Nov

Line in the Sand

What road to take?

There is, in political considerations, the tension between principles and vote-getting. As with any other never-ceasing conflict, there are extremists on both sides: the idealistic, pie-in-the-sky purists who refuse compromise at all costs, leaving their party pigeon-holed and out of power. And the pragmatists, who sacrifice worthy aims for political expediency, leaving their party either with buyer’s remorse, in the event of winning the election, or completely dispirited, in which case their own base will probably not turn out enough to elect them anyhow. Most party devotees fall somewhere in between, clinging to their own special idea of what the party should be, yet also recognizing that they are only one person with a commensurate single vote. The non-inflated ego is able to show deference to the party at large, recognizing the practical demands of representative government as it exists today. Neither “sell-outs” nor “exclusionists,” these party members, in this author’s opinion, are the enlightened ones. To what direction they lean may depend on the times and what is at stake, but they never lose sight of the ultimate goal – realization of proper policy through popular election. The extent to which democracies are tenable for achieving this outcome is historically suspect, to be sure (see Notes On Democracy by H.L. Mencken, if you can stand it), but short of revolution – a course which even few radicals would recommend, much less conservatives – it is the only way to change our laws.

An Aside on “Moderates”

Moderate, being one of the most abused words in political journalism, I must confess means nothing of substance to me. It is at time used correctly, to label views that closely cling to the status quo – the only practical way of defining a “middle” when other options exist. (I admit the definition is not perfect, but as a defense, I’d ask the reader to submit a more consistent summary of how the word “moderate” can be used meaningfully in the political sense.) More often, however, it is used to identify what should be called party dissidents: those who buck their party’s current fashion and side with the opposition. To the extent that they do this and align to the closely to the status quo, “moderate” is acceptable verbiage. When, however, the “moderate” is only slightly less radical than the extremist, journalistic dishonestly is manifested through linguistic fraud.

What’s the endgame, anyway?

Any compromise must come in the context of a coherent strategy. The Republican Party is diverse, consisting of well over 50 million registered voters. Since Buckley and Reagan took over the party, it has been a coalition of social conservatives, free marketers, and foreign policy hawks (formerly the “Cold Warriors”). This coalition is not as tight as it once was, and the reasons for this are manifold, complex, and not intended for discussion at the present time. For the purposes of this section, I will simply assert that Republicans, as a whole, are more likely to favor individual responsibility and freedom than Democrats, who believe that government, i.e. the force of law, should be used to advance their aims of justice. While Republicans fear increasingly centralized authority, and see more virtue in self-government and the resulting social power, Democrats believe that central control is useful in curbing social ills and therefore virtuous, and hold this view as morally superior to leaving the organic society to its own means. I will hence define the Republican version of government as more Jeffersonian than Hamiltonian; more classically liberal than their Democratic opponents.

Strategy, and the Purpose of Compromise

I come from a business background. The business world is characterized by competition, and companies thrive through outwitting each other to better serve their customers. It may seem surprising, in a world of McKinsey and BCG published journals, Harvard Business Review, and official reports put out by the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank that still the most highly revered book on business strategy (at least in my college years) was written over 5,000 years ago. The Art of War by Sun Tzu is a classic manual on strategy, as it relates to war. I won’t feign much familiarity with the work – I’ve only read excerpts. The point in bringing this up is to stress that strategy is a process set forth accomplish certain aims. No General who sets out to conquer France is satisfied trading Paris for Marseilles and Lyon; the strategy must never compromise the overall objective, even as tactics must be used to angle for proper position for the anticipated final checkmate. In turn, a successful businessman will never surrender his “core competency” for temporary gain, and likewise a politician should never compromise his core values. For the reflective reader, I’d encourage thought around what distinguishes business competition from political competition, and what they both have in common with the pure competition that concerned Sun Tzu, warfare.

Blurring the Line

As a frequenter of and occasional commenter on many Republican opinion sites with different perspectives, from the Neo- to the Paleo-cons and everything in between, I feel I should sound an alarm bell. Our party’s faith in free market capitalism is withering, and quickly. Confusion exists across the party on monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulations, labor law, and the feasibility of a truly free market in meeting our needs. Confidence in human liberty, the essence of young America, is shrinking proportionally. Just 20 years after the spectacular failure of the Soviet Union was exemplified by the collapse of the Berlin Wall, there is a creeping distrust of what people perceive as a decentralized economy. The small pockets where true understanding exists around the nature human economy and the nature of the existent system are derided as ideologically driven at best, conspiracy theorists at worst, but universally regarded as cranks of one form or another.

Hayek warned Great Britain long ago that adopting socialist policies will yield the same results anywhere, and now politics in that once great empire have been reduced to quibbling over the technical specs of their National Health Service (a similar political situations exists in Canada, and I say that as a former resident and participant in the Canadian political process). News emanating daily from the British press reveals to the savvy observer that a creeping totalitarianism is slowly replacing the once vibrant British culture of freedom, from Holocaust denialism in public education to students, to denying life saving treatments to cancer patients, to mandatory inspections for adherence to the new “green” laws. This is not an accident of history, not a “societal evolution” as the pseudo-liberal/neo-Hegelians suggest, but a direct result of socialist policies.

Although the case of Great Britain is surely depressing, decline is not inevitable. Americans have not yet lost all confidence; our spirits have not atrophied into wards of an all-encompassing state. The Tea Party movement shows the resilience of the American character, one marked by natural distrust of big government. While they were systematically made out to be anything from redneck un-sophisticates, racists Obama haters, or gun toting, volatile loonies, the overriding characteristic present in these vigilant citizens was simply a belief in the power of the individual apart and away from centralized government.

Redraw the Line, and do It Boldly!

Clearly, the Tea Party movement is an asset to the Republican Party, assuming we can nurture its sentiment. Luckily, conservative Republican candidates have been doing this for over 50 years. The least fractious, and therefore most effective, way to nurture and retain the enthusiasm of this grassroots movement is to stick to free market principles, while decrying government intervention in as many aspects of life as possible. It’s an easy task, seeing as how nearly every aspect of commerce, and increasingly alarming aspects of our lifestyle from cigarette smoking to fat consumption, are directly affected by Federal law.

The above would be classified by some cynics as expedience. To be sure, all populism is expedient, in the sense that it expedites the return to power of the espouser. But the resentment such speech stirs up is aimed at truly destructive policies. Economics 101 teaches that mucking with markets will decrease industrial output, decreasing welfare for all of society. Like Reagan, preach classical economics in through a politically palatable argot!

Roads Merge

Rarely does a party have an opportunity to align principle to hugely popular public opinion. Republicans need to sound like Adam Smith, to put it succinctly, and stop their oh-so-pathetic apology for the bailout and (and for some, even the stimulus!). Right now is the time to take up the economic populism of Libertarian right, putting it in the center of all discussions. Social issues are important as ever, as is foreign policy. Our views on these issues are in tact, and need no election-oriented “repair.” Hammer home the idea of a truly FREE American economy, and unite the party in opposition to the Depression-Maker In-Chief!

This post and the contents thereof are the views of only the author identified immediately above and do not necessarily represent the views of the New York Young Republican Club, Inc. (the "NYYRC"), its officers or its members. The NYYRC expressly disclaims responsibility for the contents thereof and by its charter documents may not, and does not, endorse any candidate for any office, except in a general election.