The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Great GOP Debate

Text Size

"A broader party or a purer one," asks the New York Times? The problem, of course, is that the issue is rarely so clear. Absolute purity will never be possible in politics. But why bother to create a party if it stands for nothing? If the goal is simply to seize power, then let's strip away the pretense that the parties stand for anything.

If the Republican Party is going to be relevant, it should at least advocate smaller government. That is, people going into the voting booth would know that a vote for the Democrats was a vote to expand the state while a vote for the Republicans was a vote to shrink the state. In contrast, today voters know that the Democrats want, and will give them, a lot more government while the Republicans say they want a little bit less government but are likely to expand it a lot. That is, both parties, in practice, are promoting much bigger government. Not much reason to support the GOP.

This explains why Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) just doesn't get it. Reports the Times:

Mr. Graham scoffed at the notion that the party was suffering because it was not conservative enough.

"Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough?" he said. "No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."

Yes, but how does he think the brand was ruined? Republicans were tainted because they cheerfully spent money faster than the Democrats going back to Lyndon Johnson. The GOP further federalized education, added a massive new welfare program, bloated virtually every federal department, initiated an unnecessary war, and demonstrated all-around incompetence.

Ideological purity might not be the answer. But genuinely standing for--and acting accordingly when in power--individual liberty and limited government would be a major step in the right direction.

View all comments (34) | Leave a comment

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 7:56AM

Hey, Bandow, I see you've sidestepped the elephant in the room by not addressing social issues. Does that mean you oppose a litmus test on abortion and gay marriage? Do you really blame Bush for all of the problems and believe that the party's stance against educated people and urban environments will turn the party around? Do you stand for individual liberty when it comes to abortion and gay marriage?

As long as the party has social litmus tests, the tent will not get large no matter how fiscally conservative it gets. The Democrats won many races by running pro-life and pro-gun candidates in specific districts. Opening the tent surely has worked for them.

One final question.... If some agrees with you 70% of the time and is highly electable, do you really not want that person in your party?

OK, Bandow, grow some and talk about the elephant in the room...

Becky| 4.30.09 @ 8:43AM

So now pro life, pro gun Democratic voters have elected a group that takes their orders on how to vote from pro choice, gun control leaders like Pelosi and Obama. What good would it do for a social conservative to vote Democrat?

What fiscal conservatism does is limit the funding of social interventions. I could go along with the legalization of abortion if it was paid for privately. I'm so sick of the gay issue. I don't care what same sex people want to do, just leave me out of it. I have a worse opinion of gay culture than I did twenty years ago. You know how you can develop an aversion to food? I think I am developing an aversion to identity politics.

If I could pick one issue that is the foundation of all other government activity, it would be money. Without funding, corruption, misused allocation of resources and reduced liberties would not be as possible. The power of "no" is misunderstood. Sometimes, a lot when government is involved, it is a very good thing.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 9:03AM

Becky, those pro-life, pro-gun Democrats generally believe that government should be more involved in fiscal and national defense issues and most of them support expanded healthcare. They are not fiscally conservative. The point is that the Democrat party welcomes them and even supports them for office because they agree on 70% of the issues. However, social issues are a litmus test for Republicans. That makes the party smaller.

I happen to agree with you on social issues including funding. But with your point of view, you would never be accepted as a potential Republican candidate for office. You, my dear, are a RINO! Join the club -- I'm with you....

Fred| 4.30.09 @ 9:46AM

"So now pro life, pro gun Democratic voters have elected a group that takes their orders on how to vote from pro choice, gun control leaders like Pelosi and Obama."

Do the math - there is no gun-control or pro-abortion legislation on the agenda - Obama said it HIMSELF last night...

MattSwartz| 4.30.09 @ 10:10AM

Yes, they did.

And even though it was the wrong thing to do, and perhaps some of them knew this, they felt like they had no choice.

Bush and his wars were bankrupting the country, and they couldn't imagine how a Democrat could do any worse.

When Republicans make war and foreign intervention (especially Israel-ward) a no-compromise issue, they tend to lose working-class voters, who feel the effects of war (loss of life and inflation) most intimately.

Fortunately, the GOP establishment had enough strength to punish Ron Paul (ranked 2nd all-time most conservative congressman in history) for his diversions from GOP war policy.

Gotta stay pure, you know...

Wendy| 4.30.09 @ 10:23AM

Bob, excuse me. Who are you calling RINOs? Laissez-faire is the central doctrine of conservatism, not social issues. Pro-choice and pro-freedom of marriage conservatives are not RINOs. They are RINOs if they are like Huckabee--for increased government power over human life, regardless of whether the purpose is to establish a moral society (like the social/religious conservatives) or to disintegrate it (like the liberals).

Your attitude is also a little whiny, a la "waaa, the social conservatives run everything and I am a persecuted minority." Social conservatives don't have near the influence they used to have, so stop with the fatalism and self-pity. It makes you look like a closet Democrat trolling conservative web sites.

Angry Dumbo| 4.30.09 @ 10:32AM

There is no real debate among the Republicans I speak with daily. We agree upon the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, and strong national defense. These are rock solid principles which are never in debate except for the national party's failure to stick with these principles. The break is between the elected party officials and the party members.

Wayne| 4.30.09 @ 10:33AM

I would say the Republican brand was tainted by the neocons. The Republicans need to separate themselves from Bush globalism and the US being the police force for the world. In other words they need to finally listen to Ron Paul, who did resonate with 18-34 year olds.

John | 4.30.09 @ 10:41AM

Small govt is a chimera. It's one of those ideas that the GOP has made itself hostage to. The US federal and state budgets in the last year of GWB's presidency were roughly $4.5 trillion. This is larger by a factor of several times than the govt spending of any other country in the world. The challenge is not really making govt smaller, it is managing it more effectively. This is what the Bush admin conspicuously failed to do. Neither is the US particularly highly taxed. In the fiscal year 2009 the tax take is about 15.5% of GDP, this is the lowest rate since 1950! It is also one of the lowest rates in the western world. These fiscal chimeras merely join all the other stuff the GOP has made articles of faith from immigration reform to abortion rights. As Obama correctly points out the ground has shifted whether we want to recognize it or not. Until we recognize it and come to terms with it we're going to continue the downward spiral that is rapidly turning this into a party of the Mormon/Dixie corridor. It's is not a construct that is capable of winning national elections.

adeleinoh| 4.30.09 @ 10:50AM

The GOP is out because they have been in virtual control for the past 35 years and have failed the American people. They have been deaf, dumb, and blind to the problems this country was facing and its needs. They preferred to sit in their Washington bubble, and like Marie Antoinette, say "let them eat cake". When the Fed announced inflation without wage inflation, they patted each other on the back. The Fed raised rates at every meeting 15 straight times with no concern that most mortgages, equity lines, and credit cards were tied to the Prime rate. They pushed that snowball up the hill and over the cliff. We cried and shouted for them to listen to us and to stop, but to no avail. GWB would keep saying the economy was strong, when we knew full well it was heading into the toilet. The GOP sat back and did nothing while corporations shut down plants and out sourced our jobs to cheap labor countries. They told us not to worry that we no longer were a manufacturing country, but would be a service country. Our only exports became commodities, while anyone with a brain understands that those countries depending on exporting commodities and not manufactured goods are banana republics. They allowed companies like P&G to sell out its manufacturing facilities to foreign companies, so that they could fire all of the employees. The employees could of course reapply to the new company and have their old job back at half the wage. McCain pushed to have DHL (owned by the German Government) come into the US and take over Air Borne, a successful company that operated 30 years in Wilmington OH. After less than 2 years they closed the plant and left everyone in the town without a job.

This has been what has angered moderate loyal Republicans across the country. The GOP allowed this country to change from one of, by, and for the people, to one that has been of, by, and for the corporation.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.30.09 @ 10:53AM

Bob...

"Do you stand for individual liberty when it comes to abortion and gay marriage? "

You're on. I stand for those things. I believe people should have a right to choose these policies by voting for them or against them..either directly or through their legislators or a constitutional amendment. Just as they did for a free press, freedom of religion, ending slavery, giving women the right to vote, the Civil Rights bills of the 1860's, 1870's, and 1960's and so on. The people of Vermont got it right on gay marriage - they voted on it through their legislators. The governor vetoed and the legislature over rode. Done the right way. Bravo to them, issue settled in Vermont.You, I believe, are the one opposing that choice by inisting on une-elected federal judges jamming their own personal opinions down everyone's throat, as if the American people don't have the brains to figure these issues out for themselves.

And by the way, the reason Arlen Specter suddenly got a primary challenge and was 21 points behind in his own polls was not because of a social issue - it was his stimulus vote. Widely perceived by Republicans here as a big-time violation of the oldest of GOP stances - fiscal responsibility. Toomey was going to run for governor and Specter had clear sailing - until that vote.

And good morning to you, Bob! :)

Dennis D| 4.30.09 @ 11:01AM

One problem is media. Why aren't they interviewing Bob Casey or Heath Schuler on the Obama funding for overseas abortions? Anytime a Repub was in disagreement with their President on an issue he was paraded on every left wing talk show. Lindsay Graham , McCain etc.

Red Phillips| 4.30.09 @ 11:04AM

"initiated an unnecessary war"

Are you listening interventionist mainstream conservatives?

Bob, trying to sell abortion as a individual liberty issue is obnoxious. The baby who is slaughtered in the womb sure ain't getting more freedom.

Red Phillips| 4.30.09 @ 11:20AM

"Pro-choice and pro-freedom of marriage conservatives are not RINOs."

Actually Wendy, yes they are. The idea of the socially liberal or "tolerant" but fiscally conservative Republican (who is basically libertarian leaning) is largely a myth. The voting bloc exists to some extent, but they are not well represented electorally. Most socially liberal elected Republicans are moderates on other things. (Arlen Specter is the perfect example of this.) Most hard core elected pro-lifers can be counted on to vote right on fiscal issues. Gun control is a good litmus test. If they are truly philosophically leaning libertarians then they would rigorously oppose gun control. But many don't. (Rudy Giuliani for example.) They often represent urban and northern districts where gun control is supported. Name me the prominent elected Republicans who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage but also, anti-gun control, pro-Social Security privatization, reliably anti-tax and anti-spending, etc. Good luck. (And I could add non-interventionist on foreign policy since this is the libertarian position, but I won't add to your burden.)

adeleinoh| 4.30.09 @ 11:43AM

Wendy-

I am a conservative, but in no way do I support Laissez Faire Capitalism. It allows greed and a no holds barred attitude to prevail. If we carried that policy out further this country would have no rules or laws. There would be no need for police. I could steal, cheat, murder, or do anything I wanted to do without repercussion. We all could build what-ever-we wanted, where we wanted. If I wanted to build a chicken coop on my apartment balcony, I could. There would be no need for driver's licenses and I could drink and drive all I want. Pot and drugs would be just fine, and if my kids wanted to take a gun into school there would be nothing to stop them. Of course anyone following the Bible would be a fool because it is filled with rules and laws, and of course under our Laissez Faire society there would be none.

Laissez Faire Capitalism created the Great Depression and is the main reason that this country is in this mess now. So long as the GOP adheres to this philosophy, I will never again call myself a Republican.

Steven Stanek| 4.30.09 @ 11:45AM

All this pro-choice/pro-life stuff drives nuts. Left-wingers accuse the Republican Party -- which I loathe almost as much as the Dems, by the way -- of being intolerant. Yet at the national conventions, the Republicans allow pro-abortion speakers and the Dems for years have blocked pro-life speakers.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 12:10PM

Wendy -- have you read the responses? Now do you see what I mean about RINO's? It doesn't matter how fiscally conservative you are, if you are pro-choice and pro gay marriage most in the party consider you a RINO.

Jeffrey -- Good morning! So what you are telling me is that as long as abortion and gay marriage are legislated, you are fine with that. Great! Then the Republican party platform should change to that opinion. Right? Also, then why do you need to put in judges that are anti-abortion and anti-gay? Legislating from the bench works both ways, you know. And please don't insult my intelligence with this argument about being a "strict constitutionalist". I've read the opinions by Thomas and Scalia. I believe BOTH sides legislate from the bench on many issues. For example, completely ignoring the "militia" phrase on individual gun rights even though it is a part of the same sentence.

I'm with you on the Specter party change. He could not win in a party that has pushed out his base -- moderates. While you say it was totally because of his vote on the stimulus, I do believe he could have survived that if he were strongly anti-abortion/anti-gay rights. But with his stance on social issues, he no longer had much in common with most Republicans, did he? Besides, he is going to lose the Democrat primary to Sestak.

Have a great day, Jeffrey....

MattSwartz| 4.30.09 @ 12:11PM

Angry Dumbo,

What you've personified is the conservative version of the "nobody I know voted for Nixon" fallacy.

Your circle must be startlingly insular if it doesn't include anyone who is unhappy with the GOP's 180-degree shift away from Goldwater and Taft.

The GOP isn't supposed to be a war-first party. It is (or ought to be) a party full of self-made family-minded people. Adding hatred of foreigners to the mix alienates the sanest of these people, especially when a horrible war and an inability to move the abortion issue ahead result.

Rick LaBonte| 4.30.09 @ 12:34PM

Abortion is murder. Gay "marriage" is a thinly-veiled assault on traditional families. The government must be stopped from promoting the liberal-fascist agenda. The government must also be stopped from warmongering and "nation-building". The political system is illegitimate and is not the solution to any problems. It is the cause of many, and it makes many other problems worse. Social issues are a smokescreen, issues that are really not the government's business at all, and they are being used to obscure the need for real recolutionary change. We need to get beyond political parties and find a different government system that works for the people, not the elites.

Libertyman13| 4.30.09 @ 12:55PM

Jeffrey Lord--hiding behind popular sovereignty doesn't mean you support liberty. In fact, I'd say that is the most craven, disingenuous way to oppose liberty of all time.

And yes, that's right--the American people are too stupid to be trusted with such decisions. Every nation on earth is. That is why we have the concept of individual liberty enshrined in our Constitution, so that just because a majority of people want to take liberty away, that doesn't mean you get to do it. That is why we have separation of powers, and yes, the judges you loathe so much. Imagine a majority of people wanted to take away something you hold dear, whether a right, property without compensation, etc. I imagine your tune would change real quick.

Steven Stanek--the issue is not personal tolerance or intolerance. Most people have a blend of both. But, the difference hinges upon LEGAL tolerance--whether you're legislating intolerance or not. Legal intolerance, as championed by conservatives, is what constitutes a threat to liberty, not personal intolerance. Lord knows those lefties who hold those signs "No tolerance for intolerance" aren't exactly practicing what they preach either, considering their very statement is self-contradictory.

Like John Stuart Mill said, sometimes you must force people to be free. Now, I think that means by forcibly stripping away the legal limitations that the conservative, the leftist, and the authoritarian seeks to impose on the world around him, due to fear of the unknown, the need to impose personal preferences on others, and rigid irrational dogmatic trust in authority of one kind or another.

That being said, we all know that conservatives until so recently in power (and still with a stranglehold on the judiciary) don't care about individual liberty unless its about taxes or about liberty from civil liability.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.30.09 @ 1:21PM

Bob..

"So what you are telling me is that as long as abortion and gay marriage are legislated, you are fine with that"

It's not that I would be "fine" with either...but like not being "fine" with Obama in the White House I have no question that he is there because of the will of the American people. Likewise, I would vote against abortion and against gay marriage (or, as I see it, in favor of marriage between a man and a woman). But if my fellow citizens disagree and I lose...sure. If I were a conservative in Vermont I'd be fine right now, just as I would be in California. Opposite results - Vermont says yes on gay marriage through the legislative process, California says no on gay marriage through a ballot vote on a propositition...Yet each verdict was achieved with the consent of the governed in each case. Not so with Iowa, where the judges just made it up as they went along. The only reason the abortion issue is so very contentious almost four decades since Roe is because it shut off the ability of Americans to make ...yes...a choice. And our friends on the left insist on two opposite things....that if you keep opposing abortion you will lose elections, but somehow they are afraid to have abortion itself on a ballot because they are afraid they will lose. Hello?

Jeffrey Lord| 4.30.09 @ 1:25PM

Libertyman13...

"In fact, I'd say that is the most craven, disingenuous way to oppose liberty of all time. "

Oh please. If the most fundamenmtal rights we have were OK to be submitted to a vote ...why not the "right" to an abortion? The answer is you are afraid you can't convince a majority this is a "right"....

Rick (not LaBonte)| 4.30.09 @ 1:33PM

The Republican party long ago gave up on smaller government and individual freedom in exchange for "different" government and Christian values.

Libertyman13| 4.30.09 @ 1:40PM

My point is that it is entirely irrelevant what the majority of people want the right to be. Otherwise, what is the point of having rights? they'd just switch back and forth with the whim of the majority.

The point is, rights are NOT OK to be submitted to a vote! Otherwise they mean absolutely nothing!

BD57| 4.30.09 @ 2:02PM

'lib-ertyman'

I know the mantra 'rights are not up for a vote.'

It's trite and, in present day America, false.

In the present day, 'rights' are up for a vote all the time - the difference is, instead of proponents having to obtain the assent of the people, they're chasing the vote of 5 Supreme Court Justices.

Every time the Supremes (or any Court) graft newly created and defined 'rights' into the Constitution another layer of the consent of the governed is stripped away. In time - granted, it could be a very long time - the only 'right' the people will possess is the right to do what they're told.

Alan Brooks| 4.30.09 @ 2:14PM

hate to write it (because it gives me no pleasure) but conservatism is now reversed in conserving the negative, losing the positive.

Libertyman13| 4.30.09 @ 2:16PM

Don't be foolish. First of all, the Supreme Court doesn't exactly have the ability to enact anything. They can merely sit in judgment on the acts of legislatures and executives. So your creeping facism of the courts argument is absolutely absurd in light of the courts' negative powers.

Second, what else do you propose? Majority rule? That is absolutely un-American. Why do you think we HAVE courts?

And, what exactly are we complaining about? Are you really so very upset that the courts have decided that you've got a right to a firearm, or that some state courts have decided that two men can get married? That we can't lock up people indefinitely? Is this really the big scary tyranny of the old men in robes? Sounds pretty damn untyrannical to me.

Trust me, I'm as paranoid as the next when it comes to tyranny... which is EXACTLY why I support the courts.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.30.09 @ 2:47PM

Libertyman13...

"The point is, rights are NOT OK to be submitted to a vote! "

Too late. The entire US Constitution, the Bill of Rights (catch that last word "Rights") and every successive amendment to the Constitution...like giving women the right to vote...have had to be voted on. This means the right to free speech, free religion, a free press, to own a gun, to not be a slave etc etc etc..yup...voted on...every last one of them were all vote up in a vote up or down fashion.

Sorry. You're too late.

Bob| 4.30.09 @ 4:08PM

Jeffrey... let me get this straight. You believe that all rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution should be voted on? That's fine. Why don't you recommend then that the Republican platform take out its anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage provisions and instead have the platform say that it should be the will of the people by vote -- either legislatively or in an election? I'm fine with that. Are you? If you aren't willing to do that, then you don't really believe what you are posting here as you would rather force your beliefs on the rest of us. Do I have it right?

By the way, I am fine with states voting on the right to an abortion and the right to gay marriage. Again, let's take that out of the Republican platform...

Steve| 4.30.09 @ 4:44PM

Wow, I don't think you know what a right is in relation to a government. A right is something that the government cannot take away from the individual. There can never be a right to something. It defies the very nature of what a right is.

To wit, there is no right to life, there is actually a right to have the government not take your life (in the absence of certain criminal offenses). There can be no right to health care or housing or anything else because these are actually you putting obligations on others.

You can't vote on a right to gay marriage. You can vote on whether it's legal and, it would clearly fall under the powers of the states as defined by the Constitution. As soon as you confuse rights to be free from something with laws or obligations to be provided something, you've already lost the fight.

Interested Conservative| 4.30.09 @ 5:24PM

Steve - there is "no right to life"?!? I thought it was inalienable, as you explain in your opening paragraph.

Now, when it begins, or what it is, or what happens if it conflicts with other rights (i.e. "liberty and the pursuit of happiness") is another discussion, but it is strongly arguable that it is the original foundational right upon which this country was created.

DFR| 5.1.09 @ 8:11AM

Red Phillips said:
"Name me the prominent elected Republicans who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage but also, anti-gun control, pro-Social Security privatization, reliably anti-tax and anti-spending, etc. Good luck. (And I could add non-interventionist on foreign policy since this is the libertarian position, but I won't add to your burden."
Red I am sure you supported him:
JOHN McCAIN!
Luckily, in my state I had an alternate to vote for him and Obama.

WJR| 5.3.09 @ 12:45PM

'You are with us or you are against us.'
'Patriots or pinheads.'
This is the mentality of the present Republican Party.
And Republicans are patriotic and love America. They just don't like over half the people who live in America.