The American electorate can, I believe, be broken down into three roughly equal groups. First, there are the traditional "liberals," more properly referred to as "progressives," who form the base of the Democratic Party. For these people, the political imperative is to assist the underprivileged, and they believe government programs are the best or at least only available instruments for furthering that goal. Second, there are the proto-libertarians who have, at least traditionally, formed the base of the Republican Party. These people believe that the best, maybe even the only, way to effectively help the poor is through economic growth and that economic growth and even freedom demands small government, low taxes, and low deficits. Finally, and newly come upon the scene, there are the social conservatives: those for whom the political imperative is to further and if necessary enforce a particular moral code. On issues other than morality, this group is amazingly diverse, including everything from ultra-progressive Minnesota DFLers to ultra-conservative John Birchers. But for all of them, morality now trumps any other domestic issue. The Republican Party has achieved its current political dominance by keeping most of the proto-libertarians within the Party while adding the social conservatives.I had a conversation this weekend that made me think I might be right about this.
But, the proto-libertarians aren't all that happy with the arrangement. Being libertarian, they are pretty tolerant on social/moral issues. Moreover, the social conservative desire to see government take on an ever expanding role in enforcing morality is fundamentally at odds with the central premise of proto-libertarianism: that government governs best when it governs least. For this reason, I do not think that the current Republican coalition can endure.
I have a friend who has been a Republican since he was in high school and who has been very active in Republican politics for a number of years. I was at a party with him on Saturday, and he said something startling: he wanted to run for Congress so that he could vote articles of impeachment against Bush. "I am," he reminded me, " a Goldwater Republican." I said that I knew he had been at least, and I had been wondering where the heck he had been for the last several years. Apparently, he is back.
He told me he was pulling together materials and was going to write an article, so I will wait for a fuller explanation. However, I think I already know the basic outlines. He came, (belatedly I think) to a realization that the Republican Party as it is presently constituted is a genuine threat to things he values even more than tax cuts and maybe even more that defense against terrorism. I suspect that the NSA eavesdropping program was the straw that broke the camel's back. But, now that the "good soldier" role has become intolerable, I am sure there is much more to it than that.
We'll see. I really do hope he writes the article.
2 comments:
Could this long lost Goldwaterite be Gordo? And where will we find the article, on Parentheticals,or in a more public forum? L.E.T.
As to the first question: No Comment. As to the second, who knows, but I would guess he has hopes for a wider audience than he's likely to get on this blog. However, if it ever does see the light of day, you can expect to find it or a link to it here as well.
Post a Comment