Laying a trap

The debate loosely described as between Republican moderates and the conservative base has made it to the NYT. The debate is healthy in many ways, yet some underlying assumptions need less "epistemic closure" and more objective light -- I'll be glad when the term "epistemic closure" returns to its ancient source.

The underlying assumptions are mostly on the moderate side. But first let me say that "moderate" does not describe the political philosophy of some in the argument who are self-described as politically eclectic. It's also worth mentioning that many moderates voted for Obama, so a grain of salt is required.

I certainly don't want to unfairly label those who contain multitudes.

But if we take some assumptions at face value, by making our own assumption that Republican moderates are concerned with rebuilding the Republican Party as an alternative to Democrat control, then we need clarification. What is the alternative to Democrat policies? If conservative intellectuals are on the wrong side of the issues, what's the right side? There's been some talk from moderates that it's political suicide to be the Party of No, therefore, this suggests compromise -- it also suggests that moderates believe there's another more politically savvy approach.

Are we talking about political strategy or political ideas? The suggestion that conservative intellectuals are closed means that there are ideas outside the current conservative realm of ideas which need to be considered. The liberal ideas being proposed right now have mainly to do with more State regulation of the market, so it begs the question -- "Which liberal ideas regarding State regulation of the market should conservatives help implement into policy?" -- should conservatives work to help deal with the problems of the healthcare reform bill just passed? Should conservatives work to help shape cap and trade legislation? Should conservatives help shape financial regulation? Should conservatives compromise on immigration and help illegals become legal without going through the lawful process?

If so, then the moderates should lay out a plan to address each one of these concerns. But if we're going to give the moderates the benefit of the doubt, that they are serious about rebuilding a strong Republican alternative to Democrat control, then moderates have to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt when they say they've tried to influence current legislation, but the Democrats would rather resist the conservative suggestions and frame the Rs as the Party of No -- how do the moderates answer this claim? So far, they've agreed with the Democrats in saying that Republican suggestions have been cynical obstacles to true reform and not meant to be serious compromises.

Moderates shouldn't ask to be taken seriously, if they refuse to take conservatives seriously. There are disagreements on how best to govern, and the differences between the moderates' approach and the conservatives' approach is very real. The moderates are willing to accept some degree of statism, and they're sympathetic toward some liberal ideas, while conservatives are now calling for limited government and opposing progressive policies which they think will hurt small businesses, damage a fragile economy and increase the power of the State. The conservatives have decided that compromise on the Democrat's terms will lead to ruin, so it's up to moderates to show how compromise will achieve Republican goals and how compromise will be better for the American people.

There's a good chance that moderates are not thinking clearly -- for all their claims to political savvy, much of their strategy appears naive and superfical. There's more at stake than just winning elections and gaining the appearance of openness and compromise. There's also a battle over big ideas which can't be dismissed as "epistemic closure". Our country has a crisis of direction -- are we going to continue down the path of statism and powerful governmen regulation of the market and our private choices, or are we going to limit government power and empower the private sector?

It's true that if conservative Republicans have changed and there's a serious desire to limit government power, it's critical to win elections, but I'm afraid that simply winning a few elections and attempting to add conservative influence to the Democrat's statist plans will not have much of an effect on direction -- we'll simply slow the march to statism and weaken oppostion as those in the public serious about limitiing government give up on the Republican Party as a viable alternative to Democrat control. I believe the moderates are underestimatig the public opposition to Democrat control and intervention in the economy.

Dealing with an informed and politcally active public will require a new approach -- political manipulation and image-making won't work. Patronizing the public will only anger and alienate the public. The people own their government and the owners are speaking up, we no longer have absentee ownership where managers are left to do as they like. I want to give the moderates the benefit of the doubt, but it's beginning to appear they're more concerned with preserving the status quo of the political elite than they are with being an opposition to statist growth.

If the Republicans don't find a way to come together and develope an honest approach to represent an informed, active public, the Democrats will divide and conquer, only creating more public dissatifaction with both parties.