GOP Heads in the Sand

Friday, 30th January 2009

Oh dear. Jonah Goldberg has been in Britain and he doesn't like what he sees. Fair enough, there's plenty to deplore about the present government. But what Goldberg is most afraid of is that the Republican party might learn something from David Cameron's Tories. This, it seems, is the very last thing the GOP should do. Because obviously when you've spent eight years trashing your own "brand" and suffering a brace of heavy election defeats, the very last thing you should do is look and learn from how conservative parties in the rest of the world are faring. (Insert standard caveat about the real and meaningful differences between American conservatism and its international brethren here.) Here's Goldberg:

From this side of the Atlantic, the refusal of House Republicans to support Barack Obama’s so-called stimulus plan looks nothing less than Churchillian.
Alas, here in Britain, the lesson of compassionate conservatism’s welcome demise remains lost on the Tory leadership. British conservatives remain fascinated with oxymorons such as “progressive conservatism” and “Red Toryism.” (Sometimes the prefix “oxy” in “oxymoron” seems like gilding the lily.)

The longstanding argument against such pernicious sloganeering is still valid. Conservatives who lose their skepticism of government activism invariably fall into the trap of saying “me too” to whatever happens to be the political fad of the day, and hence wind up getting pulled in a direction not of their own choosing, as Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once put it.For instance, Tory party leader David Cameron has a circus-act flexibility when it comes to ideological principles. No adjective is too constraining for his brand of shmoo-like conservatism; “Green,” “compassionate,” “progressive,” “radical,” even “libertarian paternalism,” his conservatism can fit into them all, for his philosophical invertebracy is boundless.

Ignoring the apparently-compulsory Churchill reference, there's obviously something in what Goldberg says: parties have to be founded upon some core set of principles. But principles aren't enough if voters are so turned off by everything else about your party that they become disinclined to listen to anything you have to say. Sometimes political parties need to look and see where the voters are and, sometimes, move to meet them. This may mean diluting ideological purity - something both Reagan and Thatcher were happy to do - for the sake of, you know, victory. That doesn't mean the Republican party needs to tug a forlock and agree with everything that President Obama proposes, but it does mean paying attention to changing political circumstances rather than pretending that ideas that were appropriate (and winning!) in 1980 remain eternally relevant.

Sure, there are grounds for suspecting elements of Project Cameron but if Goldberg had been paying attention he might have seen that, behind the slogans and the labels, there's a fairly serious, indeed philosophical, difference between the Conservative and Labour approaches to society. The labels, then, are a means to an end and a signpost to voters telling them how far the Tory party has travelled.

Opposition parites, of course, are empowered by governmental blunders and, just as importantly, exhaustion. The fag end of a Labour ministry is clearly easier to counter than the bright dawn of a new Democratic era in Washington. Nonetheless and even allowing for transatlantic differences, Goldberg might have noticed that the Tories are likely to win the next British election. The GOP are, right now, years away from any comparable success. (It's unlikely that they can regain the Senate until 2014 at the earliest, for instance.)

But no, instead there's a certain glib sneering at the expense of conservatives who might win. Increasingly the motto of the GOP seems to be that old republican mantra: Ourselves Alone.

My own (brief) take on some of the things the GOP could appropriate from the Tory experience was published by the late, much-lamented Culture11. See also, this post on the Limits of Reaganism.

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

porkbelly

January 30th, 2009 4:43pm Report this comment

Reagan and Thatcher were "happy" to compromise their principles? Really? I'm afraid Jonah Goldberg has hit the nail squarely on the head - the sort of limp Conservatism Lite practised by Dave and his US counterparts (Colin Powell, Ahnold, Bush 1, etc.) is little more than sighing heavily as they accept the invetability of the left's agenda, only could we come along a little more slowly please? Pathetic, and you'll notice that such moral bankruptcy has not exactly catapulted the Tories into power. It has taken the utter collapse of the British economy for Dave's bowl of tepid oatmeal to appealing to the electorate. US Republicans might instead consider how their historical commitment to small government, private enterprise and low taxes has been forgotten in recent years, and that more than ever as we enter the reign of Pres. Obamadoff those principles will have relevance.

Richard

January 30th, 2009 4:47pm Report this comment

'The GOP are years away from any comparable success'.

I would not be so sure about that. Obama's administration already look more than capable of ballsing things up in double-quick time.

Verity

January 30th, 2009 5:41pm Report this comment

Alex writes, in a weak refutation of the sainted Jonah Goldberg's excellent piece: "there's a fairly serious, indeed philosophical, difference between the Conservative and Labour approaches to society".

No, there isn't.

Cameron invented the 'A' list to please the powerful "diversity/multi-culti" lobbies and quangoes. He went to Norway and stood on an ice floe with a couple of 'A-List' Huskies to demonstrate, in some arcane fashion, his deep commitment to fighting "man made global warming". He hugged hoodies. He worships at the altar of Obama. He believes in "fairness" rather than reward for investment of money/time/expertise/intelligence/energy. He's wedded to the Sovietesque EU. And he's an admirer of Tony Blair.

Every word Goldberg wrote was perceptive and piercing.

The GOP can take no lessons from the policies, if any are detectable, of the British Conservative party which is now disapproved of by large tranches of lifetime Conservative voters.

ndm

January 30th, 2009 7:26pm Report this comment

Even the speaking of his name is to waste too much breath on Jonah Goldberg.

What struck me most about the fate of the late, much-lamented Culture11 is that "there are now 14 people who worked very hard for this company who are looking for new jobs because theirs disappeared." 14 employees seems a tad excessive for a web outfit these days. I doubt, for example, that Josh Marshall's TPM empire has 14 employees and as far as I know it is profitable because TPM is conservative when it counts.

Post comment