QandO
Questions and Observations| « Maureen Dowd - literate irrelevance | Main | Kerry's pitch » |
|
July 26, 2004 Opportunitarianism I tend to give little attention to meta-criticism of the politics of one party from partisans of the opposing party. Both Republicans and Democrats tend to paint each other in less than objective terms, and from a very different set of assumptions. It may be good red meat for the partisans, but it is rarely useful analysis. Having said that, I find this commentary from Jesse Taylor very insightful... I have to admit, I've always been a bit confused by the Bush Administration's attitude towards government? It's good when it does some things that interfere in people's lives, bad when it does others. But that badness and goodness doesn't really seem to stem from any ideological principle. They're not economic libertarians. They're certainly not social libertarians. They're more...opportunarians, to coin an awkward phrase that will almost certainly never be used again.He's really only wrong about one thing: "opportunitarians" should be used again...and is, here. It's a good description of the neoconservative political ideology, in which traditional conservative principles of "smaller government" and a limited role for government are subservient to the very real--and very compromising--demands of electoral politics. Neoconservatives see this expansion of government as "natural, indeed inevitable"--certainly a defensible position--and seek to work within that framework for more marginal gains. Thus, what Jesse complains about....a party focused on utilitarian political goals, rather than principle. It's uncomfortable to both conservatives/libertarians--who prefer a bit of principle in their politics--and to liberals, who dislike a moving target. It remains to be seen whether the neoconservatives can gather enough of a coalition to make this opportunitarianism a permanent aspect of US politics. The alternative is a decisive fracture in the Republican Party....a break between the social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, and moderates. |
I think that "opportunarianism" is the natural state of both political parties - do whatever is needed to get elected - since shortly after the birth of our nation. It's only in times of crisis or stress that members in one or both of them stand up for principle.
Posted by: Tom Ault at July 26, 2004 08:50 AM
Modern day neoconservatives have high-jacked the Republican party and have brought "opportunitarianism" to a whole new level. Bush 41 wasn't that bad, and I could have definitely voted for McCain. Bush 43, on the other hand, represents the possible future of the GOP. Which is to say politics instead of ideals. If you gave me a conservative who was fiscally sound and socially progressive, to a degree, I might have a tough choice on my hands.
Saying that the politics of George W. Bush are just like all the rest since the birth of our nation is ignoring the facts. Bush has ruled as if he had a mandate since the 2000 election. He has ignored his own party principles and forced the rank and file to follow in line. All this has made the Democratic party stronger than ever.
I'll tell you this, if Bush hadn't acted like this from the beginning, he'd win re-election in a cakewalk.
Posted by: sean at July 26, 2004 10:11 AM