Time magazine is running a symposium on the state of the conservative movement. There are thirteen entries, including one by Rich Lowry and another by me.
There is much of interest here, but let me mention Richard Land’s contribution. He distinguishes between “the hard conservatives of the Goldwater, Buckley variety who are more libertarian in their beliefs” and “the soft conservatives represented by former President George W. Bush,” who think government “can be used to empower people to make decisions to improve their lives.” He thinks their struggle “will continue for the foreseeable future.”
So far so good. The trouble comes, as it so often does, when you get down to cases. Land writes, “Hard conservatives oppose the social conservatives’ pro-life, pro-traditional marriage agenda. They find Ayn Rand’s ideas attractive.” You can see the problem already. One of Land’s two great examples of hard conservatism, Buckley, was both pro-life and (famously!) anti-Rand. His other example, Goldwater, was pro-life for a good chunk of his career.
“Hard conservatives,” in Land’s view, oppose “social engineering” in the tax code, while “soft conservatives” favor “tax breaks for families.” But the tax credit for children was originally proposed by the Republican revolutionaries of 1995, who were mostly “hard conservatives” if the term has any meaning. And many advocates of expanding the credit regard it as a way of reducing the social engineering government is already engaged in.
So while I’m sure there’s something to Land’s distinction, I don’t think it can bear quite the weight he puts on it.
Anyone who feels the need to put an adjective in front of it reveals their fundamental misunderstanding of conservative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I too disagree with these blanket dichotomies-- particularly those that try to associate past political figures with positions relevant only to current political debates-- what are you trying to say here, Ramesh?
"“Hard conservatives,” in Land’s view, oppose “social engineering” in the tax code, while “soft conservatives” favor “tax breaks for families.” But the tax credit for children was originally proposed by the Republican revolutionaries of 1995, who were mostly “hard conservatives” if the term has any meaning. And many advocates of expanding the credit regard it as a way of reducing the social engineering government is already engaged in."
Just as 1964 is not 2012, neither is 1995. What passed for "hard conservatism" in 1995 differs greatly than what passes for Tea Party conservatism today (and yes, this is true even accounting for the sometimes bitter debates between those on the Right who would consider themselves "Tea Party" conservatives).
Again, as you would note, there isn't so much a strategic split between social and fiscal conservatives as there is a difference in tactical & operational emphasis. Even granting that there likely *is* tremendous overlap between those two camps-- i.e., talk of a schism that doesn't actually exist is lousy analysis dressed up to cater to MSM pre-formed opinions-- there still exists a major, MAJOR difference in priorities.
And politics, as practiced in a unique time period (2012 versus 1995, or 1964) is all about priorities.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know what kind of "conservatives" thought it would be a good idea to cut Federal Income Tax refund checks to people with ZERO tax liability, but, whoever and wherever they are, they need to either be drastically adjusted or given the boot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're just now realizing Richard Land doesn't know what he's talking about? Weird.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe refundable child tax credit has basically amounted to a welfare check since most of the people benefitting from it have little to no income tax liability. They all basically just get a truckload of free money every January and blow it on crazy stuff. Go into a Wal-Mart right now in rural America and you'll see big screen TV's right at the door, instead of the back, to entice the beneficiaries of this handout. Furniture stores kick into high gear this time of year too.
You might still justify this by arguing that A) it boosts the economy, and B) some people, like my secretary, actually did spend this refundable credit to buy things like new beds for her kids. Point A isn't really a conservative argument, although it's possible that the money does more for the economy by being thrown at the poor than it would being thrown at somebody in Iowa being paid not to farm, or some program to put tofu in grade school cafeterias. At least poor people spend their money on stuff that makes them happy rather than spending it on stuff that either does nothing or actively makes people miserable.
The real problem with social conservatives and "compassionate conservatism" is that those people have shown time and time again that they will pander to the populist crowd. Conservative policies and populism are incompatible. At the end of the day the future of this country hinges on issues of government spending and regulations, and boring debates about monetary policy, not the God, guns and gays stuff that gets 'em riled up in Tuscaloosa. Bringing those people into the conservative movement was a mistake in 1980, and it's been a mistake that's been repeated ad nauseum for 30 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethere's no need to go as far down the list as you did. At least the child tax credit can be claimed by someone who has... you know... paid taxes. The EITC, the grand daddy of them all, is explicitly for people who don't owe any taxes. If you do, you're not eligible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho did they get to give the conservative point of view? I mean, come on, Little Richie and Ramesh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRamesh? Lowry? Really, why don't you just throw in McCain and Romney for what conservative means today. Because what's going in this party with its so called leaders is not conservatism.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe difference is not rooted in the tax code. Its rooted in religion, isn't it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse..which is why the Chambers' critique of Atlas shrugged is evergreen. Randian man and Marxian man both face the same dilemma.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf one wants to use shorthand, I believe that the conservative movement is most clearly and usefully divided into 'Main Street' and 'Wall Street' wings, although both branches have some fairly obvious internal contradictions or divisions. For example, Main Street includes both fiscal and social conservatives, but is broader and more libertarian than just the 'values voter' demographic.
The 'Wall Street' branch, on the other hand, is primarily interested in fiscal issues and fighting excessive regulation. The most useful thing they accomplish is to show that economically, a rising tide raises all boats. Unfortunately, all too many in this wing seem willing to believe that their goals justify some very questionable means.
It would be very helpful to the conservative movement if the latter branch, which clearly controls the GOP (in a pinch, with an iron fist) would listen, urgently, to their grassroots, for ever since the "too-big-to-fail' taxpayer bailout, Main Street conservatives as well as non-political Americans have increasingly disliked big-money bullying at the expense of the middle class.
The whole conflict rather reminds me of the Russian Civil War, where the anti-communists might well have won if the autocrats had ever been able to cooperate with small stakeholders and religious peasants; for the GOP Establishment's impatience and contempt for the grass-roots 'peasants' who provide its true base is painfully obvious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse