State of the Conservative Coalition
So much happening, so much to talk about, and where to begin?
Prediction: Future historians of American politics will identify the re-election of George W. Bush as the beginning of the decline of conservative dominance in this country. My conclusion is based on political events that have occurred since the 2004 election, right up to the present. Our first task is to identify who voted to re-elect President Bush. Recall the famous exit-poll question on election day that asked about the importance of "moral values". Kerry scored less than 20% with those voters who listed "moral values" as their top electoral priority. Of course we're all familiar with the Christian evangelicals who compose Bush's electoral base. Arguably they did hand him the victory. They are also a minority in the United States, and furthermore, a minority of that group are extremists. The important thing to recognize about these extremists--compared with those present in any society, at any time--is that they are organized, well-funded, and can draw upon a base of dedicated followers when necessary. It was these people the press was referring to when they declared the Bush re-election a "mandate".
Does the GOP reflect the values and ambitions of these religious extremists? It might seem that way now, but the reality is that the GOP reflects the leadership of the party, not necessarily the views of so-called rank and file Republicans who, I suspect along with their Democrat counterparts, are moderate and believe in the legitimacy of American constitutionalism. I've referred to legitimacy before, and it continues to be relevant to any discussion of extremism: politicized extremists are dissatisified with the state because they consider it illegitimate. What has happened to the GOP over the last 40 years has been a marriage between two types of people, Libertarians and the conservative movement. Broadly speaking, the former are interested in personal and (perhaps more important) economic liberty, whereas the latter are interested in government-mandated (there's that word again) morality of a particular sort. The only reason these two groups of people were able to unite was through their common perception of a threat from 1960s and 70s "liberals": either as a challenge to business capitalism or as a threat to their moral values. The business class were already part of the GOP so it was the social conservatives--Barry Goldwater's followers--who needed to become organized, and hence, politicized. My opinion is that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was the event which both politicized the conservative movement and motivated wealthy sympathizers to provide the seed money to now-influential foundations and think tanks that over the next 30 years produced the conservative movement we see reflected today in the Republican leadership of Bush, DeLay, and Frist.
That was the history. Here is the present. Emboldened by their real grip on government and their imaginary mandate, conservative Republican leadership has picked up where Goldwater left off, in his failed effort to dismantle the so-called welfare state. Goldwater was explicit about the aims of his movement and lost spectacularly against the moderately progressive Johnson. Ironically, after decades of patiently building their movement in the framework of a long term, comprehensive electoral strategy, conservatives still cannot openly attack the welfare state their despise. Witness how rapidly the word "privatize" disapeared from proponents of Bush's "plan" to "save" Social Security. Ever the masters at wordplay, Republican strategists recognized very quickly that the word "privatize" is about as popular as "welfare" with the American people. But their efforts to mold public opinion in their favor have failed, with opinion polls on the matter showing a steady decline over the last three months. It would seem that there is not any mandate at all but rather a desire to force a specific economic worldview--Libertarianism--into the public consciousness. Some credit is also due to the magical ability of certain Democrats to spontaneously regenerate spinal nerve tissue on this issue. I would point to Senate Minority Leader Reid, Chairman Dean, Senator Boxer and a handful of others who have (hopefully) demonstrated what it means to be an opposition party.
Far more disturbing than the faith of the privatizer is that of the religious extremists who have become inseparable from GOP leadership. The melodrama, exploitation and opportunism Republican leadership has demonstrated over the current Schiavo case is utterly repugnant to my eyes, and would be even more so if I didn't already expect it from them. It also lays bare the true motives, objectives and desires of politicized religious extremism which cannot possibly be compromised in secular society. Tom DeLay, the most offensive politician to ever hold public office in this country, says bluntly what we all knew...aw, just read it for yourself:
"It is more than just Terri Schiavo. This is a critical issue for people in this position, and it is also a critical issue to fight that fight for life, whether it be euthanasia or abortion. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo to elevate the visibility of what's going on in America. That Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death for two weeks. I mean, in America that's going to happen if we don't win this fight."And so it's bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position, and let me just finish with this:
"This is exactly the kind of issue that's going on in America, that attacks against the conservative moment, against me and against many others. The point is, the other side has figured out how to win and to defeat the conservative movement, and that is to go after people personally, charge them with frivolous charges, link up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to destroy the conservative movement. It is to destroy conservative leaders, and not just in elected office, but leading. I mean, Ed Feulner, of the Heritage Foundation today was under attack in the National Journal. This is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in. And you need to look at this, and what's going on and participate in fighting back.
"You know, one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldn't get in politics or you're going to lose your tax-exempt status, because they were all opposed to him when he was running for President. That law we're trying to repeal. It's very difficult to do that, but the point is, when they can knock out a leader, then no other leader will step forward for a while, because they don't want to go through the same thing. If they go after and get a pastor, then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church. That's what's going on in America. The world is too bad and I'm going to get inside this building and I'm not going to play in the world. That's not what Christ asked us to do.
"And so they understand that. It is a political maneuver, and they are going to try to destroy the conservative movement, and we have to fight back, so please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator, give them a call. They'll say our bill can pass in the House. Tell them, okay, your bill is fine, but the House bill is better, and I want the House bill. Particularly if you know Democrats. Don't let them get off the hook by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass."
Echoing the party platform of his home state, DeLay is recommending (at least semi-privately with an audience of the faithful) the creation of a Christian nation at the demise of what we currently possess. Before I discuss whether this is really a threat, think for a moment what is being advocated. DeLay clearly views the legacy of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson as contributing to an illegitimate America. Not only is it economically corrupt, but morally, too. DeLay is calling for Christians to be political activists, but how far are they willing to go to achieve their objectives? Thus far the rules of all three branches of government have been bent and broken but despite the paranoia of some on the political Left the US Constitution remains intact. The Schiavo case gives us a glimpse into how far mobilized and politicized religious extremists might be willing to go to impose their minority belief on individual people, as well as on the general population as a whole.
But is this a threat to constitutional society? Aren't these extremist views held by a distinct minority of people? Haven't polls shown little public support for it? The answer is 'yes' to all three questions, and here is why. If you believe that your country has been chosen to be God's kingdom, and despite the efforts of a sypathetic President and Congress you still think your morality is being challenged by society, how do you react? What sort of message does it send you when your president drops everything, flies from his ranch back to Washington DC while Congress convenes an emergency meeting to use the power of the federal government to usurp the authority of the state courts to intervene in ONE family's personal affairs? It empowers you. It inspires you to mobilize and protest. It emboldens you get a posse together to save this woman. It is as if the hope of your faith turns upon the outcome of this event. It is confirmation that society is immoral and corrupt and it must be destroyed in order to be saved. Readers, it doesn't matter if there are 5 of these people or thousands: they are a threat. They feel their time has come. And they want society to change (I prefer the word devolve) to acclimate to their particular worldview. This is why some Imax theaters are refusing to show science movies that even mention the world "evolution" or even refer to the existence of dinosaurs. These people are a threat to the rule of law, the spirit of inquiry and science and, ultimately, democracy.
I began this post with a prediction, waded through some unpleasantness, and will end with optimism. The extremist component of the Republican majority are getting impatient. they put the full weight of their ideological and organizational support behind re-electing George W. Bush and the time is coming, perhaps not now but soon, when they will want to collect. If they do not see their moral values becoming law then one of two things will happen. If they stay with the Republican party they will continue supporting more radical candidates which will make the socially moderate wing uncomfortable. The second scenario sees a mass exodus (word choice deliberate) of this faction from the Republican party, perhaps to form a third party or perhaps to change the world using methods that abandon the political process altogether. In either case, the Republicans will have lost their majority. This is the nature of political coalitions: they are formed with fault lines already in place. If the Democratic party wishes to capitalize on this (I think) inevitable dissolution, they need to have an attractive platform to gather the moderate refugees of the disintegrating Republican majority. But that is a discussion for another time.
I am committed to living in civil society, where the state has a monopoly on violence, law is enforced by a transparant court system and political leaders are accountable to nothing but the public interest. The Republican leadership today stands for none of these things. I suspect that most Americans do. While this intellectual exercise of identifying weaknesses in the current regime is useful, we must remain vigilant of the forces that gave them power.