Idealism and realism are in constant tension. From a political perspective, it is necessary for conservatives to strike a balance between the two. Standing alone, realism all too often shades into cynicism; idealism into flights of utopian fancy. In the end, however, we must see the world as it is, in order to shape the world as we imagine it ought to be.
In the GOP today, the dialectic between realism and idealism manifests itself both in the debate over the support given to more centrist candidates and in the proposals to adopt various, so-called, litmus or purity tests. Specifically, this debate often involves arguments in which one side focuses on electability, while the other focuses almost exclusively on ideological purity.
Frankly, both sides miss the mark. The GOP exists both to win elections and to “advance substantive ideas and public policies.” The key is to strike an appropriate balance, candidate by candidate, race by race, between the two.
We live at a moment in history pregnant with both great opportunity and with tremendous peril. There is a great deal of unease, of disquiet.. of fear.. abroad in the land. What our future world will look like is still inchoate. The point of our labors then, is to make certain that this future world will be a decent one- one in which human dignity will be respected, in which human liberty will flourish and in which the wolf will be kept away from the door.
Now is the time for moral strategy- for an intellectually serious, pragmatic, tactically savvy, conservatism devoid of demagoguery and utopian dreams of unattainable ideological purity -one capable of building and sustaining a winning center-right electoral coalition both nationally, and here in Delaware.
Thankfully, we have signposts in our past to guide us in the present.
Pointing the way ahead: Lincoln
Lincoln is, in my view, the ultimate example of a “moral strategist” in American political history. The moral issue he faced, of course, was the abolition of slavery. Living in a profoundly racist society, and in the midst of a civil war calling into doubt the future existence of the nation he governed, Lincoln adroitly maneuvered to bring an end to that most awful institution. In doing so, he moved cautiously, pragmatically, realistically appraising the scope of what was politically possible at every step. Throughout the civil war, he held together a diverse coalition of Radical Republicans and other, less ideologically committed elements. In the 1850′s, abolition was a utopian dream; by the 1860′s, it was reality. Nothing better demonstrates what can be accomplished through moral strategy.
A considerable diversity of opinion
In addition to Lincoln’s example, calls for purity/litmus tests and the purging of those deemed ideologically suspect from the ranks of the GOP are a departure from traditional conservatism. They are also, from a practical perspective, rather short sighted & self destructive.
Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata…
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. … The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
(emphasis added). Moreover, as Michael Powell has observed, a fixation on ideological purity and litmus tests inhibits the development of new ideas because “[t]he formation of powerful ideas requires the push and pull of varying viewpoints testing and informing one another.”
From a practical standpoint, Ronald Reagan understood the imperative to build a broad, diverse electoral coalition. He assiduously avoided litmus-test politics. It’s not a coincidence that he is remembered as one of our greatest Presidents, and there is immense irony in the effort to co-opt his “unity principle” in support of the efforts to develop new purity tests for the GOP.
Alone in the Political Wilderness
A recent example from “across the pond” also bears directly on the need for conservatives to reject litmus-test politics and focus their energies on pragmatically constructing broader coalitions. As my friend Jim DiPeso writes:
Britain’s Labor Party faced a situation in the 1980s that Republicans do today. Everyone-is-a-sellout-except-us ideologues who regularly congratulated themselves on their righteousness but lacked the political sense that God gave a billy goat grabbed hold of the Labor Party in the early 1980s and gave it a hard left turn into comical irrelevance.
Consequently, Conservatives that had newly returned to power had an uninterrupted run at Whitehall for another decade and a half. Margaret Thatcher broke the militant unions, unleashed markets, and remade the dowdy old UK into cool Britannia.
When Tony Blair came along, there was no thought of reviving the Labor Party’s old Militant Tendency extremism. After the Iron Lady had finished remodeling British politics, Thatcherism had become the new normal.
The Brits were lucky. The Labor Party’s self-intoxication with utopian extremism gave Thatcher a clear political field, exactly what she needed to reverse her country’s descent into threadbare socialism.
We won’t be so lucky if we repeat the experience with our nation’s conservative party losing its way at the hands of fratricidal militants who would rather be true to their brand of right-wing radicalism than responsibly defend against the advance of statist liberalism.
It seems illogical to let an obsessive fear of center and center-right Republicans trump concern about the excesses of a Democrat majority that is heavily influenced by liberal extremists, or to reject bipartisan compromise in favor of Democrat-only solutions. You cannot subtract your way to a majority.
A club, not a party
According to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R- SC), “those people who are pursuing purity” are on a course to “become a club not a party…” It would be disastrous for America if conservatism devolved into a club.
Politically speaking, settling for permanent minority status in order to achieve ideological purity does not make you noble, it makes you irrelevant. As a conservative, I am a better advocate for my policy positions and values within the framework of a broader, winning, electoral coalition, then in a more ideologically “pure” political party composed only of those who think exactly as I do. Saying this does not make me any less zealous an advocate for the issues I care about; it makes me a more effective one.
Impossible things before breakfast?
The Republican victories in state-wide races in New Jersey and Massachusetts raise a question: what is possible for the GOP in Delaware in 2010? It no longer takes an extreme flight of fancy to imagine a Republican whose last name is not Castle or Wagner winning a state-wide race here- if it can happen in New Jersey, if it can happen in Massachusetts, it can happen in Delaware.
In both New Jersey and Massachusetts, the Republicans who emerged victorious were not ideologues, not zealots, but rather more pragmatic, centrist figures. Chris Christie even faced a third party opponent challenging him from the right. What would the outcome in Massachusetts have been had Scott Brown faced a similar challenge?
Like Massachusetts, we have a Senate race featuring a centrist Republican running against, probably, the hand-picked heir of a dynastic political family that seems to view public office as a hereditary entitlement. What would the effect of a third party candidate running in the race to the right be? Logically, it could only increase the chances of a Biden victory. Such a victory would, given Delaware’s historical penchant for re-electing incumbents, probably put Beau Biden in the Senate for a generation. That outcome does precisely nothing to advance the conservative agenda either here, or nationally.
The challenges we face as a people are extremely serious. Politics is not a game devoid of consequences. Perilous times and complex issues demand a certain modicum of maturity from those who purport to care about the fate of the world.
We need new moral strategists, leaders capable of striking the right balance between realism and idealism, of working pragmatically to build coalitions. Let’s put away childish things, like quests for ideological purity. After all, ”conciliation while maintaining core principles is not only possible, but it also provides the most likely path to victory.” Make no mistake, we have an enormous task ahead.
Great post. Brown’s victory is a great example of when the parts gel. Funny how the aftermath many are claiming him to be of the ideologically-pure-right, when that is far from the reality. It still happened, though (the coming together), which is important to remember.
Spot on Randy! By definition, a center-right coalition has to have room for both, well, for both the center and the right.
Who’s “Randy”?
Agreed. Pragmatic conservatism wins the day versus the lunatic fringe who scare the daylights out of everyone.
Quick update, FrumForum is reporting that the original purity test is being shelved in favor of an “accountability resolution”…
This is a great post Mike….Well said my friend!
Mike,
You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this piece. Thank you for your time and effort.
A couple observations: First, talk of “litmus tests” and “purity tests” tend to be red herrings which divert attention away from and obfuscate a deep problem within the Republican Party, national and state; namely, the need to formulate, articulate and adhere to core moral principles.
Contrary to the quote which states conservatism is a “body of sentiments” rather than a system of ideology, conservatism does have more than a body of sentiments at its core. It has a system of principled moral thought (ideology in the good sense of that term) that goes back centuries. To reduce conservatism to sentiment is instantly to vitiate conservatism itself, as sentiment is ephemeral and fleeting, depending as it does on the emotion of the moment.
Therefore, I think it legitimate to ask just what core principles Republicans adhere to and seek to enact into law. I also think it reasonable for Republicans to expect their candidates for office adhere to core principles. Obviously, a start would be for the Delaware GOP to articulate just what it stands for. Surely it is more than mere sentiment that drives the party.
Secondly, it is one thing to pragmatically and strategically enact over time moral principles into law. It is another to give up on the principles themselves. Your example of Abraham Lincoln is a good one. He did act strategically to end slavery. However, he never gave up the principle of establishing freedom for all peoples; nor did he waver in his efforts to hold the union together. Now, that’s moral strategy: the moral principle first; translation into policy and then enactment in real time and space.
Last, I realize there are utopians flakes with no attachment to reality. I realize there are ideologues (in the pejorative sense) who demand everyone follow them. I realize there are crazies who go off on tangents.
However, I think we should resist creating straw men and paper tigers to knock down. That’s just too easy.
Instead, as indicated above, establish the principles and policies the Republican Party believes in and work toward establishing both with pragmatic, dogged determination.
Like Lincoln.
All the best,
Fay
Hi Fay!
I don’t think the discussions about litmus tests are straw-man type arguments- this is a topic (i.e. the role of centrists in a center right coalition) that has been much discussed nationally and here in Delaware.
This post begins with a link to an article on Frum’s site that discusses a possible GOP primary in the Illinois Senate race. The author of that post was responding to a prior blog on the same site which argued that Matt Kirk was the best candidate, and that self-described conservatives were going to kill the gop one race at a time in 2010. In following this conversation, it struck me that both authors missed the mark- its about striking a balance between electability and advancing substantive ideas- in other words, between realism and idealism. Hence my post.
This discussion, as well as the debate over litmus tests or purity tests, has been playing out nationally for some time. A Google search, for example, reveals upwards of 50,000 hits for terms like (“GOP purity test” or “GOP litmus test.”) Perhaps its not the best lexicon for framing the debate- but we’re stuck with it.
My contribution (such as it is) to this discussion is that conservatives would do well to remember that we are better advocates for our agenda within the framework of a broader coalition. I figured it was a point worth making and so decided to cast my- admittedly small pebble- into the lake.
You wrote “Contrary to the quote which states conservatism is a “body of sentiments” rather than a system of ideology, conservatism does have more than a body of sentiments at its core.”
agreed. The quote itself is from Russell Kirk’s seminal essay “Ten Conservative Principles.” If the title does not give the game away, click on the url link embedded in the term “historically” in the text and you’ll see a list of the principles that, in Kirk’s view, define conservatism. Kirk’s main point, that conservatism lacks a Test Act, and thus “can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects” is, in my view, true. I also think it’s a point that has been largely forgotten by many conservatives today and that’s a shame, for it is precisely this fact that has, historically, given conservatism its intellectual vitality.
I don’t think the major problem in the GOP nationally today is the failure to articulate core principles- rather, I’d suggest that the real issue has been, and remains, taking those principles and translating them into effective policy proposals that address the key issues of our day. I think that’s the real trick. Just my thoughts on it.
And last observation: you wrote “Your example of Abraham Lincoln is a good one…. the moral principle first; translation into policy and then enactment in real time and space.” Bingo, and that is why conservatism so desperately needs another Lincoln right now on the national stage.
Thanks, Mike.
A couple of points: First, I came to the conclusion long ago not to accept terms of debate when they are a deeply pejorative as “litmus tests” and “purity tests.” Such terms wind up skewing the debate–sort of like starting a debate with “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Next, just what ARE the core principles of the Delaware GOP as opposed to peripheral issues about which there may be honest disagreement? What are the non-giveaways, non-negotiables of the party? Can we expect our candidates to hold to the non-negotiables? Or is everything up for grabs? A legitmate question, don’t you think?
If you’re interested, here are some ideas on a coaltion:
http://simplyfayth.blogspot.com/2010/01/building-new-coalition-way-ahead-for.html
Best as always,
Fay