Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Sunday, December 6, 2015

A Political Journey

We throw the words "liberal" and "conservative" around a lot in political discussion, generally as an insult toward someone of the opposing persuasion.    However, what do they really mean?   I will offer my own story as an example of how subjective our understanding of the terms can be.  

Early Years

I come from Mid-Western stock.   My parents modeled and tried to pass on to us beliefs in hard work, education and personal responsibility.    They have been married for sixty years, raised three children and remain active in their church.   My parents were the first members of their families to go to college.   They held traditional jobs.  My father worked for a defense contractor for thirty years before pursuing a second career in retirement.  My mother was a teacher before I was born and returned to that profession after raising three boys.   My parents were frugal to a fault.   Our clothes were purchased at discount stores and our meals were home cooked.    Vacations consisted of going to church camp or taking long car trips to educational destinations.   

Despite this wealth of good examples, my initial political leanings came down to a single political ad during the race between Richard Nixon and George McGovern.   The Nixon ad cleverly showed a bunch of toy soldiers being knocked off a board.   The message was that if you voted for the peacenik McGovern, national defense and people who worked there would suffer.   In my eleven year old mind, a win by McGovern meant my father would be unemployed.   Then there was that whole conspiracy the liberal media called Watergate, but that's a story for another day.

High School

Fast forward seven years.   I was working hard in school and making good grades once I was finally eligible to take advanced placement courses.  I had a job sacking groceries beginning after my junior year.   Because my parents had taught me that you should never expect anything from anyone else, about 80% of my earnings went into my college fund and I had the princely sum of $10 per week for personal stuff (although you could buy a ticket to a rock concert for $7.50 back then).  While my co-workers all had cars, I walked to work until my parents got concerned about me walking home late and night and allowed to drive the family station wagon.    I was a National Merit Scholar but schools were not beating the doors down to recruit me or offer me aid.  My parents explained that because I was neither a minority or poor, I should not expect anything.    Eventually I found a school that offered me $1,000 per year (about 25% of the total ride) as a National Merit Scholar.   I had no thoughts of attending an Ivy League school because I knew we could not afford it and I was beginning to develop an attitude about the spoiled liberals on the East Coast.   

College

I was a political science major and a co-founder of the College Republicans at my school.   I was campus coordinator for George H.W. Bush who impressed me as having an impressive resume and being dedicated to good government.    Ronald Reagan scared me as an anti-Communist fanatic who would likely drag us into World War III but I liked his line that government was the problem, not the solution.   I would be working in a few years and did not want the government taking any more out of my paycheck than necessary.     Like a good Republican, I supported Reagan when he got the nomination.   I also supported our local Republican candidates who succeeded in ousting a handful of Democrats who were more conservative than they were.   In my mind, they were good government Republicans.   

During those days, I favored both personal freedom and limited government.   My initial belief was that the government had no business telling a woman whether to have an abortion or not.   However, I changed my mind after reading some feminist authors who argued that abortion was something forced on women by men who did not want to support their children.   My original start as a pro-lifer was not strongly influenced by religion.    I was a tepid Lutheran and we just didn't talk about nasty things like abortion.   Instead, I was influenced more by a view of personal responsibility, that if a couple created a child, they should take responsibility for it rather than seeking the easy way out through an abortion.   I'm not saying these beliefs were consistent.   I had very little sympathy for Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.   They were mostly Baptists and their brand of religiously inspired politics struck me as a bit nutty.   After all, they thought there was a religious mandate to abolish the Department of Education.   What did religion have to do with education?

The George W Bush Years

After college and Law School, I remained active in Republican politics.  I was asked to run for precinct chair by the religious conservatives.    I was a delegate to several state conventions.  I worked to get George W. Bush elected president.    I thought W would be great.   He had vanquished the foul-mouthed Ann Richards from the Governor's office and was going to go to Washington and talk some Texas common sense to the Eastern phonies.    I thought that W demolished Al Gore in the debates.

I would become deeply disenchanted with the Republican Party during the years 2000-2008.   First, the religious conservatives became obsessed with abortion as a litmus test.    I witnessed U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison being booed at the Republican State Convention for being a "pro-bort" because she was only 90% pro-life.   In 2003, we invaded Iraq.  I initially thought it was necessary because Saddam's weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the region.  Instead, what we got were no weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib and Sunni and Shiite militias fighting against the troops that had come to liberate them.   In 2005, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.   It made bankruptcy much more complicated without offering any corresponding benefits.   It created a whole class of people who were too broke to file bankruptcy and couldn't file on their own because of all the traps built into the legislation.    Finally, throughout his terms, W tried to pass immigration reform only to be thwarted by his own party.   Immigration reform was important to me because it aligned with both my view of this nation as a land of immigrants, my economic belief in the laws of supply and demand and my personal views of Christian charity.   The recession of 2008 convinced me that Republicans were more interested in supporting big banks than helping the American people.

Two Election Cycles as an Independent

By 2008, I decided that I had had enough with the Republican Party and would consider myself an independent from that point on.    I voted for John McCain in 2008 because a felt that a free-thinking Republican who had extensive knowledge of government and had served honorably in the military would be better than a young candidate with a great personal story but little experience who might turn out to have some really dangerous ideas.   Four years later, I voted for Obama because bin Laden was dead and Chrysler and GM were alive and because he hadn't done most of the bad things I had feared that he might do.  I also did not appreciate all of the BS lying about his citizenship and his religion.   I don't like people who make up nasty slander and there was a lot of it going on.   On top of that, Romney was an out of touch plutocrat who renounced all of his prior views to get the nomination.  

Today

This year, I decided that I would no longer oppose gay marriage or first trimester abortions.   On gay marriage, I decided that it did not hurt me if two people who were of the same sex received government sanction for their union.   If it didn't hurt me and it made their lives better, then why not?   Allowing civil gay marriage does not require any church to perform a gay marriage.   Also, I seriously doubt that God is going to wreak vengeance on us for allowing gay marriage when He has not destroyed us for all the other nasty things that we do to hurt each other.    When it comes to abortion, the videos that were released this summer purporting to show Planned Parenthood selling baby parts and the subsequent shooting of a Planned Parenthood clinic convinced me that the pro-life movement is insane.  They profess so much concern about the unborn but they oppose any efforts to support those who are alive.   They support unborn life but cheer enthusiastically when the criminal justice system executes the innocent or when police officers break the law to kill and abuse the citizenry.   I will be happy to reconsider my position on first term abortions when the pro-life movement shows that they are capable of being honest and care about people after they are born.  

Definition of Conservatism

That has been a long journey.   Does it make a liberal, a conservative, none of the above?   Let's look at what the terms mean.    According to Merriam-Webster, conservative means:

1 :  preservative
 
2
a :  of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
b capitalized :  of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as
(1) :  of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) :  progressive conservative
 
3
a :  tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions :  traditional
b :  marked by moderation or caution conservative
estimate>
c :  marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
 
4:  of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism 
 
Throwing out the last definition, which is not very helpful, conservatives tend to favor supporting existing institutions and acting with moderation or caution.    To this, I would add favoring limited government and individual freedom.
 
Thus, a traditional conservative would support entities such as the church, the army, law enforcement, marriage and the traditional family and private business and would oppose expanding the role of government. A traditional conservative would support individual integrity and responsibility as well as a larger responsibility to society.    A traditional conservative would also act with moderation and caution.   

The biggest thing that I see lacking in modern conservativism is any sense of moderation and caution.  That is what initially drew me to George H.W. Bush.   The interesting thing about Ronald Reagan is that he built up national defense and confronted the Soviet Union but the only country he invaded was Grenada (and maybe Panama).    He knew the importance of projecting international power as well as the importance of using it sparingly.   George W. Bush, on the other hand, was all too ready to jump into two wars without having a well thought out plan.    That was not conservative. 

I also see today's Republicans as breaking with the narrative of supporting personal integrity and responsibility and the noblesse oblige to society at large.   Today's Republican party focuses on a radical view of Christianity that is devoted almost entirely to enforcing a code of personal morality and has little love of neighbor.    The willingness of Republicans to lie and to break the law is deeply unconservative.  While Democrats, particularly in Chicago, are good at the corruption game, Texas has an Attorney General who is likely to go to jail for securities fraud.   How conservative is that?  Today's Republican party echoes Gordon Gekko in saying greed is good.   They may talk a good game about saving the middle class but in practice all they ever propose is tax cuts that will never trickle down far enough.   

Definition of Liberal

What is the meaning of liberal?    According to Merriam-Webster:

1
a :  of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
b archaic :  of or befitting a man of free birth
 
2
a :  marked by generosity :  openhanded liberal
giver>
b :  given or provided in a generous and openhanded way liberal
meal>
c :  ample, full
 
3   obsolete :  lacking moral restraint :  licentious
 
4 :  not literal or strict :  loose liberal
translation>
 
5:  broad-minded; especially :  not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
 
6
a :  of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized :  of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :  of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives 
 
This shows the dangers of relying on definitions.   The parts they got right were generosity, particularly if government is the engine of generosity and not being bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy or traditional form.   However, that is not the full picture.    Liberals believe in change, they have less respect for traditional institutions and they believe in the power of government to achieve a greater equality of result, or to provide a minimum level of support for all people.
 
Liberals are not afraid of bold, transformative action, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Works Progress Administration and the Voting Rights Act.   They have much less respect for tradition in values.    Their biggest weakness is that their solution to nearly every problem is another government program.     Bernie Sanders' promise of free public college for all is typical of the liberal view.    My conservative friends are quite right that liberals are willing to bend the Constitution when it suits their needs, this being a subset of not being bound by tradition.    

Who I Am?  A Lutheran I Hope

I am not sure where I really fall these days, other than I know that I am not Republican.  However, a lot of what I believe is influenced by my religion.  I am a Lutheran which means that we originated as a reform movement.   While we haven't done much that is radical in the last 500 years, it is still in our blood.  I am strongly moved by the verses in the Bible which speak of love of neighbor.   I do not see the Bible as imposing a personal code with regard to sex while taking a hands off approach to everything else that we do.   I strongly believe that if you cannot love your neighbor who you have seen, you cannot love God whom you have not seen.   The obligation to love your neighbor does not necessarily mean adopting a government program for every need.   However, it certainly does not equate to social darwinism either.    I may not be a very good Christian, but I do try to let it influence my thinking.  



Sunday, November 24, 2013

Will the Republican Coalition Hold?

Two Coalitions Composed of Many Factions

Except for George Washington's first term and the Era of Good Feelings (from 1816-1824), this country’s government has been organized around political parties, and in particular, a two-party political system.    However, these parties are actually coalitions of groups and interests.  In practice, what we have is a multi-party system in which the candidates are winnowed down to two in party primaries and those candidates compete for support from a considerable bloc of independent voters.  When a party's coalition can no longer hold together, the party splits or fades away.    We have seen this before when the Democrat-Republican Party divided into the Democrats and the Whigs and the Federalist Party went away and when the Whigs gave way to the Republicans.   We have also seen new coalitions arise when one party picks off groups that previously supported the other party.   This happened in the 1930s when Franklin Roosevelt built a coalition based on white Southerners, blacks, Jews, ethnic Catholics, organized labor, urban machines, progressive intellectuals and populist farmers.    This coalition largely stayed in place until 1980 when Ronald Reagan built a coalition based around the Southern, Midwestern and Western states which included many of the ethnic Catholics and farmers who had previously supported the Democratic Party and evangelical Christians who had largely been apolitical before.

The Republican Coalition
 
Since 1980, the Republican coalition has evolved into a grouping of ideologies.    The oldest of these is the pro-business faction which dates back to the late 1800s and is characterized by Calvin Coolidge's pronouncement that "the business of America is business."    The pro-business faction favors limited government regulation of business, but favors government assistance to business and an aggressive foreign policy.  George W. Bush's TARP program is a good example of a pro-business Republican policy.   The pro-business group is also known as the establishment Republicans and includes a belief in good government.    A second strain of Republican ideology is social conservatism.   This group was energized by the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade which mandated abortion on demand.    This group is also motivated by opposition to homosexuality and a desire to return this country to an overt emphasis on Christian values (just not the parts having to do with social justice).   The third major strain is the anti-government, anti-elite faction exemplified by the Tea Party.   In some ways, this group is a throwback to the Anti-Masonic Party of the early 1800s which believed that the Freemasons were a shadowy conspiracy to enslave the country.    The Tea Party opposes most government programs, favors reduction in taxes and opposes American involvement in foreign countries. The Second Amendment/militia movement which believes that Americans need to arm themselves to defend against an oppressive government is part of this strain.   These three ideologies come together on some issues but diverge on others.   For example, both the pro-business and social conservative factions are perfectly willing to employ government to advance their agendas while the anti-government group almost uniformly wants less government (so long as you don't touch their Social Security). 

The Democrat Coalition
  
The Democrat coalition is much more of an assortment of interest groups organized around the general belief that government can improve the position of their group.   The Democrat coalition includes racial and ethnic minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Asians), the remnants of organized labor, unmarried women (who supported President Obama by a 39 point margin in 2012), the LGBT community, certain religious groups (liberal Catholics and Protestants and Jews) and urban dwellers.    It is worth noting that in extremely red Texas, President Obama carried four of the five largest counties (Dallas, Harris, Bexar and Travis, although in fairness, Harris County was essentially a tie).    Hispanics and the LGBT community are examples of groups which, like evangelical Christians, were not previously engaged in prior years.    Because Democrats are composed of disparate interest groups, they frequently fight amongst themselves.   For example, organized labor has traditionally opposed immigration reform while Hispanics and liberal Christian groups have favored it.  

Will the Republican Coalition Hold Together?
 
I wonder whether the Republican coalition will hold, and if not, what will take its place.   In the 1980s, I used to hear the refrain, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me."   These days I am hearing that refrain more and more from ex-Republicans (including myself).   In my opinion, a coalition can only hold so long as its members are willing to accommodate their disparate views. Blacks, Hispanics and organized labor are all competitors within the Democrat structure but manage to put aside their differences on election day.   On the other hand, social conservatives and the Tea Party have declared war on the pro-business/establishment faction.    It is not enough to be extremely conservative; a candidate must be ideologically pure to avoid a primary challenge.  While John Cornyn is one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, there was an active effort to mount a primary challenge against him for failure to sufficiently support Ted Cruz's effort to defund Obamacare.   The threat of a primary challenge is enough for establishment/good government Republicans to mute themselves when the bomb throwers in the party engage in government shutdowns and other shenanigans.   

If the social conservatives and anti-government elements succeed in purging the establishment Republicans, I sincerely doubt that the establishment group will continue to support the party.  However, where would they go?    

One possibility is that they will simply stay home, let the Democrats win a few elections and then re-join the party.   During the 1960s and 1970s, the Democrat Party moved far to the left, causing it to lose the presidential elections of 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988.   In 1992, a centrist Democrat led the party to victory.  This could happen if the Republican party succeeds in purifying itself into a minority position.     

Another intriguing possibility is that some Republicans will run as independents.   One intriguing analysis suggested that if twenty Northeastern Republican Congressmen successfully ran as independents, they would hold the balance of power in the House.   There are currently three independents in the Senate.   These individuals (Bernie Sanders, Angus King and Joe Liebermann) are all big personalities in small states and are an exception to the normal rules of party domination.   However, I don't think this is likely to happen in any significant numbers.  Generally, party members will prefer keeping their safe seats until they perceive a serious threat. Because the major parties make it difficult for outsiders to qualify for the ballot, incumbents have a real incentive to stick with their existing party.   Unless a number of Congressmen feel sufficiently at risk in the primaries, there are unlikely to be more than a handful of independent candidacies.  Thus, the self-interest of the incumbency weighs against this possibility.   

I doubt that many Republicans will switch to the Democratic Party.  The gulf between the parties is just too great.  Also there have been a number of cases where individuals switched parties and then lost their primary in the new party.    

The final prospect is that there is a new realignment between the parties.    The eternally optimistic hope for the emergence of a centrist third party which will draw on disaffected Republicans and Democrats.   Historically, America has not been able to sustain a viable third party for more than a single election cycle (e.g., 1860, 1912, 1948, 1992).  However, England and Mexico are able to maintain a three party system.   Mexico is a good example of the evolution of politics.   For 70 years, Mexico essentially had one party rule.   Today, three parties compete at both the national and the local level.   If our neighbors to the South could pull this off in the face of an entrenched political establishment perhaps it is possible here as well.