Chester Finn has a pretty brutal takedown of the modern GOP today on NRO:
What’s gone wrong with the GOP? Let me start by quoting a friend who is both gay and conservative (yes, I know several such): “I’m for low taxes, strong defense and limited government. Why doesn’t the Republican party want me?”
There’s a two-part answer to that question and neither half is good news. The first is that today’s GOP doesn’t really want gays — and it yearns to supervise everybody else’s bedroom and reproductive behavior as well as (implicitly, at least) their relationship to God. The second is that Republicans are no longer really in favor of limited government. Besides having their own version of a nanny state, they want to spend and spend, start program after program, ladle out the pork, make deals with influence peddlers, and spin the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street. Yes, they still pretend to favor low taxes but that’s an illusion; they pay for limitless government via huge deficits that will mean high taxes for my granddaughter.
And for daring to suggest that the GOP might back away from the homophobia and anti-immigrant nastiness, Mark Levin (another NRO-nik) dubs Finn’s article: “a prescription for disaster for the conservative movement.”
Like this year’s disaster?
Ryan,
This year’s disaster was certainly not helped with some candidates’ monomoniacal focus on immigration, and I think the internet gambling bill did some real damage which was completely independent of other issues which cost the GOP. So, certainly, the single-mindedness of the SoCons turns off libertarian Rs and independents (eg, how about focusing on judges instead of abortion? that would appeal to abovementioned libert. Rs, wouldn’t turn off independents, and would be doing something to actually get their issue back into the the public arena)
Still, the SoCon agenda did not in and of itself make up the disaster. It was more like something that added a few degrees to the waters which foster the hurricane, changing it from a cat 3 to 4 (wouldve been 5 but for GOP GOTV and the gift that keeps on giving, aka John Kerry). If Iraq were going well and the corruption issue weren’t there (I know, I know, and if ifs and buts were…), then it’s a totally different outcome. Sure, the illegal immigration animus cost JD Hayworth and a couple others their seats. And, it sure didn’t help with Hispanics. But, it didn’t cost the GOP the election.
As for the gay marriage issue, I think you paint with too broad a brush. Sure, there are some truly bigoted homophobes in the party. But you don’t there are just as many on the D side? (As you know, not all of their party is made up of leftists and liberals.) And sure, it was used as an issue to pander to the SoCons. But, most of the people in the party are those who truly are indifferent about gays in general or who are actually very pro gay rights (admittedly, more likely it’s predominantly the former than the latter) but who are frustrated or downright angry at having this part of the gay agenda forced on them — not because they are bigoted, but because they are wary of fudnamentally changing the norms of such a long-standing and important institution. Even those (like me) who are for strong defense, low taxes, and limited government as really the main issues when voting still are far from unsympathetic toward the idea that the gay rights agenda maybe has gone past legitimate and noble goals of tolerance and acceptance wrt the gay marriage issue.
Truly, it really is not anything at all of a majority of the party which advocates big government peering into homes, regulating private bedroom behavior, and demonizing gays. In fact, it really is a small (not insignificant, but small) minority. And, some of those are only pushing back (albeit in a heavy handed way) against what they consider overreach since they feel like their voice isn’t at least getting the chance to be heard, thanks to judicial activism, and the near eliminiation of federalism in these areas. It’s a lot easier to accept losing if you feel the fight took place in a fair system.
By charicaturing the GOP like that, you only hurt your chances for libertarians to be heard. Granted, I know it is frustrating that you haven’t been heard yet, but you are turning people off with this hyperbole. Maybe you think the door has been opened now for a third party? Perhaps, but I think that those who would be sympathetic to a libertarian based third party, while obviously not the SoCons, would still be vastly made up of somewhat traditional folks who don’t like the generalizations and hyperbole. Maybe you figure that liberals/Ds will give a third party the additional strength it needs. But, while certainly socially libertarian, they are far from free-market, and a major part of the libertarian platform would be nearly impossible to effect.
Regardless of the political motivations you have, I just think it is neither accurate nor appropriate to paint all Republicans as you have. I am a big Rudy fan and am really pulling for him. I believe he will get the nomination; but, he will do so by focusing on the many, many commonalities he, as a more libertarian R, has with the GOP than by brow-beating them with the things they don’t agree on. I really enjoy and appreciate your insights, and have been following you and a fan ever since you exposed the “non-partisan” groups who pushed for BCRA. I just wish you be a bit more judicious, if not with your criticisms of the GOP and its leadership (which I have major misgivings about, as well), then at least of all of those of us who vote for them. Though you may not feel at ease in the party, it still is a pretty big tent and when you make such assertions you alienate a lot more people than you think.