With
the Iowa straw poll proving that George W. Bush and Steve Forbes are
the top two Republican choices, only David Brooks sees the quintessence
of this nomination contest. The Weekly Standard editor correctly sees
Mr. Bush as for the being the Republican establishment candidate and
Mr. Forbes as the conservative establishment candidate. As the former
has not collared every GOP official, Right although close, neither has
the latter won the endorsement of all conservatives. But both do represent
the deepest interests of their respective factional blocs.
Party establishmentarians exist to win elections. The philosophy or
policies of the candidate matter only in so far as they contribute to
molding the interest coalition necessary to get the votes to win. Success
in the future is best judged by winning earlier elections. A candidate
is supposed to look nice and be friendly. A familiar name helps. Raising
money is the mother's milk of politics. Strong issue positions only
turn people off. Making deals in a legislature controlled by the other
party shows a candidate knows the game, can deal with lobbyists. Thus,
according to the Wall Street Journal, the governor privately told GOP
senators the complaint against him in Texas was he was not tough enough
on its legislature, implying he would not make waves with Congress either.
Yes, Mr. Bush is the perfect party establishment candidate.
Mr. Forbes? He "has spent his life championing conservative ideas, and
activists and idea mavens admire him. On policy grounds, Mr. Forbes
is closer to the right-leaning think tanks, magazines and editorial
pages than any of the other candidates. So the fate of Forbes' campaign
is an indicator of the health of the conservative movement," Mr. Brooks
insightfully notes. While the conservative establishment admires him
and in their heart wish him success, many do not support him publicly
(some fearing IRS audits), and few realize how closely their success
is linked to his. If Mr. Forbes loses, Mr. Brooks believes, the movement
must wonder why have those most closely associated with it fared so
poorly; has the movement "ossified"? Its theme of freedom "seems out
of step with the times" because "American culture lacks self-control,
real standards and respected authority figures," the essence of the
modern conservative program.
These are tough questions for the conservative movement and they must
be faced directly or it will truly ossify. And the Forbes candidacy
might just be the right catalyst. Think tanks and editorialists need
not become campaign flacks, but it is important they understand that
something important they at stake. The temptation is to at least stay
quiet so that if Mr. Bush wins, they will still be able to have influence
on him. The question is, will they have to choose between becoming part
of the Republican establishment to obtain influence or losing their
conservatism? A possible indicator of the future is what is happening
with the increasingly-establishmentarian Republican Congress. As the
Republican caucuses have lost their conservative edge, the conservative
think tanks have been pushed to the side. Each one today is making the
calculation of whether to fight for principle or to go along to get
along.
The problem with direct confrontation is that conservatives are not
particularly good at it. A recent analysis in The Washington Post by
two obviously liberal social scientists found that liberal ideological
and interest lobbies were more effective than conservative ones. Given
the ideological perspective, it was rather well balanced and convincing.
Yet they were blind to the one great influence that makes the biggest
difference in success. The liberals have the media constantly reinforcing
their point of view, and this greatly influences legislators. Conservatives
have some media but with comparatively less effect. So it is a rational
temptation to give in and play the party game -- and it helps fund-raising,
and future employment possibilities, too.
It is pretty easy to get comfortable in Washington. The pay is good
and the psychic rewards even better. There is no question that Mr. Bush
is the favorite. So why bother? Well, the soul of the movement -- to
which most have devoted their lives -- might be at stake. As author
of a book over two decades ago proposing a credit that would allow taxpayers
to choose a private charity from taxes due rather than having a government
agency spend it directly, your servant felt guilty he was supporting
Mr. Forbes when Mr. Bush made a similar proposal recently. Maybe, it
did make no difference. Then, the governor explained himself. "Government
cannot be replaced by charities. I know that, and you know that. But
it can welcome them as partners, not resent them as rivals," almost
copying A1 Gore's explanation and ignoring that "partners" of Caesar
usually end serving him. Or does he really mean some of us dummies think
charitable tax credits can replace the Marines and the police? Or does
he just not want to replace bureaucracy but add to it? As President
Clinton said in California, Mr. Bush's "rhetoric" mimics his own.
Mr. Bush made it simple to understand: "The idea that if government
would only get out of our way, all of our problems would be solved"
amounted to a "destructive mindset." That should make what is at stake
clear. Of course, "all" could be emphasized, and no conservative believes
anything will solve everything but, even then, why the gratuitous slap
at traditional conservatives? It is like "compassionate conservatism."
There is a sense this is a fine sentiment but to make it the lead theme
obviously means the author is uncomfortable with an unmodified conservatism.
Anyone who truly believes in conservatism must think it, itself, is
compassionate or he is a monster -- or he does nor understand or not
believe in it. How does one believe in the charitable tax credit as
an innovative solution who must twice undercut it first?
The conservative ideal of liberty and self-control may be a bit out
of fashion; but then it always is. Freedom has been rare in the world's
history and a majority of the Earth's people still live under repressive
governments -- and most are getting more highly regulated, not less,
especially in the West. Even the Constitution was adopted rather narrowly.
Until the Readers' Digest published F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" after
World War II, there had not been a widely published philosophical work
supporting freedom in decades. As late as 1980, a Republican National
Committee presentation "proved" with poll data that Ronald Reagan was
the only GOP candidate so libertarian he could not possibly win the
presidency. Nothing is easy; but standing for the conservative principle
of freedom should always be worth the cost.
Donald
Devine, former director Of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant and a Vice Chairman
for the American Conservative Union.
