Newton's Third Law

Action and Reaction - by Mykl RoventineIn response to Erik Kane's defection from Conservativism, Daniel Larison made an interesting point about the rosy Republican prospects in November:

As I have said before, I don’t think the GOP will win the House, but if that did happen it would primarily be bad news for the Republican Party and the conservative movement. If that seems a little too counterintuitive for you, let me explain. Should the GOP somehow win the House, they will not have earned it and they will not deserve it, and they will proceed to destroy themselves in very short order. Arguably, there was nothing worse for the American right than to be given the free gift of winning the 2002 midterms, because this win encouraged them to pursue the policies that proved to be their undoing, and a similar win in 2010 would have the same effect of enabling Republicans’ most destructively self-indulgent impulses. As one horrified by the prospect of Republicans in power, Erik should look forward to this.

After all, even if the Republicans won the House there would not be much that they could do once in office, except waste their time as they did in the ’90s hauling executive branch officials before committees to testify on this or that outrage of the week. They would likely be stymied by the Democratic majority in the Senate on any major legislation, and Obama would veto just about anything they passed if it somehow got to his desk. At the same time, Obama would make them into a much more effective foil for his arguments once they had some hold on power, and out of frustration they would become increasingly obsessed with “getting” Obama and become even less interested in representing the interests of their constituents.

Larrison offers a bit of a tonic for my troubled soul.  I have had opposite experience of Mr. Kane, in that I was a fairly dogmatic liberal who has drifted right over the past few years.  I often find the actions and beliefs of doctrinaire liberals- or worse, Democrats- distasteful.  Heterodox conservative writers like Andrew Sullivan, Mr. Larison and the folks at Front Porch Republic or idiosyncratic liberals like Matt Ygelias outline a philosophy that I'm more comfortable with: wonky domestic and foreign policy cooled with an appreciation for the superiority of real life over politics. Yet, I remain nothing like a Republican.  I'm genuinely a little concerned about just how scary the rhetoric on the right has become.  A commenter here, Jessica, exemplifies that radical unease:

The leftist islamic radical sympathizers in this country better awaken quickly, because you are so self righteously arrogant that you have completely underestimated the real "folks" of this country. The tea party movement is just the beginning of a revolution. I'm so sorry sir but you are not a true liberal like Jefferson and Locke. You are a quencher of all things true in this country, the elitism that flows through your article reflects how completely detached you are from what it means to be a passionate liberal whose soul burns for freedom, and whose heart carries a burden for this country's future security. You can hardly stand 90 percent of us who are actually american and you deny all the foundations on which we stand united! We are tired of the pseudo peace that liberals in this country claim to advocate, all we care about is our freedoms.

I actually empathize with the "real folks" in this country- and I mean that term without irony.  That people are suffering, Washington feels broken and every day brings fresh bad news is not opinion, but fact.  As someone who follows national policy much closer than the vast majority of the country, my understanding of why that is happening is naturally different.  I think the stimulus was too small, not proof of the failure of Keynesian thinking.  I know that most of the current deficit is caused by the recession and incredibly low government revenues, not the stimulus.  I think Obama has acted carefully and pragmatically, not like a radical liberal Islamic sympathizer.  But, you know what?  I see why someone would think the opposite of all of that (not the Islamic sympathizer stuff, that's just nutty tribalism).  780 billion dollars sure sounds like a lot of money, Obama said that we could keep unemployment below 8% with the stimulus but its 9.6% and the Democrats keep passing bills even though the deficit is enormous.  So if you are struggling and you only follow politics casually, that's a natural and not entirely inaccurate gut feeling about what's going on right now.  Obama and the Democrat's must not be doing that good of a job because everything sucks, so let's throw the bums out.

The problem is that the Republicans are the naked Emperor hiding behind the Democrats and I'm terrified about what's gonna happen if they win big.  But, you know what?  Everyone expected the Republicans to spend time in the wilderness after the second consecutive electoral drubbing in 2008 and instead they dug in and rode the shitty economy into improved midterm hopes.  The thing was, they needed to spend some time in the wilderness!  If all of your ideas come from the 1970's and you can only count on a shrinking base of Social Conservatives and old white people then you need to figure out a new modern strategy.  Instead, Republicans are gonna double down.  Hopefully the show trials and games of government shutdown chicken won't be too painful a medicine to cure what ails "conservativism." 

I'll meanwhile take solace in all of the good legislation that got passed.  It is a bad time for fiscal retrenchment, but I don't think either party had the stomach for more stimulus anyway.  So let's see what you got John Boehner.  Just remember, the last time we had a Republican Speaker of the House was followed immediately by two huge Democratic Congressional landslides, the Presidency changing hands and health care reform.

Update: I actually know Jessica, so I think a fine example of stressing the importance of real life over politics is to note that I don't find her or her beliefs remotely scary.  What I find scary is that people feel so disenfranchised from their government that they see revolution as the only solution.  Jefferson might have thought a good revolution every so often was necessary, but societal stability is really important.  A lot more important that politics.  Last century there was an ideology that wanted permanent revolution, but it resulted in great suffering and evil.  I don't think that's what Jessica wants or means, so I find her revolutionary rhetoric unsettling.

Comments

[Alison Cox]

I'm starting to believe all those people who say that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. It seems like once someone gets into power they must fall into the same corruption that the previous occupant used. I would be glad to see anyone of any party who is genuinely righteous win some sort of seat.

[jessica]

Joe, the problem with the conservative movement is that they are all claiming to be fiscal conservatives, and even promote "traditional" values; but not one of those leaders are moral conservatives in their actual lifestyle. Thus, the democrats have gone so far to the left that they are actually the more aligned party. In harmony with both their morally screwed up agendas and lifestyle, and that i do respect...i mean they don't just advocate murdering their babies, darn it, they actually do it! So i will go back to that moral and culture war you deny as valid. Conservatism is dead because men and women only espouse ideologies worth living up to, they don't actually live moral lives.

[Christopher Carr]

@Jessica

Well this is why I see Ron Paul as the unifying figure that tragically was not, like the Emperor Julian. Like Andrew Sullivan, I too had hopes that the Paulites would take over the Republican Party. Paul is a social liberal, which means he would basically back federal laws that left people alone. Or he wouldn't back any laws at all restricting social behavior. (There's a reason why his nickname is Dr. No.) Unfortunately the Christian Right in this country bears more resemblance to the Borg than the Apostles, and tolerating the moral and religious choices of others does not rank very high on their list of priorities.

Nevertheless, for values voters, Paul is about as close as anyone in politics to leading a wholesome, moral, Christian life. He's been married to the same woman for fifty some odd years and they have many children together. Paul is a veteran of the Navy, where he was a doctor (i.e. he didn't just hang out in Texas and work on his accent during 'Nam). Paul is an obstetrician and has delivered thousands of babies; not only is he vehemently pro-life, but he's actually the one bringing life into the world.

It's unfortunate that Ron Paul was not most loudly embraced by social conservatives, but rather by "anarchists", computer hackers, and radical conspiracy theorists. Paul's pacifism and turn-the-other-cheek social values are really the only things going in the Republican Party that are remotely compatible with Christianity.

[Joseph Cox]

Jessica, jumping off your comment about moral and political alignment. I think you have a point, but only a limited one because you don't appreciate that there are solutions besides the one you have found.

When I read Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat's Grand New Party I gained a fresh appreciation for the value of values. Strong families and communities are really important to the strength of our country. The difference between me and you is that I have great faith in secular solutions evolving to replace traditionally religious ones that have waned. The whole Red state/Blue state trope generally tends to focus on our differences instead of what we have in common so I dislike it. But the fact is that many of the least religious states have the best marriage and child-rearing statistics because they have found a way that works for them. I absolutely respect why you choose to live your life a different way, but I hope you can see that morality and religiousity are not necessarily intertwined. You can be a Christian- in that you are a fervent believer in the godhood of Jesus Christ- and still be a bad person. You might argue that this would mean you weren't a "real Christian" but we are all flawed and come short of the glory of God. Meanwhile, I consider myself to be a highly moral person but I am practically an atheist (I refuse to preclude the possibility of a higher power, but I am very, very skeptical).

This is a long way of saying that I think you are terrific and I don't want to engage in any sort of culture war with you. Can't we just accept that we won't agree, but in general real life will go on. Sometimes you'll get what you want in government, but most of the time neither of us will be content. I may be a "leftist islamic radical sympathizer" but I'll be still happy to see you when I do. I updated my post above to include that sentiment.

[me]

I feel that the Obama administration, is only "artificially" simulating, [& trying to stimulate?] the market economy by artificially creating false Supply-Demand principles right? concerning price controls? Well what if the Government artificially manufactures law "X" that requires the purchase of product "Y" wouldn't that create an artificial demand that possibly that only the Government might supply??? [The Government enforcers the laws but what if the same government makes the rules [E.G. demands X] but also is the only supplier of "X".... Is it right for the law making entity to also be the enforcer?? For instance what is the government passed a law the ""Requires"" one to brush their teeth with a certain toothpaste? True this may lead to a higher level of oral hygiene, however some, [maybe even myself?] would still be unable to afford this new paste... IFF we agree to allow someone to pervert & control the outcome of the markets would we also be living under a protectionist regime?? [which leads to price controls & a greater state of poverty!!] I fear the market economy has already been trampled upon also for the oath of office taken... E.G. [I promise to uphold the constitution of the united States...] OR NOT???? I have no grievances against any candidate [well one who speaks the truth!! and looks out for her citizenry!!] i can only pray that many help me out & inform me about what I may be missing... Thanks for reading this post have a great day/eve!! Jim