Did the GOP Really Lose Its Way?

Many conservative politicians, radio hosts, and pundits have repeatedly stated their shared belief that the Republican Party “lost its way” prior to the 2008 election. In their minds, the entire conservative movement believed in limited government and low spending and was simply corrupted by absolute power. They may be surprised to learn that this is not the case at all. The fact that party leadership turned its back on limited government and low spending was entirely predictable. In fact, it should have been expected.

The conservative movement is not homogeneous. Rather, the movement consists of fiscal conservatives, limited government conservatives, libertarians, pro-business conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and others. When Democrats control government, these disparate conservative groups share many common goals. They all wish to reduce the power of government and they all wish to reduce taxes and spending. As a result, they usually form a very effective alliance while out of power.

We saw this in 1993 and 1994. Conservatives rallied around core beliefs like limited government, term limits, Second Amendment rights, and low taxes. Party leadership rolled out the Contract with America to universal conservative acclaim. Conservatives all rallied around statements like, “guns don’t kill people…people kill people,” while GOP candidates gladly signed term limit pledges and Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge. United, the GOP won control of the House and the Senate in 1994, and later won the presidency in 2000.

This coalition remained united in opposition to President Clinton through the remainder of the 1990s. George W. Bush’s presidential victory in 2000 gave the GOP total control of the federal government and, unfortunately, sometimes nothing ruins success like success. Far from losing their way, factions within the GOP simply asserted their own visions of conservatism.

The first casualty was any support – beyond empty rhetoric – for limited government. This should not have been surprising. Some within the conservative movement believed as a matter of principle that the federal government should be limited in power. Others, especially leaders of the social conservatives, simply wished for the federal government to be weaker when Democrats were in the majority.

Many social conservatives were unhappy with changes that occurred in America since the 1960s. Rather than relying on changing the hearts and minds of Americans within the context of a free society or advocating for a small federal government that would not harm traditional values, their national leadership instead believed the GOP-controlled federal government could and should actively bring about the changes they sought.

Moving these social conservative activist bills through Congress required compromises within the movement and with the opposition. Under these conditions, fiscal discipline was another early casualty. After all, an active government costs money. Additionally, passing bills desired by social conservatives often required some Democratic votes, and that often meant funding programs those Democrats wanted in exchange.

To keep the conservative coalition together, most Republican politicians simply kowtowed to the demands of the James Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons of the movement on the assumption that other conservatives had nowhere else to go. These politicians liked being in power, so they naturally publicly supported the entire social conservative agenda, as defined by the movement’s national leadership.

This was evident in the online poker issue. Focus on the Family’s founder and former leader Dr. James Dobson felt so strongly about stopping adults from playing poker in their own homes, on their own computers, that he insisted on having the GOP push anti-gaming legislation through Congress. He also insisted on a plank in the GOP party platform advocating a national prohibition of online poker.

The legislation Dobson advocated forced America’s banks to act as an unpaid arm of the Department of Justice. It required banks to screen transactions and to block those related to “unlawful Internet gambling,” a term the Department of Justice was not even able to define for the banks ordered to enforce the act. Needless to say, this legislation is 180 degrees from limited government conservatism.

In a classic “be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it” scenario, many Americans, particularly younger swing voters, adamantly opposed the big government, big spending programs of social conservatives. In fact, many developed a strongly negative view of the big government nanny-state instincts of the “new” GOP, as was evidenced by the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

In early 2008, poker players and Internet freedom supporters wrote to the GOP platform committee to oppose inclusion of the Dobson-backed plank advocating a national online poker prohibition. This should not have been a surprise, as the one million member Poker Players Alliance was loudly demanding poker rights. The draft platform committee heard the public loud and clear and removed the plank, citing the need for those votes on Election Day. The full committee, ignoring any pretense of limited government principles, responded by restoring the anti-poker plank. Then, despite the fact that 2008 was already shaping up to be a tough election year for conservatives, the Family Research Council nevertheless released a press release praising the addition of this plank that unnecessarily and gleefully taunted the plank’s many opponents.

What did national leaders of social conservatives get for their efforts? America now has a Congress more likely to pass legislation that licenses and regulates online poker, which I see as one of the few positive outcomes of the 2008 election, but we also have a Congress that is working against the interests of all conservatives. Dobson and McClusky fought for things they saw as “nice to have” rather than the “must-haves,” and they lost both. Not a well-played hand on the part of Dobson and McClusky.

Social conservatism under some of its recent leaders, often morphs into active, big government conservatism. It seeks power to change society. In its current form, it will seek to drive the conservatism movement toward big government conservatism whenever the conservative movement gains power. And, every time the conservative movement embraces big government, voters will reject it.

There is a way to break this cycle. The conservative movement must embrace a consistent set of principles. We either believe in limited government or we do not. We either believe in low taxes – and low spending – or we do not. If we stick to this, we can win elections and stay in power. Leaders of social conservatives would be wise to embrace this as well. Rather than seeking to force changes via big government, then having to fight the big government they helped to create when out of power, social conservatives would be better served with leadership that supported a smaller federal government that kept its nose far from our religious and personal liberties. After all, our values don’t come from Washington, nor do they come from our laws. It’s time to loosen the shackles on the American people and trust them to do what is right.

*Ping!*

Many social conservatives.. Rather than relying on changing the hearts and minds of Americans within the context of a free society or advocating for a small federal government that would not harm traditional values, their national leadership instead believed the GOP-controlled federal government could and should actively bring about the changes they sought.

Very true; the Bush/Huckabee wing of the Party. I guess we're stuck with them and their baggage. As long as they are not the dominant faction, I guess Reps can still govern...

The federal government got turbocharged with the 16th amendment. Then it got supercharged with the re-interpretation of the so-called welfare clause of the constitution. It was a matter of time before the role and size of government would grow - that is the nature of the beast.

The conservative and libertarian ideal would reverse the 16th amendment with an amendment that nails both. The leftists in charge of the governemnt now want to fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and federal government once again with Obamacare. Yes we must stop this but we must go further.

Try cutting the size of the government for a change.

People that are not socially conservative vote liberal by a very large majority.

Thats true, but they should not get the front seat on making "policy".

I remember Reagan very well,; his main platform was lowering taxes and spending. He took a huge risk in '81 and held the line against intervening in the recession... We need to keep the Huckabees and the GWBushes in the back seat and away from the legislative table. Small government is in all of our interests, as it lets us be left alone.

Big government conservatism does not make sense. BTW, no true conservative would nominate Harriet Meiers to SOTUS. Think about it. .

The GOP didn’t have control of both houses of Congress under Bush until the second term.

When they did, Bush didn’t lift a finger to help Tom Delay from being railroaded by a renegade Travis County DA democrat hack in Texas. With Delay gone, the GOP House became a feckless mess.

Also, with all that power, they did nothing to zero out money to the Left. We argued about it on this site. Defunding the Left, with all their tentacles in the public unions, media, front groups etc was a critical error.

Nothing corrupts absolutely like absolute power, but nothing is worse than not using it to defeat your enemies, foreign and domestic.

Especially when you were sent there to do just that.

Big spending by social conservatives? Such as ?

8 years of GW Bush. Adding a medicare entitlement without paying for it, increasing spending in federal government in all areas, no spending cuts anywhere, involving faith based govt funded initiatives, on and on. Other than the war, he was pretty awful, IMO. And he was the prototypical social conservative leader, like Huckabee.

You guys are creating a phony myth of social conservatives as big spenders, social conservatives ran this country pretty good for the first 150 years and you can see the decay and slip into liberalism happen against the votes of social conservatives. You libertarian types made your real gains during and after the 1960s. In old America, true blue America, gambling was illegal in most places.

The more power the anti social conservatives got, the farther left the country went.

Reagan did not like gambling and felt that it had to be limited and the guy writing this article is an anti-Christian gambling lobbyist.

No, they can’t. Because in a choice between the “gimme free stuff” party and a “gimme a little less free stuff and make it sound like something it isn’t,” the clear-cut “gimme free stuff” party is going to win.

Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was based on a false premise (that fiscally conservative conservatives are not compassionate) and was fiscally irresponsible. Time and time again in presidential elections, we see that the #1 issue for voters is their pocketbook. The GOP has no credibility left on this issue. The “social issue” conservatives too often want to spend other people’s money to prove how their morals trump liberal morals. I’d greatly prefer that both ends of the spectrum cease their unctuous twaddle and just stick to those powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Since the GOP can no longer even pretend to do this, they won’t get my vote.

There’s enough blame to go around on the spending issue.

Libertarians were AWOL, both when Bush was trying to privatize Socialist Security, when he need their help, and when Bush created Medicare Part D, when he needed their opposition. They were too distracted by the liberal media’s stance on the war and civil liberties. Libertarians are all about conspiracy theories these days. Sad.

The neocons did a good job cutting taxes, but should know better about trying to get short-term votes through new entitlements, when the existing programs are unsustainable. They got a free pass on everything because of their aggressive approach toward Muslim supremacists.

The social conservatives got the best out of the Bush administration, for two reasons: Roberts. Alito. They made a ruckus when they had to, and got what they wanted.

It’s good to have a historical perspective, but when it comes to politics, winning has to be right up there at the top of priorities. When the Republican Party sticks to its conservative principles, including social conservatism, it wins. This nation was founded on the virtues of limited government, which means keeping it as small as possible. The Republican Party needs to get back to the intellectual heft of our founders, and forget beltway relativism and omnipotent government. Forget Marx, Third Way politics (fascism) and get over the lunacy that all problems need a government solution. Americans might relearn to appreciate liberty, individualism and national pride again, if the damned race baiters, beltway intellectuals, state media, Marxist educators and slimy, liberal politicians would quit beating it out of them. The Republican Party needs to stand for American greatness.

The “social issue” conservatives too often want to spend other people’s money to prove how their morals trump liberal morals.

That is BS, it is the Social Conservatives that created this nation and you can see the decay the more they lost, and lose power. The social conservatives really took a blow with the growth of the anti Christian politics of the 20th century, the 1960s ushered in the most visible and dramatic social and cultural gains of the liberal/libertarian movement.

We need PALIN

We need BACHMANN

we need WEST (Lt. Col Allen West)

the GOP establishment is afraid of West for the same reasons they are afraid of Sarah...He's head and shoulders above them all and the public, once they know about him, loves him. He's a strict Constitutionalist.

He ran for congress in 2008 - and the GOP ignored him. He's running again and we need to get these videos out to everyone we know. He's now getting attention on all the FOX shows and others.

Listen to what he says about Afghanistan - I wish he were president right now and this is the speech we'd hear tomorrow.

well, wait, I'll list that video 2nd - first,listen to this:

http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm/If_this_doesnt_get_you_charged_nothing_will.html

now on Afghanistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhOzIQ1-CmQ

He was the hero in Afghanistan that - OMG - scared a terrorist to get information that saved the lives of his men - and the army gave him a choice of a court martial or resign - after 22 years. WE need this man in Washington.

http://www.politicalcoffeehouse.com/2009/09/allen-west-conservative-thunder-in.html

check these videos out -

http://allenwestforcongress.com/videos/

But all of the programs you are criticizing are not “social conservative” policies and were advocated by none of them. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, Bush’s brand of conservatism was labeled “big government conservatism” by neo-conservative Fred Barnes and championed by other leading neo-cons who pooh poohed worrying about deficits. The last time I looked, neo-conservatives are for the most part socially liberal Scoop Jackson/Wilsonian Democrats, not members of the evangelical right.

And contrary to your claim, Ronald Reagan was the prototypical social conservative leader, not GW. Reagan united all three strands of conservatism while this article seeks to divide them and present a false dichotomy, all in an attempt to prove that the downfall of the Republican party was caused by... wait for it... disgruntled online poker players... ludicrous.

If bush is a big govt conservative then Reagan was a bigger govt conservative.

In Jan 2007 unemployment was 4.7 %. The deficit was on pace to zero by 2009.

Bush grew the economy more than govt which was the right way to wean the public off welfare.

The govt shutdown reactionaries fantasize about will bring the same results as the 90s. Dem control

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.