Ya gotta love this quote from Reynolds: "One of the defining characteristics of conservatism, I thought, was a belief that one didn't know all the answers."
I think it's much more likely that the Libertarian-types like Reynolds will be shocked to find they don't matter to the Republicans generally like DeLay and Bush. They don't matter at all; they were useful idiots for a while but too small a group to be pandered to.
Yeah, Tom, I agree about the libertarians. But there is (or was) a real constituency for plain old "small government," and I hope the alienation of libertarians like Reynolds is a harbinger of the alienation of those folks.
It's not all that surprising that the Republican party has turned towards the expansion of the federal government. There's actually a long history of using states' rights ideology more as a pragmatic political program than as an unchanging principle. (Note: in the example I'm linking to, the Republicans were actually the ones most in favor of expanding the central state.)
Also, both in the Salon article and in the posts you linked to earlier the Bill Quick strategy is presented as an attempt to create a Move-on type of organization. The implication is that the Move-on model really has transformed (that may be too strong a word) the Democratic party.
Is that really true? Or is this a case of focusing on a highly visible group and assuming that it must be having a great impact? I don't really know enough about what has or has not changed in the Democratic party over the last few years to be able to tell.
That's a really good question. My impression is that MoveOn has done two things well. It's stiffened the spines of some national candidates by being a loud and unabashed champion of progressive causes, and it's motivated a lot of grass roots support, either by actually mobilizing people, inspiring imitators, or just, again, by making its voice part of the background noise of being a liberal.
If Quick's group is able to do that, then that would be progress. But for some reason I can't really articulate right now (probably because I'm so very tired) it also seems like they're going to have a more difficult time gaining support. I could be wrong, but I would guess that people closer to the center - which is where Reynolds and Quick and others now seem to be relative to the rest of the Republican party - are less likely to form strong attachments to organizations.
Congress thinks that states in general are dealing badly with these kinds of questions in a way that endangers federal constitutional rights, it is empowered to pass general legislation under the 14th Amendment. But deciding individual cases isn't something that Congress is supposed to do, and it's rather shocking to find so many "small government" Republicans supporting it.
Which leads me to a question. What do "small government Republicans" think about all this get-into-your-bedrooms-and-monitor-your-daily-lives legislation supported by the people they vote for? Are they naive, or do they overlook that stuff, or do they just falsely rationalize it and say it doesn't count? Really, the Schaivo case isn't much of an extension from the Republican daily-life-morality-monitoring stuff.
Trampling traditional limits on governmental power in an earnest desire to do good in high-profile cases has been a hallmark of a certain sort of liberalism
I'd greatly appreciate it if someone more knowledgable than myself could comment on this.
I think you're right, here. I think there's a principled way for the Democratic party to position itself as the party of less intrusive government, and to the extent that that's what actually drives people's votes, we've got an opportunity. Jesse at Pandagon had one of thse Brand Democrat slogans that went something like "Democrats: Staying out of your bedroom since 1792". You could add some others like "Democrats: We don't want to choose your family, we just want to make sure you can feed them," or (this one sucks as a slogan, but there's a real smaller/less-intrusive government idea there) "Democrats: War or criminal justice -- we don't want to kill anyone unless we're certain it's a good idea."
I think that the Schaivo case is somewhat anomalous, and is unlikely to inspire in the Glen Reynoldses of the world much in the way of sustained reflection about the company they've been keeping. That's because the libertarianism of Reynolds, and his fellow "small government" militarists, doesn't seem to be rooted in a broad-based commitment to monitoring the activities of our government with a suspicious eye. More centrally, it just seems to be a brand of white male identity politics. Hence, its concern primarily with infringements on liberty that are likely to affect his social class such as taxes, gun control, and invasive checks at airports, and its relative lack of concern with such things as torture, extraordinary rendition, use of government funds for partisan propaganda, or wars fought on the basis of constantly shifting rationales. (In the semi-early days of Instapundit, he was obsessed with the creeping fascism represented by Norman Mineta, a kind of concern that, needless to say, has not surfaced much since.) Hence, also, its tough-guy support for Bush's militarism, weird anti-feminism, and attraction to Road Warrior-style fantasies of armed self-reliance. What's unique about the Schaivo case is that it actually involves an issue that most Americans connect with their own lives. Most people have gone through something like this with a relative, or expect to, or expect to be that relative someday, and are really creeped-out by the spectacle of government interference. (Incidentally, I think that's why this might be backfiring on conservatives. I think they thought that this would be another issue like "partial birth abortion" – a chance to flamboyantly side with "values" on a personal liberty issue that most people don't identify with.) The point, however, is that I don't think that this case will turn out to possess any generalizable lessons for Reynolds and his ilk. When the next case of egregious Republican overreach comes up we won't be able to count on him, unless it just happens to affect his social class, and provide no opportunity for macho-posturing about dangerous lefitists.
it just seems to be a brand of white male identity politics
Bingo.
Trust me, Reynolds won't let a bunch of 100% anti-libertarian Christian warriors get in the way of his GOP jock-sniffing the next time a $300 tax refund gets proposed.
You know, I go back and forth on this, because I agree with you about Reynolds, and about most of the 'small-government Republicans' I actually know -- they don't give a damn about small government generally, they just want lower taxes on wealth. That said, the 'small-government' rhetoric seems pretty powerful, and seems to have a reasonable amount of weight with voters, not all of whom are insincere. If we can make it clear to voters that the principled positions the Democrats already hold fit a lot better with the GOP's small government rhetoric than the GOP's positions do, while we probably don't have a hope of getting Reynolds' vote, we may be able to make 'small government' useless for the GOP.
My feeling is this: when the "small government" movement has its Ralph Reed, then I'll take it seriously. (And Grover Norquist doesn't count. I'm talking about mobilizing millions of voters.)
I suspect Republican leadership feels the same.
And stories like this are officially A Joke. By which I mean, if I were working in high levels at the White House, I'd laugh at the futility of these reports.
the 'small-government' rhetoric seems pretty powerful, and seems to have a reasonable amount of weight with voters, not all of whom are insincere
I think I can agree with pjs and still agree with that. "Small government" isn't a principle many people actually believe in; the government services they approve of and rely on tend to become invisible to them, but the rhetoric of small government is very powerful, and the GOP is violating it in ways that, as pjs says, people don't like. I'm not so concerned with Reynolds as an individual, but insofar as people who supported the war and hate the left are becoming disenchanted with Republicans over things like Schiavo, that seems to be where the hope is.
I'm think it's the case that one will often find that "small-government" types make the argument "I can spend my money better than the government can." So I'd say these people are taking a position from a very narrow perspective.
The other day, this argument was made to me by a woman who worked for the state, whose husband worked for the state, and whose son was on a second tour in Iraq. She was a staunch Repub. It's hard to think of what parts of the government she actually wants to shrink. If anywhere, I would suspect entitlement programs. So, LB, while I personally like those slogans, I don't think they'll much more than energize the democratic base.
pjs, good analysis.
I know I keep veering off the thread topic here, but this is still tangentially related, so.
Yahoo's homepage is currently displaying a picture of Schiavo pre-veg, and looking at that picture made me realize what has upset me so much about the whole deal, and why I instinctually have been siding with the husband throughout.
The Christian right has taken a real human being, one who was surely imperfect (bulemia?) and complicated and three-dimensional, and turned her into a martyr. This is what bothered me about all the "heroes" talk post-9/11 in reference to the police officers and firefighters who perished that day. It's demeaning and reductive to rob someone of their right to be a total human being; neither Schiavo nor the 9/11 victims volunteered to be poster children for someone else's pet causes.
The husband seemed to understand that notion, and a whole host of judges agreed with him, believing that her wishes were the most important factor in the case (obviously, this is consistent with the values our legal system was based upon). The parents, though, seemed unwilling to accept that her wishes were of paramount importance; they believed they knew better than she. This is the Christian right to a "T".
I can't stand being treated like a child. And that is the feeling I get from the Christian right; they are the parents, we are the children, and ours is not to wonder why. Andy Card once described Bush as thinking of the American people as a parent would think of a child. I'm sorry, but the President is not my father, and I don't want him to be. Neither do most Americans. The Left often gets accused of paternalism, but these days, the Right is where the real Daddy-knows-best action is.
As The Editors might note, however, none of this has any impact on Michael Moore's pant size.
Brock:
I was literally going to say exactly the same thing. The good Professor can't help being disinglennuous even when he's criticizing his own side.
The Christian right has taken a real human being, one who was surely imperfect (bulemia?) and complicated and three-dimensional, and turned her into a martyr.
and
I can't stand being treated like a child. And that is the feeling I get from the Christian right; they are the parents, we are the children, and ours is not to wonder why.
Dead Fucking On. That insipid tactical/attitude combination is precisely what drives me directly round the bend where religious nuts are concerned.
As for
As The Editors might note, however, none of this has any impact on Michael Moore's pant size.
Teh Funny.
Joe,
Oh yeah. Look back on the post-war statements Bush has made concerning Iraq. He speaks as if they were chilldren who need some adult guidance.