By Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post
The GOP has nearly all the chips on its side of the table — the presidency, the Senate, the House, 33 governorships (the most since 1922) and 68 of the 99 state legislative bodies.
And yet there are despondent lifelong Republicans who are picking up their chips, cashing out and re-registering as independents or checking out of politics altogether. Others are taking a wait-and-see attitude, willing to give the president-elect the benefit of the doubt but greatly disturbed by the tenor and agenda of a harsh, rude and, frankly, obnoxious, style of politics.
The problem is not simply the president-elect, whose selected advisers David Axelrod dubbed the “monster’s ball,” but all the supine lawmakers who swapped principle for Trumpism, overlooked appeals to racism and xenophobia, took up protectionist and exclusionist cudgels, and turned their backs on modernity. In victory the center-right find no joy — only dread and revulsion.
Yuval Levin argues convincingly that conservatism was in decline before Donald Trump came along:
“Trump showed that much of the base of the party was driven far more by resentment of elitist arrogance, by a rejection of globalism, and by economic and cultural insecurity than by a commitment to conservative economic or political principles. … This is surely part of the reason why most members of the House Freedom Caucus and many prominent conservative talk-radio hosts didn’t stand athwart Trump’s candidacy in the primaries, even though he showed contempt for much of what they have always championed.”
The solution, however, is not nativism or populism; the former is contrary to the ethos of America, and the latter is sheer bunk. (Trade does not destroy millions of jobs, immigrants are not stealing our country, and the world is not going to get along without us if we shirk our international obligations.) Reactive compromises to pacify the mob rarely work.
If “conservatism” has shriveled and populism is ethically and intellectually hollow, what replaces it? Millions of people who voted for President Obama twice went for now-President-elect Trump. A GOP convulsed over conservative one-upmanship went for the candidate with no ideology at all. It’s not political abstraction but the search for recognition, a sense of belonging that is at the root of most political movements, and that’s where we will find the alternative to scary or anachronistic right-leaning politics.
Shadi Hamid writes:
“In less religious or ‘post-Christian’ societies, a mainstream Christianity is no longer capable of providing the necessary group identity. But that doesn’t mean other ideas won’t fill the vacuum. In other words, be careful what you wish for: An America where religion plays less of a role isn’t necessarily a better one, if what replaces religion is white nativism. …
“The essence of politics then isn’t just, or even primarily, about improving citizens’ quality of life — it’s about directing their energies toward moral, philosophical, or ideological ends. When the state entrusts itself with a cause — whether based around religion or ethnic identity — citizens are no longer individuals pursuing their own conception of the good life; they are part of a larger brotherhood, entrusted with a mission to reshape society. (How can your revamped cap-and-trade proposal compete with that?)”
This is the language of European Christian democratic parties. Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, the best spokesman on the right for civic values has, heralded “bedrock” or “foundational” values:
“The ones we all want our children and our grandchildren to embrace, like personal responsibility, resilience, empathy, teamwork, family, faith. We all know that those values have weakened and it is essential that we come together and restore them. And I think what some people miss — don’t deal with just the symptoms, deal with the problem. Restoring these values will allow us to have greater courage, to confront greed, to confront frustration, to confront alienation — to protect those values.”
It is about reestablishing a sense of community even as globalism (or, especially as) globalism accelerates. In practice that means we have to help others navigate in a confusing, dangerous and complex world. To do that, a new political movement would say:
- Character and rationality can be fostered and cultivated with empathy, tolerance and an appreciation of our responsibilities to one another;
- The international liberal order that has existed for 70-plus years (at times unilaterally and at times with willing democracies) can preserve peace and promote prosperity; and
- Individual dignity and self-expression are best achieved within a social contract that offers ample education, social stability and security so as to allow as many people as possible to succeed.
This means rebuilding international institutions to reduce conflict and increase stability (a strong U.S. military, alliances that protect sovereignty, etc.) and enhancing domestic institutions (families, neighborhoods, crony-free government and schools) that maximize chances for success. Ordered liberty — perhaps “humane liberty” — is what we are after. The right has focused almost exclusively on the “liberty” part, which too often sounds like the rich-get-richer and the poor are “free” to be poor. Far more important are the “ordered” and “humane” parts, which the rich take for granted and which provide everyone else with traction to traverse their lives.
In sum, it is not self-evident that “conservatism” matters anymore. Investing in human capital and basic science; lessening human isolation and addiction; reforming big bureaucracies and anti-poverty programs certainly matter. Above that, connectedness matters in a confusing modern world, more so than ever before. It is not unreasonable to think as the left mimics Europe’s social democratic parties and the right morphs into the national front-type parties that the equivalent of Christian democratic parties would emerge in American politics.
Surely there is room for an alternative to left-wing collectivism and right-wing authoritarianism. At least one party or a movement within one (or both) parties must concern itself with revamping tattered institutions so as to allow us all to cope with modernity. We shouldn’t much care what you call it or what relationship it bears to the Republican Party or to “conservatism.” All voters ask these days is that government produces results — as it elevates us and binds us together.
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Washington Post. Follow her on Twitter:
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.