Governance vs Ideology
Olympia Snowe & probably others are circulating this Reagan quote, hoping that echoes of the Gipper will help to tame the radicals:
"We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty."
But in truth, these aren't Republican values, they are American values. I don't think there are many Democrats who are opposed to these principles, and if there are, they aren't relevant. And Snowe's view (shared by many) that this is fundamentally about ideology is wrong.
In Reagan's day, both parties shared a commitment to govern. When there is a shared will to govern, you can differentiate based on ideology - the voters decide which ideology should lead and the other guys are left to play "the loyal opposition". But the two sides still work together to find solutions to problems and in general try to make things better.
As the national Republican party has moved more and more to the right, the commitment to govern has lapsed. The rump Republican party in Congress explicitly does not want to collaborate in governance - they are very clear that they will only obstruct. This is the heart of their problem.
Give the American people two parties equally committed to governance, and they'll choose between competing ideologies. Give them one party willing to govern and one saying "it's our way or the highway", more voters choose the party willing to govern even in spite of ideological misgivings.
"We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty."
But in truth, these aren't Republican values, they are American values. I don't think there are many Democrats who are opposed to these principles, and if there are, they aren't relevant. And Snowe's view (shared by many) that this is fundamentally about ideology is wrong.
In Reagan's day, both parties shared a commitment to govern. When there is a shared will to govern, you can differentiate based on ideology - the voters decide which ideology should lead and the other guys are left to play "the loyal opposition". But the two sides still work together to find solutions to problems and in general try to make things better.
As the national Republican party has moved more and more to the right, the commitment to govern has lapsed. The rump Republican party in Congress explicitly does not want to collaborate in governance - they are very clear that they will only obstruct. This is the heart of their problem.
Give the American people two parties equally committed to governance, and they'll choose between competing ideologies. Give them one party willing to govern and one saying "it's our way or the highway", more voters choose the party willing to govern even in spite of ideological misgivings.
Advertisement
I don't think that by Reagan's time that they still had a committment to governing, they just wanted to rule. There was no longer any compromise on what was best for the country, they cheated the laws (Iran-Contra, anyone?) and abraded them to nothing (de-regulation, anyone?) whenever they could get away with it. Good governance had nothing to do with it, for them, anymore. It was the idea that what was best for the rich would be good for the rest of the country, and if it wasn't? Well, tough shit.
Otherwise a good post.
I think that Eisenhower may have been well-intentioned, even if he wasn't very bright.
April 29, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also remember that Eisenhower was bullied by a very powerful LBJ so he had no choice.
April 29, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tax reduction and restraining spending is repub. It's designed to starve the govt. I'm sorry, that's not "American" if government is there to help us do what we can't do alone. Not a good idea to lump a bunch of things together and assume everyone would agree with them. As far as I'm concerned I'd be thrilled to lower the defense budget and throw it all into the social safety net. That's better "defense" of the public, in my book.
April 29, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is largely in how you interpret the points. "Restraining spending" can mean resisting the urge to spend wastefully; it does not need to mean failing to spend appropriately. "Tax reduction" is less subject to nuance perhaps but who among us is truly in favor of taxes being higher than they need to be to pay our bills? "Sound national defense" could certainly include an educated and healthy populace. A lower Pentagon budget could still provide for sound national defense if it were spent on the right things and supported with the right diplomatic and domestic initiatives.
I don't think liberals/progressives want to cede perfectly reasonable position statements like the quote to radical right-wingers - this is giving up the high ground unnecessarily. Do you disagree?
April 29, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Snow and some other prominent Republicans are trying to get across is that there needs to be a separation between their core values of national security, small government and reduced taxes and the divisive social issues that include abortion and gay marriage.
Gov. Pawlenty (R MN), Rudy Guiliani and Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's senior strategist, have all come out with this strategy recently in their efforts to rebuild the conservative/ libertarian coalition. Those inside the Beltway and those eying the oval office or state leadership are particularly pushing the 'lets stand for the things that unite us' meme.
So far, the base isn't buying it, leaving the Republicans in a losing situation. In order to get elected, they have to have the base and the moderates, but both high and low profile moderates are fleeing the current chaotic circus. It's hard to know what they'll come up with next, but the origins of this particular plea are clear.
April 30, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink