I’ve been saving this one up for about a week. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Joseph Epstein attempts to answer President Biden’s question (“what are Republicans for?”). In doing so he turns to the work of the late Roger Scruton, a British philosopher:
For Scruton it is crucial that citizens recognize not only the bad side of government but also the good. Government after all isn’t exclusively a “system of power and domination,†but “a search for order, and for power only in so far as power is required by order.†Order is crucial, “for it is simply the other side of freedom, the thing that makes freedom possible.†Scruton’s point is that while we may have a deep suspicion of government, we yet “have a deeper need for it.â€
“Conservatism should be a defense of government,†Scruton argues, “against its abuse by liberals.†The growth of the welfare state is one notable such abuse, causing people to “turn their backs on freedom and become locked in social pathologies that undermine the cohesion of society.†One sees this above all in the countries of the European Union, where government is no longer felt to be owned by the people but is the property of “an anonymous bureaucracy†on which all depend for their comforts. In the U.S., this is still only true of those who depend on government welfare, but their number is growing.
The role of conservatism, and by extension of the Republican Party, is, in Scruton’s words, “to map out the true domain of government, and the limits beyond which action by the government is a trespass on the freedom of the citizen.†The true message of the Republican Party, then, should be not that it is the enemy of government but the advocate of a far better government, one that is both necessary and yet comports with the freedom of its citizens.
To which I would make a couple of responses. First, that’s blithe but, focusing on the Republican Congressional caucus, provide examples of that over the last decade or so. I don’t think there is one. The only things I can think of that Republicans have supported have been tax cuts and a bloated, aggressive military. A bloated, aggressive military is what’s referred to as a “valence” issue. Both parties support it; they compete only in how much they support it.
Second, today’s Republicans are not conservatives in any meaningful sense of the word. They’re certainly not conservatives that Barry Goldwater or William F. Buckley would recognize as such.
It’s easy to identify things they are against but that’s not the subject.
This is correct. Some additional factors.
The issues that are at the forefront are very confusing to take positions on.
Take the issue de jour; Neil Young / Spotify / Joe Rogan. Should the Republican position be anti-censorship — but the last Republican President was for firing athletes who wouldn’t kneel for the anthem. Should Republicans support Spotify (and other platforms) exercise their own judgement these issues (giving businesses maximum freedom is a traditional Republican position) or not; considering much of the management in these companies are hostile to Republicans and these businesses policies are often wildly unpopular with Republican voters?
Or take trade, the Republican position for 60+ years is pro-trade. But pro-trade seems in conflict with Republicans being “pro-industry”, so what position to take.
A second one is Republicans indulging too much in anti-intellectualism. Its an understandable reaction to the academy being hostile to Republicans, but its gone to the point where Republicans don’t have the intellectual resources for new ideas, or even figure out how to apply “Republican”/”Conservative” principles to present day issues.
A third one is the decline of the Protestant church. One of the drivers of the Republican party has been Protestant churches since its founding in the 1850’s. Some of its standout platform policies — anti-slavery, temperance, abortion — came from Protestant churches. But the influence / membership of Protestant churches has been on a steady decline for about a century now, and one can feel the pandemic has triggered an existential crisis of faith in churches about their future.
A fourth factor is the Republicans are powerless right now. They don’t have power in DC, they have little influence in powers outside of government (academia, hollywood, etc). Even business, and wealthy are democrat leaning. Fractions that have little power generally can’t have a positive agenda since they aren’t in a position to implement it anyway.
But its a troubling future for Republicans. I quote the saying “someone with a questionable agenda will always beat a person with no agenda”.
1) Have a hard time considering the Rogan think as censorship. Spotify has not even threatened to dump him. If some old musicians want to lose a little money because they dont want to figuratively sit next to him not sure why they should be stopped. Wouldn’t forcing them to stay be worse?
2) The GOP still dominates at the state level and in the SCOTUS. Harley powerless. They do seem to believe they cannot legitimately lose any election so the other side is always cheating, bbu that is not powerless.
Otherwise good points. My view of the church is just a bit different. I think evangelicals have completely sold out to the GOP. They think people oppose them because of their faith. Few people really care about their faith. People do disagree with their political beliefs, about half the country. I guess when your faith has merged with your politics you can talk yourself into thinking your religious liberty is being harmed, or something.
Steve
Fundamentally, the GoP is incoherent and there are several factions fighting over control of the brand. Until that fight resolves (assuming it does), I don’t think there is anything there except tax cuts and owning the libs. Right now the nativist, populist, and anti-democratic faction appears to be winning the fight for control of the party.