When you are out looking for a social gathering, do you ever thing - hey I hope I run into a bunch of puritans? Of course you don't. And whey you look for a community to live in, do you think "Gee, I hope it only has things in it that I have already encountered." Of course you don't. So why would you ever epect to govern based on that sort of thinking:
“Some conservatives would rather lose than be seen as compromising on what they regard as inviolable principles.” Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: “We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing.”
The success of any party tends to be about how big raft it is, not how pure. Say what you like about even Mr. Harper but he has made an unexpected career of being a big rafter - without being a conciliator - through governing as people want as opposed to how he himself might see the world. He is still a crank. And Ben is quite correct that puritanism is not about fundamental principle as something things such as economic theory simply are understood to be better in form "X" than form "Y" and as a result form a core party tenent. But that might mean there have not really been conservatives in US government since the moral majority, neocons and socons got into power given that they have little real concern about the effectiveness of their position so much as the "natural" or "authorized" nature of it.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - April 30, 2009 9:27 AM
Spector survived as a Republican for decades until he voted for the stimulus package.
There are some things that just can't be done -- this one was a major test of fidelity to party principles.
The Maine ladies will survive because no-one there will challenge them. But one major problem for the GOP has been a lack of credibility on fiscal issues, after the spending increases of the Bush years.
Step one towards re-establishing said credibility? Start showing fiscal discipline again.
Which meant that Spector had to go after his vote on that bill.
Alan - April 30, 2009 10:04 AM
There is no principled difference between the Obama stimulus and the Bush TARP (except the former's greater accountability) so I can't imagine how one can be a test of fidelity and the other not. How many voted for neither?
Remember that all great popular conservatives have increased government debt to finance their ways. But I take your point on the go forward. If conservatives want to become pure, that is the route. They will ensure the Republican party remains in the wilderness but they will be pure.
Ben (The Tiger) - April 30, 2009 10:58 AM
TARP was a panic move -- a mistake. A majority of House Republicans opposed it, with good reason.
But again, the only way to demonstrate that one is fiscally responsible is... to be fiscally responsible.
All House Republicans and a few conservative House Democrats voted against the stimulus, as did all Republican senators except for Spector and the Maine ladies.
If you support spending money like that, there's a place for you -- a place in the Democratic Party.
Hans - April 30, 2009 11:05 AM
If you support fiscal responsibility, you're democrat. If you talk about it while out of office and then engage in deficit spending while in government, you're republican.
Ben (The Tiger) - April 30, 2009 11:15 AM
Familiarize yourself with this graphic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html
You'll have seen it around a lot, and you'll see it much more.
Alan - April 30, 2009 11:45 AM
Well, this might have been the true principled ideological moment as far as the voting goes in terms of a split between conservatives and the Bush lame duck neo-con administration.
Projections? Ben, you may want to find a graph of all conservative leaders in the western world over the last 40 years and their deficit fighting skills. Your claim really is that Obama is acting like he believes in Torynomics without a resource base to plunder.
Jay Currie - April 30, 2009 7:00 PM
One of the more basic difficulties over on the right is the existence of at least two and arguably three distinct and mutually exclusive denominations - socons, libertarians and fiscal conservatives - plus "pragmatists" who believe nothing can be done right now but at least we're not Liberals (Democrats).
The cleavage between socons and libertarians cannot be bridged as the positions are antithetical. So what tends to happen is that from time to time both groups, sick of being entirely out of power, will unite behind a supposedly fiscal conservative who, in turn, will be advised that, pragmatically, there is nothing that can be done save run the government in the same way that, well, the Liberals ran it. This goes on for a couple of years and, rather quickly, neither the socons nor the libertarians nor, frankly, the fiscal conservatives, are very happy. The coalition shatters at the grass roots level but now you have MPs who are hanging about for their pensions.
Principle having been shown the door early, it suddenly makes tons of sense to cut deals with the Liberals or the NDP or the Bloc.
Thus, in a very short while, the conservative interest is tossed out the window and the importance of power becomes the guiding light of the so-called conservative government. Socons, libertarians and fiscal conservatives sit on their hands in the next election and, voila, the Liberals are back in office.
ry - May 3, 2009 12:43 AM
The success of any party tends to be about how big raft it is, not how pure.--Big Al.
Maybe, though that often devolves into power for powers sake lies and bs, people forsaking what's right for what's good for the party, and a few other not-so-good-things.
I think I know where you were going, mon ami, but as is it still leaves open the crass politics of 'I don't care what he says so long as he's got the right letter/whatever next to his name.'
Alan - May 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Ry! You are right, it is about balance but I think it also is a balance that has to be focused on achievement of some sort. Our Canadian conservatives are anti-Federal to a degree that one suspects they want to hold power to ensure there is a weakening of the national vision and identity. This is very antithetical to the US version as it does not have a balancing thesis of the strengthening of provincial identity or individual identity. It is just a dilution. It is unfortunate as I think there is a vision there to be created but the current bunch seem to have no ability to state it or capture the imagination of the people.