The crowd’s reaction was mixed. Boos and angry shouts of “No!” clashed with cheers of vindication as Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the annual Conservative Political Action Conference Straw Poll. This three-day conference—the largest and most famous of its kind, with over 10,000 participants—is an opportunity for conservatives to join together in small-government, traditional values brotherhood, but is it good for the conservative movement, and is it good for the country?
The mixed reaction to Romney’s straw poll victory was indicative of the nature of today’s conservatism. Based on his policy positions, he would probably be the most conservative presidential nominee in recent history. He is pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-traditional marriage, strong on immigration, strong on defense, espouses austerity, the Ryan Budget, and the repeal of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. And yet, he is inadequate for some conservatives.
The conference was chock-full of varying personalities, but not varying opinions – I’ll get to that later. It involved journalists, like Jonah Goldberg and Cal Thomas, giving insightful analysis and thoughtful recommendations for future action. It included former political figures, like Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, engaging in unabashed self-promotion in an effort to maintain their grip of some sliver of the conservative population and to sell more books. It also involved current political figures, like Senators Rand Paul and Jon Cornyn, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, clearly and passionately espousing the principles of conservatism in a way that reflected positively on themselves, their states and their cause.
The general drift of the proceedings, however, was an unflinching, unequivocal, and stunningly tactless bombardment of President Obama and the policies of the last three years. Obama was described as a radical, a socialist, a failed president, hater of the rich, hater of the poor, and – my favorite – an argument in favor of contraception. Speakers and participants alike railed against welfare (which breeds dependency), Social Security and Medicare (which are bankrupting the country), gun-control (the essence of liberal overreach), and gay marriage (disgusting). In some of these areas their points are valid, but the level of anger and, at times, heartlessness with which the participants viewed these issues is a recipe for electoral disaster.
Which brings us back to Romney. For all his conservative bona fides, many conservatives don’t believe he’s gone far enough, or is passionate enough. Foster Friess, a wealthy investment banker and Santorum supporter, introduced the former Pennsylvania Senator and began with a joke: “So a Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar and the bartender says, ‘Hey Mitt.’” In his remarks, Santorum argued that Romney disqualified himself from the Republican primary race by passing and continuing to defend Romneycare, a Massachusetts health care reform bill with many similarities to Obamacare. Gingrich called Romney “timid” and “moderate.” Without using his name, Texas Governor Rick Perry spelled out the conservative dissolution: “We do the American people no great service if we replace the current embodiment of Big Government with a lukewarm version of the same.”
Current conservatism views Mitt Romney, whose own policies would put Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley’s to shame, as a “lukewarm version” of Big Government ideology. Is this viewpoint good for the conservative cause or good for the country? I don’t think so. And this attitude applies to my larger point about CPAC itself.
As I walked through the halls and the lobbies of the DC Marriott, two things struck me. First, I was amazed by the overwhelming sense of otherness and isolation that hovered over the hotel like a heavy fog. The three-day conference progressed completely devoid of outside influence and alternative opinion. It was as if the conservative movement was acting out their own version of Gilligan’s Island, stranded on the sandy beaches of small-government philosophy, bolstered in their conservative camaraderie, and surrounded by the seas of liberalism and the circling sharks of the Obama Administration. They must act in unison if they want to survive. Social Psychologist Jonathan Haidt describes the phenomenon as a Matrix-like “consensual hallucination,” an unwavering, psychological adherence to their image of the political world. But the lack of disagreement and dissent will only weaken the conservative movement and deter its success.
Writers such as David Brooks, who has written about the political skill and admirable leadership qualities of President Obama, or Andrew Sullivan, the gay conservative blogger who opposed the war in Iraq and the torture of detainees, are not welcome at CPAC. Politicians such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who have been willing to compromise and work across the aisle, are also not welcome in more conservative circles. These figures are viewed as disloyal to the cause of conservatism. But as Edward R. Murrow stated, “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.” In this case, the death of loyal opposition within the conservative movement is a precursor to the death of conservatism as we know it.
The second thing that struck me is a result of the first. Without dissent and debate, the participants of CPAC carry the cross of conservatism with a biblical surety and unwavering passion. The result is a myopic vision of America and its political landscape. Participants immediately dismiss welfare and deem its recipients lazy, manipulative malcontents without even considering the plethora of factors (low education spending, lack of law enforcement, poor health care and health education) which deprive millions of the opportunities we enjoy. They dismiss any type of gun-control as a massive overreach of statist government without considering the thousands who die every year from gun deaths. They dismiss what they see as the homosexual perversion of marriage without even considering the implications of personhood for the LGBT community.
In many ways, their positions are fundamentally sound. The welfare system is flawed and does, in some cases, breed dependence. Universal gun-control does infringe on the rights of those who hold their second-amendment rights dear to their heart. Gay marriage may negatively affect the fundamental values of our society. But the way the conservative movement carries itself, most clearly portrayed in the three-day proceedings of CPAC, lacks tact, nuance and the ability to compromise – all valued skills in politics and in the basic art of persuasion.
Mitt Romney may not be the most conservative candidate in the Republican field. He may lack a certain fluency in conservatism (most likely the result of being a result-focused pragmatist for much of his life in the private sector). But a Republican Party that decides Romney is not a conservative at all is a Republican Party doomed to failure. And a conservative movement that lacks nuance and rigorous internal debate does nothing but harm itself and the country at large.
No comments:
Post a Comment