| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Conservative Government: Oxymoron?
Promoted -- we need to reclaim the idea of the web as a place for organic self-organization and self-government in contrast to the top-down philosophy of the left. -Patrick
What is the blogosphere saying? Can we get it on the web? How can we use this to raise money online?
These are questions that each of us who are "online" strategists hear from our clients. And they miss the point about the power of the Internet for political change.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the web -- as a medium, as a place -- plays a crucial role in politicking today, and we can foresee it playing an ever-increasing role throughout the 21st century. It is key part of the solution to the right's woes, but it plays a minimal role in the problem. The problem, as Alex Castellanos, veteran media strategist identifies in a National Review column, is that Republicans can't communicate a core principle (singular).
Read on.
I translate this as the Republican Party is losing its political soul. I say losing instead of lost because lost would imply that there's no hope. I very much believe there is hope. So do the founders and writers on this site.
Many of us identify the basic idea of "limited government," or "smaller government," to define Conservatism, or Republicanism, without explaining what this means. Castellanos simplifies this as public government vs. private government (or community-based order).
Conservatives do not hate government. We never have. We love life when it is well-governed. We respect the flag, our country, and traditional authority. We like a world where rules are observed and regulations are respected. We revere the order of the church. We respect the lines on the playing field and we stop at traffic lights. We want things to work. We want trains to run on time. We want our lives to be ordered. We want our lives to be governed — just not by others. We want our lives governed by the face we see in the mirror. We want our lives governed by ourselves.
Castellanos also acknowledges that technology and the world wide web personify a more perfect democractic republic. They are not merely tools and tactics, they epitomize where our party must head, and where they are failing.
What we believe in is people-driven, choice-filled, dynamic, flexible, equal-opportunity self-government. We should call it organic government. Want to know what your government is going to look like 20 years from now? Ask your children. They will say it will look a lot less like General Motors and a lot more like MySpace. The Internet is an education for us all, a place where people self-organize and govern themselves with maximum freedom. In its reflection, we can see more than the future of technology and communications; we can see the promise of democracy.
Conservatives believe that we govern our society more often, and better, through the private sector than through the public sector. We govern our lives in our churches, communities, bowling leagues, and neighborhoods. We govern our most altruistic impulses through charities. The PTA governs. The Chamber of Commerce governs. Facebook governs. The Invisible Hand governs.
We are doing a great service by airing out the daily trials and tribulations, and providing solutions, through online forums like this one. We must not forget; however, that our "airing out" has limited value without action.
Even while frustrated and disheartened by the state of our Party, we, as individuals must not allow the depletion of our political souls. We must get involved. I don't suggest we advocate for and provide assistance to candidates who we feel have abused their power in office. I do suggest however that we embody and act on our right-leaning ideals in every forum possible -- online and offline.
Whether encouraging a new guard candidate to run for local office, running a local campaign, heading up or working on a conservative issue advocacy effort, blogging daily at the Next Right, going door-to-door for a candidate you feel strongly about in your area, taking a trip to help a candidate in a neighboring area come election time, your efforts matter.
We on the right like order; we don't like big, bureaucratic government.
We on the right are not a small, online elite force who want to take over our Party; we want to help lead our party back to a place where private is valued over public in a way that considers our current society and culture.
In online media circles, there is a lot of talk of old guard vs. new guard. I admit to using those terms often. However, I caution against using them as we proceed with the effort to shift our party back in place.
Not every smart person in politics is under 50. We benefit most from melting together the best ideas from those who care most about the future of the Republican Party and conservatism.
Food for thought ...


Comments
Knowledge in our past
That's conservatism in the best, least-ideological sense. It's about realizing human nature hasn't changed much over the millennia. Alot of the answers we seek have been figured out by our elders and ancestors. Conservatism is about tapping into that knowledge and appreciating the idea that we in the present don't need to remake the political world in our image.
"Collective action" is next on the blogshpere horizon
Collective action is the next logical step in the evolution of the blogsphere. Let's face it, we are hot wired to act, not talk. Sooner or later someone will find a way to collectivize the blogsphere into a coherent political mass that will move mountains. Unfortunately, it will not be the leadership of the Republican Party. In fact, allowing grass-roots Republicans to organize among themselves would be looked upon by party officials as their political death warrant.
I have put together some thoughts on this subject at The National Online Party. It is still a work in progress due to the lack of several deliberative groupware innovations yet needed to complete the process. But from my perspective, it's only a matter of time before the Internet can and will be used to change the face of our political parties and our democracy.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David...
Good luck getting Republicans doing anything "collectively". The reason why the Nutroots have been able to effectively organize is because of their herd mentality. We're just too individual oriented.
Individualism and Freedom
Thats what most republicans are for
Rank and file? Maybe. "Leadership"??? No way.
I want to govern the guy in the mirror, too, but Republicans have made it harder, not easier, by constantly increasing the size and scope of the Federal government every chance they've gotten. I'm not NEARLY as confident as the proprietors of this site unless the party drastically changes course towards *actually* smaller government -- not just words about allegedly wanting small government around election time. I'll give an example of what those losers did in 2006:
http://reason.com/news/show/126022.html
Long time Republican and famed poker champ Doyle Brunson warned his party (along with a lot of the rest of us) that this was a stupid idea before the 2006 election disaster. Sure enough, it drove a lot of gambling business that had been in the USA (and paying high US taxes -- David Carouthers wasn't the only victim....) overseas, while solving 0 social problems associated with gambling. Goose-egg. It's a total failure, and an expensive one for taxpayers at a time when the USA is literally drowning in a sea of red ink which is already fueling inflation. It's also part of why the Republicans deserved to lose & lost in 2006, just as "Texas Dolly" warned 'em. It also looks a hell of a lot like a political payoff to "traditional" forms of gambling, which appreciate our obese government's attack on the competition.
This kind of total policy failure (and I've only chosen one example out of half a dozen Republican Party control freak stupidities, to keep it simple) needs to be admitted by the party (unlikely) and the admission needs to be accompanied by a tail between the legs retreat from control freakery back to freedom, even if you personally dislike the idea of gambling/gamblers playing online & being left alone. I doubt the Republican "leadership" who pulled this blunder has the maturity to admit their obvious policy failure, to be brutally frank. I don't get the feeling they want to leave us the hell alone any more than the Democrats do, which is why my vote is very likely to go third party this election. Want more respect/loyalty, Republicans? Earn it. Prove me wrong with ACTIONS *before* the election.
JMR -- aka "sarcasmo" over on Newsbusters
Reagan addressed all this.
http://reagan2020.us/speeches/The_New_Republican_Party.asp
A few excerpts.
Those polls confirm that most Americans are basically conservative in their outlook. But once we have said this, we conservatives have not solved our problems, we have merely stated them clearly. Yes, conservatism can and does mean different things to those who call themselves conservatives.
You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between [what] they call "social" conservatism and "economic" conservatism. The so-called social issues -- law and order, abortion, busing, quota systems -- are usually associated with blue-collar, ethnic and religious groups themselves traditionally associated with the Democratic Party. The economic issues -- inflation, deficit spending and big government -- are usually associated with Republican Party members and independents who concentrate their attention on economic matters.
Now I am willing to accept this view of two major kinds of conservatism -- or, better still, two different conservative constituencies. But at the same time let me say that the old lines that once clearly divided these two kinds of conservatism are disappearing.
In fact, the time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called "social" issues and those interested in "economic" issues. In short, isn't it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole?
I believe the answer is: Yes, it is possible to create a political entity that will reflect the views of the great, hitherto [unacknowledged], conservative majority. We went a long way toward doing it in California. We can do it in America. This is not a dream, a wistful hope. It is and has been a reality. I have seen the conservative future and it works.
If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great.
Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right -- those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.
Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.
=============================
The GOP todays badly needs to relearn all this. It's been taken over by some ideologues, as any party with power is prone to.
More Reagan
"I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party.
And let me say so there can be no mistakes as to what I mean: The New Republican Party I envision will not be, and cannot, be one limited to the country club-big business image that, for reasons both fair and unfair, it is burdened with today. The New Republican Party I am speaking about is going to have room for the man and the woman in the factories, for the farmer, for the cop on the beat and the millions of Americans who may never have thought of joining our party before, but whose interests coincide with those represented by principled Republicanism. If we are to attract more working men and women of this country, we will do so not by simply "making room" for them, but by making certain they have a say in what goes on in the party. The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates."
==========================
Is there any room in todays GOP for those working men and women, as candidates? It does not look that way. It's just as much an elitest party as the Dems.
Elitist babble
Yes, there's room because thousands of those types of Republicans are running for local offices across the country.
This elitist, populism babble is a waste of energy. The Republican Party has lost its way because it's fallen from its conservative principles of limited government. It's about generating new, interesting ideas that get the conservative base excited and willing to donate and work for Republicans.
Realize that Goldwater was part of the elite. So was Buckley, Reagan, and Gingrich. It's human nature for a group of people to have an elite. Feel-good, Huckabee populism won't change that.
Why stay in the GOP?
I feel like my party has left me behind. We fought when President Regan came along to save the party, but again it is off the tracks. I feel betrayed and now I believe it's time to start a new party. How about the Libertarians? Looks like Bob Barr is their presidential candidate. He sure sounds like the kind of guy I wish was our nominee.
If wishes were horses we'd all be Kings
Look, great parties are coalitions.
Our party has the good fortune of being a coalition that is supposed to have, as its foundation, a few simple, but compelling, beliefs.
I think that covers most of the coalition. When Republicans don't adhere to those standards, their voters stay home.
Democrats don't have that problem; their principle is power. We carry an extra burden in that we have to motivate our voters to believe that our candidates will actually make a difference.
You can vote Libertarian and never make a difference.
Only in the Republican Party can Conservatives make a difference.
Two Losing Elections and a Bunch of Pinheads
It is instructive to keep in mind that the modern conservative movement came about with the "failed" election campaigns of Barry Goldwater for President and Bill Buckley for Mayor of New York. In addition a string of "conservative thinkers" from Albert J. Nock to Russell Kirk successfully challenged the liberal hold on ideas and political power. At the height of the deification of Franklin Roosevelt, Nock published Our Enemy The State. To this day learned conservative/libertarians know Nock's clearly stated arguments against government: Every expansion of government comes at the expensive of the governed.
Nock, Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan, .... all faced the same challenges that we face today. Liberals controlled the media and the reigns of power. They beat back the liberals by taking the intellectual and philosophical battle to their opponents. They won the American people because most Americans are conservative.
We will not succeed on the internet or in any other arena if we do not agree on a set of shared principles. If the Republican Party continues to be the party that is more interested in staying in power than in representing the conservative principles that got them elected they will be abandoned by their former supporters.
The only way to mobilize a strong internet campaign is by championing something to fight for. Today, there are a handful of elected Republican officials who are advocates of conservative principles. Until their ranks swell the Republican Party will continue to diminish in influence.
To learn more about the important intellectual side of the modern conservative movement read Upstream .