By W. James Antle, III on 1.14.08 @ 1:09AM
A conservative comeback requires adapting to new problems, not new principles.
Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win
Again
By David Frum
(Doubleday, 224 pages, $24.95)
Republicans found the 2006 midterm elections unwinnable for
three basic reasons. The Democratic base was energized, the
Republican base was dispirited, and independents swung heavily
toward the Democrats. If all three of these things remain true this
year, 2008 won't look much better. But what if you can't solve the
third problem by fixing the second?
Conservatives initially argued that the Republicans lost their
majorities because President Bush and other GOP elected officials
failed to act like conservatives. As Republican
frontrunner-of-the-week John McCain likes to put it, "We went to
Washington to change Washington, but it changed us." There's more
than a kernel of truth in such observations. But other conservatives noticed that Republican red meat wasn't resonating with swing voters
as it once did and began to contemplate a more frightening
possibility: that they had run out of things to say that the
persuadable portion of the electorate wanted to hear.
This is the dilemma that concerns David Frum in his latest book.
He notes that the themes and policies that won elections in 1980
and 1994 are insufficient today because the country faces different
problems than it did 28 or even 14 years ago. The right's failure
to grapple with these changes has left it ill equipped to govern --
or perhaps even win elections -- in the 21st century. "On issues
from Social Security to health care to environmental protection,
conservatives find themselves on the less popular side of the great
issues of the day," Frum writes. "That does not mean that
conservatives are wrong. But it does mean that we are likely to
lose if we continue repeating old formulas without adapting them to
new times."
While Frum doesn't hold back in criticizing the president he
once considered The Right Man, he contends that Bush
understood the need to change better than many of his conservative
critics. Had Bush run in 2000 as a "Reagan-style conservative," he
argues, Al Gore surely would have become president. If Bush had
heeded his right flank and rebuffed the expensive Medicare
prescription drug benefit -- Frum recalls that "public support for
the benefit ranged between 80 percent and 90 percent through the
first Bush term" -- he probably wouldn't have been reelected.
It's incontrovertible that Bush often aped Clinton-style
centrism during the 2000 race, making conservative hopes that he
would turn out to be a government-cutter more the product of
wishful thinking than anything else. But it doesn't ring true to
suggest, as Frum does, that the hapless Bob Dole campaigned as a
"Reagan-style conservative" in 1996 while George W. Bush ran as
something different. That is certainly not how most Republicans saw
either candidate at the time, surely for reasons other than
self-delusion. It may seem like ancient history now, but
conservatives bonded with Bush in a way they hadn't with any
president -- or any GOP leader, including the irascible Newt
Gingrich -- since Reagan.
Another problem: What did Bush's concessions profit Republicans
in the long run? Democrats regained their traditional advantages on
Medicare and education not long after the drug benefit and No Child
Left Behind. Bush barely won the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Conservatives are already trying to discover ways to win again.
Like his important 1994 book Dead Right, Comeback is trenchant
and thoughtful but the two volumes sometimes differ sharply in
their recommendations and analysis. In Frum's latest, Reagan is
successful but irrelevant because his mix of anti-statism,
across-the-board tax-cutting, and deregulation offer solutions to
the problems of "forty years before" rather than today. In Dead
Right, Reagan was largely a failure because his record didn't
match his small government rhetoric.
The difference may tell you something about the perils of
divining a movement's fortunes based on one or two bad election
cycles. Yet Frum had a point back in the 1990s when he argued that
conservatism's prospects appear grim once you accept a growing
federal government as a given. Look at how hard he must strain in
Comeback to come up with new ideas for conservatives once
he accepts government growth as a given himself.
Sometimes his efforts bear fruit. On immigration, racial
preferences, and same-sex marriage, Frum outlines useful ways for
conservatives to navigate these culture war minefields, addressing
the American majority's anxieties without pointless scapegoating or
demagoguery. Frum advocates lowering the tax bills of a key
Republican constituency -- families with children -- who
decreasingly benefit from income tax rate reductions. He would
index the child tax credit to inflation and expand it to benefit
all working parents. Orthodox supply-siders are unlikely to be
enthusiastic about this approach, correctly protesting that such policies won't do much to
accelerate economic growth. But work isn't the only behavior
conservatives would like to incentivize and growth isn't the only
goal.
Then Frum starts reaching. Prison reform may be a good idea, but
is it really an issue on which to build a new Republican majority?
Frum asks, "Why shouldn't Republicans adopt the obesity issue as
our own?" Maybe because doing so would encourage fat jokes about
Dennis Hastert; maybe because it is hard to imagine what a
conservative government could really do about the problem. Frum is
unfailingly persuasive about the conservative ideas deficit but
when he presents his own solutions this reviewer often wonders --
if you'll pardon the Reagan-era expression -- "Where's the
beef?"
Frum seems to favor a conservatism that is more pragmatic and
less ideological (except on foreign policy, where it should be less
pragmatic and more ideological). He asks pro-lifers to tone it down
even though abortion is one of the few remaining issues where
Republicans enjoy a net advantage and without showing much
attention to the details. For example, South Dakota did vote to
repeal its strict antiabortion law, but by less than a 3-to-2
margin, not 8-to-1.
Reagan solved real problems using conservative principles. That
means adapting to new problems, not new principles. Frum comes
close when he points out the extent to which the government, rather
than the market, distorts our health care system. Then he ends up
suggesting that the government should force individuals to buy
medical insurance. His green conservatism also starts out
promisingly but falls short. Raising energy prices for ordinary
people through carbon taxes to pay for investment tax cuts for the
affluent -- no matter how defensible both policies are separately
-- sounds like almost the opposite of a winning strategy.
In the end, the next generation's Milton Friedmans and Bill
Buckleys can't be discovered in a day. The arguments and ideas Frum
so convincingly encourages conservatives to develop can't be
perfected in an election cycle. Frum once argued that "conservative
intellectuals should be at work on something a little more
ambitious than the Republican Party's next campaign manifesto." He
was dead right the first time.
topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care, John McCain, Social Security, Abortion, Environment, Law, Conservatism, Immigration, Energy, Medicare