I am not a traditional liberal (although that seems like an oxymoron to begin with). I love P.J. O'Rourke and I am somewhat of a reactionary on economic issues. Especially on matters like environmental regulation (don't kill me!). I do find some ideas of conservatism to be appealing and I think one way Democrats are winning is by broadening their appeal. O'Rourke spells out how Republicans blew it.
More below the fold...
One of the main points O'Rourke points out is the use of racism by Nixon and the immigration zealots today. The Southern Strategy destroyed any hope of Republicans reaching out to African Americans and the immigration issue has most likely ended any hope of reaching latinos.
O'Rourke writes:
There was no need to piss off the entire black population of America to get Dixie's electoral votes. And despising cracker trash who have a laundry hamper full of bedsheets with eye-holes cut in them does not make a man a liberal.
Blacks used to poll Republican. They did so right up until Mrs. Roosevelt made some sympathetic noises in 1932. And her husband didn't even deliver on Eleanor's promises.
On immigration O'Rourke gets tough on Republicans:
Our attitude toward immigration has been repulsive. Are we not pro-life? Are not immigrants alive? Unfortunately, no, a lot of them aren't after attempting to cross our borders. Conservative immigration policies are as stupid as conservative attitudes are gross. Fence the border and give a huge boost to the Mexican ladder industry. Put the National Guard on the Rio Grande and know that U.S. troops are standing between you and yard care. George W. Bush, at his most beneficent, said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship they would have to do three things: Pay taxes, learn English, and work in a meaningful job. Bush doesn't meet two out of three of those qualifications. And where would you rather eat? At a Vietnamese restaurant? Or in the Ayn Rand Café? Hey, waiter, are the burgers any good? Atlas shrugged. (We would, however, be able to have a smoke at the latter establishment.)
I agree completely. I think this in part goes back to the impact of the Colin Powell endorsement. Colin Powell didn't swing one vote to Barack Obama. Neither did David Brooks, Noonan, or Chris Buckley. What they did do was indicate that a lot of people potential conservative voters looked at the new Republican conserva-hybrid creature and ran as fast as they could to any party representing sanity and a propensity for intellectual thought.
This goes to the social issues as well. You can't be for smart small government and want to have government regulate relationships and woman/doctor associations. You just can't have it both ways.
O'Rourke says:
Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.
But are we men and women of principle? And I don't mean in the matter of tricky and private concerns like gay marriage. Civil marriage is an issue of contract law. A constitutional amendment against gay marriage? I don't get it. How about a constitutional amendment against first marriages? Now we're talking. No, I speak, once again, of the geological foundations of conservatism.
Abortion is never championed by anyone. It is simply seen as a tough choice that women with consultation from their doctors should make rather than empty suits in Washington. It is one of those situations where context is the deciding factor and no government law could take that into account. Individuals should be left to that unfortunate decision without having to worry about government interference. It makes no sense to champion individual liberty and the rights of "Joe-the-Plumber" to dream about owning a business he doesn't even have a license in while saying a raped woman or a woman with health concerns does not have a right to terminate HER pregnancy. And since when is it a small government principle to exclude individuals the right to sign consenting contracts? If two people want to get married and they meet all consent requirements who the hell are we to stop them? How is that conservative? I know you aren't supposed to answer rhetoricals especially if you are the one presenting them, but this is absurd and downright scary. There is no right to stop people from marrying because of their orientation.
Finally I wanted to point out one more thing that I think Democrats now embrace more than ever that Republicans lost sight of. The one principle Republicans abandoned more than any other:
Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.
You must pay for what you spend. Low taxes is not American. Cutting taxes is the biggest boondoggle ever presented by politicians. It is easy. It is cheap support. Just say you will cut taxes and lemmings will leap to your side no matter how narrow the platform. You can only cut taxes in proportion to your cut in spending. The real concern should never be the tax rate, but rather the spending required to keep the government moving. I am a pragmatist. I think right now we should spend, spend, spend to stimulate this economy and I think the Bush Tax Cuts should go the way of the dinosaur. Cutting taxes while increasing spending and borrowing from other nations has been the death of this economy. Fiscal responsibility is the principle of Barack Obama's plan and that is surely why he won't blow it like the Republicans.