Sheila Kennedy has a good post entitled “Looking Backward.” She reminisces about how, in 1980, she won the Republican primary in what had been the Eleventh District and how her loss in the general to Andy Jacobs was typically attributed to her being a bit too much of a Goldwater Republican. She says her governing philosophy hasn’t changed in the last 32 years, but now she’s routinely accused of being a leftist or a socialist.
Fred Clark at the Slacktivist also had a good post a few days back about the tribal markers of evangelicals that got me thinking. It occurs to me that conservative policy, whatever that means exactly, is perhaps incidental to the conservative movement except as it serves as a tribal marker for the movement.
There are explanations for the embrace of the policies, but those aren’t the reasons. The reason is that Leaders I Trust told me these policies are Good and these policies are what distinguish Us from Them.
As Democrats drift to embrace more conservative policies (compare, for example, Birch Bayh v. Evan Bayh) in an effort to co-opt that vote, knowing there is no pressure on the Left; the conservative tribe keeps looking for more distinctive markers which are available only to the right. Rinse. Advocate transvaginal ultrasounds, girl scout antipathy, defaulting on the national debt, climate change denial, evolutionary denial. When Democratic policy drifts too close, move to greener pastures on the right. (The girl scout thing was probably unfair — Doug)
Just a thought.
Doug,
As usual you have interesting and valid, though arguable, insights. Please consider coming onto The Show sometime. Give me a call at my office. We can discuss topics.
I often wonder how seriously those on the right really take their positions. Are they really policy positions, or is closer to posturing? At times it seems like a competition to be more conservative than thou. I just don’t see people on the right saying to their fellow conservatives “no, I just can’t agree, that’s too extreme — or that’s not really practical” and I wonder why that is.
I wonder if some of it is like an internal family squabble. I might criticize a family member for one reason or another. But, I wouldn’t share any of that with an outsider, and if an outsider came after a family member, I’m going to close ranks.
Given the Catholic bishops are now “investigating” the Girl Scouts for their unsavory connections, I don’t think your reference to Rep. Sling Blade is unfair. Today Brian Bosma laughs at him, but tomorrow he could be standing by him in a press conference, and behind them a big red circle-and-slash over a box of Samoans.
I think they are called Samoas. A box of Samoans would actually contain people. But kidding aside, this investigation is scary in its implications. And profoundly offensive and insulting to several generations of Catholic Girl Scouts and Catholic Girl Scout leaders. You do know they (the bishops) have also just issued sanctions against the umbrella organization of American orders of nuns, don’t you? Yes, nuns, the women who taught nearly all Catholics of a certain age. I guess they taught us too well. Too late, though, I think the horse is out of the barn.