Conservatism is under attack in America, its precepts being pulled out from under it by the very same people who claim to uphold its tenets. Republicans, buoyed by Bush’s victory over Sen. Kerry in November, would seem to be in an excellent position to improve the GOP’s hold over the reigns of our federal government.
However, looming battles surrounding the very core of what it means to be a conservative threaten this fragile alliance’s stability, opening up the possibility for this recently conceived majority to prove stillborn. If the Republicans wish to maintain the power they have been granted by the citizens of this nation, they must maintain, both in practice and in preaching, a big tent party.
Zealous Christians, whose belief in evangelism is deeply held and of primary importance toward their identities, no doubt feel a perhaps well-earned sense of entitlement over the recent Republican electoral victories.
Nevertheless, this has had the alarming effect of threatening to ostracize both the libertarian and the moderate wings of the GOP. By effectively hijacking much of the leadership of the Republican Party, these primarily social conservatives threaten to betray much of the political philosophy espoused by conservatives over much of the recent past.
The Republican Party since Ronald Reagan has been, in a very simplistic and generalized description, comprised of mainly a coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives generally include devoutly Christian people, as alluded to above, the source of the theory behind their politics stemming from those of a more Christian neo-Platonic bent, perhaps along the lines of Leo Strauss, perhaps along the lines of St. Augustine. Fiscal conservatives, however, are more likely to find their philosophical basis in the political theories of Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick or more famously the neo-Nietzschian Ayn Rand. Of course, to every supposed rule there are obligatory exceptions, but the general theory is sound, so long as it is appreciated merely as such.
These differences are far greater than skin deep — not all Republicans are alike, and any argument to the contrary is as false as the accusation that all Democrats are alike. Just ask Democrats who like Joe Lieberman how much they appreciate Michael Moore, and you’ll get the idea of how disparate and non-homogenous the factions that run our nation truly are.
Perhaps ironically, or perhaps due to fate, just as the Democrats are facing a bit of a “spiritual crisis” following their recent defeats, so too are the Republicans following their recent victories.
Alliances are formed upon common ground, and for much of the past 20 years, conservatives could all claim a commitment to federalism, smaller government, low taxes and an aggressive, decisive foreign policy based on a respect for natural and inalienable human rights. Again, exceptions abound, but the general rule stands. However, in light of recent events as well as complacency with holding power, this tenuous bond is being threatened. For much of the past election season, many moderate or libertarian Republicans were willing to turn a blind eye to certain kinks in the armor of the GOP-controlled government’s policies. With Bush’s victory secured, such willful negligence is beginning to fade, only to be displaced with dismay at the betrayal of these points of agreement held by conservatives, social and fiscal alike.
Take the bloated federal budget. If anything, George Bush’s domestic legacy, barring success in reforming Social Security or a major overhaul of the overly complex and burdening tax code, will be the return of big government Republicanism. Conservatives are supposed to make government smaller, not bigger, but having passed and advocated his prescription drug plan, Bush has imposed yet another massive entitlement upon the increasingly stressed taxpayer. Cutting taxes is generally always a good thing — coupled with decreases in spending. Instead, Bush has simply traded current debt for political capital. His legacy as a fiscal conservative, sadly, will largely be relegated to the tax cuts of his first term and likely to be forgotten in the grand scheme of history.
Take the Terri Schiavo affair. Much (likely too much) has been said over whether or not she ought to have been fed or not, but regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, the U.S. Congress had no place in acting in any substantial capacity. A resolution supporting Terri’s “right-to-life” would have been one thing, a comforting gesture by a sympathetic party toward a large group of its constituency who felt passionately about her fate. Instead, congressional Republicans did what they felt was right, rather than following the rules. Strange, considering that traditionally this has been precisely the charge leveled against liberals by conservatives.
Not so strange, however, given the increasing “Christianization” of conservative politicians.
The GOP is treading dangerous water, risking its majority status to appease the demands of a minority of its party. Continuing along this path will destine a sorry future for what could be a great time for the reformation of the federal government, top to bottom. Instead, conservatism is being supplanted by Christianity as the primary tenets of the Republican Party — a move that will no doubt lead toward Democratic victory where it shouldn’t otherwise, leading toward a worse state of affairs than a more moderate GOP could provide.
If Republicans are serious about maintaining their majority, they will have to reassure the more moderate members of their party that they are indeed still welcome. A party of social conservatives will not be able to stand on its own.
Zach Stern ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science.
