The Principles of the Past

In celebrating Independence Day, E.J. Dionne questions the desire of many to base their policy choices on some notion of the "'original' intentions of the Founders." Writing in the Washington Post, he argues that too many people (presumably conservatives) rely upon their modern understanding of history, as a snapshot, to argue for certain policies, rather than acting as "we the people" best see fit today. He criticizes American historicism by writing:

[I]t is dangerous to turn the Founders into quasi-religious prophets who produced a text more like the Bible or the Talmud. It’s neither. It is a governing document that was the product of compromises and arguments....

We do a disservice to ourselves and the Founders alike if we take them out of history and demand that they settle arguments that we ought to settle on our own.

The Founders, after all, were not timid men bound by the past. They did something bold and adventurous. In creating a novel form of government, they were thinking and acting anew.

While Dionne eventually goes too far by essentially stripping the Constitution of any real meaning and advocating for an expansive government than can do anything the people (one can only assume he means a crude mass of majoritarian democracy) want, he does raise a valid point about the Right's overemphasis of a historical moment and the great men that shaped the country at that time. Indeed, while it is necessary to learn from history, it is not the past but the principles of the proper role of government that we must rely upon to shape policy.

The problems with an overly heavy reliance on the Founders' "vision" are manifold. First, it is unthinking. On a basic level, it ignores the nuances of policy debates and circumstances during the founding of our country. As any basic reading of the founding of the United States will reveal, many of the Founders had different beliefs. However, on a deeper level, such backward-looking reliance creates a situation where blanket ideas are deified without any understanding of why they are appropriate or how they properly function. This leaves proponents of constitutionalism stultified, unable to defend their perspectives with anything but the simplistic, "This is what the Founders established for us."

A related problem, is that this perspective handicaps the propagation of a constitutionalist ideology. There is minimal debate in public circles about the proper role of government. The Left has defined, as Dionne unquestionably advocates, a activist model of government as the solution-finder extraordinaire. Many on the Right have an enfeebled response of "small government because the Founders said so"—an argument that, as popular discourse shows, carries little sway.

Furthermore, the reliance on the historical argument for limited government has crowded-out the intellectual and philosophical one. Not only does a historical justification fly against the impetus behind the founding of this country, which was forward looking, but it severely encumbers the more proper, strong, and justifiable arguments. This often prevents the Right from meaningfully presenting solutions to very modern problems (whether in the government or within other, often waning, institutions), a situation that diminishes the force of the Right's arguments.

This can lead to a number of dead ends for proponents of limited government. In one regard it can devolve into a fight, relegated to the historians and irrelevant to most Americans, over history. Worse it can create a perception of a divide between the "thinking intellectuals" who are forward-looking and the reactionaries who do not want to address modern problems. Whether this classification is fair or not is irrelevant—it is unfortunately a powerful mainstream belief. (Why are the halls of higher learning, media, and many youth so pulled by the progressive ideology?) By de-intellectualizing the founding principles of the United States, the Right has allowed the progressive ideology, with its concomitant view of an expansive role of government, to dominate the realm of solutions.

Such an argument does mean dismissing the past. There are many lessons to be learned from history. The Founders clearly designed a great system and helped elucidate a number of profound principles that form the basis of our government. But they, knowingly, were unable to foresee everything that the future could hold. Instead, as the Founders themselves did, the Right must guide its policies on principles. It must reinvigorate the intellectual arguments that underpin classical liberalism (eg. the political philosophy of modern conservatives). While these principles may have historical roots, they are not themselves history but are timeless. The forward-looking application of the principles of limited constitutional government can serve as a worthy challenge to the progressive ideology that has become dominant, thus not only helping to shape the form and nature of our government but winning support from swathes of society that have been deemed lost.

Grabbing the Center

Elections are won and lost in the center. So seems to be an increasingly vocalized mantra from some of the more sensible on the right. The argument is fairly simple: while America is generally a center-right country, a large number eschew extreme candidates, whether on the far left or right. The politician that can successfully grab the middle stands to win the election.

Some conservatives, though, have long been arguing against this perspective, claiming instead that a more "pure" (read: further right) candidate is needed. But this logic fails. The far-right will vote for a moderate conservative over the leftist Obama, and, given their intense dislike of the incumbent, will undoubtedly head to the polls for Mitt Romney rather than seeing the president re-elected.

The independents, those who voted for Obama three years ago and are now sorely disappointed, will be more hesitant to vote for what appears to be an extreme GOP candidate, than a more moderate one, like Romney. Since, these are the powerful swing voters, their apprehension could be disastrous, giving Obama yet another four years.

Karl Rove, architect of the Bush Jr. campaigns, seems to agree. He has argued that a successful candidate needs to draw votes from both the left and the right and be representative of all of America. This is the strategy that worked for the "Big-Tent" Republicanism of Ronald Reagan, who created an entire new group of Democrats - the Reagan Democrats.

In the Wall Street Journal, syndicated radio show host Michael Medved provides a powerful argument to this effect.  He concludes:

In short, the electoral experience of the last 50 years does nothing to undermine the common-sense notion that most political battles are won by seizing and holding the ideological center. In the last two presidential elections, more than 44% of voters described themselves as "moderate," and no conservative candidate could possibly prevail without coming close to winning half of them (as George W. Bush did in his re-election). 

The notion that ideologically pure conservative candidates can win by disregarding centrists and magically producing previously undiscovered legions of true-believer voters remains a fantasy. It is not a strategy. At the moment, it is easy to imagine Mitt Romney appealing to many citizens who would never consider Rick Perry or Herman Cain. It is much harder (if not impossible) to describe the sort of voter—Republican, Democrat or independent—who would refuse to support Mr. Romney (over Barack Obama!) but would somehow eagerly back Messrs. Perry, Cain or Gingrich, let alone Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Conservatives, as well as their moderate and progressive neighbors, may have plenty of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney in favor of some rival candidate. Electability can't reasonably count as one of them.

Ideology certainly has its place, but those that are truly committed to correcting the misguided course this nation is on must be careful not to be blinded to their own detriment. Democracy is fundamentally about compromise, even if a compromise is worse than some alternative "pure" option. If the Republicans want a seat at the table, if they want to be able to influence the direction of the country, they must be politically smart as well.

Dying Gasps of American Liberalism?

Modern American liberalism is far from dead - there are still far too many willing to blindly accept its maxims whole cloth.  Nevertheless, a recent speech by Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison clearly displays the intellectual turmoil that is undermining the far left's worldview and reveals that even the stalwarts may be choking for air.

In a speech at the Campus Progress National Conference (see video below at 16:30), Ellison accuses conservatives of "want[ing] mom to get back in the kitchen, and take her shoes off, and get pregnant....  [Conservatives] are offended by a strong, powerful women [sic]."  Ellison's desire to harp on such tired and outmoded rhetoric speaks volumes about the left's waning star.

The unavoidable fact is that today's conservatism undeniably does not ascribe to such sexist notions.  The left, however, needs to drum-up conflicts between women and men (just like between races) because its intellectual foundations are firmly rooted in such assumptions.  Modern American liberalism views the world through a lens of conflict between the powerful (who are morally culpable in their mind) and the oppressed. 

But as progress has demonstrated, the old-fashioned view of the world as a battle between underdog and "overdog" has been proven false.  Because of this, nothing is more threatening to the far left than a successful conservative women (or minority), who simply by existing not only disproves the powerful-oppressed dichotomy but soundly rejects leftist ideology.

As Ellison demonstrates, this leads the most ideologically-blinded liberal through severe cognitive contortions in order to maintain their long-held but misguided beliefs.  Ellison concludes his argument by stating, "And here is the sad part, some of them are women themselves - Michele Bachmann being an example."  There is nothing more laughable than arguing that strong, empowered, confident and successful, conservative women have achieved so much (and daresay are running for president) in order to put themselves "back in the kitchen".

Such statements should be easily dismissed except for the fact that they shed so much light on the state of the far left.  The movement, which had its shining moment some four decades ago, struggles to maintain relevance by consistently reinventing bogeymen.  After defeating a number of entrenched enemies (sexism and racism) in the 1960s, they are compelled to deny their own successes in order to justify their continued existence.  Such thinking is backwards and detrimental and the likes of Ellison should be embarrassed; not so much for the lunacy of this argument but for the fact that it nakedly displays the bankruptcy of their ideology.

Palin Resigned to Fail?

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s recent resignation is mind boggling to say the least. Every sign since she stumbled onto the national scene last fall indicated that she was gearing up for a 2012 presidential run. If there was a modern day political truism, it was that Sarah had her heart set on making Todd Palin the first ‘first gentleman’. Her resignation has thrown every understanding of her into a tailspin.

One possibility is that she is simply fed up. The daily stresses that she and her family go through could have reached a breaking point. Whether it was her ethics issues in Alaska, the constant haranguing from the media, her daughter’s pregnancy, or any other of the many issues, the private life may have simply become the priority. While this is seemingly the only ‘logical’ explanation it does not jive with her expressed and highly visible desire for the presidency. It also does not mesh with the fact that she refuses to rule out a presidential run.

However, the converse is equally implausible. If she does plan on running for president, resigning from the governorship is about the most bone-headed thing she can do. It is one thing to choose not to run for reelection in order to focus on an election campaign. Many governors, including Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, have done this. It is quite another thing to quit a lame-duck position. The bottom line is that such a move is a surefire way to sink a potential campaign. It shows she lacks commitment and drive, and has her priorities out of sorts.

Regardless of what the motivation for her resignation was, it is reasonably safe to say that Palin’s political future looks dim. While we may not have seen the last of her, her position is severely diminished. This is a most fortunate event for the Republican Party. Palin was the biggest mistake of McCain’s campaign, ultimately costing him the election. While her anti-intellectualism and populism may stir a small, but vocal, part of the base; she is unappealing to many in the traditional Republican base [fiscal conservatives, security conservatives, etc.] and certainly to the independents that are needed to elect a Republican president.

The flirtation with the Palin wing of the party has done more than enough damage to the image and platform of the Republican Party. Her imminent demise is nothing short of a blessing to free us from her anti-intellectual shackles. Hopefully the GOP leadership will realize that the party must return to the big-tent party of Reagan. While many ‘Palinites’ talk in Reaganesque terms, the party is becoming the antithesis of what Reagan built. With Palin (hopefully) removed from the limelight, the party will be able to correct its image, develop new leadership, and reassert its position as the intellectual and policy leader of America.