Independent, or Just Conservative?
David Frum argues that independents are, "increasingly," just conservatives who have rejected the Republican brand. For this reason, he claims, the tea parties are best understood as an entrenched, established political minority, not a new coalition with the potential to offer "the basis for a national political majority" -- "at least not," he adds, "in a presidential year." And so:
The Tea Party message — cut taxes and preserve Medicare – does not make sense in policy terms and only appears to work as politics because of (1) low turnout in a congressional year and (2) the anxieties created by recession.
This is a provocative, plausible couple of claims, but let's take a step back and separate them out. Why would conservatives bolt the Republican party to agitate against taxes and for Medicare, when this is already Republican party policy? They wouldn't. A policy-centric perspective on the tea parties, and on independents more generally, makes it hard to understand who the establishment GOP has been disappointing, and on what grounds. As I've hinted earlier, independents, tea partiers, and conservatives -- groups that do overlap, but only overlap -- all tend to share the view that the two major political parties are too similar in their approach to governing. From a policy-centric perspective, that would suggest they think Republicans and Democrats offer too many of the same policies. But from a more principle-centered perspective, it's closer to the truth to say that independents, tea partiers, and conservatives think the philosophical inputs guiding the two major parties are too similar.
The important thing about the kind of voter David is describing isn't any contradictory set of policy positions -- it's a tension between principle and policy. Our national problem isn't exactly an 'addiction' to spending and entitlements, but, as is the case with addiction, breaking our pattern of behavior will be painful and even perilous -- at the level of policy. At the level of principle, however, it's clear that the alternative is worse. So some independents, tea partiers, and conservatives might find themselves in a position where they're angry about the prospect of losing entitlements that they actually don't think are the product of a sound governing philosophy.
But it seems weird to me to characterize this effect as the one that defines independent conservatives or tea partiers more broadly. What defines these two (again, overlapping) groups of voters is, I think, simply their embrace of the principle of constitutionally limited government. The effective rejection of this principle during the Bush years pushed conservatives in an independent direction and helped give the tea party movement a constituency and a reach it would otherwise lack.
Of course, none of this means that the tea party is, for now, a majority-sized national movement. Peter Lawler acknowledges this in his latest post at Postmodern Conservative, but his bottom line is different from David's. This is more than a recession -- this is a reckoning:
more and more people who are approaching retirement age now kind of know that retirement in prosperity will likely not be an option for them. They’ll have to keep working in a techno-society full of preferential options for the young. Many will be stuck with the indignity of downward mobility combined with increasing frailty or general vulnerability. We can say that older voters this time know enough to know that government can’t really promise them security, and that policies that promote general prosperity are most likely to benefit them. The great Founder of modern liberalism–John Locke–said that in a free country you’d better be rich if you’re going to get old, and, unfortunately in some ways, that’s probably more true and more difficult than ever.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
What defines these two (again, overlapping) groups of voters is, I think, simply their embrace of the principle of constitutionally limited government.
Bingo. Frum seems to assume that the great unwashed among the Tea Partiers are too ignorant to ground their principles in the Constitution.
Nooooo, we just want lower taxes and Medicare.
Maybe Frum should get out more: the Tea Parties are awash in Constitutional references and symbols.
I note that even the Coons/O'Donnell debate last night spent a great deal of time addressing the Constitution directly - particularly the 1st, 14th and 16th Amendments. When has that ever happened before?
May '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
The Davids, Frum and Brooks, are both frustrated because nobody's buying what they're selling. Both claim to be conservatives yet demand the GOP become "Democrat Lite."
Must be something about their common Canadian births...
Oct '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
The Davids, Frum and Brooks, are both frustrated because nobody's buying what they're selling. Both claim to be conservatives yet demand the GOP become "Democrat Lite."
... · Oct 19 at 3:38pm
I disagree. The GOP has for too long been "democrat lite"!
May '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
I like a point Rush made today. A lot of Americans have been disengaged, partly because we were content to leave politics to the politicians while we were busy getting on with our lives, and partly because we've been afflicted with a depressing sense of futility in resisting the creeping statism. This election is changing all that. Masses of Americans are re-discovering the real possibility of "government by the people". They're realizing that they can make a difference.
I don't see that genie going back in the bottle.
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
EJHill: The Davids, Frum and Brooks, are both frustrated because nobody's buying what they're selling. Both claim to be conservatives yet demand the GOP become "Democrat Lite."
Must be something about their common Canadian births... · Oct 19 at 3:38pm
Well, they both think -- I think -- that constitutional principles couldn't solve the problems created by mass industrialization. And they would probably both agree that we couldn't have the kind of commercial republic that Hamilton and other Founders recognized as America's high road to prosperity without industrializing on a massive, national scale. From a perspective like this, a form of governance deeply in accord with constitutional principles as expressed even in the amended Constitution is irrecoverable. That doesn't mean despotism, by their lights; it means that because modernity took away the Constitutional option, what's left is either ruthless atavism or a rhetorical daydream.
But the modern labor problem can't explain why government exploded and expanded in the way that it did.
Jul '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
Another David, David Soloway has hit the nail on the head with This Article.
He points out that the goal of the Tea Party isn't the election of Republicans, it is to see that something gets done regarding the American Condition.
I'm still angry about the inability of Republicans to defund NEA in 1995.
The Article is well worth reading.
OBTW, David Soloway is from Canada too.
Edited on Oct 19, 2010 at 4:12pmRe: Independent, or Just Conservative?
When I read of David Frum's attack on the Tea-Party Movement, I cannot help thinking of his support for the election of Barack Obama. What he seems not to understand this time is that the Tea-Party Movement is full of Independents.
May '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
Great article by Soloway. Thanks for the link, Jaydee.
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
But James, I don’t think the Tea Party purports to be a “majority-sized national movement.” This is one of the things I find encouraging about the movement: precisely that they’ve not formed a third party, which would have just played into Obama’s hands as Ross Perot played into Bill Clinton’s. Not that they won’t later form a third party if Republicans typically squander their upcoming chance in power, but they’re not there yet.
I also don’t think all TPers have “rejected the Republican brand.” But they are going to move the party to the right and back to its platform and hold its members accountable. Most Tea Partiers are conservatives in terms of the Constitution and the size and scope of government. I think it’s inaccurate to say taxes is the driving issue. The government’s bankrupting spending tops the list. Granted, the TP has had much greater traction because conservatives have been disenchanted with Republicans – but not for the reasons Frum fantasizes about, i.e, they aren’t adapting their ideas to the modern age, or whatever he seems to believe. They’re furious at Republicans for being Democrat lite.
May '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
I was a little shocked and appalled when, in the latest podcast (I was half asleep at the time, so possibly I got it all wrong) I think I heard David Brooks expressing a wish that Bill Gates were president. What the nation needs, he opined, was "a boring manager."
This seems to me to represent a kind of extreme naivete. Worse than naivete, it's abject reality denial. As if America were just a hugely complicated souless mechanism. As if all we need to know about our future president is that he's intelligent and skillful with problem-solving. As if we weren't in a kind of life and death struggle over first principles, with enemies within and without.
May '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
I belong to a local Tea Party group. I receive a weekly newsletter and frequent issue-oriented emails and calls to action. I've attended meetings and I've helped out in a local election, I've taken a bus trip to DC protest the healthcare law. Based on my experiences, I would not describe the Tea Party message as Frum portrays it: to cut taxes and preserve Medicare. In fact, despite the fact that probably 45% - 50% of the members appear to be over the age of 65, I would say that not bankrupting future generations is one of the core aims of the group.
Jul '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
I am bothered by this discovery on the left (largely a propagandistic fabrication) that the Tea Party consists of people who a) want their taxes cut, while b) demand more government services. As far as I can tell that is just plain false in the aggregate.
It is true that this group does not see a tension in requiring the government to follow through on its existing commitments to the elderly, while at the same time encouraging new approaches and innovations that will remove the curse of these unsustainable systems from future generations. How is that a contradiction?
The truth is that the Tea Party largely consist of folks who just have not been that politically inclined. But much as a rattlesnake will ignore potential danger until it gets just a little too close (then look out!) the Tea Partiers really do not want to be involved in politics. But now they feel they have no choice.
It is no accident that the "Don't Tread on Me" of the Gadsden Flag has become their symbol. The Democrats did some very serious, and very unwise, treading.
Aug '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
Patrick Shanahan:
The truth is that the Tea Party largely consist of folks who just have not been that politically inclined. But much as a rattlesnake will ignore potential danger until it gets just a little too close (then look out!) the Tea Partiers really do not want to be involved in politics. But now they feel they have no choice.
It is no accident that the "Don't Tread on Me" of the Gadsden Flag has become their symbol. The Democrats did some very serious, and very unwise, treading.
Yyyep.
Jun '10
Re: Independent, or Just Conservative?
The Tea Party message — cut taxes and preserve Medicare – does not make sense in policy terms ...
Both Medicare and Social Security have specific, designated tax revenue streams that have at least some actuarial basis (if not routinely robbed for general revenue purposes) What we ignorant TP types don't understand is that to preserve the promised Medicare benefits, Obama has to cut $500B out of its budget over ten years in order to promise healthcare to another part of the populace and is unable to stop $60B annually in fraud and abuse.
Frum may have a slightly better point with regard to expectations of tax cuts since only 36% of the federal budget is discretionary. I think the TPs I know would be satisfied with extending the Bush tax cuts and redirecting much current tax money away from the NEA, NPR, Depts of Education, Commerce, Agriculture, etc to the deficit or to the SS and Medicare "lock boxes" while looking at the Ryan roadmap to entitlement reform
So, Mr Frum, that is a restatement of "The Tea Party message — cut taxes and preserve Medicare that, according to you, "does not make sense in policy terms" ...