Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

November 26, 2008

Conservative Camps: Limbaugh vs. Frum (Rush Is Right, With One Caveat)

It probably oversimplifies things to describe the camps as Frum vs. Limbaugh, but let’s oversimplify.

One camp – exemplified by departing National Review writer David Frum – believes the conservative movement has to get out of the 1984 mentality that focuses on tax cuts and caters to the Christian Right. Otherwise, say Frum and others, Republicans will never win back young voters, Hispanics and others they need to win again.

The other camp – exemplified by El Rushbo – says conservatism’s problem is insufficient conservatism. Given the chance to govern over the course of the past decade, says Rush, conservatives blew it by spending like drunken sailors and expanding government entitlements. They became Democrats Lite, abandoning their principles and predictably driving voters in the direction of Democrats Proper.

So, did the right lose because it became too conservative, or because it wasn’t conservative enough? The view here is that Limbaugh is closer to the truth, but neither side is completely right or completely wrong.

Frum and fellow travelers like David Brooks of the New York Times are clearly philosophical centrists, and see little point in defending dogmatic conservatism because they a) don’t believe in it; and b) think it complicates the task of building the center-right coalitions necessary to win elections.

Limbaugh and those in his camp start with a focus on policy substance rather than politics. Conservative policies are best for the country, they believe, and if only such policies are advocated, implemented and defended, the populace will see their wisdom and get behind them.

I share the Limbaugh camp’s belief that conservative policies – free-market economics, strong defense policies, laws that value moral standards – are best for the country, so I don’t think the Frum camp has much of a point. But here’s where it has a small one:

Conservatives have lost the ability to make the case to the American people that conservative policies will solve problems and make their lives better. We got spoiled in 1984, when all we had to do was keep repeating that Walter Mondale was a liberal who was going to raise taxes, and we won 49 states.

The public doesn’t respond to that argument the same way it did 24 years ago, and it’s not because the argument is less valid. It’s because times are different and problems are different. It’s not enough just to advocate cutting marginal tax rates. You have to show the average person why he or she will benefit directly from the resulting economic growth. It’s not enough just to talk about cutting the size of government. You have to do it, and having done it, you have to show the average person why this will result in more freedom, more money in their pockets and a more secure future.

American manufacturing is struggling because of bloated costs and changing markets. Conservatives have to make the case for why their policies help improve the situation – even if that means not every venerable company survives. Access to health care is troublingly dependent on employers’ diminishing ability to bankroll insurance premiums. Conservatives have to make the case for why empowering individuals restores rationality and affordability to the market. Democrats have a solution. It’s not a good one, but it’s a solution. What’s ours? Calling their solution socialism? That didn’t win us the argument, did it?

Many of America’s cities are in decay. Democrats, whose policies have largely caused the problem, suggest more liberal policies as solutions. What are the conservative, free-market prescriptions for curing urban blight? The Democrats’ policies sure as hell haven’t worked. Wouldn’t urban America benefit from some different thinking? Or don’t we care because people in big cities never vote for us anyway?

It’s well and good to say that America’s current problems were largely caused by liberal policies. Making mortgage loans to people who can’t pay them back is not a conservative idea. Neither are the bloated union contracts, the explosion of entitlements and the soaring national debt.

But the union guy who’s always depended on his union wage-and-benefit package doesn’t see any reason to suddenly start trusting his fate to some bonehead trying to tell him about supply-side economics. What do we have to offer this guy that’s better?

The answer is not to be less conservative. The Limbaugh Camp has that right. But conservative ideas have to be applied – thoughtfully and honestly – to the priorities the nation faces in 2008. In that respect only, the Frum camp does have a small point. We do have to modernize conservatism, not by abandoning it, but by making it work for today’s problems.

That’s a lot harder than screaming about tax increases and socialism, but if we ever want to win again, it starts by admitting that it’s not 1984 anymore.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

This is Column # DC228. Request permission to publish here.