How The GOP Is Repeating The Mistakes Of The British Right

NOTE:  Originally posted at Political Capital

On the eve of an expected landslide sweeping Barack Obama into the Oval Office and congressional Democrats to majorities in both houses of Congress, many pundits have predicted a long period in the political wilderness for Republicans in national politics.

Not so far away in the UK the British Conservative Party has only recently recovered from its own journey to the dark side. In 1997 the Tory party was destroyed at the polls after 18 years in power and has been out of power ever since.

Whilst there are obvious and clear differences between the two sister parties, and the nations they aspire to govern, the circumstances of the 1997 and 2008 defeats are remarkably similar.

In the late ‘90s Tories were tempted to believe that the public were duped. That an inexperienced and inspirational young left wing leader had taken advantage of the divisions of the governing party and the credulity of the electorate to instigate what would become a far left regime.

A more sober assessment is the successes of the 1980s Thatcher revolution led to hubris and terrible mistakes. The party survived divisions over European policy and riots that followed the idiotic introduction of the Poll Tax through the dramatic defenestration of Margaret Thatcher, allowing the genial John Major to win an unexpected General Election victory in 1992.

It was the financial collapse of Black Wednesday in September 1992, when the pound crashed out of the European Exchange rates mechanism, and the ensuing recession that really killed Conservative hopes. Combined with party wars over its approach to the European Union (a relatively trivial matter compared to the 3 million unemployed) the recession not only tore the party away from the centre of political discourse but also created a massive rift between the modern British nation and the world the Conservative Government lived in.

To compound the matter there was the ever present “sleaze”, a string of Conservative MPs were exposed in sex scandals that would have made Larry Craig and Mark Foley blush, reaching its apotheosis with the strange autoerotic death of Stephen Milligan.

Even worse was the grubby stain of corruption, in 1994 it emerged that lobbyist Ian Greer had bribed Conservative MPs to ask questions in parliament on behalf of Egyptian retail mogul Mohammed Fayed. To compound matters a cabinet minister (Jonathan Aitken) was accused of conducting secret deals with Saudi princes, Aitken was later jailed for perjury – unlike Scooter Libby, Aitken did not get his sentence commuted.

So many of the ingredients are the same that it becomes difficult to see how the Republicans can avoid the fate of their transatlantic colleagues. Sometimes parties just deserve to lose, but that is far from being the bad news.

The disaster that the GOP of 2008 and the Tories of 1997 share is the fundamentals of the political background, both fell massively behind their opponents in levels of support from younger voters and crucially struggled to deal with the changing mores of a modern nation.

One of tomorrow’s most interesting results will be the outcome of California’s Proposition 8 on marriage equality. The idea that by 2008 there would not only be legally recognized civil unions in the UK but openly homosexual cabinet ministers would have been an anathema to many Conservatives, but not to the British public. One of the ways in which British Conservatives have begun to turn the page in recent years is making peace with issues such as this.

The issue of gay marriage matters not just because of the dangers of leaving behind an increasingly socially liberal electorate, but because of the fundamental contradiction in the modern conservative movement that it exposes. In a time of increasing family breakdown Conservatives should be promoting marriage as the primary family unit because of the legal and public commitment that it entails. Yet conservatives have pandered to their religious base in the search for easy votes, somehow the GOP has become a party at ease with telling people what to do.

It is when parties deviate from their fundamental intellectual core that they suffer the most. The most important example of this in the current administration is public spending. Whilst tax cuts helped to keep the American economy growing their pre-requisite – low public spending – was ignored. It’s harder to demonise big government liberals when you have spent eight years turning a health budget surplus into a massive deficit, a deficit which represents a massive tax burden on future generations in the form of interest payments to Chinese bankers.

In Britain the ideological departure had serious underpinnings and serious consequences. The pragmatic conservatism of the previous 150 years was eschewed in exchange for the dynamic monetarism, privatisation and market liberalisation of the Thatcher revolution. To succeed once more the GOP must rediscover its own ideological core, an ideology that is found not in the anti-intellectual city-dweller baiting of Sarah Palin but in integrity in government, individual freedom and not just low taxes but low spending.

The Tories have, recently, appeared to turn the corner, and are now consistently ahead of Labour in the opinion polls. Following their third consecutive election defeat in 2005 they nominated a young, modern leader in David Cameron. In the past three years the Conservatives have ‘decontaminated’ their brand, a focus on environmental issues and a rejection of upfront promises of tax cuts drew the headlines but the underlying change was more important.

The British Conservative party has changed, not a shift in policies but actual change. It has become a party that loves the country as it is now, and not as it wishes it was in 1983. The right-wing talk radio blowhards who think the answer is simply to hate the modern world more and scream at it harder are not part of the problem, they are the problem. If Republicans are to avoid the fate of their British counterparts then they need to develop a narrative for modern American that places the one true conservative principle – that of liberty – at the heart of the nation’s future.

EDITORS NOTE:  Edward is a guest columnist, sending us his thoughts from the United Kingdom.  He is a member of the British Conservative Party, and has witnessed first hand the destruction of the British Right, and how it has rebuilt itself from the ground up.  We are grateful to him for his perspective, and hope to bring you many more articles from our friends across the pond in the future.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

Comments

Excellent commentary

I look forward to further insights on how the Tories effected the changes Mr. Gagnon addresses.

That he identifies GOP opposition to gay marriage as an exemplar of his contention that "It is when parties deviate from their fundamental intellectual core that they suffer the most" demonstrates how far the Tories have come.

It is going to be an interesting period for American conservatives.

 

Interesting... but...

I believe his point, Johnson, was that the most core, fundamental agenda item that basically every republican agrees on is "limited government and freedom".  His statement about gay marriage was, (again, I believe) a note that the social conservative wing of the party has coopted the agenda, and is now actively pushing harder every year to use the state as an instrument of social change.  Now we accept statist activities, so long as they fall in line with what WE want to do, not what THEY want to do.

I happen to agree with his general concept - the concepts of ethical governemnt, limited government, reform and freedom are our core values.  Social conservatism often times works directly against those goals, and that's when you get people in office like George W. Bush, who has completely deconstructed the idea that republicans dislike government activism, and it all started with his desire to affect social change by using the government.  Since that was okay to him, it was only natural that the state could continue to spend like an out of control teenager and bloat the budget, while still holding the line on taxes, thus balooning the deficit.

I for one am MORE than fine with a more Reagan-esque brand of conservatism that puts the focus squarely on limited government, human freedom and government reform, and maintains a social conservatism, but doesn't use it as a wedge - because when that happens, all it does is alienate people, and the funny thing about alienating people is you can't really work on issues when everyone hates you.

I've really never understood our propensity to use the government as a social tool anyway.  I fell attempting to manipulate society has always been a hell of a lot more effective when its done by private entities, and not the government.  I mean, gay marriage has been illegal all this time, but that sure as hell hasn't stopped it - I see gay people getting "married" all the damned time, all that's missing is the government issued license.

In the end, governments don't move society - and our problem has been that we have come to sign on to the democratic notion that government's DO move society. 

We must go back to what actually set us apart from democrats, which also did not alienate the American people.  Social conservatism doesn't have to die just because our elected officials don't emphasize it... in fact, it would probably be a hell of a lot better off...

His point is an excellent one

I agree with almost everything you've laid out here Matthew and I thank you for taking the time to do so.

I do think that following the unfortunate tenure of GWB and the toxic combination of aggressive statism and incompetent governance the road back for the GOP and conservatism must take the path of good government and then smaller government. In order to win back the trust of the American electorate, in other words, we must demonstrate a renewed committment to excellence in governing. Voters will be willing to listen to our policy ideas only after we have shown a renewed seriousness for the everyday tasks of governing.

Here's where I disagree with you. You say:

I for one am MORE than fine with a more Reagan-esque brand of conservatism that puts the focus squarely on limited government, human freedom and government reform, and maintains a social conservatism, but doesn't use it as a wedge...

It is not clear to me how to balance human freedom and social conservatism. That is why I continue to be impressed by your friend's unapologetic insistence that

The issue of gay marriage matters not just because of the dangers of leaving behind an increasingly socially liberal electorate, but because of the fundamental contradiction in the modern conservative movement that it exposes.

There is in my view an unavoidable contradiction between the social conservatism that seeks to limit the core conservative value of human freedom. I think this can be an area of interesting and hopefully positive discussion and I would welcome such discussion here.

In closing, let me just say again how much I appreciate you sharing your friend's commentary and I hope we can benefit from his and his parties experiences.

Thank you sir...

Johnson, excellent analysis overall, thanks for the thoughts.

One note - when I said "maintain a social conservatism" I didnt actually mean things like "pursue a constitutional ban on gay marriage" (in my opinion the single most absurd idea I have ever heard in my life - it almost by itself invalidates our standing to lecture liberals about the role of the constitution in our lives)... what I mean by social conservatism is more along the lines of possessing those culturally conservative values from an identiy politics point of view.  In other words, "I don't particularly like gay marriage - but I'll be damned if I'm going to use the state apparatus to squash it" - just as an example.

I think what conservatives used to be were folks that were very much concerned with good governance, reform of institutions to make them smaller and less incumbered by red tape and government rot. limited roles of government in people's lives, and a clean, efficient "good government" (as you deemed it) philosophy... at the same time, they "shared our values" - in other words they were aligned with the sentiments of socially conservative people, they simply didn't use the state as an agent to pursue that agenda.

Reagan is a great example - you can't really find all that much that he did to advance a socially conservative agenda really, yet he is universally loved by conservatives.

I think you and I basically agree at our core on this issue, we just had to flush that out a bit.

NOTE

At the end I make note of this, but I just want to make sure its understood - I did not write this.  I reposted this (with permission) from a friend of mine who is a member of the British Conservative Party who wrote a guest column for me today.

Missed that...

Missed that you are Matthew and not your friend but I got that there were 2 of you. Sorry about that.

[deleted]

[deleted]

"core conservative value of human freedom"

There is no such "core conservative value", as you'd know if you were at all familar with conservatism.

In fact nobody on earth believes in "freedom". It is a nonsensical term,  one whose only logical outcome would be anarchy.  The intolerant left does not believe in "freedom", and I'm sure that you don't either.  Everybody believes in certain specific freedoms, in freedoms to behave in specific ways. The gay marriage proponents do not believe in the freedom of "the people" to make such laws as they deem most suited to the general welfare.  Nobody believes in freedom when it comes right down to it. Politics is the ongoing argument about what should be "free" and what should not.

 

 

Excuse me?

If I'm at all familiar with conservatism?

Indeed - I suppose I was just sleeping through the first 27 years of my life as a republican, as well as during the time I was earning the degree I obtained in Political Science with an intense focus on American government.  Maybe when I wrote my capstone on the historical trends in republicanism and the future outlook of the party in the next 20-50 years, I was just in a coma.

I'd stay away from lecturing me on my familiarity with conservatism, my friend.  I'd dare say I could bury you with information just off the top of my head, as this is basically what I think about, read about and write about every moment I draw breath.

Freedom may be an abstract, but it is hardly a term that can not be used - and its definition being taken to the most extreme position it can hold (anarchy) is insultingly foolish.  Obviously no one advocates "complete freedom" in that sense - even libertarians don't.  I think we all understand that when the word "freedom" is used, it is a euphamism for "as much freedom as can possibly be achieved without allowing society to fall apart". 

The party was founded on abolitionist grounds, devoted to freedom from slavary, and nearly every position it has taken through its history has been on the side of freedom from state influence, particularly on economic concerns.  However, no one with half a brain belives that means "anarchy" - we all know that the position being taken is about "limiting government control as much as possible".  

If you want to fill in sentence or paragraph long descriptions of what we're talking about, go ahead, but for 99.9% of us, "freedom" is an easy concept when you talk about it - the government can either control and manipulate the parts of society that it is un-necessary in, or it can go activist.

Given the dozens of spliter groups within the party, there are common threads which unify them all - which is how people like Reagan were able to build electoral dominance.  He couldn't have done that if there wasn't some kind of unifying principle people could sign up for - and that was (in essence) "leave me alone, get out of my life unless I really need it, and let me make my own way".  Libertarians and religious conservatives can both rally around that as the focus of a campaign.

And yet again, we all seem to understand that the concept of "freedom" applies to freedom from state control where society doesn't really need state control.  Republicans of ALL stripes believe that "necessary state control" applies to the basics, like building roads and maintaining a military - so really, what are you picking on again?

What can NOT bring together multiple groups and build on an electoral mandate is narrow, divisive government based social activism advocated for by people who claim to hate government intervention. 

Appealing to people's desire to be free from influence or control has the double benefit of being quite popular to the masses, as well as quite good policy.  Perhaps we can realize those unifying themes and use them to move forward.

Freedom doesn't exist... ::sigh::  Indeed... the argument is about what should be free and what shouldn't - but an advocate of freedom can be identified from a mile away from a non-advocate.  On any given issue, social or economic you either beleive the state should direct, or you belive it shouldn't.  Republicans need to be the party that says, "no, it shouldn't" - if they say "yes" here and "no" there, their ideological credibility amounts to nothing.

Thanks for the lesson

Nobody believes in freedom when it comes right down to it.

I'll be stitching this on a decorative pillow as I watch the returns this evening.