As Republicans gather in New York, many commentators will trace the rise of American conservatism from Barry Goldwater to William Buckley to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. The common wisdom goes like this: conservatism has captured the U.S. electorate, climbing over the tired, embittered carcass of liberalism. Democrats go to extremes to portray themselves as centrist, non-liberals because Americal liberalism is dead. Indeed, spirited conservatives have pushed the entire political debate to the right - what was centrist is liberal, what was right is center.
This is a lie - told by uninformed, swallowed by the incurious.
The United States has never been a more liberal country than it is today, three nights before President Bush is nominated again by a "conservative" Republican Party. The conservative movement has failed, destroyed by the imbibing of that most intoxicating beverage, power.
We can argue symbols, of course. (The phony marriage amendment comes to mind). And we should argue about policy. (Iraq). But answer these litmus test questions. Is the Federal government more powerful than it was five, 10, 20, 50 years ago? Does it collect more and spend more? Does it regulate much less? Have reproductive rights been rolled back? Do we spend less on education than we ever have in the past? Are we really more culturally conservative?
No. We're not. We're more tolerant, more diverse. Government spends more; even the too-thin social safety net has grown under Republican leadership in the form of a massive prescription entitlement program. We still regulate our capital markets. Yes, there is a large, political important bloc of religious conservative voters who believe they're powerful because one party bends over to scoop up their votes. But as the smarter leaders of the religious conservatives understand, they don't get a heck of a lot for their electoral support - a few words, almost no legislation. And the country grows more socially liberal by the second.
Look who's speaking at the Garden this week - social liberals who preside over big government states and cities. And then the faux conservative, deficit-spending, government-expanding, Federal-power-grabbing, privacy-smashing incumbent. Read David Brooks' excellent piece in today's New York Times Magazine on the failure of pure conservatism in the Republican Party. Here's an excerpt:
In 1994, there were 4,126 ''earmarks'' -- special spending provisions -- attached to the 13 annual appropriations bills. In 2004, there were around 14,000. Real federal spending on the Departments of Education, Commerce and Health and Human Services has roughly doubled since the Republicans took control of the House in 1994. This is a governing majority without shape, coherence or discipline.
I believe that we can do better - by extending the liberalism that both Democrats and Republicans embrace in spirit, if not in name. Given our wealth and position in the world, the United States owes a certain minimum standard of living to each American, and a certain minimum standard of opportunity. I guess this is what makes me a Democrat. This is not to say there isn't a massive gulf between the parties in terms of policy, leadership, and a vision for the future of the country. But given the spending habits of the GOP over the last decade of Congressional and Presidential power, isn't this really the set-up these days:
Republicans - Kind of Liberal
Democrats - More liberal
I think so. Welcome, fellow liberals, to our fair city. You'll feel right at home.
