Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:27:58 PM
I think, despite all the complaints about McCain, it is for the best that we did not nominate the true conservative whose absence
some Republicans lament. Don't get me wrong, I am a die hard conservative, at least in the economic libertarian,
federalist sense. I would be thrilled to see our nation return almost all power to the states, and to see each state devolve power down to the localities, while also enacting economic minimalist policies. Nothing would make me happier.
But it would make for a very bad policy at the moment.
Many point to Reagan and his successes, or to Newt, and argue that a true conservative could succeed.
I would argue the opposite. Both of those cases were not so much people choosing
FOR a conservative, as voting
AGAINST liberal excesses. Reagan was not elected to strip the government down to the bone, but instead to undo the damage of
the Carter years. And Newt was not brought in to initiate a minimalist government, he, and the entire Contract with America, minimalist as it was, was intended more as a promise to reverse the liberal trend, not to start a new conservative one.
I hate to say it, but the realist in me has to admit, there is no readiness in the US for a minimalist state, nor is there any support for true federalism. We have been so long accustomed to a central, monolithic government that most Americans see our states as simple administrative districts.
And as far as reducing government is concerned, there may be some support for small scale, localized reductions in scope of government, but there is no overall support for a general downsizing of government. Even among conservatives, there is a tendency, in times of crisis, to turn first to the state, then to alternatives. You can see it in talk about the fuel crisis, where even conservatives argued that oil drilled in the US should be forced to be sold here, basically creating a
nationalized oil industry. Similarly, with the current financial problems, there are many conservatives who still see the primary solution as coming from government.
And if there is a strong
authoritarian streak among the conservatives, a willingness to embrace expansive, all powerful government rather than be forced to deal with our own problems, then imagine how much more true that is of moderates or liberals. No matter how much some of us may desire a night watchman state, we are clearly a small minority.
So, perhaps it is best we nominated a moderate conservative, one more willing to embrace larger government and more in tune with the moderate sensibilities. I know some argue that it is worse to elect a moderate or liberal conservative than elect a liberal, but
I would differ.
If we elect
a partial conservative, at least we move the nation somewhat to the right. A liberal, even if he fails, may still move the nation left. (If you doubt that, don't forget the failed liberal Wiemar Republic was followed by the National Socialist Hitler, so failures of the left don't always move us right.)
It seems foolish to insist on nominating candidates who honestly say "this is not the job of government" or face problems by announcing "government should not be involved in this" only to be rejected by voters. Standing on principle in that way is the surest way to render oneself politically impotent. Better to elect half-conservative candidates, and then spend our time and energy educating the public, until they tell us themselves "this is not the job of government".
Once that happens, the candidates we want will appear on their own.