No U-Turns: Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they’re not models for the future.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ^ | April 1, 2007 | David Brooks

[quidnunc]

There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states’ rights.

This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future.

Back in the 1970s, when Reaganism became popular, top tax rates were in the 70s, growth was stagnant and inflation was high. Federal regulation stifled competition. Government welfare policies enabled a culture of dependency. Socialism was still a coherent creed, and many believed the capitalist world was headed toward a Swedish welfare model.

In short, in the 1970s, normal, nonideological people were right to think that their future prospects might be dimmed by a stultifying state. People were right to believe that government was undermining personal responsibility. People were right to have what Tyler Cowen, in a brilliant essay in Cato Unbound, calls the “liberty vs. power” paradigm burned into their minds — the idea that big government means less personal liberty.

But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation.

Normal, nonideological people are less concerned about the threat to their freedom from an overweening state than from the threats posed by these amorphous yet pervasive phenomena. The “liberty vs. power” paradigm is less germane. …

-snip-

[plain talk]

I agree with all of that but we also need what Reagan had and Bush didn't

- the ability to communicate and reach the masses and
- the ability to take on and fight the democrats and win.

[visitor]

bump for later

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Yippy, the great defenders of the status quo speak again. I'm really impressed. The "if it's screwed-up, apply more of the same" method of government has been working real great so far.

[rob777]

"The Republican Party, which still talks as if government were the biggest threat to choice..."

The GOP has not taken this approach since they backed off from the government shutdown when Clinton was President. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Brook' "new" approach has captured the top levels of the GOP since then. It's current aimless wandering is a result of this shift.

[ronnie raygun]

What we sorely miss is that father figure he projected when he spoke to the American people, the assurance, the determination ,the hope and sincerity, the love of God and country, the pride in being an American, the warmth and laughter, the Patriotic duty of us all to rise above. Its the person who made it all happen. He told all of us exactly how he felt and we believed him. This is what we surely miss.

[johnny7]

“Go sh•t in your hat Mr. Brooks.”

[Bishop_Malachi]

"But today, many of those old problems have receded or been addressed. Today the big threats to people’s future prospects come from complex, decentralized phenomena: Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation. "

"Islamic Extremism"

The federal government has always had the blessing from conservatives to protect us against national security threats. This is a straw man.

"failed states"

What is he talking about? Failed foreign states? failed states within our Republic?

"global competition"

This is a serious threat? I beg to differ. The benefits outway the "costs". The only way this is a threat is if you were being payed exorbitent amounts of money/benefits for a job that requires marginal/low skill.

"global warming"

Don't even get me started about this.

"nuclear proliferation"

A legitimate task for the federal government to tackle. Why would any conservative oppose the use of federal power to curtail proliferation? A deeper question: would nuclear proliferation have perplexed Reagan or Goldwater as to how they would respond? It most certainly would not.

"A skills-based economy"

While there are a great number of different skills needed in our economy, there are still a great number of core skills that will always be needed. A knowledge of money management and personal finance along with a solid understanding of American Government is critical to participate in a free-market republic such as our own. Unfortunately, the federal government has taken up this responsibility (Federal Dept. of Education, NCLB, etc.) This is unconstitutional, and unnecessary. But again I would ask how is a skills-based economy a serious threat? Lastly, Reagan reponded to federal control of education as any principled conservative would...he opposed it.

"economic and social segmentation"

Perhaps I'm a little slow, but what does the author mean by these, and in what sense are they a serious problem?

[FairOpinion]

"Polls show voters prefer Democratic economic policies by 14 points, Democratic tax policies by 15 points, Democratic health care policies by 24 points, and Democratic energy policies by 20 points. If this is a country that wants to return to Barry Goldwater, it is showing it by supporting the policies of Dick Durbin. "

(from this article)

AND:

"The survey, by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, found a "dramatic shift" in political party identification since 2002, when Republicans and Democrats were at rough parity. Now, 50% of those surveyed identified with or leaned toward Democrats, whereas 35% aligned with Republicans.

What's more, the survey found, public attitudes are drifting toward Democrats' values: Support for government aid to the disadvantaged has grown since the mid-1990s, skepticism about the use of military force has increased and support for traditional family values has decreased."

======

Ignoring reality will just continue and accelerate the GOP's rush to irrelevance, permanent and insignificant minority status, almost irrevocably handing over to the Democrats the country entirely.

[se_ohio_young_conservative]

Senator Goldwater and President Reagan would still be saying the same things if they were here right now, and they would be right.

the more things change, thr more they stay the same.

[dforest]

Yeah, but isn't it funny how liberals, socialists Communists never need to change? It been the same forever it seems.

[ElkGroveDan]

There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the GOP has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days. It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states’ rights. This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future.

Well that was either written by FairOpinion or areafiftyone. I had no idea we had Arnold/Rudy Freepers from Arkansas.

[rob777]

"The sad thing is that President Bush sensed this shift in public consciousness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move beyond the liberty vs. power paradigm. But because it was never fleshed out and because the congressional GOP rejected the implant, a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge."

The sad thing is that it DID emerge. Many of us saw this coming in 1999 when the GOP Primary started to pick up steam. The problem was that only a small faction of the "congressional GOP" stood up to this aberration. (Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee) That is why spending has skyrocketed under GOP control, and the general public now sees the GOP as the party of big government. That really worked out well for us in 2006. My fondest hope is that the 2000 election will drive a stake through the hear of this "implant".

[SittinYonder]

Socialism was still a coherent creed, and many believed the capitalist world was headed toward a Swedish welfare model.

Right ... nobody thinks this anymore. There's no threat of National Healthcare. There's no craddle-to-the-grave programs existing or being proposed every year.

[dvan]

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Just the title does it for me. I don't have to read any further! Good adive from the democrats?

[em2vn]

".....and Mr. Bush is." He's a lot things but he isn't authentic unless you consider being a bigger government big spending president as authentic.

[mgstarr]

I completely agree. What bothers me most are "conservatives" who can't/refuse to see that.

[tennmountainman]

I guess that means all future GOP leaders should speak Hispanic and Arabic.

[Red6]

You're 100% right!

Nothing has changed in basic economics! The laws of supply and demand, fiscal and monetary policy as well as federal regulations and basic tax loads of the consumers are as relevant today as they were in 1980. If you want a return of stagflation then we need to go down the road which this writer suggests. If you think more government does not equate to less freedom, then look at ANY country on this planet that has socialist health-care, universities or retirement programs etc. The reality suggests the opposite of what this writer "thinks".

This author lives in a vacuum. He like the other self proclaimed intellectuals that dream this stuff up never seem to be able to give examples in real life or even connect the dots to contemporary economic theory of how this bright idea will work. Like Marx himself, they live in a world of theory and rhetoric but it consistently fails to deliver in real life. Yet this never seems to deter them.

The best socialists are those who never lived under such a system and were born and raised with a silver spoon in their mouth!

[gcruse]

"It has to once again be the minimal-government party, the maximal-freedom party, the party of rugged individualism, and states’ rights. '

Those would be libertarians. There's nothing about 'maximal-freedom' in social conservatism.

[rob777]

"The party is going to have to make another run at it. As it does, it will have to shift mentalities. The security-leads-to-freedom paradigm doesn’t end debate between left and right, it just engages on different ground."

That is just great. We will have two political movements arguing over who can grow the federal leviathan more effectively. This is the kind of thinking that tempts we to consider third parties.

"It is oriented less toward negative liberty (How can I get the government off my back ?) and more toward positive liberty (Can I choose how to lead my life ?)."

To a large extent the two are the same question. In either case, the goal is to roll back the functions of government and enhance the functions of Civil Society.