefficiencies. The first principle of conservative governance addresses all of that, and policies based on that principle would return both responsibilities and monies back to the states and local communities where they belong, so that citizens can more effectively oversee the issues in their own neighborhoods.
Trying to advance a broad agenda of issues that contradict the principle of limited government obviously hasn’t worked. All that produced was a spending spree that further bloated government and left the public with the impression that little difference exists between “conservatives” and “progressives” except in who gets the cash. If we tried actual, real conservatism by focusing on a return to smaller, less intrusive federal governance, the side issues will become more manageable in our communities. It would provide credibility to a movement that by its very nature should demand that government stay out of the bedroom and the boardroom and treat its citizens like sovereign adults rather than recalcitrant children unable to make their own decisions.
Thanks, Ed. I couldn't have said it better myself. The principles of liberty will never be served by those advocating an ever bigger and more controlling federal government, regardless of whether they come from the Left or the Right, and regardless of their good or bad intentions. When the federal government has grown so enormous as to consume over $3 trillion each year (and STILL run huge deficits), you know we have run off the rails. It's up to the real Conservatives to rise up and restore sanity before it's too late (and it nearly IS too late), because the Liberals sure aren't going to do it. Liberals are consciously leading us towards Marxism. They will deny that, but all you have to do is look at the effect of their policies. They invariably increase government and involve more and more government involvement in every aspect of our lives. I'd like to steal an anti-Bush slogan here, change the meaning, and implore one and all to Take Back America from the collectivists who are engulfing us.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
"How did conservatives lose their way? They focused on everything but the core principle of limited government. Issues like gay marriage and mottos on coins took precedence."
Yes, yes, limited government. It all sounds good….however no Republican president has ever done it. Talk, yes. Action, no.
The reason is in Morrissey's piece here. The Republican Party, starting with Reagan, realized they didn't have enough votes in America….simply because they don't represent the majority of Americans with their policies.
Lee Atwater and later, Karl Rove, saw an answer in the fringers of the evangelical Christian cult. Those far right extremists were appealed to specifically by baiting them on extremist right social issues. This incestuous relationship reached it's pinnacle after Falwell announced, after the 2004 re-election, "we are the Republican Party now."
So first priorities may be first priorities for conservatives…..but to get elected, because Republicans have nothing to offer Americans, compromises had to be made with extremist radicals.
The moral of the story? When you lie down with dogs, even if they are sanctimonious, pious dogs, you most likely will get fleas.
And to the "limited government" argument….
Republicans cherry-pick what should be limited. This makes their "first priority" claim suspect. The GOP NEVER wants to limit defense spending. Even after the Cold war ended, the same song and dance from Republicans about more defense spending was repeated.
Every time a Republican presidential administration is rejected, as will happen again this November, the same cry goes out…."oh, if such and such had been a genuine conservative…".
The fact is this…..those who claim to be conservative simply can't admit that their party of choice has no priorities…..except gaining power.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Actually, the majority of Americans do favor limited government, one that isn't engaged in runaway spending and oppressive taxation. The vast majority of Americans favor that. It's just that Republicans have done a poor job of executing it, especially during the Bush years, when they abandoned it (the spending part). The Gingrich Congress under Clinton, on the other hand, did a pretty good job of it. They held spending down, relative to other Congresses. Reagan did a good job of implementing Conservative principles following the disaster of the Democrat-controlled Carter years (which we are about to repeat with Obama as president and a majority Democrat Congress), even though he had a Democratic Congress that continuously broke their deals with him to hold spending down. The president can't do that alone.
It's funny, because every time Conservative economic policy is implemented, it works. Every time Liberal economic policy is implemented, it fails. I think you are led astray by the 'D' and the 'R' next to the candidate's name. It isn't automatically Conservative just because a Republican does it. Bush's economic policies were only Conservative on the taxation side (which worked to lift us out of a recession and provide economic growth). Bush's policies were Liberal on the spending side (which led to huge deficits, a weakening dollar, and corruption).
Liberalism is basically an admission of failure, an economic concession that the American way is wrong. I'll never buy into that.
And whatever makes you think that Republicans are the only ones trying to gain power ? How naive can you be ? Have you ever actually listened to your hero Obama speak ? He talks about unity in one breath, and then in the next breath he's distorting the hell out of John McCain's words and record, being just as divisive as can be. Get a clue, already. You have to be a true believer (read: blind) not to see through that stuff. It tissue paper thin. Meant to fool the rubes.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pm
And fool the rubes it does. Just today I heard him among other Democrats talking about wanting to serve us but in fact, all they want is to get back that power they say has to be theirs. They are interested in using those rubes you mentioned to regain power so they can keep on putting in their system of programs aimed at controlling people who are stupid enough to accept all they promise by giving to them from the national treasury.
I must ask why Rev Red is so strong for Obama. I think that it is race as much as it is progressivism and all that that entails. In fact, I called him on that one once or twice and never did get an answer.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
A couple thoughts
- please extrapolate on the idea that conservative economic policy works everytime and liberal economic policy does not. Reagan's economic policies are not considered successful by the majority of economic and historical scholars, where FDR liberal policies are widely thought to have saved America from collapse (by essentially restraining free market principles).
More than anything though, a president's economic policies rarely significantly alter the broader economic situation in America (FDR did because it restructured the entire framework like never before or since). To say Bush's policies are responsible for getting out of America out of a recession and generated growth is patently absurd.
- the vast majority of Americans do believe in limited government in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Even the conservative David Brooks agrees conservatism has fallen behind because Americans expect more from their government (rightly or wrongly)
- Anyone who hasn't read George Packer's reporting in the "Fall of Conservatism" should do so. He begins with the Nixon administration's decision to focus on splitting the Dem constituency and moves forward. Very interesting stuff with great interviews from prominent conservatives (Buchanan's is especially fascinating).
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 am
"Bush's economic policies were only Conservative on the taxation side (which worked to lift us out of a recession and provide economic growth)."
David already got there first.
"patently absurd"……can't improve on that evaluation.
roy: Why am I so strong on Obama? He eschews the "old politics" of Rove and Clinton. He is brilliant and speaks the truth….powerfully. He was completely correct on Iraq and is completely correct about how our foreign policy should be framed. He recognizes and speaks to the problem of runaway capitalism. He has a telegenic coolness that has led to a million new Democratic voters. He can work with anybody.
He has specific programs, taxes, health care, rejection of Bush's illegal executive orders, rejoining the world's nations, cleaning up the traitorous Justice Department, winding down the Iraq Occupation….and many other programs I'm sure I'll be mentioning this year.
But most of all…..he's the absolute BEST candidate in the race. At first I preferred John Edwards…honest, I did. I thought we would have to wait for another cycle before Obama would catch on…..but the Bush/Cheney criminality has worked to Obama's benefit…."the urgency of now".
And he's the best speaker since the Kennedy's.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Rev,
I only have a minute, but "patently absurd" is not an evalutation….and it is also disproven by the facts. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, then 9/11 had a strong negative impact on our economy, driving the recession deeper. After the 2003 Bush tax cuts were implemented, we had strong economic growth for about 4 years. Anyone who doesn't think low taxes relate directly to economic growth didn't pay attention in Economics class.
David brought up other points that are legitimate, however, such as the FDR stuff, and I'll try to address them a little later.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
David,
I don't know how anybody could look at the Reagan years as an economic failure, especially when you consider the economic mess Reagan inherited from Mr. Stagflation, Jimmy Carter. The Carter years were the last ones in which liberals were in complete control, other than the first two years of Clinton's presidency (the Hillarycare debacle), which ushered in the so-called Republican Revolution in Congress in 1994. Real economic growth was higher during the Reagan years that in Ford and Carter before him, or Bush 1 and Clinton after him. Real median income grew during the Reagan years when it had been flat previous to Reagan. Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment all fell drastically during the Reagan years. The stock market soared.
FDR
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Mr. King,
Conservatives will always be frustrated with trying to shrink government. People who achieve power rarely want to part with it. The personal price of gaining power is too high. Hence, government stays as it is. The real question is for whom the government's power is wielded.
Mr. Morrissey's article was well thought out, but too limited in scope. Conservatives should be concerned how other conservative principles have morphed over the years, too. Their political alliance with religion distorts both. Goldwater knew this and was unceremoniously shunned in his later years. The erasure of civil rights by this president is somehow supported by "conservatives". What was once a movement which wanted to keep from penalizing the successful, has turned to one which helps the successful.
As to our recent economic history, I remember some things differently. Carter governed from the middle, reaped the economic whirlwind of Vietnam, was opposed in Congress by an odd coalition of liberals and Republicans, and his signature failure ( his inability to secure release of the Iranian hostages) was due in part to the treasonous interference by Republicans.
From 1972 to 1984, my wages increased dramatically,from 1984 my wages were either frozen or reduced until about 1994 when I began receiving modest raises which did not keep with inflation. From what I can tell, it is not an uncommon story. I remember the Reagan years as years in which the taxes exctracted from my paycheck dramatically increased, the law defining usury as interest rates of over 18% were repealed, credit card interest deduction from income tax was removed, and the bold experiment was tried and failed, leaving his two immediate predecessors to clean up the mess. Perhaps the biggest effect of the Reagan economic policies is the virtual elimination of the single earner family.
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
Frank,
I sure remember the Reagan years differently than you do. I remember it as a time of renewal of belief in America and economic expansion after the "malaise" of the Carter years. Virtually everyone in my extended family benefited from Reagan's policies, as did the country as a whole. Plus, Reagan won the Cold War. Even the price of gasoline fell for six straignt years under Reagan. I guess you've forgotten the Carter era energy crisis, price controls, runaway inflation, high unemployment, foreign policy blunders (Iran), skyrocketing interest rates…
June 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 am
David,
I wanted to say a few words about FDR, since you mentioned him. I could write a book here, but I'll try to keep this as brief as possible.
FDR is the gold standard among liberals. I think he was a great president. There are those who believe FDR's policies actually lengthened the Great Depression, but I won't go there. There were anti-free market policies that undoubtedly exacerbated the Depression, such as the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff (pre-FDR), so the solution to the Depression was NOT to revoke the free market. That is never the solution. What the New Deal did was to use government spending as an expansion tool to create jobs and get America moving again. Liberals love to cite this example as they attempt to replicate it over and over and over (aka tax and spend policy). There are giant problems with that mentality. First of all, FDR's New Deal took place 75 years ago. That was a very different world than the one we live in now. At that time, our federal government was miniscule compared to today's federal government. It only consumed 3% of GDP, whereas today's consumes about, what, 18-22% ? In FDR's day, people weren't paying half their incomes in some form of tax or another, so FDR could afford to do what he did. If we tried to double or triple the size of the already enormous government beast now, like FDR did back in his day, it would simply destroy our economy and our country. Bush Jr. increased spending by one third and look what happened. We can't tax and spend our way out of the predicament we're in now. We must embrace CONSERVATIVE policies, even though we aren't going to. That's what I was talking about when I said Conservative policies work and Liberal policies fail. I wasn't talking about 1933, I was talking about now and what I've observed in my lifetime.
Look at the long term effects of liberal policy. From the New Deal to LBJ's Great Society to every entitlement and tax/spend plan, what have we reaped from it ? As I pointed out in a recent post, every family in the country is on the hook for over $531,000 in unfunded entitlement liabiliities. We are facing a tsunami of debt that will overwhelm our economy, starting in about 12-15 years. The problem gets bigger by $2-3 trillion every year we don't address it. What are we doing about it ? Well, we're going to elect a liberal majority in Congress and possibly the most left-wing president in the history of the country. If that isn't a recipe for disaster, I don't know what is.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
Mr. King,
I do remember the Carter administration as ineffective in dealing with the problems you cited. But these problems were easier for people to deal with when their wages were rising. The Reagan years were beginning of the end for manufacturing jobs and the one paycheck family. If your family prospered, congratulations. Then they must have been in banking, real estate, or arms. These were the beneficiaries of Reagan's Keynsian deficit spending stimulus.
Mr. Reagan's "morning in America" attitude was laudable and successful, but many ended up worse off.
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
David,
Thanks for mentioning the George Packer article. Good read. I am proud to be a member of the "coalition of conscience and decency".
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-fall-conservatism
…excerpt…
And the demographic work of John Judis and Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," showed that the McGovern share of the electorate - minorities and educated professionals working in post-industrial jobs - is expanding far faster than the white working class. This was the original vision of a McGovern adviser named Fred Dutton, whose 1971 book, "Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s," cited by Perlstein, foresaw a rising "coalition of conscience and decency" among baby boomers. The new politics was an electoral disaster in 1972, but it may finally triumph in 2008.
…more…
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The 80's were tough economically for working class people.
My memory of that time is similar to frank's.
And this….
"I guess you've forgotten the Carter era energy crisis, price controls, runaway inflation, high unemployment, foreign policy blunders (Iran), skyrocketing interest rates…"
First, Carter did not create the energy crisis. And both Republican presidents, Nixon and Ford, had to resort to what you accuse Carter, alone, of doing.
Second, Reagan's failure, by letting "loose the oilmen" and deregulating everything in sight, should be appreciated for the terrible failure of leadership it truly represents.
Rather than appreciate the ongoing cinch our national energy nuts were in….Reagan completely dismissed our dependency problem and let the god of the free market determine our fate.
Look at the mess we're in now because of that misguided leadership. Failed leadership that you praise.
It was terribly poor judgment by Reagan, judgment repeated in Junior Bush's regime,….the same judgment McCain brings to the table.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
An oil glut sounds pretty good to me right about now which is what I remember from the Reagan years.
Reagan also wasn't the beginning of the end of manufacturing jobs. Anyone from NEOhio should know that's been going on since at least the early '70s, as the book Tom cites shows.
Obama as the next Carter last week. Obama as the next McGovern this week. It's looking better for McCain's chances all the time.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
frank,
That's just not right. Wages were flat for Carter's term, and poverty grew during the Carter stagflation years. Real wages and income grew during the Reagan years, after the recession and inflation Reagan inherited from Mr. Stagflation were assuaged (due to Reagan and Fed policies). That was no small feat. Though poverty grew during that recessionary period, starting in about 1983 it began to drop as Reagan's policies took hold.
You're also incorrect about those manufacturing jobs. They starting declining during the Carter's last two years, continued to decline thru the inherited recession/inflation period in Reagans early years, but then actually grew for the rest of Reagan's term. This link illustrates that.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/manufacturing_employment.shtml
There have been a number of hit jobs attempted by the Left on Reagan to distort his record, but most of them are pretty much a pile of you-know-what. One of the biggest economic liars on the planet, Paul Krugman of the NY Times, frequently tries to distort Reagan's record, purely for partisan reasons, but he's just completely out to lunch. Don't believe those people. They'll do anything to discredit Reagan.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Rev,
You're just being totally partisan and mostly inaccurate, as usual.
As for "letting loose the oilmen", that's as laughable a comment as I've read in awhile, considering how the Dems have strapped down the oilmen and prevented our country from developing domestic sources of energy from the 70's forward. Blaming growing foreign oil dependence on the GOP is some trick. Dems should be in jail for that crime against our nation.
Btw, gas prices dropped for six straight years under Reagan. Go to work on your spin and maybe you can figure out a way to give credit to the Dems for that too.
As for deregulation, Carter and Clinton did as much deregulating as Reagan did, and probably more. Not that the facts ever get in your way.
I have never met any one person who so consistently gets the facts as wrong as you do. Do you do it on purpose, or have you been THAT misled by the likes of Greenwald, Digby, and company ? It's really quite phenomenal.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:45 pm
larry,
I didn't see your comment until I had already responded to frank and the Rev. I repeated some of the same things you said. Sorry about that.
If Obama is the next McGovern, at least we won't have to worry about the bad effects of his policies.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Up is down and black is white.
Many times I have pointed out the existence of dual narratives. One is true and one is false. You have chosen to believe in the false one. I suppose it's because of your faithfulness to your own belief system. That's fine.
I have chosen to follow the true narrative. Reagan is seen by conservatives as a god. The facts prove that Reagan hurt America, hurt the working class, and set us on a path that has led directly to incidents like Katrina, and 4 dollar gas. Was Reagan a maniac like Junior? No. That doesn't change what he did.
Reagan's influence led directly to, as one of the other commenters mentioned, the necessity of both members of a household having to go to work in order to maintain their standard of living.
When Reagan had to deal with the problem of high energy costs….his finger-in-the-dyke solution proved his lack of leadership skills. When he could have been responsible for a historic shift towards independence….he chose to enrich the sharks and the greedy…..and now we are all living with the tragic results of that leadershp failure.
Bush, the Elder, and Clinton weren't much better, either. Bush, the Maniac, personifies the running to ground, or running into the ground, of Reagan's poor choices.
It's simply the facts.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Rev,
You didn't cite even one fact, you just made up a story, but…
I KNEW you could do it. Hurrah ! You have spun things so badly that you now even blame Reagan for hurricane Katrina and $4 gas. Congratulations. Insanity rules.
There really is no sense in talking to you further, just as there would be little sense in talking politics to the Unabomber.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The dual narrative vision of reality is pretty simplistic, Reverend. It's an awful lot like good vs. evil, black vs. white and all those other dualisms you were supposed to transcend when you gave up the pulpit.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
[quote Da King]As for "letting loose the oilmen", that's as laughable a comment as I've read in awhile, considering how the Dems have strapped down the oilmen and prevented our country from developing domestic sources of energy from the 70's forward. Blaming growing foreign oil dependence on the GOP is some trick. Dems should be in jail for that crime against our nation.
Btw, gas prices dropped for six straight years under Reagan. Go to work on your spin and maybe you can figure out a way to give credit to the Dems for that too.
[/quote]
Drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Reserve and off the coast of Florida will not make nearly the difference in the oil supply/demand as will the efficiency standards that were passed a few months ago.
…
When old Bush was in the White House, he conspired with the Saudis to pump more oil than their OPEC quota to intentionally drive the price down. That was a way to weaken the Soviet economy, which was dependent upon oil exports.
That is why there was a temporary glut in the oil supply. It ultimately led to more depletion of resources and put us into a horrible state in this century. The high price of gasoline is destroying parts of our economy and causing this recession. The trade imbalance is destroying the value of the dollar.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
larry: Nope. The dual narrative stuff I'm talking about is new and different. In real time there is a false facts narrative and a true facts narrative.
Sure, there can be dual interpretations of history….but not dual sets of facts.
The Rove machine, as well as others, insist on having their own facts. Then they spin their own unique set of facts, that aren't. Like the Plame case.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
"A true facts narrative." That's the kind of talk that makes you Obamatons seem dangerous.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Tom,
Is there some logical reason that we can't both lessen demand AND increase the domestic oil supply ? The idea is to get away from dependence on people like the Saudis and Chavez, isn't it ? I heard Dems in the Senate today making the argument that domestic drilling won't supply all the oil we need, so we shouldn't bother, as if that's an argument. It really isn't any kind of argument at all. Increasing the domestic oil supply will help. Reducing demand will help. Alternative energy sources will help. We should be doing all that stuff. We aren't switching off of oil next week, next year, or even in ten years. The Dems are damaging national security, and have been for decades.
And the 80's oil glut predates Bush Sr. It goes back to Reagan.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
larry,
The only dual narrative derives from the Rev's denial of the obvious facts. He creates a fictional world, like someone with multiple personalities does when they can't cope with the truth.