A detailed, political, and philosophical explanation for the internal problems of the Republican party. It focuses on realism within the party, and the inner motivations of the politicians.
To many Republicans who are also Conservatives the most enraging thing has to be when the politicians you elected fail to come through; especially when given the perfect conditions to do so. Such a rage was demonstrated in 2006 when many democrats were elected to both houses of congress, not because American society had changed who it wanted in power, but more so that the very supporters of those in power felt they deserved to be punished. The Republican congressmen who were elected did almost exactly what they were elected to stop; that is spend money like the left, enact liberal policy, and ignore the very mandate they were given when put in office. Ultimately though the true puzzle is not what they did, but why. An even greater enigma is the wide acceptance of leftwing premises. Universal healthcare is a fine example, rather than advocate that socialized medicine is a bad thing for society, the right merely accepts the premise that it is necessary, and instead tries to find a way to make it more capitalist, or a little more right wing. Again this leaves the conservatives, and the voting base of the Republican party itself in awe. “Why don't they do their job?” They ask. This question is what I intend to answer here today, as well as propose what ought to be done.
Before I begin there are several currently accepted assumptions which we need to divorcée ourselves of. The first of these assumptions is that all Republican politicians are conservatives due to the fact that they have claimed affiliation with that ideology, or the simple fact that they are affiliated with the Republican Party. The second assumption that we must be ridden of, is that the expansion of party power is the true goal of a political party; a political party should be seen as a means to attaining power which is a means in it of it self to achieving the end of ideological reform. Simply increasing the number of Republican politicians makes no difference or impact on the ideological movement pushed by the conservatives, Christian right, Libertarians, and the other voting blocs united under the Republican Party. If a party fails to execute its duty of enacting reform based on the wishes of its enablers, then it fails to serve a purpose, and thusly deserves no future support. An additional offshoot from this second point is that a politician who does not work for the greater ideological interest of the party, and works contra to the movement, also fails to serve his or her purpose and thusly should be removed from office.
The third and final premise that must be discarded is the deontological standard that many of us hold our party to. In that the intent, and the attempt are all that matters. Tautology must be the principle weighing mechanism when it comes to judging the job our party has done; in other words we must judge them based on their results. If no results have been produced, then something has gone wrong, and there is a problem which needs to be fixed. The reason we evaluate by this standard is, that the only purpose for forming a political party is to achieve results, politics should thusly be about the ends. For example, if our intent was to prevent the other party from doing anything, and we achieved that then we have met our tautological burden. If we simply evaluate by intent then there is no way to make any one identical political action any more virtuous than another. If two congressmen had the same intent to pass tax cuts through the house, and one of them achieved this, while the other failed; to simply judge them by intent would make both politicians equally favorable, and equally virtuous, but if that is so then what reward is there for success. Because of this problem we should thusly evaluate by ends and reward the success of our representative who achieved his end goal.
Moving on, we must now examine the very right wing itself in terms of its politicians. Though many would say that today that there is a split in the party between the Conservatives, Libertarians, and moderates, I would disagree. I hold that there are two sides to this schism; there are the idealists, and the realists. Those who adhere with an ideology, such as those mentioned above, and seek to promote its expansion, would inhabit the idealist wing of the party. These individuals join the party as a way to promote their ideology, and ultimately bring about the reform. As for the other side, the realists are those who follow politics for the power it entails, and to ultimately enforce their will upon the nation they govern. They see ideology as a way to further enrich their party, and give it depth; they use their nominal ideals, as well as their positions on the issues, as a way to pick up voters, but the key reason they claim membership to the Republican Party is because they hold that it is more realistic than the Democratic Party. Which promptly brings us to the truth of the matter; politicians such as mentioned above John McCain are not conservatives, nor are they idealists.
there can be no such thing as a 'liberal realist' when the ACTUAL definition of those two words is used.
liberalism and realism are not what most people think they are. liberalism is an ideology in political science that argues the purpose of government is to protect the rights of its people
realism argues that the purpose of government is to ensure its own safety and survival.
this is a very broad definition of both ideologies, but as you can see, it is completely impossible to be a liberal realist.
#2 by Michael S. Devereaux, Apr 24, 2008
First of all you are mis-understanding my point. There is a difference between liberalism in practice, and liberalism the ideology. Second of all I am referring to a very specific brand of liberalism practiced within the United States by the national leadership of the Democratic Party. This is not classical liberalism, so the word itself is probably a misnomer, and is problematic in that sense. Perhaps a better word would be Democratic Socialism. My point though is that one branch of the republican party is part of the party itself specifically because they claim to be "realistic" not "realist". Meaning they believe that the other side is too idealistic. The point being they believe that the other side is correct, and would love to see their world become a reality, however they feel that that is not possible; and that is the source of their disagreement. So while they buy the principle, they don't believe that it will work in practice so they ally themselves with those who don't attempt to put the ideology of socialism into practice while still holding that their new allies are wrong in the area of motivations or intent. The ultimate result of this is that they will attempt to make these more socialist polices realistic, and put their own right wing twist on them; rather than opposing them outright. The result is that they delude the solidarity of the right in favor of pursuing their own private agenda, which sets the entire movement itself back.
I was not referring to them being "realists" nor was I referring the classical liberalism. My point was that they affiliated with the republicans because they hold themselves to be realistic, yet still believe that that the left wing utopia would be a good thing to achieve. Thereby leading them to ultimately comprising the collective agenda of their organization in hopes of finding some practical way of achieving that utopia. Which such a utopia is not possible at all, and in the opinion of many would be less favorable than other alternatives.
liberalism and realism are not what most people think they are. liberalism is an ideology in political science that argues the purpose of government is to protect the rights of its people
realism argues that the purpose of government is to ensure its own safety and survival.
this is a very broad definition of both ideologies, but as you can see, it is completely impossible to be a liberal realist.