Dirty Laundry is not Time-Stamped.
By Moe Lane Posted in Republicans — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Glenn Reynolds suggested that it would be profitable to read this NYT article in tandem with this TCS one; the synergy is not immediately apparent, but justifiable. To roughly summarize, the Gray Lady has identified a number of places where young conservatives differ from their elders. Meanwhile, the TCS article is noting the hardly surprising news that recent studies suggest that the younger generation is moving Rightward; put this together and you apparently have a situation where the GOP is about to be challenged by its younger generation.
Note "apparently". The truth is a touch more complex.
To begin with, the New York Times didn't quite notice that their young conservatives were hardly uniform in how they were opposing older conservatives, but that's just the NYT's little ways. When you've been told to go out and write an article about such an exotic specimen as a young conservative, it'd hardly do to come back with an article saying "They're pretty much the same as older conservatives, really". Doesn't, ahh, provide a proper flow to the narrative, or suchlike.
Now, I note this not because I like mocking the NYT - although I can certainly see how it could be addictive. No, I'm noting this because I find the general notion indicative of a piece of political conventional wisdom that really should have been demolished by now: to wit, that the GOP unifies via ideology and the Democrats unifies via coalitions. To be accurate, we're going to demolish the first half: I would be, after all, reporting on the second half from the outside looking in, and that's precisely the sort of thing that I'm about to criticize, so there you go.
The suggestion that the GOP is some sort of ideological, monolithic entity has of course been the subject of much unintended hilarity in the blogosphere, especially when it's been coupled to a plea for the libertarians / fiscal conservatives to escape from the clutches of the evil, evil neoconservatives / social conservatives. Let me assure any random Democrats reading this that the situation is much more nuanced when seen from the inside; the four groups listed there are only the beginning (there's the Buchananites, for example, although they're being eased out). At the moment, the groups are still working together; permit me to raise the hopes of Democrats everywhere by noting that this state of affairs will not last forever.
Now let me dash those hopes by gently pointing out that the first real crisis will not take place until the 2006 Congressional elections, and it will probably be the most significant domestic test of President Bush's second term.
If we were not at war right now, the pressures in the Republican Party would be much, much closer to the surface than they are right now; we would have have seen real primary challengers and possibly even serious ones. As it stands, the Administration benefits from the disinclination by all of us to rock the boat in a crisis - particularly when Democratic foreign policy positions are not notably reassuring. But once the President is re-elected*, the rules change.
It behooves us not to let the upcoming debate not get out of hand; nobody here should expect to get everything that they want out of the GOP. But at the same time, nobody should expect that any group is forever going to forget that it has things that it does want, and that those wants are likely to interfere with the wants of other groups in the GOP. We're going to be disagreeing with each other more openly in the future (read, "starting in 2005"): best to be prepared for it now.
But we won't be disagreeing because we're the young vs the old. It'll be because we're, you know, human beings.
Moe
*Yes, you may rest assured that others have already done their best to make certain that I am kept well-informed of all the myriad reasons why President Bush could not possibly be re-elected; and, yes, you may also freely assume that I am deluding myself. In that case I am distantly sorry that you wasted valuable lifespan reading this far.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | The philosopher-king of Chicago — Comments (24) »
Dirty Laundry is not Time-Stamped. 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In all of this discussion is a recognition that Austin Bramwell - and nothing against the guy personally - just isn't that conservative. At least not conservative in what I would view as the classic-Buckley sense.
It's worth noting that his membership at the Yale Political Union was in the least ideological of the political parties - the Tories and the Party of the Right are both more ideological. All in all, he's indicative of the cliched NYTimes view of young conservatives: white, wealthy, well-connected, and not particularly grounded in any form of political philosophy. There are far too many people who fit that description who are currently on track to be the "leaders" of the party in the future.
That the Catholic Church is socially conservative and economically liberal. Not that 50% of American Catholics understand that...
As an under 25 Republican, I have both anecdotal and (some) statistical evidence to back that statement up. Although there are many socially conservative young Republicans, comparing to the older generations the youth are more socially liberal. One caveat: on abortion, youth are slightly more pro-life than baby boomers.
Anecdotally: I am a libertarian-leaning Republican who is generally turned off by President Bush. As I talk to independents and Republicans in my generation, they are attracted to free trade, fiscal conservatism, and small government. But they are put off by the FMA, too much religion in politics, and intolerance. We grew up under Reagan and I think it rubbed off on us. If the Libertarian Party was less extreme, I think they could pick up quite a few disaffected youth who don't want to ally with either major party.
Statistically:
George Bush's presidency is producing a tremor similar to the Reagan youthquake of the 1980s. The College Republicans have tripled their membership in the past three years, increasing their chapters from 409 to 1,148 and recruiting 22,000 new members in 2002 alone. They now have more than 100,000 members, many in the most unlikely places....
All this coincides with a general rightward shift in young people's views. Bob Dole lost the 18-29-year-old vote by 19 percentage points; Mr Bush lost by two points. Students have been sceptical about bossy governments for years. Now they are increasingly sceptical about the "Ab Fab" values of the 1960s generation--particularly in regard to casual sex and abortion--and increasingly enthusiastic about America's use of military might. A poll by Harvard University's Institute of Politics in April found that three-quarters of students trusted the armed forces "to do the right thing" either all or most of the time. In 1975 the figure was about 20%. Another poll, by the University of California at Los Angeles, found that 45% of freshmen supported an increase in military spending, more than double the figure in 1992.
Why this upturn in conservatism? One reason is a healthy desire to tweak the noses of people in authority. America's academic establishment is so solidly liberal that Naderites easily outnumber Republicans. The leftists who seized control of the universities in the 1960s have imposed their world-view on the young with awesome enthusiasm, bowdlerising text-books of anything that might be considered sexist or racist, imposing draconian speech codes and inventing pseudo-subjects such as women's studies....
These young people are changing the party as well as revitalising it. They are middle-class and hard-working--a long way from the comfortable preppies who used to typify young Republicanism (such as the young Mr Bush). And they usually take a tolerant approach to subjects such as race and homosexual marriage. Whatever the short-term prospects of the Republican Party, its long-term future looks good.
This article from the Economist on Young Republicans (subscription required) is a great read. It also cites a gap between Professors and students about what 9-11 represented: America brought this on itself Vietnam-mentality vs. evil is attacking us mentality. And it mentions the outreach of the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, and many other groups focusing on cultivating conservative leaders and policy makers.
Here is a gallup poll (also subscription required) that gives some numbers on Abortion:
Abortion:
13 to 17 year olds:
Morally Acceptable 26%
Morally Wrong: 72%
Legal under any circumstance: 19%
Legal under only certain circumstances: 47%
Illegal in all circumstances: 32%
These numbers are more pro-life than the general population.
If anyone has numbers on gay marriage or gay rights, I would appreciate them. I remember seeing that over half of the under 25 crowd supports gay marriage and young Republicans are more likely to support gay marriage than older Republicans. We are also more tolerant of mutliculturalism as opposed to assimilation.
"White, wealthy, well-connected, and not particularly grounded in any form of political philosophy" does not describes most people, myself included, who are working on The New Pantagruel, which I felt came across in Kirkpatrick's article as quite sure of its intellectual roots and direction. Even the lawyers among us are solid midwestern guys over 30 with families of their own. However, we have no shot and no interest in being "leaders" of "the party," so you're probably stuck with the likes of young Austin Powers.
Let's assume you are correct, that the GOP is not one big happy mololithic family. Also assume that the Democratic party is the same. Further, assume that some Republicans are Democrats in the wrong state (for instance, a Republican in Mass.) and some Democrats are Republicans (for instance a Democrat in Georgia).
It does not make sense that these people would band together. Why did Miller remain a Democrat, for instance?
Perhaps, the answer is power. Without a major party, one cannot be elected.
While the answer might be power, the result is corruption. The power shifts from "the people" to those who can bundle money, e.g., Pelosi and DeLay. Certainly, DeLay (to take one) does not represent the entire party (nor does Pelosi), but, because he can collect money, he has the reins.
I have long believed the country needed four parties based on two main issues, economics and culture. Currently, the Democrats represent liberals on both and Republicans represent conservative on both. There is no party for economic liberal/social conservative (sort of the Catholic church). There is no real party for the economic conservative/social liberal (Libertarian party is close, but not big enough).
Elections have been won and will be won by the party who can influence the most peopel from two groups without a party to lean their way.