Exclusion 2.0

Scanning the extraterrestrial transmissions for the last couple of days (as well as partaking in a slice of dead-tree format journalism and a little judicious dropping of eaves in a couple of truck stops) I can’t help but note that the national consensus seems to be the Republicans need to figure out exactly what it is they’re about. I’ve mentioned this before but its always gratifying to see other people coming around to a point of view that I expressed weeks ago. Is that arrogance? Certainly it is, but not wholly unjustified.

What is bothersome is the slowly aggregating clique within the RNC that seems to be circling the wagons are the banner of “conservatism”. I keep hearing this phrase out of CPAC this year, “Conservatism 2.0”. This phrase bothers me for a number of reasons, chiefly because of the reasoning I hear behind its usage.

The reason for this new catchphrase seems to be derived from the success of the Obama ’08 presidential campaign. The campaign succeeded beyond all expectations in mobilizing the youth and utilizing the Internet; what many in “the Biz” call “new media”, presumably because they still don’t quite understand what it is. They completely missed the point, making the assumption that what enabled Obama to win was A: young people and B: “new media”. Somehow they’ve made the classic mistake of the 80’s, assuming that the medium is the message. There is an enormous amount of buzz being generated from within the hive over putting “the conservative message” on the web and the number of young people attending CPAC this year, including a 13-year-old who has proclaimed himself a conservative and even had a book on the subject published. A 13-year-old? Really?

And let's don't ignore the sideshow.

What these wing-nuts seem to be missing is that it really doesn't matter if you publish on broadband or bear skins, if your message doesn't sell.

Frankly, these people should be spending more time on figuring out exactly how they’re going to convince the rest of the country to embrace them when they’re whole message has been boiled down to, “NO!” They like to talk about being committed to principles and uncompromising integrity, et al., ad nauseum. The fact of the matter though, is that politics about compromise. When you declaim at the outset that you won’t give anything, you cannot, rationally, expect to be given anything either. I doubt very strongly that there is a majority of people (specifically, people who call themselves progressives) that have a problem with fiscal conservatism; in point of fact, I’ll go as far as to wager that most could easily see a way to reconcile fiscal conservatism with “pay as you go” spending policies. Unfortunately, the more moderate types on the right are hamstrung by the wing-nuts refusing to compromise on social issues like marriage-rights or birth control.

So what will the future face of the “conservative movement” be? My crystal ball’s in the shop, but I’ll hazard a guess.

Firstly, we have to understand that this all hinges on the ARARA. If it fails to produce measurable results within the next 12 months, you can expect a mass-shift back to the right in the House. Conservatives and their mouth pieces (Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc.) will be crowing from the rooftops about the practical failure of the “leftist agenda” and proclaim themselves the champions of American freedoms in the face of a Socialist or Communist conspiracy. You’ll largely be able to write off any kind of social progressivism in favor of reactionary social policies brought in on the heels of free market economic policies. Conversely, if the current stimulus and reform plans succeed in producing something appreciable, the conservatives will be divided against themselves along lines of age, wealth and evangelism. Young people will gravitate towards the glamour of success, the old bible-thumpers will dig deeper into their bunker mentality and the Wall Street crowd will quietly follow the money. Net result: fracture and effective dissolution.

Oh, and Limbaugh will probably retire. Or have a stroke. Or both.

What we have to ask ourselves next is, given the latter (probable, IMO), is the end of the bipartisan system, replaced by a probable one-party state, a “good thing?”
Doubtful. History has shown us that whenever any one group winds up with all the bananas, they tend to become oppressive (or at least neglectful) of the people. Without any significant, organized opposition to challenge the entrenched power structure there is no motivation for rulers to restrain their own agendas and in fairly short order policies are set according to ideological dogma or person benefit. At this point the truly noble thing to do would be to enact legislation barring the formation or maintenance of political parties; give the winners a trophy and don’t play the game again. More likely will be either the rise of a new opposition party or the fracturing of the single dominant party. Any of these is preferable to outright oligarchy.