Oooh boy. Now you know where the problem really comes from! This is from the guy who used to be Bush's speech writer:
As antigovernment conservatives seek to purify the Republican Party, it is reasonable to ask if the purest among them are conservatives at all. The combination of disdain for government, a reflexive preference for markets and an unbalanced emphasis on individual choice is usually called libertarianism. The old conservatives had some concerns about that creed, which Russell Kirk called "an ideology of universal selfishness." Conservatives have generally taught that the health of society is determined by the health of institutions: families, neighborhoods, schools, congregations. Unfettered individualism can loosen those bonds, while government can act to strengthen them. By this standard, good public policies-from incentives to charitable giving, to imposing minimal standards on inner-city schools-are not apostasy; they are a thoroughly orthodox, conservative commitment to the common good.
What we have today is not in fact a streak of radical individualism, but rather radical libertine behavior. Not since the Great Depression has there been such a conspicuous lack of principled individualism present in the average American. The number of people who would today accept government handouts rather than work at a "degrading job" would be unfathomable to the average proud working American a hundred years ago. The essence of that rugged individualism is that there was a pride and principle to it, that even if not eloquently laid out, was present in all classes of society.
America is now learning first hand that "the wages of sin is death." Today Americans readily accept up to fifty percent of their income being taxed, the very possession of large assets like houses and cars being taxable, mountains of regulations, violent intrusions into their homes over intoxicating substances by paramilitary forces and a government that has all but legally rendered itself untouchable to mere mortals in most cases of malfeasance. Generally people who accept such onerous restrictions, but seek hedonistic freedom are, as I said, called libertines.
If you cannot tell the difference between libertarian and libertine, Google it before you open your mouth and make yourself look stupid.
Interestingly enough, as the government has grown more "caring and compassionate," the other pillars of authority have withered away. By any reasonable standard, men like Gerson are traitors to the cause of conserving these traditional pillars of authority that form the foundation of American society because they advocate sustaining or even elevating the doses of one of the poisons that makes our nation so sick. In fact, one might simply call a man like Gerson nothing more than a moralizing, tradition-minded left-liberal.
Campaigning on the size of government in 2008, while opponents talk about health care, education and poverty, will seem, and be, procedural, small-minded, cold and uninspired. The moral stakes are even higher. What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country? No achievement at all. Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism-an idealism that strangles mercy.
They offer several things, that schizophrenic ideologues like Gerson cannot offer. First, they offer freedom to control the education of their children. The more libertarian moves emphasize a more radical idea: that results are the only thing that matter. "Compassionate conservatives" will find every way to try to squeeze more performance out of the irredeemably flawed public schools that they can, often using private schools as big sticks to beat them with.
Second, the more liberty-minded conservatives offer an end to the War on Drugs, which has created a highly lucrative alternative to the tradition methods of making money, such as actually producing wealth or a service that is legal. Those who care about inner city poverty know that as long as vice carries a premium, and it always will in the black market, it'll provide an easy way for enterprising inner city kids to avoid getting educated and entering the "mainstream economy" as Gerson calls it.
Finally, these conservatives are going to oppose legal measures that penalize law-abiding citizens in favor of the criminal element. "Compassionate conservatives," like their liberal cousins, are going to be too busy tossing out free bread and organizing circuses to care that no one can legally carry a weapon downtown to defend themselves. Even if they do notice, and do claim to care, in practice, they won't do a thing about it.
But there is another Republican Party-what might be called the party of the governors. It is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who has improved the educational performance of minority students and responded effectively to natural disasters. It is the party of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who mandated basic health insurance while giving subsidies to low-income people. Neither of these men embrace big government; both show convincing outrage at wasteful spending. But they have also succeeded in making government work in essential government roles-not a small thing in a post-Katrina world.
Forcing people to buy basic health insurance is the epitome of big government. Forcing anyone to enter an economic relationship with something as unessential as an insurance provider is the very essence of cronyism and big government! Notice one last thing, for whatever reason, the two shining stars he lists here are not candidates that could win a national election.
The future of the Republican Party depends on which party it wants to be-the party of purity, or the party of the governors. In that decision, Republicans should consider: any political movement that elevates abstract antigovernment ideology above human needs is hardly conservative, and unlikely to win.
Considering the fact that Gerson's vision was thoroughly repudiated in the 2006 election, and stands to possibly be annihilated in 2008, perhaps he ought to avoid the swagger a little. What Americans have started to realize, that Gerson has not is that fraud, waste and abuse go hand-in-hand with "compassion" in government in practice.
What would win in 2008, but will not be allowed to contend as a Republican, is someone who is strong on defense and border security, gets the government out of social engineering, reforms the tax code and honestly wants to find a solution to Medicare/Social Security that helps those dependant on it, while not hurting those who will never see a benefit from it like *ahem* my generation.
"Compassionate conservatism" has failed so spectacularly because it is the most moralizing aspects of conservatism combined with the essence of left-liberal socialism. It is true cradle-to-grave nanny statism that would make even the average European cringe.
Others:
I don't agree w/ the characterization of conservatives as "anti-government." A much more accurate descriptor would be "anti-big government." To me, anti-government means anarchy.
I very much agree w/ the general thrust of your post. There is, indeed, a difference between libertine & libertarian, though the line is fine in some specific cases.
What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country?
This is silly beyond words. The government is at the height of its power, historically speaking; yet both these problems are at their nadir in terms of viable solutions offered by our sacrosanct officials. I don't think the perpetual welfare state, corrupt politicians unaccountable to the public, & affirmative action are addressing these situations in any meaningful fashion.
That he praises Jebby Bush plummets his credibility to the Earth's core. Jebby's nothing but a typical GOP big government coward. His behavior in the Schiavo tragedy was shameful. Of course, I expect this kind of confusion. Making a lucid argument about political philosophies is difficult, when one doesn't even understand the definition of a word like conservatism.
Good post.
It's just one of those rhetorical tricks to make your opponent look bad. I'm a minarchist myself, but I don't share the average libertarian's selective loathing of the government. In fact, I whole-heartedly embrace government in some areas where the alternative creates the grounds for deep chaos, such as immigration policy. Why? Sometimes you have to accept the fact that there are non-state factors such as population migrations that can do more to end individual freedom than the government alternative. People like Gerson, however, embrace it is as panacea.
With respect to addressing real concerns, I think that is indeed one of his biggest failings. Fact is that the welfare-warfare state has basically put the inner city where it is today. Between the welfare state and War on Drugs alone, the conditions are perfect for people to not be held accountable for basic mistakes, and the end result has always been the undermining of those communities.
But you know what? It goes back to my golden rule about "ethics and charity" in politics. "Those who give, don't talk about it." The ones who are political and passionate about "charity" and "mercy" and "helping others" are the ones who generally never do that. Even as lazy as I am, I bet I have done more for charity this year than the average liberal or "compassionate conservative."
Bush's speechwriter, like Bush, simply changes the meanings of words when it suits him. To suggest that somehow the centralization of educational decisionmaking is "conservative" is not simply incorrect (that would be an innocent mistake) but dishonest, and was actually the tipoff that I had been tricked mercilessly when I voted for Bush in 2000.
The same is true of the very institutions that he mentions (families, neighborhoods, schools, congregations). Every single one of them is smothered by government intervention, yet Bushites accuse those who do not want government to assume the functions of the above of not believing in the above. IMO, history teaches that the only way to preserve any of them is to keep government as far from them as possible. There were not many viable congregations in the USSR.
In reality, there is no difference between the centralization of power under Bush or under Lenin; Bushite conservatives would simply have you believe that Bush does these things for good reasons while Lenin did them for bad. But they are the same things and I would suggest they will have the same results, if not under Bush then under some successor. If it's Hillary, the conservatives will scream bloody murder, and I'll laugh them to scorn.
It is disgusting to me to see fellow born again Christians defending them like that. They are people who clearly ought to know better about these things on a spiritual level. I am convinced that a lot of them really do think that good works get you into heaven or play a real role in that because there is no other explanation for why they think things like legislating away gay marriage, rather than try to win people over to Jesus, will fix our problems.
The average Bushite really is no different from the average liberal where it counts. They may talk the good talk about family and church, but at the end of the day, the only temporal authority they recognize as truly real is that of the state. I bet they'd just shrug off being legitimately rebuked by their pastor or a church elder for sinful behavior, and just tell them to stop being so nosy or not discriminate at communion time. That's of course assuming that they're even church-going Christians, rather than worshippers at the altar of the civil religion of the American sugar daddy sky faery.
"The Party of Govenors", so that's what the Eastern Establishment wing of the Republicans are going by these days?
"Conservative" being synonymous with "Repubilcan" is a historically recent anomaly, and as the short span of time from Newt to Geogre has shown, anomaly is just what it was.
The last 150 years of political party history reads like a Tom and Jerry script. Madisonians gain power in party A, and Hamiltonians in ousted party B fracture over in-fighting and one Hamiltonian faction cedes to political party A. The Madisonians in party A become disenfranchised until a someone in B starts trying to court their vote.
The Madisonian-led Party B usually sweeps into power, and the Hamiltonians occupying the ousted party A fight, with a faction of Hamiltonians ceding over to the winning party B.
Rinse and repeat as necessary.