In Which Costumes Should the Republicans Parade?
This Carnival, I began thematically with a column about the groups of the Arab Spring, and I continue down that road. I can’t resist a small tirade about the tea party and its costumes.
For those who don’t know, this is the group, linked to the Republican Party, whose ideological makeup mixes with populism to oppose any type of establishment (although billionaire businessmen like the Koch brothers help to sustain the “spontaneity” of the movement); their ideological identity includes a visceral aversion to the state (as long as the social benefits aren’t taken away from their militants) and some shades of libertarianism, which I personally consider the most interesting aspect of the tea party, while many militants also embrace social conservatism.
The tea party entered the scene exactly four years ago to denounce the jump of expenses and federal ransoms that marked the transition between the governments of Bush and Obama in the peak of the economic crisis. The idea was an insurrection in the style of that which was held by the colonists against the tyranny of the English metropolis in the 18th century. Obama, the alien = King George — hence the costumes (and I’m not talking about ideologies).
So now the empire strikes back (I’m not talking about King Barack, but the Republican establishment) and, especially through the legendary political consultant and electoral marketer Karl Rove, continues to emphasize Bush. One costume worn by some conservative sectors is the denial that Republicans suffered a historic defeat by the Democrats last November and that the party is going the opposite way of history on topics like immigration, gay marriage and climate change.
It finally clicked for Rove, who left the GOP as an effort to recalibrate the electoral vigor of the party in an offensive which included influential figures like governors (for example, Bobby Jindal) and senators (Marco Rubio). Rove believes that a priority should be placed on financing viable candidates, not those consecrated by the extremist base — who may suffer disgraces in the general elections, as in the Senate races in the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles — in the primaries.
These are the lessons taught by William Buckley, one of the fathers of modern conservatism, who died in 2008. According to Buckley, the Republicans should choose the most electorally viable conservative candidate — this is what he defined as the “politics of reality.” Now, in the footsteps of Buckley, experienced Republicans demand space after so many expensive follies.
The idea is to dilute the purist ideology and the obsession with opposing any kind of compromise with the Democrats. Living in this alternative reality are members of the tea party and other conservatives. Of course, there are shades both of extremist ideology and of pragmatism. But figures like Rove, Jindal and Rubio know that the party needs to evolve. It can’t be stubborn regarding certain convictions that hinder the governability of the country or, say, invite electoral setbacks (incidentally, the popularity of the tea party has never been so low).
The concern of these conservative leaders is for the party to resist the Democrats in an intelligent manner and make necessary compromises so that the obstructionist attitude doesn’t crystalize. The party should oppose Democratic foolishness, not the mere idea of government. It’s necessary to have a more positive and inclusive vision (of various types of minorities). It’s necessary to have more skills. Of course, it’s not enough to have a few ethnic faces (like Jindal, a son of Indians) or bilingual politicians (like Rubio, a son of Cubans). It’s necessary to change some clothing or costumes.
In Jindal’s words, the Republicans should stop being the “stupid party,” meaning they should stop allowing more unruly, uncompromising, bizarre or conniving sectors to attach to the agenda and harm their electoral viability while giving the Democrats ammunition to ridicule them.
The party must decide which outfit it’s going to wear for the political parade. In some situations, it’s better to parade without a costume.
For those who don’t know, this is the group, linked to the Republican Party, whose ideological makeup mixes with populism to oppose any type of establishment (although billionaire businessmen like the Koch brothers help to sustain the “spontaneity” of the movement); their ideological identity includes a visceral aversion to the state (as long as the social benefits aren’t taken away from their militants) and some shades of libertarianism, which I personally consider the most interesting aspect of the tea party, while many militants also embrace social conservatism.
The tea party entered the scene exactly four years ago to denounce the jump of expenses and federal ransoms that marked the transition between the governments of Bush and Obama in the peak of the economic crisis. The idea was an insurrection in the style of that which was held by the colonists against the tyranny of the English metropolis in the 18th century. Obama, the alien = King George — hence the costumes (and I’m not talking about ideologies).
So now the empire strikes back (I’m not talking about King Barack, but the Republican establishment) and, especially through the legendary political consultant and electoral marketer Karl Rove, continues to emphasize Bush. One costume worn by some conservative sectors is the denial that Republicans suffered a historic defeat by the Democrats last November and that the party is going the opposite way of history on topics like immigration, gay marriage and climate change.
It finally clicked for Rove, who left the GOP as an effort to recalibrate the electoral vigor of the party in an offensive which included influential figures like governors (for example, Bobby Jindal) and senators (Marco Rubio). Rove believes that a priority should be placed on financing viable candidates, not those consecrated by the extremist base — who may suffer disgraces in the general elections, as in the Senate races in the 2010 and 2012 electoral cycles — in the primaries.
These are the lessons taught by William Buckley, one of the fathers of modern conservatism, who died in 2008. According to Buckley, the Republicans should choose the most electorally viable conservative candidate — this is what he defined as the “politics of reality.” Now, in the footsteps of Buckley, experienced Republicans demand space after so many expensive follies.
The idea is to dilute the purist ideology and the obsession with opposing any kind of compromise with the Democrats. Living in this alternative reality are members of the tea party and other conservatives. Of course, there are shades both of extremist ideology and of pragmatism. But figures like Rove, Jindal and Rubio know that the party needs to evolve. It can’t be stubborn regarding certain convictions that hinder the governability of the country or, say, invite electoral setbacks (incidentally, the popularity of the tea party has never been so low).
The concern of these conservative leaders is for the party to resist the Democrats in an intelligent manner and make necessary compromises so that the obstructionist attitude doesn’t crystalize. The party should oppose Democratic foolishness, not the mere idea of government. It’s necessary to have a more positive and inclusive vision (of various types of minorities). It’s necessary to have more skills. Of course, it’s not enough to have a few ethnic faces (like Jindal, a son of Indians) or bilingual politicians (like Rubio, a son of Cubans). It’s necessary to change some clothing or costumes.
In Jindal’s words, the Republicans should stop being the “stupid party,” meaning they should stop allowing more unruly, uncompromising, bizarre or conniving sectors to attach to the agenda and harm their electoral viability while giving the Democrats ammunition to ridicule them.
The party must decide which outfit it’s going to wear for the political parade. In some situations, it’s better to parade without a costume.