The Promised Land

NY Times ^ | Nov 29, 2003 | David Brooks

[neverdem]

The history of American conservatism is an exodus tale. It begins in the wilderness, in the early 1950's, with Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley Jr. writing tracts for small bands of true believers.

Conservatives crashed into the walls of power during the Goldwater debacle of 1964, and then breached those walls with Reagan's triumph 16 years later. But even with Reagan in the Oval Office, Republicans were not the majority party. Democrats controlled the House, and few Reaganites actually knew how to run a government.

In 1994, with the Gingrich revolution, the conservatives strode closer to the center of power. But even then, they were not quite there. For the rule of exodus tales is that the chiefs who lead in the wilderness and storm the citadels do not get to govern once their troops have occupied the city. Renegades are too combative to govern well.

It was only this week that we can truly say the exodus story is over, with the success of the Medicare reform bill. This week the G.O.P. behaved as a majority party in full. The Republicans used the powers of government to entrench their own dominance. They used their control of the federal budget to create a new entitlement, to woo new allies and service a key constituency group, the elderly.

From now on, as Tony Blankley observed in The Washington Times, if you work at an interest group and you want to know what's going on with your legislation, you have to go to the Republicans. The Democrats don't even know the state of play.

If you are the AARP, seeking a benefit, you have to go to the Republicans. If you are a centrist Democrat like John Breaux or Max Baucus seeking to pass legislation, you have to work with the Republicans.

Under the leadership of Bush, Frist, Hastert and DeLay, the Republicans have built a fully mature establishment of activist groups, think tanks and lobbyists, which is amazingly aloof from the older Washington establishment (not to mention the media establishment). Republicans now speak in that calm, and to their opponents infuriating, manner of those who believe they were born to rule.

The Democrats, meanwhile, behave just as the Republicans did when they were stuck in the minority. They complain about their outrageous mistreatment by the majority. They are right to complain. The treatment is outrageous. But the complaints only communicate weakness.

Democrats indulge in the joys of opposition. They get to sputter about fiscal irresponsibility, just as the green-eyeshade Republicans used to, as the majority party uses the power of the purse to buy votes. They get to make wild charges. They get to propose solutions that ignore inconvenient realities. They never have to betray their principles to get something done, and so they savor their own righteousness.

Minority parties are pure but defeated; governing parties are impure but victorious. The Republicans are now in the habit of winning, and are on permanent offense on all fronts. They offer tax cuts to stimulate the economy and please business. They nominate conservative judges to advance conservative social reform and satisfy religious conservatives. They fight a war on terror. They have even come to occupy the Democratic holy of the holies, the welfare state. In exchange for massive new spending, they demand competitive reforms.

The only drawback is that now, as the governing party, they have to betray some of the principles that first animated them. This week we saw dozens of conservatives, who once believed in limited government, vote for a new spending program that will cost over $2 trillion over the next 20 years.

In the past three years, federal education spending has increased by 65 percent. Unemployment benefit payments are up by 85 percent.

Many conservatives are dismayed over what has happened to their movement as it has grown fat and happy in the Promised Land. A significant rift has opened up between the conservative think tankers and journalists, who are loyal to ideas, and the K Street establishmentarians, who are loyal to groups.

The good news for Democrats is that the K Street establishment will slowly win this struggle. The majority will ossify. It will lose touch with its principles and eventually crumble under the weight of its own spoils. The bad news for Democrats is that, as Republicans can tell you, the ossification process is maddeningly slow. After the New Deal, it took 60 years.

[neverdem]

Pretty good analysis.

[neverdem]

The following link lists some semi-conservatives who are Republicans who voted against Medicare Reform. Wonders never cease.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1029427/posts

[RLK]

This clown switch horses in midstream. He begins by talking about conservatism, then switches to talking about Republican gains. Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. Most of them are brainless self-serving politicians as are Democrats. It makes no difference to me whether Democrats spend hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing massive irresponsibility, or whether Republicans do the same thing. The result is the same. Conservatism is dead and Republicans are helping to kill it.

[nathanbedford]

Agreed, but maybe the author has inadvertently put his finger on a significant development in the sweep of American political history: What Bush is doing is not bringing us big government socialism but economics under the fascist model where the government picks winners and defends them against the world.

So we see a return to protectionism for steel and textile as against the world; massive spending for prescription drugs but protecting the giants in the industry at least to the extent that they are freed of direct cost control; and sensible solutions for energy which perforce are industry friendly.

This begins to look like the German model, not the ideal of Milton Friedman.

[neverdem]

"Conservatism is dead and Republicans are helping to kill it."

I look at it differently. I see Machiavellian power grabs undermining conservativism, and doing a pretty good job, just as it corrupted the rats, although you percieved the author as switching horses in midstream.

Bush and Co. are just trying to get re-elected. If he gets re-elected, and in the process picks up nine more senators who will work with him, then a second term could easily turn hard right. There are so many social programs that have popular appeal despite the lack of visible, positive results. He could say we tried the nanny state and it has failed.

For all the talk about the power of alternative media such as the Internet, this forum, talk radio, Fox News Channel, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The Washington Times, etc. versus ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN ,MSNBC ,PBS , NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, etc. I'll believe when I see the results next November.

The rats scare the crap out of me. If I had to choose two major parties, then one would be socially conservative and the other libertarian. Both would be fiscally conservative. But that's just my dream. Until the rats are in the dustbin of history, the pubbies are the only realistic alternative.

All of the above was generated by this supposed Medicare Reform victory and ignores the backlash that caused the repeal of the last reform to Medicare that included catastrophic coverage. Don't dig the grave yet.

[nickcarraway]

Still in exile. Can't even get all the moderate judges approved.

[neverdem]

"Still in exile. Can't even get all the moderate judges approved."

I think we must be more specific. The ones who are being opposed are feared because they don't have an explicit agenda that supports radical leftist ideology that would fill seats on Circuit Courts, i.e. the level of intermediate, appellate federal courts that feeds nominees to the Supreme Court.

The rats and the major, leftist madia are saying that Bush is getting over 90% of his judicial nominees approved. They deliberately fail to make the distinction that he's getting about 98% of his District Court nominees approved to the lowest level of the federal court system approved, but they are being filibustered, without precedent, on about half of the Circuit Court nominees, IIRC.

[Neophyte]

...economics under the fascist model

Sorry bro, methinks you've absolutely no clue what you're speaking about.

I'm not surprised when such bullshit appears in the NYTimes - that rag should carry the Democratic party logo on their front page, exactly like the ol' Soviet "Pravda" carried the one of the Communist party - but in the FreeRepublic?

Haven't you come to a wrong forum?

[nathanbedford]

Sorry bro, methinks you've absolutely no clue what you're speaking about.

Ich denke Sie haben auch keine Ahnung aber Sie sind arrogant.

Look, if you have a complaint with what I say, make it plain instead of accusing me of having "no clue." Then, we can get it on.

[neverdem]

"I'm not surprised when such bullshit appears in the NYTimes - that rag should carry the Democratic party logo on their front page, exactly like the ol' Soviet "Pravda" carried the one of the Communist party - but in the FreeRepublic?"

I think there was an element of truth in the comment you referred to as bovine feces, and the this Op-Ed came from the Slimes. The author was recently hired to add a little more balance to their Op-Ed page.

[RLK]

Bush and Co. are just trying to get re-elected. If he gets re-elected, and in the process picks up nine more senators who will work with him, then a second term could easily turn hard right. There are so many social programs that have popular appeal despite the lack of visible, positive results. He could say we tried the nanny state and it has failed.

------------------------------------

This is pure fantasy, nothing more. Bush/Republican supporters continue to construct it and act as if it will come true. Comes the second term and things will mysteriously change. There is no evidence that they will. They won't. There is no San Claus.

[neverdem]

"This is pure fantasy, nothing more. Bush/Republican supporters continue to construct it and act as if it will come true. Comes the second term and things will mysteriously change. There is no evidence that they will. They won't. There is no San Claus."

Unfortunately, where is any other viable opposition to the domination by the unequivocally socialist rats?

[Neophyte]

Ich denke Sie haben auch keine Ahnung aber Sie sind arrogant.

You approach me in German because I had implied you didn't know what the fascism was? Then, bro, you just confirmed you don't - better try Italian. German was the language of the Nazis, right? And there is certain difference, agree? I mean, between the two ideologies. Is it too arrogant for yoy?

[neverdem]

There are some interesting tete-a'-tete comments about this Op-Ed on another thread here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1030749/posts?page=23#23

Somehow, it links at my comment which is non-contributory. Others are interesting.