The Republican Party’s ongoing slow-motion meltdown has been delightful to watch, not just because it has put Democrats in a great position, but because it’s inevitable. Many people saw this coming years ago. It’s as inevitable as the removal of gay marriage amendments from state constitutions. Why? Because of Republicans’ attempt to put both social and fiscal conservatives under the same tent. It’s like creating a big tent party in the animal kingdom that consists of gazelles and lions. It’s going to end badly.
The goals of fiscal and social conservatives are opposites. Fiscal conservatives favor small government, and God bless ’em for it. Social conservatives favor really, really big government, as is required to regulate things like sexual positions, private contracts, and mandated prayer. Fiscal conservatives are contemptuous of social conservatives, and vice versa. Anybody in either group who doesn’t feel that way clearly hasn’t thought the matter through.
The finger-pointing has begun in what Rich Lowry calls “pre-criminations” for the inevitable pounding that Republicans will take on November 7. Consider what the New York Times‘ David Kirkpatrick writes about former House Republican majority leader Dick Armey today:
In recent weeks, Mr. Armey has stepped up a public campaign against the influence of Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and an influential voice among evangelical protestants. In an interview published last month in “The Elephant in the Room,” a book by Ryan Sager about splits among conservatives, Mr. Armey accused Congressional Republicans of “blatant pandering to James Dobson” and “his gang of thugs,” whom Mr. Armey called “real nasty bullies” — arguments he reprised on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and in an open letter on the Web site organization FreedomWorks.
In an interview this week, Mr. Armey said catering to Dr. Dobson and his allies had led the party to abandon budget-cutting. And he said Christian conservatives could cost Republicans seats around the country, especially in Ohio.
“The Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about the things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?” he said.
Mr. Armey also pinned some of the blame on Tom DeLay, the former Republican House majority leader, who “was always more comfortable with the social conservatives, the evangelical wing of the party, than he was with the business wing.”
Now, Dick Armey is an evangelical Christian. But he’s not dumb. He knows that the Republican Party has lost its way by catering to this group. The party isn’t in any danger of losing evangelicals, attempts by Christian Democrats notwithstanding. It’s the fiscal conservatives who are fleeing.
Republicans have made attempts to put a happier face on things, but the fact is that they’ve had total control of the government for six years and we’re deeper in debt than ever. The budget is in no danger of being balanced. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
There is some good news for genuine conservatives, though. We Democrats have had to completely reevaluate where we stand in the past six years. Some of us started out as little-L libertarians, and it’s been enjoyable watching our brethren come into the fold. But very few of us could have honestly described ourselves as fiscal conservatives in the same sense that many Republicans use the term. Having now seen “tax-and-spend” Republicans in action, we’ve learned to appreciate the merits of at least having a balanced budget. (I am, incidentally, genuinely befuddled by the term “tax-and-spend.” Why would you tax without spending it? Or spend without having the taxation to provide that money?) Republicans have succeeded in moving the center considerably to the right. I happen think that Democrats and the nation are the better for that move.
Even if the November 7 losses for Republicans aren’t as bad as some fear, it doesn’t make any difference. The party is premised on a marriage of two groups that are just too different to ever get along. In its next incarnation, the Republican Party might want to marry two more similar groups. A sort of a same-sex political marriage, you could even say.
Nothing’s the matter with Kansas.
From a purely tactical standpoint this serves as an effective wedge, but there are two problems I have with the hypothesis:
1) I think it is a stretch to say that social conservatives expand the government budget, with the exception of giving accent to strong military spending. Many socially conservative aims, such as permitting prayer in the public sphere and maintaining the status quo on marriage, have no financial impact.
2) Democrats do not exude the image of fiscal conservation, no matter how far the republicans may abandon the cause.
I also take issue with the phrase “mandated prayer”, as I don’t know of any campaign for compulsory prayer. Furthermore, if there were such a thing I can’t see how it would be costly, further leading me to doubt the wedge theory. That said, the spending blitz does erode loyalty for the party faithful (no pun intended).
Democrats would be wise to turn the “tax ‘n spend” slur on its head and make the republicans answer for their “borrow ‘n spend” policy. Advancing balanced budgets and accountable use of the military would be a winning strategy that forces republicans to defend a stained record on managing the federal budget.
I disagree that they have no financial impact. I’m reminded of when the SOLs and NCLB came into being. The SOLs, in particular, were described as being basically without cost because, hey, the kids are in school already. But changing existing practices, putting new yardsticks into place, mandating the teaching of new topics, figuring out how to continue to teach important but non-mandated topics…these are all expensive, both in direct costs (funding to teachers and administration) and incidental costs (kids graduating without knowing how to balance their checkbooks because, hey, that’s not in the SOLs). An educational system that prohibits children from learning about science leaves our children and our information economy at a significant disadvantage to more reasonable nations. On the topic of gay marriage, I’ll be curious to see how many same-sex couples are driven out of the state by the Marshall-Newman Amendment, should it pass. You’re looking at childless, upper-middle-class Virginians who are well-educated and have a lot of disposable income. They require very few services from the state and pay a lot in taxes. Why force these people to leave? Many localities would kill for this demographic.
That said, there are a great many socially conservative programs that are particularly significant in cost. For example, if homosexuality is to be illegal, that requires an enforcement mechanism. That means a government that is sufficiently large to be able to determine what citizens are doing in the privacy of their bedrooms. That’s an enormously costly endeavor. Unless, of course, such laws are in place without any intention of enforcing them. But I’m not cynical enough to believe that social conservatives desire such a thing.
Sure, there are a bunch. You can read about it here, here, and here.
As usual, a very good post.
I agree with Duane – “borrow and spend” is more appropriate a term to use for Republicans, whether in DC or Richmond.
Maybe Senator Allen would like to explain how he can be a part of a pro-debt party while claiming allegiance to Thomas Jefferson, who said of debt:
“I sincerely believe… that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
(More Jefferson quotes on debt)
I’ve previously used the phrase “tax-but-don’t-spend”.
“Republicans have succeeded in moving the center considerably to the right. I happen think that Democrats and the nation are the better for that move.”
How so?
By making a balanced-budget advocate out of the average Democrat.
I think we are seeing some division within the Democrats ranks as well, though this one might be more temporary. The race in Connecticut is a clear case of this. Lieberman runs the party-line on many issues, but it is not enough for some Democrats. His stand on the War in Iraq has put him at odds with many Democrats, and this has caused a near-even split in the vote. Lieberman has earned the favor of Republicans to likely put him over the top for the race, even though Democrats have tried to drum him out. Ned Lamont seems to be closer to the standard of many Democrats that are running across the country, which would be problematic in many of the currently red states. Yet, there are Democrats of varying viewpoints in office across the country.
I simply could not see either party splitting though because they would fear the other party would gain too much power from it. While there are inconsistencies between some of their viewpoints, I seriously doubt a split is anywhere in the future of the Republican party.
As a disaffected former democrat (now unaffiliated), I can honestly say I’d be a lot more comfortable with the republican party if it did not have the social conservatives. They are the main thing that keeps me unaffiliated, that and that in my opinion neither “team” has done a good job in addressing issues that might be important to me.
Waldo,
You cite NCLB and SOL, both of which I’m no fan, but spending in the Department of Education has expanded with every new administration with little to show for it. We know how bad the situation looks once our students enter international competition. Both parties have waged experiments with the public school system. The only one I know of with appreciable benefit has been Clinton’s Head Start program.
That government officials promised low cost reforms which turn out to be costly is nothing new, but the only way this can be a voting issue if people’s memory stops at six years. There is quite enough guilt to spread around in this area.
I’m perplexed at how you stretch the aims of social conservatives to the extreme. For example, tossing out the phrase “homosexuality is to be illegal” as an aim of social conservatives seems just a little disingenuous. Most social conservatives, including progressives who ally with the predominant definition of family over the past few millennia, are classically tolerant of homosexual behavior. I say classically, because they believe they aren’t obligated to approve of the behavior while maintaining that people have a wide array of personal choices.
You bring up a good point about the anti-science agenda of many social conservatives and the impending cost. Because the costs will be born out in twenty years we can’t expect it to have one iota of political capital today. Such is the curse of the electorate’s short memory.
The conservative party’s obituary has been written before.
The GOP will keep the House and the Senate. Write it down. Never misunderestimate the ability of the Dems to screw up a sure thing.
If the social conservatives in the Virginia General Assembly could muster up the courage to eliminate the state’s sodomy laws, perhaps I’d feel otherwise. But so long as those laws remain on the book do to an active willingness to keep them on there by conservatives in Richmond, I can’t see conceding that point, Duane.
Who’s writing Republicans’ obituary? Power ebbs and flows between the parties. I haven’t heard anybody so much as hint that the RNC’s days numbered. You, in fact, are the first person that I’ve ever heard suggest that.
I didn’t write that they’d lose either the House or the Senate. In fact, nobody here has. I’m not really sure who or what you’re rebutting here, JS.
CR Uva,
A spilt in a party doesn’t mean that half of them go and start their own, new party. Sometimes it just means that they’re all pissed off at each other with one faction sitting an election or 2 out and a number of them deciding to join the opposition. There is a significant number of people who previously identified as Republican who are now planning to vote for Democrats. Jim Webb was a Republican until recently. 9 new Democratic party challengers for House seats in Kansas were Republicans until last year, as are their Democratic party nominees for Attorney General and Lt. Governor. Jack Davis, who is challenging Tom Reynolds (and winning) was a prominent GOP fundraiser until 2003. A huge chunk of the Democratic party’s wave this year consists of former Republicans.
As they split off, these people don’t fear handing too much power to the other party because as they do so they are becoming the other party and thus getting their share of that power. After November there will probably be a large, influential bloc of conservative Democrats in the House who will wield much more power than they ever did as moderate Republicans. The split is very much real and very much rational.
Waldo,
I completely agree with your point of view about the so-called marriage amendment. Please note,however, that not all gay Virginian couples are upper class or childless or college educated!
No, of course not — such generalizations could never apply to every member of any group.