July 09, 2004

The GOP break for Neolibertarianism
Posted by Jon Henke

A few assorted posts through the blogosphere have gotten me to thinking about a choice the GOP is going to have to make at some point: the religious right, or the libertarians/moderates.

10 years ago, I couldn't have imagined the GOP breaking away from the religious right. Now, I'm not so sure. As Kevin Drum writes about the anti-Gay marriage stand Bush has taken...

I think Rove and Bush have screwed the pooch on this one (um, so to speak). In the end, it hasn't really energized their evangelical base all that much, but as it takes center stage during a vote it will turn off a lot of live-and-let-live moderates.
In fact, that seems to have been the case with a lot of the recent paeans to the religious right. Has stem cell research opposition, the FMA, or the faith-based initiative really rallied support for the GOP? Has the net gain been positive? At best, I'd say it's fungible. More likely, libertarians and moderates are seeing more and more of a gap between their "live and let live" sensibilities and those of the religious right-influenced GOP.

This gap will only widen, and the GOP is going to have to make a decision.

Now, they can take one of two approaches.
1: Gradualism: nominate a moderate/socially libertarian candidate for President....(paging Mr Giuliani......Mr Giuliana to the convention, please)
2: The Fast Break: nominate a sharply different candidate...one who completely disrupts the popular view of Republicans as intolerant.

Now, per my own "Price is Right" theory of political strategy--you only have to be one degree more acceptable than your opponent to win--the gradualism strategy is far more likely to be adopted.

But something Matthew Yglesias writes--in response to a Bruce Bartlett column on the possibility of a Condi Rice Veep-hood--strikes me as very tempting...

...what really makes this impossible is that she's a single woman who's widely rumored to be a lesbian. Obviously I don't have a problem with lesbians, or with single straight women, or even with women who simply choose not to date for whatever reason. But certain elements in the Republican Party don't feel that way at all as you may have noticed over the years.
Matt's right. If true--and I have no idea, nor do I care, except inasmuch as it is politically relevant--the religious right could revolt.

On the other hand--assuming Bush wins in '04--where would they go if Condi were to run in '08 against, let's assume, Hillary Clinton? The religious right would swing to the Green Party sooner than vote for Hillary.

And what about Condi for President? Think what it would do for the GOP image to nominate a female, black, lesbian Republican for President..... My god, we could pretty well dismiss the notion of Republican intolerance in one fell swoop.

Of course, it will never happen. Condi has built a career in academics, advisory positions, an behind the scenes work.....and, as Bruce Bartlett writes, we don't even know much about Condi's domestic political stances.

Still, it's an attractive notion to we Neolibertarians who would love the GOP to move in our direction.

UPDATE: Parked in the Beltway Traffic Jam

TrackBack

Comments

I don't know that you could fairly call the President a social conservative. He's certainly not governed like one. The only truly socially "right" position he's taken (on gay marriage) he took after he was essentially shoved there by the party. He's not comfortable out there. You can see that every time he has to address the issue. He'd much rather it remain a State-level decision and when he does talk about it, he usually refers to his personal beliefs and not how he believes it ought to be legislated. That's not what I'd call a "stand".

Having said that, though, I'd rather see Guiliani as the VP choice with Cheney as the DCI. That would, I believe, result in a landslide victory in 2004, make the moderates happy, and make the conservatives happy (since Giuliani is, legislatively, more conservative than he is anything else). It'd be my ideal ticket right now.

Posted by: Jimmie at July 9, 2004 08:07 AM

WOW! You put a lot into that post.

The administration and the Republicans in Congress are already working hard to break-up the coalition. Libertarians and fiscal conservatives have seen a steady stream of decisions and legislation that are for bigger government, a more complicated tax code, increased governmental regulation, etc.

The counter-balance is that the Democrats seem to be moving farther left on both social and fiscal issues.

Overall, it feels like the centerpoint, after many years of shifting right, is now shifting to the left. Republicans may do well in the elections, but principled Republican voters (of all philosophies) will still feel very uneasy about "their" party.

Posted by: pilsener at July 9, 2004 10:09 AM

As much as I wish you were right, I don't see the Republicans doing anything to alienate the Religious Right. They count for too much, especially in the South.

The Tories in the UK have learned , much to their dismay, that it is suicide to take a certain demographic for granted. In their case, it was British nationalists who detested the EU. The nationalists did find someplace else to go - the UKIP, which is now Britains third largest party.

Big Tent! Big Tent wins elections!

Posted by: John Rogers at July 9, 2004 01:37 PM