In which the 2004 Republican Legislative Strategy is put in context, and conservatism itself is called for what it is. Long.
From the New York Times, Monday, Sept. 6th:
Republicans intend to use their control of both chambers to schedule legislation in an effort to put Democrats on the spot. In the House, the majority plans to hold a vote this month on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and will force floor fights over abortion, taxes and reforms to the legal system. In the Senate, Democrats say they expect a floor vote on a proposed constitutional amendment barring flag desecration.
"We should be dealing with the security of the American people, and the Republicans appear to be poised to use the remaining time to score political points," Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, said in an interview.
Republicans also say that the intelligence legislation could include elements historically opposed by some Democrats, like capital punishment provisions and immigration restrictions, perhaps forcing lawmakers to accept those provisions if they want the overall bill enacted.
...
Mr. Daschle said Dr. Frist had told him that he intended to hold a vote as early as this week on the flag amendment. The proposal has passed repeatedly in the House but has always fallen short in the Senate. The issue can cause problems in an election year for lawmakers like Mr. Daschle, who is running for re-election in a conservative state, as well as Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democratic nominees for the White House.
In the House, Mr. Roy said a vote on the same-sex-marriage amendment would probably occur this month. The Republican leadership also intends to schedule a vote on a measure prohibiting courts from hearing challenges to the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance - largely over inclusion of the phrase "under God" - and will consider a series of bills intended to limit lawsuits.
When conservative Republicans want to bring out their base, they must always do it in one very specific way. They don't rally "fiscal" conservatives, or "small government" conservatives; let's face it, there simply isn't much raw emotion to be mined from those issues. Instead, they find some minority group of Americans that scare the bejeebus out of racist, redneck, or "religious" Middle America, and start screaming "Fifth Column!" at the top of their lungs.
Whenever Republicans refer to their base, therefore, we always understand the sort of people that they mean. They mean the sizable chunk of the population that cowers in fear, afraid of the other that might live down their block, or go to the same grocery store that they do, or God forbid achieve some semblance of the American Dream that was, at least until recently in our country's history, understood to be reserved only for the very white and very Christian among us. Unless, of course, you were the wrong kind of white, like the Irish, or perhaps the wrong kind of Christian, like Catholic: the rules dictating who was or was not a True American have always been complex, and impenetrable to those not actively deciding them.
The now-famous Republican Southern Strategy was predicated on exactly this bigotry; the nearly-but-not-quite-overt threat that, if anyone but true conservatives came into power, black people would take over your town. Or rather, they would be given the same rights as any other Americans, which, if you are a God-fearing bigoted redneck, is apparently the same thing. There is a deep need, in some people, for bigotries. Perhaps it is a way to automatically count yourself superior to some small group of the population, no matter how much of a loser you may objectively appear to be. Or maybe it is merely Fear; the primal Fear, that singular tribal Fear that makes mankind trust only their closest tribe members, and even that only with frequent hesitation.
This, for lack of a better word, we will call deep conservatism. It is sometimes referred to, euphemistically, as "social" conservatism; that is a poor phrase for it. It is a conservatism that is based not on fiscal policies or other more transient issues, but is the root conservatism; one based on fundamentalism, on racism, and on tribe.
The Southern Strategy, of course, was racism, and with the thinnest possible of veils. The Strategy still holds sway, in certain elections or certain regions, but is for the most part a shadow of its former self. The battle that it took strength from has now been largely lost; racism against black Americans is now illegal, and more importantly, is now not tolerated in our national discourse. Whether it be the distinguished Trent Lott or the ranting Rush Limbaugh, America is succeeding in making racism a costly prejudice to have, especially for our political leaders. One by one, the Confederate-inspired flags are dropping at least from the courthouses, if not from the windows of rural pickup trucks.
As perhaps a corollary to the above fear, "deep" conservatism is also deeply distrustful of the law; whether it be the maddening and insulting existence of the U.N., that primitive framework of a worldwide democracy inclusive of even the most foreign of others, or whether it be activist judges, or the oddly issue-specific States' Rights movement, or affirmative action, hate crime law, or even the mere concept of tort law, "deep" conservatives are skeptical of the law in any capacity that does not directly hinge on punishing violent criminality. Any use of law to balance the field of play between different classes, religions, races, or any other incarnation of the mysterious other is met with a particular hostility that is surprising to those not of the movement. Perhaps it is the still-recent memory of National Guard troops at schools, enforcing the rights of the other. Perhaps it is something more fundamental, and more primitive. The American Dream has always been understood, by conservatives, to be a zero-sum game. If your group of Americans achieves success, there will be less success for me. If your group of Americans has freedom, there will be less freedom for me.
Though the particular racism by which the modern-day Republican Party gained much of its modern base may have dwindled, therefore, the overall principle of "deep" conservatism, as practiced by the Party, is the same. It is still based on Fear. Fear of other, fear of neighbor, fear of a future in which that other may be gaining on you. It is still bigotry, and prejudice. It is still referred to only through euphemism. It is still based entirely on the notion that some of us are more equal than others, and the fear that government, if left to its own devices, will callously remove those fundamentalist, racist, and tribal distinctions that the most fearful among us cling to as one of the few primitive emotions that can be truly trusted.
For true conservatives, liberalism is a disease, and it is hated. Hated more than terrorists, who they presume can be identified by race, or homosexuality, which they assume can be identified by sinful behaviors. Liberalism is the perceived fortress behind which the other is coddled and protected, in naive ignorance of the threat that it poses. While "social" or "deep" conservativism is marked by speeches of fire and brimstone, fear and anger, liberalism as mocked as the decadent and idealistic beliefs of sweatered college professors, urban lovers of strangely flavored coffees, and "boring" politicians.
From this context, then, we step forward into the final few months of this particular election.
Frist, DeLay, Hastert, Rove. They have evolved into nearly Faustian figures.
We have mocked the Republican Party for running on an "all fear, all the time" platform in this election. In truth, however, conservatism is a primitive and long-standing movement, and has always been based on fear. The fear of terrorism is, to many people, of less concern than the fear of the closer and more visible other in their midst. When the Party requires votes, it has always been the other that they point to as a rallying cry. When the Party attacks "liberals", it is always for the perceived decadence of their defense of the other. Liberals are naive, and meddling, and sinful. They do not understand the nature of the war between us and the other, whatever the form the other is perceived as taking.
We are in the final weeks of the campaign. Finally, we know where we stand, and what issues are important for the country to face.
Flag burning. Gay marriage. Abortion. Capital punishment. Immigration restrictions. The Pledge of Allegiance. Limiting lawsuits.
The country faces what the government itself calls an "imminent" threat of terrorist attack on our soil. We are engaged in an ongoing occupation half a world away. The weapons of mass destruction that we went to war over are not there; maybe they are gone. Maybe they never existed. Our intelligence efforts to track weapons of mass destruction have themselves been compromised by the apparently politically motivated exposure of an undercover operative working on the issue, as well as the cover organization used by the CIA when the agent was in the field.
One of the private citizens most responsible for advising the administration's energy policy, the man whose corporate aircraft the now-President used when crisscrossing the country in his bid for election, has been indicted for a scheme that defrauded both private investors and state governments through artificial gaming of the energy policies he had advocated.
Our most trusted of Iraqi exiles has apparently been involved not only in fabricating evidence used to justify a war, but may in fact may be working for or with Iran.
A senior member of the administration office most responsible for formulating the rationale for our preemptive war may have acted as a mole for Israel.
Flag burning. Gay marriage. Abortion. Capital punishment. Immigration restrictions. The Pledge of Allegiance. Limiting lawsuits.
Only a fool would be surprised. These are the issues, the divisions that have marked deep conservatism for a very long time. We see in these handful of issues the battle against race; against feminist progress; against sexual preference; against differing faiths; against the decadence of protest; against the scope of the law itself.
Though weak and diffuse, it is the same strategy as the Southern one. It is the same strategy that America used to convince itself that Americans of Japanese descent should be put into camps, their possessions distributed to the rest of the community, for their safety and ours. It is the same strategy that split the country into North and South, before that. There is one unyielding thread of conservatism, through history, and that is the certainty of the presence of the other, and the certainty that the other must be chained, caged, or destroyed before your own tribe is safe.
There is nothing new in the brand of conservatism practiced by the Party. In times of tough political fights, when they must present a rallying cry that their base members will understand. It is fundamentalism; it is racism; it is prejudice. We can call it "social" conservatism if we like, if that makes us feel more diplomatic. But we understand it for what it is, as do they.
Conservatism, as practiced by the Party, is Fear. A primal, fundamentalist, racist, tribal Fear. It is as simple as that. Both we and they can use the word to mean whatever we want, but when the "conservative" Republican Party wants to motivate their acknowledged base, it is this deep and primal Fear that they invoke. They do not battle terrorism, or corruption, or espionage with nearly the emotional vigor that they battle any progress of the perceived other within their midst.
Flag burning. Gay marriage. Abortion. Capital punishment. Immigration restrictions. The Pledge of Allegiance. Limiting lawsuits. There is one uncomfortable thread that runs throughout the deep conservative agenda. It is an agenda based on proscribing the boundaries of freedom, and preserving the moral, numerical, and political superiority of one particular, seemingly threatened tribe.
It would not be far off the mark, then, to note that conservative fundamentalists of all stripes, in all countries, are marked with a single defining characteristic.
Perhaps it is really true.
Perhaps they hate us for our freedoms.