Too busy today for blogging, but I can jot down some musings on the future of the GOP. Predictions are easy!
Some blog commenter the other day complained about the GOP that there's a contradiction between the economic hands-off approach of conservatives, and their moralistic hands-on approach.
Of course, this fellow was shouted down by the faithful, who pointed out the lack of any logical contradiction. But I think those faithful were missing a clue to the level of sophistication of many a voter.
The GOP has lost its national-security credentials, and is finding out how much it needed those to hold the center. What's left is the uneasy alliance of economic and social conservatives.
I think that we will see the GOP revive and prosper when it takes a hands-off approach in general. Gays want to get married? "Fine, go do it and hush up." Someone wants to get an abortion? "Not in my family, I teach my children better." Wilsonian Democrats want to invade some country? "Let the foreigners solve their own problems."
Not that this strain of thought doesn't have its own problems, but it's a lot more appealing to a certain part of the American character than the Republicans For Jesus bandwagon from which pragmatic Republicans keep tumbling off.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can actually live with the economic/moral contradiction. What really gets to me is how often their moral convictions end up twisted, spun, or compromised. Abortion is bad because it kills a baby and harms the mother - but smoking is fine because it's personal freedom! etc etc etc.
ReplyDeleteFor a while I've had a somewhat negative view of philosophy, and especially ethics philosophers, because I believe more and more that they don't examine the world to find answers, but try and create justifications for what they already believe. That is, Kant didn't start analyzing morality and eventually come to the conclusion of universalism - he started out believing in universalism, and began crafting arguments to support it. That seems horribly backwards to me.
But back on topic - I think you see a lot of the same dynamic at work with the GOP (and possibly all political discussion, although we'll keep it scoped to them for now). Did they look at marriage, decide it was going to fall apart if gays could get married so they had to oppose gay abortion? Or did they go "Ewwww, yicky!" and start hunting for reasons for why gays shouldn't be able to marry?
I think this is borne out in the conservative version of "science" too - studies and the like showing that, for instance, women who have abortions are more likely to suffer depression seem to always come from very conservative institutions. IMHO, they had the answer before they started the study, and crafted the study to that purpose. Intelligent Design is another great example - no legitimate scientist would give up looking for answers, but ID is all about arguing that there are no answers. That's probably the biggest preconception of them all.
On target. Good observations. To the both of you.
ReplyDeleteFor a while I've had a somewhat negative view of philosophy, and especially ethics philosophers, because I believe more and more that they don't examine the world to find answers, but try and create justifications for what they already believe.Man, I wish I had Hegel's Philosophy of Right at hand, as he has something to say on that subject. Check back w/ me on that.
ReplyDeletePolitics in general does tend to be about "here's what I want, now how do I get it?" which tends to lead to retroactive rationalizations meant to play to the public sphere.
The real problem may be the low educational level of that public sphere, so that appeals to prejudice and absurd arguments suffice for so many.
As I like to snark, any Martian visiting our democracy would be nonplussed at our cavalier attitude towars educating the people who will grow up to vote.