1hundredsixty8

In the aftermath of last fall’s elections, we have witnessed- in varying degrees, to be sure- a copious amount of both self-examination and external critiques of the Republican Party. Inside and outside the Party, topics such as messaging, appealing to an increasingly diverse population, and finding more appealing candidates have engrossed the political class and the media alike. Lately, the public discussion has focused on the conservative elements of the party, with the lightning rod being CPAC’s (“Conservative Political Action Conference”) decision not to invite two Republican governors, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, to speak at next week’s right-wing soiree. The non-invite of Christie- a Republican who is very popular in traditionally Democratic New Jersey- in particular galled many political realists on the right who openly questioned the commitment of this tranche of the GOPP to winning elections.

Modern conservatism is a fascinating phenomenon. The conservative label has been adopted by a wildly diverse collection of interest groups, some ideological, others single-issue. Crowded together under this umbrella are members of the conservative intelligentsia such as Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Russ Douhat and Reihan Salam, anti-tax warrior Grover Norquist, cartoon characters Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, the anti-government regulation Koch Brothers, libertarians, evangelicals, and the various outrage-fueled tribes of Tea Party Nation. It is no surprise, then, that this is an intrinsically tenuous admixture; it is only amazing that it has endured this long. 

These fissures on the right-side of the Republican Party are one of several sources of the widening cracks in the Party writ large. As a simplified example, consider the tension between “small government” conservatives of libertarian bent and “social” conservatives who are disposed to a government used as a tool to intrude into women’s health issues. It is difficult to find unifying philosophies among the different strains of conservatism, or even a common body of knowledge. It does not stretch credulity to imagine there are Christian conservatives with no knowledge of Edmund Burke, or Tea Partiers who could not differentiate the ideas of Milton Friedman from those of Milton Berle. In searching for a common characteristic, one might say that all these “conservatives” share a vague sense of dissatisfaction, ranging from unhappiness to outright anger. The optimism that colored the traditional American conservatism of Robert Taft, and was propelled forward in the last half of the 20^th Century by William F. Buckley, has given way to naked fear-mongering and dire warnings about the perditions of liberals.

Here is the problem: The dysfunction and discord among Republicans has rendered them too impotent for governance. The exigencies of electoral politics compel Republican candidates to pander to the coarsest fringes of the party and, once in office, to eschew compromise with Democrats. For our governing institutions to work, they must literally- to borrow from conservative doctrine- function as a free market of competing ideas. In our two-party tradition, Republicans and Democrats must counter-balance each other. When one party is ascendant, the other must present realistic alternatives.Together, they must govern.

Indulge my nostalgia, but there was once integrity to American conservatism that has vanished. William Buckley rejected the lunacy of the John Birch Society; CPAC invites Donald Trump as a featured speaker