Maureen Groppe, writing for the Gannett News Service, has an article about Mike Pence’s expected rise to the Republican House Leadership. He’s apparently going to be GOP conference chairman, the number 3 slot in the leadership. This means he’ll have a greater role in developing the Republican message. But, how powerful he is or becomes depends on how well his party does. From that article, I think Pence needs to resolve some contradictions in his message:
Pence, 49, said there’s no question that Republicans face a challenging time.
“But I still believe that the governing majority of the United States embraces a strong defense, limited government and traditional moral values,” he said. “If our party can turn to both practice and articulation of those ideals, I think we will not only serve the interests of the nation, but also see the political fortunes of Republicans at every level enhanced as a result.”
So, which is it: strong defense, limited government, or traditional moral values? In particular, I don’t think “limited government” fits well with the other two. How does limited government interact with a government role in “traditional moral values” (whatever those might be, precisely)? Will there be a return to anti-sodomy laws? Or will government be limited and, therefore, allow consenting adults to do what they will so long as it doesn’t harm others?
Are we going to have limited government and low taxes? Or are we going to raise taxes to pay for a strong defense? (And, if the answer is ‘cut spending,’ what, exactly are you going to cut, and are you going to be able to sell those specific cuts as part of the GOP’s return to power?)
I’ve said before, and I still believe it, that there is an inherent tension in the GOP coalition between the social conservatives, the business conservatives, and the neo-conservatives. In this statement, Pence is trying to appeal to all three. But, if the GOP wants to retool, I think they’ll have to revise their coalition. If I was a Republican and had to pick, I’d boot the neocons first — they cost a lot, and I don’t think they bring a lot to the table. But that’s just me.
Update It occurs to me that, to the electorate, what will be more important than the internal contradictions is simply the track record of the GOP on these things. They’ve been sounding these themes for a long time now, but when they get in power, they have not put these things into practice. The social conservatives have seemingly been useful idiots to the Republicans in power. By and large, there hasn’t been a hard push for social conservative legislation while the Republicans were in power (though, I suppose they’re willing enough to make some noise while they’re in the minority.) During the Bush administration, I don’t believe we’ve seen a hard push for federal bans on gay marriage; a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion; prayer in school; or whatever else the federal government is supposed to be doing in terms of legislating morality.
As for limited government, might I just say: BWAHAHAHA. Government has grown in almost every respect except usefulness during the Bush years.
About the only folks who have gotten a lot of what they want are the neo-cons. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest of the PNAC crowd got their war of aggression and occupation in Iraq in the name of “defense.” It cost a lot and did us much more harm than good. I suppose that’s why I think it would be easiest for the GOP to kick these jokers to the curb. They have baggage, they don’t contribute as much money as the business conservatives, and they don’t provide the foot soldiers like the social conservatives.
Limited government definitely does not coincide with the other two. This has been the root of GOP cognitive dissonance for some time, but it really showed up in this election.
McCain couldn’t demonstrate at all that he was about limited government, but did go out of his way to kotow to the religious right. We see how that worked out for him.
Mitch Daniels has given the impression, if not the substance, of being about limited government, while not backing SJR-7, skipping Sarah Palin visits, and otherwise not getting down with the religious right. We see how that worked out for him.
Pence is going to have a hard time of it, trying to balance all three. It’s easy to do when you are relatively unknown and not holding power. As the #3, he’ll have many powerful moneyed interests looking for him to deliver specific agenda items, and that’s where the contradictions are exposed. He’d do well to observe the electoral differences between McCain & Daniels.
In the end, I think Pence will wither on limited government. Ever other Republican who gains power at the federal level certainly has.
Our political atmosphere may have truly changed when the ‘spread the wealth’ charge against Obama, that he was not just liberal,but a dangerous socialist, evidently seemed like a welcome change for so many people.
I think Republicans and Democrats both will have to go beyond the longstanding spin phrases to communicate with voters.