American Conservatives Contemplate the Next Four Years
Immediately after the election results came in yesterday evening, making clear that Sen. Barack Obama would become America’s next and first black president, conservative bloggers, columnists and thinkers started exchanging ideas about what they thought they would have to do in the coming years. If they will indeed behave like they say they will, the coming four years will see a far less angry opposition (than the opposition to George W. Bush), which is focused on the issues and on principles.
The first thing one notices when one reads said posts is that the attitude is quite respectful. Four and eight years ago, Democrats and progressives responded angrily to Bush’s victories, claiming that he had stolen the elections and saying that the coming years would be ‘war.’
Conservatives seem to take an entirely different approach. They are not happy with Obama’s victory, but realize and point out that Obama’s victory is a victory for America (against racism), and they make clear that they will oppose Obama’s policies, which they think will be progressive in nature, without disrespecting the man and his office.
This while progressives truly declared war on the presidency in the last eight years, doing tremendous damage to the political debate, truly poisoning it.
Michelle Malkin, for instance, called on her readers to “gird their loins,” to “stand up for our principles as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime. We stay positive and focused.”
She goes on to write: “We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them. We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.”
This is very, very different from what we saw on progressive blogs after Bush won the elections, and the difference should be pointed out.
Power Line takes the same approach, urging readers to recommit to conservative values and to defend them, but to pay respect to the office of the presidency regardless of its inhabitant, and to be honest and do what is in the best interest of the nation.
The Volokh Conspiracy explains what conservatives need to do in their role as the country’s opposition: oppose executive power, try to control spending, act responsible, criticize policies that won’t go anywhere, defend policies that will work. Defend principles, but do so a reasonable manner.
These coming years could be very different from the last four years in so far that the ‘opposition’ could behave far more civil than the opposition to Bush behaved. Lets hope so, for the American political debate desperately needs some sanity.
I seem to recall Clinton Derangement Syndrome, lets hope the Johna Goldbergs don’t ride that pony to a media career. Maybe a little serious conservative criticism during the Bush years wouldn’t give us the situation where Obama won a EV landslide.
I think Sen. Ensign (R) has the right idea. He is calling for the GOP to go back to its roots as a big tent party and abandon abortion and gay marriage as central tenets of its ideology.
Thanks, Kim, but I think conservatives can define what conservativism is without help of somoeone who opposes our beliefs.
Given the magnanimous post by Goldberg this morning, Rudi, your gratuitous and unprovoked lashing out at him highlights the fact that hatred and intolerance remain a core principles on your extreme of the ideological spectrum.
Kim, maybe instead of trying to tell conservatives how to mind their place, you could spend a little time tending to your own ideological garden.
I’m a Republican but not a conservative so I’m not one to suggest what “conservatives” should do. “Big tent” is a good target for the party. However, a “re-articulation of core values” is needed. I don’t necessarily mean changing core values but some of the jargon used to describe them worked in the 80’s but is probably not working now.
And I can’t emphasize enough that the Republican Party must figure out how to reconnect with Hispanic voters. A “natural” constituency has been alienated.
Yeah, Goldberg is hardly the representative for the more amusing reactions from the conservative side of things.
Also, are we being arrogant when we say that we don’t think conservatives should pursue irrelevant social conservatism and instead accept that conservatism is about scepticism, and that if scepticism is made unneccessary by proper planning, argumentation and reasoning conservatism must step aside? If so, accuse away; I’m pretty much so damned as a partisan, liberal, fringe, arrogant, scary-noun, scary-adjective that I am losing what little humility I had.
I am perfectly ready to say that I am deeply sorry that there are people who don’t get to be happy over Obama’s victory even if they only have moderation and partisanship as main goals – Obama may have failed to appeal to completely agreeable standards and react to fair criticism here and supporters like me have probably not helped enough. I never cared for his speeches and oration – I saw what good it did to essentially boost politics and policies I agree with but I mostly cared about Obama’s principles and stances.
I hope that in the next election we have less unhappy people, that sensible positions have been agreed upon so that strong emotions don’t have to rely on any presidential candidate.
On abortion, for example, I hope no one has to choose between imperfect solutions and feel worry – I hope the issue can be eliminated through a compromise that effectivelly kills any political clout.
I’ve had little reason to think McCain sould have provided a good climate for this, especially when he chose a vice president who obviously cares the most about her faith, her pals, her ideology, her constituency and her career than providing any hope of a future where empiricism and meritocracy matters.
I disagree with most policy positions put forward by American conservatives/Republicans, but I do hope they manage to get their act together because we need an effective opposition party. In my view that would mean reexamining some of their policy positions and expanding their base rather than tightening their hold on social issues and contracting their base, but they would not be looking for my advice.
“Given the magnanimous post by Goldberg this morning…”
The only Goldberg post I found from this morning is here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjZlOGFmNGEzNWIxN2RkNTE3ZDJiZWFmZDcwMGYwNjE=&w=MQ==
I wouldn’t call it magnanimous. It wasn’t the scathing indictment of Obama and liberals I have become used to from him, but not magnanimous. If this was not the article you were referring to could you post a link?
“This while progressives truly declared war on the presidency in the last eight years, doing tremendous damage to the political debate, truly poisoning it.”
I am refusing to say which party, which side of the aisle, which political affiliation started with the partisanship, the extremism, the agressiveness, the selfishness and the arrogance in the 2000-2008 period. Because I do not know, and I won’t listen to anyone who doesn’t bring a LOT of facts, analysis and compilation. I don’t have to somehow take quotes like the above to heart, accept them as a foundation for a debate about partisanship, ideological fortification creation and a discussion on guilt-allocation. No anecdotes, no mere examples and no talking points without serious debate and fact-compilation. No way. I won’t pin it on Bush, his supporters or his discontents. How tolerable was W, how aggravating were his lies and how much tolerance and attention did republicans and conservatives deserve from the other side. I don’t know, but if someone does please show it.
“This is very, very different from what we saw on progressive blogs after Bush won the elections, and the difference should be pointed out.”
There are factors to work in here. I am perfectly ready to accept that left-wingers and other scary and angry and energized and and and were far less receptive to such introspection and humility in 2000 or 2004, but I want some consideration of the differences between then and today before I just accept the generalizing evaluations of each side. I am not expected to do that, I won’t extend that, I am sorry.
Did not Goldberg begin his media career on the coattails of his mothers hatred of all things Clinton? One magnanimous post doesn’t negate all the ugly smears directed towards Obama. Goldberg is no Larison, Douthat, Reihan or Dreher
From Reihan:
http://theamericanscene.com/2008/11/04/jonah-goldberg-on-the-new-reformers
CS- That comment was really snarky and beneath you. Really I’m always accused on here of partisan comments but when I’m not then I get that kind of slap in the face. Don’t you think even liberals would like to see a healthy two party system?
Don’t take Ensign’s word for it– listen to what Kay Bailey Hutchinson had to say. Some day I’d like to have a choice again.
Kim, I can appreciate that you really do want a healthy two party system, but you can’t see that it’s bad form to make suggestions about how the other party should go about that? For one thing, it’s quite possible that the GOP will reinvigorate itself as a healthy opposition party without necessarily attracting you as a voter- and that would still fill the requirement of providing balance in our political system.
And on the specifics of what you are saying, I’ll respond in a less snarky manner by just pointing out that a party that’s in disarray has to gets its core constituency solidified before it can even think about attracting from the edges. To use the old tent analogy, you can’t just keep expanding a tent by moving the outer poles, you have to make sure you have a good center support.
So I just fundamentally disagree with what you are saying (and with Kay Bailey Hutchinson in this case although I generally admire her and think there’s ample room in the party for her type.) And that’s above and beyond the fact that I obviously have a much different view of the issue of abortion than you do.
LMAO!
As an American, who could vote, who did Vote, and who will Vote again I can say I’m quite satisfied happy about this election.
it was a lot of fun.
doesn’t matter, you can’t do what you are incapable of doing.
I certainly hope I, as an Independent, can talk about what I think the parties should do. Or I’ll have to find a new topic to talk about, as speaking about American politics invariably involves the parties!
Anyway, I think there is room for all types of conservatives in the Republican party and a marketplace of ideas, but the party does need to have something holding it down, like Christine says.
anybody’s free to comment anyway they like – and anybody is free to counter comment as they like.
Not according to Christine!
Conservatives only want to hear from like-minded conservatives– which is why the GOP will continue to founder. If you keep trying to force your ideology on others, instead of learning what issues voters really care about, you will keep shrinking your base, and go back to the days of permanent minority status.
Democrats are winning elections at least partially because they are not running on ideological issues.
you should ask Lieberman that question Kim.