Moderates vs the Movement

I've been thinking a lot about Republican moderates, trying to figure out their disdain for what they call movement conservatives, or the conservative base, or the Limbaugh/Beck conservative faction, or whatever else it's called. I've read different analyses regarding the cause of this disdain -- elitism, envy of Limbaugh's and Beck's popularity and wealth, disgust with the movement's tactics, fear of division, anti-ideology, etc., and any of these might be true for some moderates, but none succeed in fully explaining the animosity.

Perhaps it's a combination of causes which orginate in the Washington D.C. culture. The most visible moderates are firmly entrenched in the political class -- there's something odd about people who've always been in politics. I don't think that "going into politics" was ever supposed to be a career path, just something to do temporarily to serve the country. Professional politicans and political pundits seem insulated from the private sector, immersed in government mechanics, political spinning and partisan games with no understanding of what most private citizens think or do on a daily basis.

I'm sure there are many private citizens who are classified as Republican moderates, but I never hear from them or much about them. Is there a group of moderates similar to the conservative base groups? There's the Main Street Republican Partnership, but they appear to be made up of politicians. I noticed on their simple website they claim to be the "real" conservatives (I thought this is what they criticize the movement conservatives for claiming). I never hear anything about them, though, so I suspect they are irrelevant. The same goes for the Republican Majority for Choice who advertise "true" Republican values -- plus they have a blog which, of course, has a recent obligatory  post showing how Limbaugh doesn't represent "true" Republican values.

These groups don't appear to have much support from the private sector, if any, and I certainly haven't seen activity from moderates comparable to the 912 Washington march made up of private citizens from all over the country. A recent Democrat study performed by James Carville (!) showed that movement conservatives are disconnected from reality -- I have to ask, which reality? The reality in Washington D.C., or the reality across America (which is experienced in diversity)?

There is definitely a disconnect between the private sphere and the political class. I think we can now say that the majority of American citizens have a problem with what's going on in government, if the polls are correct. Congress has a 21% approval rating. Where do the moderates stand in this disconnect between American citizens and government? It's difficult to tell by looking at the Main Street Republican Partnership site under "What We Stand For" -- they are pro this and that, but the statements are vague --

Pro-Alternative Energy

We believe that stabilizing our energy supply will benefit the consumer, strengthen our businesses, and enhance the security of our country.

We encourage and support the use of renewable energy sources such as biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal.

We must reduce the environmental impact of traditional sources of energy.

Well, yes, I think everyone can agree with this, but what about our oil needs until alternative energy is viable? This is the big problem. The moderates are big on practical solutions, so what's the practical solution -- can we compromise on drilling now as we make alternative energy sources valid options?

Pro-Education

We believe children and teachers have a right to a safe learning and working environment.

We believe parents deserve accountability and qualified teachers in the classroom for their children.

We must strengthen and invest in our math and science programs to ensure our students have the building blocks necessary to compete and lead globally.

We recognize that a college education is an investment in one's future -- Congress must help make this investment as affordable and accessible as possible regardless of economic background.

This doesn't tell us anything about the failures of public education or whether we should consider private solutions. This is generic, safe and weak.

Pro-Retirement Security

We should continue to enhance the opportunities and provide incentives for Americans to save for their retirement years and reform Social Security.

What does this mean? Providing incentives sounds like social engineering -- reforming social security sounds like tinkering with a problem that's a huge time-bomb. It's hard to tell because it's so vague. The problem with all the issues under "What We Stand For" is that I still don't know what they stand for. This is the problem with the moderates -- they are reluctant to take a stance -- they seem to be straddling a fence, waiting to see which way popularity leads them. Nowhere on the site does it tell me what they think about limited government, the wars, individual rights -- what they think about bailouts and stimulus -- what they think about the proposed healthcare reform -- what they think about public education. The vagueness of their positions leaves me uninspired and doubtful that they have any intentions to limit government power. It appears all they stand for is compromise, survival by playing the game, trying when they can to slow down change. 

The moderates are too entrenched in the political class and too enmeshed in policy issues, shared power, compromise, avoiding risk -- too comfortable with the status quo which favors political power and connected corporations.

America is a dynamic country held back by progressives who want to change the dynamism to social stasis, and moderates who want to share power within the political class and protect the status quo. The private sector is caught between these two forces and it's struggling to free itself so the dynamism continues in the form of innovation, economic growth, better jobs, technological progress and prosperity. The moderates are helping the progressives achieve their goals by failing to take a stand against state power.

The moderates see it all slipping away, and they are trying to quiet the movement conservatives and libertarians who seek radical change. They want the Republican Party to help guide the progressive agenda so that conservatism has a say, if possible, but not create waves by requesting extreme roll-back of power. The problem with the moderates is they think America is on the side of the progressives, that history is moving toward progressivism, a more powerful and active State, social engineering and central planning, and they want a piece of the action so that traditional values aren't forgotten, although even the values need re-assessment to create inclusion rather than exclusion.

The moderates see the movement conservatives as reactionary, on the wrong side of history, wild-eyed radicals who don't know what they're doing, ideologues bent on exclusion, incapable of building the future without a strong, interventionist State.

The moderates are misreading the momentum -- they misunderstand the dynamic movement of the liberty-inspired private sphere, and they underestimate the power, ingenuity, diversity and will of the American people. We were never meant to be under the wise guidance of State gurus and managers, and we will resist it. The moderates have obviously never spent enough time in the private sector to understand the amazing connections, cooperation and competition which make this country run -- or to understand individuality, the nuances within different regions, north, south, east and west. The moderates have been immersed in political culture to the point they can't see outside to the complex mechanisms and relationships which surround them.

Political activists might have organized the latest victories, but as the private sphere wakes up politically and moves its energy and attention, which has been absorbed by family, community and private enterprise, to political activism, you'll begin to see what can be achieved by people now disgusted with a government too powerful, to deaf and much too arrogant.

If the moderates don't wake up, they will be left behind.

The Transformation of Sarah Palin

Hardly anyone in recent political history has been excoriated like Sarah Palin has been excoriated during the last two years. I've been reading up on Palin, watching, waiting for the transformation. I sense it coming, and I also think she's receiving guidance -- take it easy, slowly, timing is everything. All good advice.

To the extent this transformation is real and honest, it's a good thing. It won't be a good thing if Republican handlers are molding a political fiction to spring on what the handlers likely think is the Hollywood-minded public. Phony doesn't last long in the internet age as transparency penetrates marketing glitz. All the old marketing types need to retire and let the young breed take over -- keeping it real.

I suspect we'll see a libertarian-leaning new Republican as Palin unfolds. Perhaps the "you betchas" and moose hunting will be gone, and a mature Palin will arise, troubled with the growth of progressivism and war on capitalism. Will Palin be able to explain capitalism and libertarian ideas without sounding like an old Republican defending cronyism and corporate favortism in the name of God, country, American exceptionalism and corny populist themes?

I hope she's getting advice from grownups outside Washington D.C., and the advice is down-to-earth common sense. I hope she's getting a solid education on classical liberalism, and that she realizes if conservativism is to mean anything to a younger generation, it'll have to be presented in a way that challenges them morally, in the sense that statism is immoral, and individual rights are the only thing between freedom and social engineers bent on establishing a powerful state which is antithetical to a prosperous, dynamic, competitive, charitable future.

I hope she is forming a strong resistance to corporate welfare and a vision of the private realm taking its proper role in the future of global trade.

I hope she's maturing spiritually and realizing that religion and faith are private sources of strength and wisdom for many people, but not necessarily for everyone, and the broad spirtitual growth of humankind will take its course without coercion or special interest groups enforcing a certain brand of morality. I hope she's gaining the courage necessary to take a higher road laid out by our founders who saw the evil of tyranny, even if their sight was imperfect and the flaws of human nature prevented them from seeing clearer. We can see clearer, now -- I hope Palin can see.

Freeing liberalism from partisanship and progressivism

This is from Matthew Price's review of Alan Wolfe's book -- The Future of Liberalism:

“A conservative who opposes liberalism’s commitment to the welfare state,” Wolfe argues, “but who gives generously to charity is acting liberally.” His aim is to reassert the tenets of what he calls a “pre-political” liberalism, one that harks back to the buzzing ferment of the Enlightenment. “Liberalism,” Wolfe writes, “tells us not so much what to think but more about how to think,” and he sets out a series of “dispositions” by which we might understand its direction: a sympathy for equality, and an appreciation for openness, debate, pragmatism, reasoned negotiation, tolerance and the art of governance.

For all of these reasons, Wolfe argues, liberalism is the most suitable political doctrine for our times — indeed, he says, liberalism is the political doctrine that most suits modernity itself. (He makes many such sweeping claims.) “It is liberalism’s underlying philosophy,” Wolfe writes, “its understanding of human nature, its respect for both individualism and equality, its discovery of the social, its passion for justice, its preference for experience over theory, its intellectual openness, its commitment to fairness — that offers us the surest path toward individual freedom and a collective sense of purpose.”

While Wolfe goes a long way toward freeing liberalism from enslavement to a political party, he represents the serious liberals I see as conflicted regarding the progressive statist movement. Wolfe embraces the historical liberal principles, but still falls short of denouncing progressives. He does reprimand the far left for its radicalism, but I'm not sure he considers the present administration and much of congress as being connected to that radical movement. Wolfe appears to be content with finding a half-way house between liberalism and progressive statism, but I'm not sure one can be found. At least Wolfe realizes the danger of blindly following the progressive lead, and he realizes the imporatnce of liberalism as a way of thinking, of viewing the world, rather than a political movement.

It appears to me that many more people fall under the true liberal label than are now associated with liberalism. Many of the base conservative thinkers are closer to classical liberal principles than they are conservativism -- the same is true of many moderate conservatives. It seems to me that an easy, loose alliance could be made between conservatives and libertarians and moderate Democrat liberals -- all of whom have been mislabled in one way or another. The commonalities of true liberal thought are wide and deep enough to include the majority of Americans -- we are actually a liberal nation -- we've just had a lot of confusion surrounding the ideas of conservativism and liberalism -- with the former getting mixed up with religion and morality, and the other getting mixed up with central planning and social engineering. I believe the religionist factions and the statist factions are more about power and control than they are reflections of American society.

Outside the battle for government control and power, the majority of Americans are liberal with some conservative elements, in that conservative means not making any major changes that will violate freedoms, shackle the economy and bankrupt the government, or attempts to transform society into something inconsistent with our common values spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, liberty and justice for all, and all that jazz -- but liberality is the defining characteristic. Our culture is a liberal culture, but progressive statism has nothing to do with our liberal culture -- as a matter of fact it is antithetical to our liberal culture, with it's nannyism, illiberality, violation of individual rights, central planning and social engineering. America was founded on liberal values and it's not built for progressive statism or conservative moral control. 

Perhaps this is what the growing independent movement is telling us.

Moderate dishonesty

I've written about this excessively, but it continues to be a major issue in political discourse, and seems to be getting worse, rather then better. The moderate's dishonesy comes mainly in the form of extreme criticism  leveled against Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, Hannity, Levin and the town hall protesters -- and conservatives in general who don't think and believe exactly as the moderates think and believe.

As a libertarian I have plenty of differences with the conservative base, especially on the issues of civil liberty and foreign affairs -- in particular, things like The Patriot Act and the war on terrorism. There is also a religious component to the conservative base which makes me worry about religious/statist tendencies capable of, when given power, controlling the actions of people which is potentially very illiberal. On the abortion issue I'm for allowing society to resolve this problem without federal or state interference.

However, I don't think the current criticism coming from the conservative base regarding progressive policies is extreme or dangerous. The conservative base, aside from libertarian criticism, is the only real resistance to what I see as a dangerous trend in government to grab power, destroy the free market and violate individual rights. What the base has to consider is when they are in power will they realize how damaging statist policies are to freedom, and have they thoroughly refuted Bush's over-reaching when he was in power. I think they have realized that statism is just as bad from the right as the left.

There is no need to "nuance" this, it's a very straightforward problem -- government is grabbing too much power and as a nation of free people we need to stop them. We can argue about policies and societal needs, but it's clear that what our present government is doing goes way beyond strengthening a safety net, and they are not considering private means to accomplish the stated goals. If the government was considering some privatization methods, and some de-regulation of crippling policies, I'd say they are looking at all options, but all we see and hear is more government intervention and regulation, on top of the bad, especially in healthcare -- a new foundation built on progressive schemes which would be a fatal blow to capitalism. 

The moderates have to decide whether they, in fact, favor statism as the new foundation, or whether they are going to forcefully defend free market principles, or even moderation. There is nothing moderate about the progresive movement, and wasting energy attacking the only people who are resisting progressivism seems like a weird way to uphold principles and prevent the destruction of the classical free market principles, and individual rights which have gotten us this far.

The Sarah Palin decision

I'm sure part of Sarah Palin's decision is as she said, because the attacks are beginning to destroy her family. But she knows the attacks won't stop just because she is not governor of Alaska, they will just make it impossible to lead the state and defend herself and her family. Is there some big scandal behind all this? I don't think so.

I think Sarah Palin and her advisers realize that something is changing in this country. The state has become a powerful machine which controls the major media, and in many ways is influencing much of new media. But, before I go into that, which will be another post, I'd like to say that Sarah Palin has a long way to go to develop a well-rounded political understanding to stand against her opponents, both Republican and Democrat attackers. I say "attackers" because that's what this constant barrage of insults, charges, rumors and snarky condescension has become, an all-out attack to destroy her. Objective critics who aren't afraid of her and what she stands for merely criticize her lack of experience, or her tendency to rely on platitudes, then let it go. But her attackers have to obliterate what she stands for. What does she stand for? Like it or not, she stands for the simple ideas of America that most people in this country hold -- freedom, national pride, pursuit of happiness, etc. Most people don't have a deep understanding of political philosophy. This is unfortunate.

But that's not only true of the patriotic right, it's true of the left, for the most part, although the left is more politically active in the form of special interest groups. Most people who consider themselves on the left seem to be as simplistic as the right when it comes to expressing their ideas regarding government intervention, equality, justice, etc. Very few people I encounter in real life or on the internet are very well rounded in their understanding of political philosophy. The populist, patriotic crowd is pretentious and limited and so is the crowd of emotional earth-savers and intellectual poseurs on the left. Each side is under the illusion that our two-party system offers them a route to vindicate their myopic world-views.

I believe Palin and her handlers are making a move outside politcs, the two-party system, to start their movement in an effort to directly appeal to the patriotic right/conservatives (independents?) who are dissatisfied with government. For this to not be an embarrassing disaster for Palin, she will have to broaden her understanding of history, politics, government and the many facets of the private sector as it stands in relationship to a statist government. There's a great opportunity for a charismatic figure to take power directly, outside the political status quo. Although they will have to step outside conservative or liberal roles as they are currently being expressed through government. Roughly half the voting age population is even active enough to vote. Who are the other half and what do they think about politics and government? I'm sure there's a diversity of thought among the non-voters, but many may be people who've simply decided that government is not worth spending much time on -- but, now, things might be different with so many changes coming directly from the government, and with the economy swirling in the crapper.

I might be off base, but even if Palin is not thinking about this strategy, someone ought to -- or some many ought to. We need a major private sector effort to redefine what type of government we want in America. It's time for the American people to wake up and pay attention -- this phony dichotomy between "elites" and "common folk", dancing left and right as if there's a nickel worth of difference between the two parties has run its course.