Monday, November 21, 2005

Conservative Factions and Thought

Different Types of Conservatives: Where I Fall Ideologically and Why

Within the Republican Party and inside right wing politics, a number of different factions exist and conservatives disagree all the time. All one needs to do is peruse the blogosphere and divisions exist amongst Republicans on particular social legislation, the size of government, the decision of going to war in Iraq, and basically any political or societal issue. The divisions have been magnified as we have seen Republicans spar in the National Government over tax/dividend cuts, the nomination of Harriet Miers, pork-barrel spending, social security and also within SSFC as big spending “conservatives” have battled fiscal hawks over cuts to salaries, programs, and budgets on Student Service Finance Committee. On September 30, the Economist gave a unique look at particular divisions within the United States conservative movement. Further commentary is needed on where I stand and of course it’s fun to label and place particular bloggers and UW Republican individuals into the particular groups.

• Small-government conservatives v big-government conservatives. Mr Bush has embraced all sorts of big-government programmes (from supercharging the Department of Education to creating the huge new Medicare drug entitlement) while trying to keep small-government conservatives on side with tax cuts. But this was a formula for fiscal disaster. It also failed to placate purists who believe that the federal government has no business running schools or pushing pills to pensioners.

In my opinion it’s hard to label yourself a conservative if you don’t believe in and fight for smaller government but look at our “buddy” in the White House increasing Washington’s power not only abroad but domestically. Look at Bush compared to Regan in terms of department spending (given the data is only for Bush 2000-2003).

Percent Change in Real Outlays in First Three Years
Department Reagan Bush
Agriculture -13.2% 8.5%
Commerce -29.0% 9.6%
Defense 18.6% 27.6%
Education -21.8% 60.8%
Energy -19.6% 22.4%
Health & Human Services 9.0% 21.4%
Housing & Urban Dev. -3.7% 6.1%
Interior -4.6% 23.4%
Justice 1.2% 11.0%
Labor -29.4% 56.0%
State 9.5% 32.5%
Transportation -13.0% -1.3%
Treasury 31.1% -7.0%
Veteran Affairs -3.9% 29.4%
Total Outlays 6.8% 15.6%
Sources: Budget of the U.S. Government and Mid-Session
Review for FY2004.

I do applaud President Bush for cutting taxes and attempting to maximize taxpayer’s social security accounts but I don’t appreciate increases in the federal power in terms of education and health care. I really don’t like the increase of any particular area of the federal government (beside national security when need be). Within student government, I have stood for fiscal conservatism intended to limit the burden on student taxpayers. Too bad big government conservatives (Goessl, Frey) have stood in the way of real reform in terms of limiting student groups to fewer salaried positions, putting on events that pertain only to their mission, and cutting outright waste. Big government conservative also at a national level have blocked reforms that in the long run would lessen the government’s role and spending in social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and cutting pork. I can’t place anybody on the blogosphere in the big government category but other libertarians such as Mark at Opiate of the Masses joins me in hating the federal state.

• Conservatives of faith v conservatives of doubt. Doubters don’t think that the federal government should interfere in people’s private lives. They don’t want Washington meddling in states’ rights to legalise euthanasia or medical marijuana. Conservatives of faith believe that the federal government should encourage civic virtue. Under Mr Bush they have had the upper hand. The Justice Department has been aggressive in imposing its views on the states. The poster-child of the conservative movement on Capitol Hill at the moment is Senator Rick Santorum, a staunch advocate of family values.

I am most definitely a conservative of doubt for many reasons. First off even though I may disagree with particular choices people make in terms of lifestyle I don’t believe that the government has a right to intervene unless an adult’s actions affect others (and in particular kids). I really don’t believe also that legislation makes a large difference in curbing immoral behaviors. Instead I think that the laws we often put in place hurt taxpayers (ie drug-users in jail, excessive police enforcement), hurt Christian and religious witness, and make secular liberals hate conservatives and Republicans. The divide can be verbalized in terms of Judeo-Christian versus secular values or historic versus new-age values and the clash produces hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, drugs, and flag burning. What I really wish is that people would simply follow the God of Abraham’s laws. Then there really wouldn’t even be any discussion about legislating morality. To read articles from a conservative of virtue, try Brad V over at Letters in Bottles.

Insurgent conservatives v establishment conservatives. The conservative movement, rooted in the south and west, has been deeply hostile to Washington. But electoral success has created a Washington-based Republican establishment, which spends its time doling out goodies to its buddies and expanding federal power. Mr Bush has managed this relationship by presenting himself as an anti-Washington Washingtonian: the son of a president who prefers to spend his time in Texas. The insurgent wing seems increasingly unconvinced.

Being a conservative outside the Beltway and hating large federal government, I would label myself an insurgent conservative as would most of my colleagues at College Republicans and within the blogosphere. The cronyism and handouts within the current White House and Republican dominated legislature makes me sick and abhorred. The excessive pork, the poor nominations, and the increasing federal government makes me wish for a divided government where far less would get done and hopefully spending contained. I can’t label anyone inside ASM or the College Republicans an establishment conservative because nobody has federal power but clearly politicians such as Tom DeLay, George Bush, and Ted Stevens fall within this category.

• Business conservatives v religious conservatives. The latter are waiting keenly to see whom Mr Bush appoints next to the Supreme Court. Business conservatives are worried that religious people have already got too much. Mr Bush’s stance on stem-cell research will cost America its competitive edge in biotechnology. Add to this their concerns about Mr Bush’s reckless fiscal policy and you have the making of a business revolt.

Too often, the Republicans have focused their energies on social issues appealing to the religious right and social conservatives. Evangelicals do have a strong hold on the Republican Party and this power has been applied through Bush’s decisions to hold government spending on stem cells and the introduction of the national gay marriage ban. I do hold some socially conservative views (I am in fact an Evangelical) but I am by far much more of a business conservative than religious one. In my view, government’s main objectives are to provide essential services that the private sector cannot provide (infrastructure, education—its been moved to a public good in the 20th century, and national security), intervening in market failure (externalities), and protecting rights of individuals. Thus, the government should steer clear of excessive regulation and advocate low taxes, privatization, free trade, open borders, and establishing the right to work would all be in my platform if I ran for Congress. I basically would follow within the Club for Growth model in making sure that the US and the world can continue to expand economically and business opportunities are open to all. While many of the religious conservatives are also business conservatives in the UW College Republicans, a couple clear member of this faction would include E-Board member Lavonne D and Jenna over at Right off the Shore. Business conservatives include myself, Mark at Opiate of the Masses, and Jeremy at Daily Perspective.

• Neo-conservatives v traditional conservatives. The former have an expansive vision of America’s role in the world—a vision that has come to include not just nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq but also the transformation of the Middle East. But traditionalists balk at the hubris of this vision. How can conservatives who believe that government power is fallible rally to the idea of transforming an entire region?

Conservative politics especially in Washington have moved towards a hawkish foreign policy especially within the Executive Branch. This may be a result of 9-11 but I think this ideology has been mainstay within Beltway Insiders at least since Regan. I am a traditional conservative in the sense that I would prefer that the US be selective in its conflict overseas. I believe that conflicts should be looked at on a cost-benefit basis and to me, unless something dramatically changes in Iraq, the $200 billion and 2,000 US lives were a mistake. I want Iraq to succeed as a democratic and sovereign nation but somehow I “doubt” that US military action can directly change the hearts and minds of a culturally and religiously different people. I would love to have democracy and liberty spread across the Middle East but somehow I feel that the US military acting preemptively is questionable and most likely is a poor investment. I am by no means isolationist and believe that the US does have a role in helping and protecting the world but I think its role should be much more limited than what is desired by many of the right elite. In searching for a neo-conservative point of view, look no further than Bob over at Madison Freedom Fighter.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Random Thoughts

Today I simply wanted to address my last posting and number of other topics that have been cycling through my mind (in a Tom Sowell fashion).

Partisan games are a detriment to government at any level. This last week games have been played by liberals both the National Government and SSFC. Whether it be shutting down public government sessions to the media or repeatedly asking for role call, immaturity and devious actions are uncalled for even in the harsh environment of politics. Representatives that serve the public should be ashamed when their motives are to taint their opponents, distort the truth, or scheme other unethical actions. Conservatives have been guilty in the past (ie Bill Clinton Impeachment Trial) so “no holier than thou” attitude should be held. Instead of playing games, groups of any part of the political spectrum need to be focusing on the issues and working efficiently for change.

Brad Vogel has a list of good ideas on how to reform SSFC and the SEG fee system. I do not know which I prefer but I do know that the system is flawed. The current system is leading to progressively higher SEG fees and higher budgetary requests from GSSF groups. The issues revolving around VPN, mandatory participation, and an unlimited pot of money make my blood boil. My stance within the given system has been to be consistently fair with each group and stand for steady financial principles (even when others do not).

All week I have been pondering the issues revolving around what role values have in determining social policy. Dennis Prager writes in many of his columns of secular, Judeo-Christian, and Muslim values as the main core value systems here on earth. In the US, the battle is clearly between Judeo-Christian and secular values. I would like to propose values that are neutral but I am unsure whether that is essentially the same as secularism. Values and therein laws that are strictly based on science may often lead to policies and societies that are Godless and cold. If we start to place our faith in science alone, human life is devalued, animals can be placed on the level of humans, it is okay for humans to be selfish, and materialism/experience reigns as the central reason for life. Whether the government though should be run according to a particular value system is up for debate? Yet, the government ultimately does have to choose a value system or a mix of value systems when constructing law and order. I am talking in circles but the reason for my last posting was to test where the government’s underlying values when creating social policy. One can argue that with the United States often Judeo-Christian values have been central to law and order. The ACLU disagrees and prefers not only values that irreligious but are extensively secular. I am not sure about where our country is headed in terms of values/norms but I do feel if people’s right to prayer, speech, gun ownership, and privacy are starting to be constrained, we are definitely headed the wrong direction.