Understanding reluctant Republican views
Sean Vinck
Not Peace, but the sword
In American political discourse, terms like "compassionate conservative," "moderate Republican," "liberal Republican," "centrist" and "social moderate," are thrown about with some degree of frequency. I think that my beliefs transcend these rather narrow categories. Count me a "reluctant Republican." I dedicate this column to articulating the gripes of "reluctant Republicans" everywhere.
Permit me this brief autobiographical musing before I begin:
One great period in my life was November 1994. It was the midterm election when the Republican Party gained control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. It was a watershed in American History; not one Republican incumbent (or pro-life incumbent, for that matter) was defeated in any election for any office anywhere in the United States. It seemed that not only had the Republicans taken over the legislative branch of the government, but also American "conservatism" had been brought back to life after the defeat of Bush, and the Clintons were sent careening into utter political free-fall. And I felt great for the rest of the year.
Yet, the Republican "revolution" that had so excited me in 1994 has since gone terribly awry — this is why I am a reluctant Republican. Let me elaborate.
Surfing the Web recently, I stumbled onto the Web site of the National Republican Congressional Committee (www.nrcc.org.) The page entitled "agenda," where the House Republicans putatively describe those things they hold as principle, beginning with this statement: "Democrats and Republicans really are different." The fact that my party has to even utter that phrase proves that the argument has already been lost. To have to argue in such a strenuous fashion that the two parties actually have differences demonstrates that public already believes that the two parties are virtually indistinguishable. In politics, perception is more real than reality. The Republicans must learn that in order to argue that your party is actually different from the opposition, you must act in a different fashion, not just say that you are different.
And what rationale would the Republicans offer to prove their dubious claim that they "really are different?" Consider this direct quotation: "Ever since President Johnson needed fast cash to pay for the `Great Society,' money going into the Social Security Trust Fund has been taken right back out again to pay for bigger government, needless waste and outrageously unnecessary projects. Congressional Republicans have a bill that sets aside 100 percent of the money going for Social Security and Medicare to pay for just these benefits. The Democrat proposal uses these funds for other government spending." I thought that Social Security and Medicare were prime examples of "bigger government, needless waste and outrageously unnecessary projects." But, I suppose I am wrong. The Republicans distinguish themselves from Democrats by claiming that, "Congressional Republicans have a bill that set's aside 100 percent of the money going for Social Security and Medicare to pay for just these benefits. The Democrat proposal uses these funds for other government spending." So, the Republicans are going to spend my tax dollars on needlessly wasteful and outrageous projects like Medicare and Social Security rather than on other needlessly wasteful and outrageous projects that characterize nine-tenths of the Federal Bureaucracy.
The Republican Party, my party, opposed virulently the very creation of the federal entitlements of Medicare and Social Security. They argued correctly that these programs were manifestations of creeping socialism, and were not the legitimate interest of the Federal Government. Now that the Republican and Conservative opposition to socialism and its redistributive policies has been so effectively silenced and demonized, we resort to pathetic arguments about how we are somehow less wasteful in the operation of socialistic programs than the Democrats are in order to score a political point. The spirit of Robert Alfonso Taft now weeps in despair.
My party once fought valiantly against the broad spectrum of liberal ideals commonplace in the late twentieth century: internationalism, the New Deal, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the forever-increasing federal minimum wage. It now not only fails to resist the continued implementation of these policies, but actually brags about administering them in a more efficient fashion.
Conservatism in the United States has always been a tricky beast. There are a variety of competing interests and ideologies among people who could be described reasonably as "conservative." Yet, conservatism has always been opposed to communism, and his/her sister, socialism. It has generally opposed the legalization of actions that have been long considered loathsome in a Christian society. It has generally opposed increases in the rates of taxation. The Republican Party has failed woefully to even begin to implement these ideals on a national level through legislation, executive action, judicial decree or concerted political activism. Instead, it boasts of redistributing wealth in a more streamlined manner than the Democrats.
My fundamental error has always been this: The assumption that the Republican Party was actually committed to the general spectrum of conservative interests. My father told me when I was an adolescent that the Republican Party supports but one dogmatic principle: It is very much in favor of getting itself elected. Dad, how right you are.
Sean Vinck is a junior PLS major. His column is featured every other Tuesday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, October 12, 1999
