Single Issue?
The is another essential piece in TAC by W. James Antle III. He asks: Is the GOP
becoming a single issue party?
The money quote (as Andrew Sullivan calls these things):
Together [Giulian and McCain], they receive majority support among those who plan to vote in a Republican primary next year. Between the two of them, they make virtually the entire conservative domestic agenda—lower taxes, limited government, gun rights, the pro-life cause, and the defense of traditional marriage—negotiable. Yet on one issue, Giuliani and McCain are both unflinchingly orthodox: the war in Iraq. - W. James Antle III
It's an interesting question. If the threat of terrorism seems to recede at all, will the GOP continue to be dominated by the politics of war. It seems inevitable that there will be a hard-core section of GOP voters that adopt a stab-in-the-back narrative when the United States disengages from Iraq. Another part of the GOP constituency will blame Bush's poor leadership saying, "The cause was good." Or in the case of some, "Our ideas were right." Continetti was essentially correct when he wrote:
The polarization that has characterized American politics since the presidency of Ronald Reagan has extended its reach to foreign affairs. Never have the differences between the two parties on issues of war and peace been so distinct. At no time since World War II has the divergence of partisan support for an ongoing war been as great. Nor have attitudes toward power--its origins, nature, and application--reflected ideological and partisan identification to the extent they do today.- Matthew Continetti
The conservative consensus was originally glued together by anti-communism- but had substantial agreement on domestic policy driving it from election to election. When the Soviet Empire disappeared the conservative movement logically would have focused on domestic issues. 1994 seemed to show that reform of Washington would henceforth be the primary mission of the movement. But with a corruptible GOP leadership that task proved difficult. After all, Washington, unlike Moscow has not been a willing participant in its own transformation. Out of desperation and a quest for an identity the conservative movement may now be defining itself by its pro-active (I would say hyper-active) foreign policy. This despite the fact that the conservatism of the larger movement doesn't necessarily commit itself to any strategy of foreign engagement. It just so happens that conservative voters are naturally drawn to candidates they see as "patriotic" for which "aggressive" is often a shorthand. A "multi-polar" vision of geopolitics will never appeal to these voters. The only alternative foreign policy rhetoric that resonates with them is, frankly, that America-First type. It's easy to aim this arrow at conflicts that seem to have flimsy humanitarian grounds.The lesson is this: a conservative foreign policy must always be sold as a nationalist foreign policy - one that enhances the security, prosperity and stature of America and its people.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
Post a Comment
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments