Some sense.
Since the loss of McCain/Palin on November 4th (though it could also be measured as starting in 2006) folks have been wondering how the Republican Party can get their footing back with the American public and not become a lost cause.
There have been posts, essays and articles from both sides of the party stating that if they’d just get rid of the social conservatives/Religious Right or the fiscal conservatives/small-l libertarians or (insert least favorite wing of the party here) then everything would become ponies and rainbows.
While I would favor the first suggestion, I’d probably be as wrong as most others who have written on the subject.
Then along comes Peter Berkowitz at the WSJ last Friday with an actual idea that works
The Constitution presupposes a responsive electorate, and respond the electorate did to the vivid memory of a spendthrift and feckless Republican Congress; to a stalwart but frequently ineffectual Republican president; and to a Republican presidential candidate who — for all his mastery of foreign affairs, extensive Washington experience, and honorable public service — proved incapable of crafting a coherent and compelling message.
Indeed, while sorting out their errors and considering their options, conservatives of all stripes would be well advised to concentrate their attention on the constitutional order and the principles that undergird it, because maintaining them should be their paramount political priority.
A constitutional conservatism puts liberty first and teaches the indispensableness of moderation in securing, preserving and extending its blessings. The constitution it seeks to conserve carefully defines government’s proper responsibilities while providing it with the incentives and tools to perform them effectively; draws legitimacy from democratic consent while protecting individual rights from invasion by popular majorities; assumes the primacy of self-interest but also the capacity on occasion to rise above it through the exercise of virtue; reflects, and at the same time refines, popular will through a complex scheme of representation; and disperses and blends power among three distinct branches of government as well as among federal and state governments the better to check and balance it. The Constitution and the nation that has prospered under it for 220 years demonstrate that conserving and enlarging freedom and democracy depends on weaving together rival interests and competing goods.
Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution’s lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.
Berkowitz lays down a few points the “Constitutional Conservative” platform should stick to and, while I don’t agree with each and every one of them, it wouldn’t both be extremism to require myself to do so and be one of the best platforms they’ve run under since 1980. Essentially, we’ve got two years to decide on if this is the “something” (and if it isn’t, what is) and then two years after that to find and run a candidate who can publicize and stick to the platform.
Of course, we also need to cross our fingers and hope that by 2012 the American electorate is still intelligent enough to know what the Constitution is and understand what it says. But then again, if they aren’t or can’t, what is the point of letting an election go forward?
I think that if the Republicans would just stop trying to be Democrats, they’d do a lot better at the polls. After all, if I’m going to vote for a dem, it might as well be the real thing, rather than a “me too, but less” version.
For decades, the repubs have been the lite version of the dems: they taste ickky, and are less satisfying. The liberals hate them, because they don’t wholeheartedly support the libs’ insanity. The conservatives hate them, because they support the libs’ insanity.
I suppose a fixation on the constitution would make the repubs about as unlike the dems as could be. I’d vote for that party platform! Unfortunately, both parties are far more interested in maintaining the machinery of power and corruption than they are in maintaining freedom and limited government. It’s a great plan that Berkowitz lays out, but it goes against the self-interests of the folks in both parties who aspire to be our ruling class.
I’ve been saying this for some time. Just as Christians use the Bible as a touchstone (i.e., “What would Jesus Do?”), Republicans should similarly use the Constitution as their touchstone — “What does the Constitution say?” That document stresses small, decentralized government (“that which is not explicitly spelled out here, is reserved for the states”) and embraces capitalism. Back to basics.
Hillary said “It takes a village, etc.,” and said that “to each according to his needs, from each according to his ability” is the American way. We need to point out that the originators of such concepts — Marx, et. al. — were not present at the Philadelphia constitutional conventions. We have created something unique here; we need not look to Europe for ideas.
We also need to educate the electorate about this — Lord knows the schools no longer teach civics. Today’s younger folks don’t even know what socialism is.