Oh, Jeb. Don’t they say you’re the smart one?
How will we ever find a decent conservative candidate when the current lot can’t even get the essence of conservatism right? Here’s what Jeb Bush said recently:
So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging. I mean, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people toward your cause.
From the conservative side, it’s time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because, you know, things do ebb and flow.
Conservatives who are “forward-looking” and dismissive of the past? What does the word “conservative” even mean anymore?
I’m all for getting over Reagan nostalgia. Given the lot we had in the 20th century, Reagan was certainly one of the best. But his 8 years weren’t exactly a glowing victory for Goldwater conservatism.
But to turn conservatives into the “forward-looking” politicians makes me cringe. Let’s get over Reagan nostalgia and get back to Burke, Kirk, and other conservatives who knew what conservatism meant.
Jeb continues:
We have principles, we have values. They are the values that are shared by the majority of Americans, there’s no question about it. But we have to now take those principles and values and apply them to the challenges that our country faces today and in the future. …
And then, hopefully – God willing – [we] embrace our conservative principles and take these new ideas and present them to the American people.
This is why I’m more and more convinced of small-government, localist thinking. Abstract “principles” and “values” mean so little when not rooted in time and place. The current “conservative” version of politics is to take these “principles” and “values” and use a big government to enforce them. You can’t marry conservative “principles” to big-government methods and still have conservatism.
So, to the suggestion that we look at the Democrats, see what they’re doing that resonating with the American people, and make a conservative version of it, I say, “No, thanks.”
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, I saw a blurb the other day about how Republican groups are going around trying to get input on rebranding their image. How’s that helpful? Isn’t that just sticking your finger up into the wind to see which way it’s blowing? Shouldn’t they be getting back to core Republican principles? Not that I necessarily agree with those either but it would be a start for them.
I read AA Jacobs’ The year of Living Biblically recently. He’s trying to live the Bible literally for one year. As he’s going through the commandments and thinking about not having any graven images he makes an interesting observation. Presidential elections would be amazingly different if no images were allowed. And, think of the quality people/leaders who have been or will be missed because they look funny.
I agree. To have the guts to go back to true conservative principles and stick to them would be a powerful message. And more popular than the politicians might think. To muck around with image highlights want politicians want: power. Forget principles, you find the image that gets you elected then you can do what you want.
The problem with conservative principles is when conservatives get into power. Suddenly having power makes you want more of it. Who’s going to legislate less power to themselves?
Travis, can we finally retire the Goldwater narrative, plz? Goldwater didn’t just lose, he lost BIG. Reagan won big which is what you have to do first before you can move the country in the direction you want.
Pauli, not trying to keep alive any Goldwater “narrative.” Just pointing to someone who more consistently principled. I don’t much care how big someone wins if they don’t stay consistent and steadfast on actually downsizing and limiting government.
But furthermore, I’m not really interested in “retiring” any genuine expression of conservatism. That’s sort of the point of the post. I was expressing some agreement with the need to quit over-doing the Reagan nostalgia, but on the whole, I’m against retiring either the Reagan or the Goldwater stories.
When Goldwater became a vocal opponent of social conservative issues circa 1990 he was not just showing his true colors but casting aspersions on a winning coalition strategy. So what if he was probably more of a “purist” than Reagan to the libertarian types? That and ten cents got him Arizona and five southern states. The fact is that pure libertarianism scares the sh*t out of most people. So you didn’t see wagons full of Goldwater Democrats (although I suppose she’d be considered in the running) like there were Reagan Democrats, people who believed in the importance of national strength and religious faith and morality, not just a more sound economic policy.
I have much respect for David Frum–more than some of the raging talkers like Mark Levin–and some of his views and concerns, but when I hear/read him I always wonder why he didn’t he learn the lesson of the Goldwater defeat which, to me, is that fiscal issues aren’t enough to win nationally. The prejudice of the guys who want to marginalize so-cons is much more insidious than some of the extreme antics of the religious right which, admittedly can get annoying. One proof that the tripartite coalition is still strong is that Mike Huckabee pulled in 17 times more actual delegates than Ron Paul did.
So the real lesson is, I shouldn’t hope for Republicans to ever be anything close to libertarian, because that doesn’t win. Which I already knew.
So I’ll submit the point that invocation of Goldwater’s name in the post was a poor word choice.
I think you’re being soft on the religious right though. “Annoying”? It’s a hell of a lot more than “annoying.”
So I’ll submit the point that invocation of Goldwater’s name in the post was a poor word choice.
I think that’s probably a good way to put it. I’m pretty sure that Russell Kirk didn’t believe in UFOs or want to legalize marijuana.
So the real lesson is, I shouldn’t hope for Republicans to ever be anything close to libertarian, because that doesn’t win.
Even Ron Paul has moved somewhat away from libertarianism with his moderated views on abortion and border sovereignty. Hell, I think even the Libertarian Party itself has moved away from what some of the nuts I went to college with were talking about.
I think you’re being soft on the religious right though. “Annoying”? It’s a hell of a lot more than “annoying.”
The term “religious right” is mainly in use by the media and liberals and it encompasses a lot, from nuts like John Hagee to visionaries like Richard John Neuhaus. Putting up with a long ad hoc prayer by a Baptist minister at the March for Life is merely annoying. But I’ll agree that Pat Robertson running a Quixotic campaign which virually handed us George H. W. Bush over Jack Kemp is more than annoying. But that’s politics & the freedom to be stupid at work.