SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Active Debate?

THE PLANK DECEMBER 18, 2006

Active Debate?

Over at Newsweek, Michael Gerson has an end-of-the-year piece laying out what ails the Republican Party. Gerson's argument is that there is a split between big government Republicans and more libertarian minded antigovernment activists. He writes:

 

The response of many Republicans was to use [Hurricane Katrina] as an excuse for cutting government spending, particularly the Medicare prescription-drug benefit for seniors. At a post-Katrina meeting with White House officials, one conservative think-tank sage urged: "The president needs to give up something he wants. Why not the AIDS program for Africa?"

This reaction previews a broader, high-stakes Republican debate as we head toward the 2008 election. One Republican Party--the Republican Party of movement conservatives on Capitol Hill and in the think-tank world--will argue that the "big government Republicanism" of the Bush era has been a reason for recent defeats. Like all fundamentalists, the antigovernment conservatives preach that greater influence requires a return to purity--the purity of Reaganism.

 

Gerson goes on to say that this supposed "purity" is a myth--a point well taken. But is this debate within the Republican Party really going to occur? Sure, maybe it will on conservative blogs and in the conference rooms of Washington D.C. think tanks. But every major Republican candidate running for president is of the big government variety. McCain may dislike pork and talk about lowering spending, but he is fundamentally in favor of an activist government, on everything from global warming to campaign finance reform. Romney (who signed a bill mandating universal health care in Massachusetts) and Giuliani (who was a very activist mayor) are cut from the same cloth. And then a notch (or three) below these guys are Mike Huckabee (whose claim to fame is his effort to get the government and private industry to work together on eliminating junk food in public schools) and Sam Brownback. There's also Newt Gingrich, who, 1994 notwithstanding, seems to want serious legislation for every challenge that America faces (on television yesterday he suggested that we start a civilian conservation corps in Iraq). Anyway, the problem for Bush and the Republicans vis-a-vis Katrina wasn't an internal split or anti-government rhetoric. It was a lack of competence and (dare I say it, Michael Gerson) compassion. --Isaac Chotiner

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

I read Gerson's piece as a call for more compassionate and effective GOP leadership - he touts Romney and Jeb Bush as examples of people in the party who have used the power of government to help strengthen institutions and to serve the needs of people. I think he makes a good argument against the selfish libertarian streak that runs through most of the Republican pundits and politicians in Washington. Gerson may be the only Republican I have ever heard make this argument, so you may be right that this is not going to be debated among the GOP ranks. Too bad. I think he is onto something.

- purcellneil

December 18, 2006 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Reagan was as selfish as they come, and have to disagree with Gerson's take on the Gipper.

- purcellneil

December 18, 2006 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even more than Bush's big government manfiestations--which are less visible, more abstract, and less emotional-- Bush's tolerance of illegals is much more provocative. On this, he has sided with country club corporate Republicans, the ones who benefit from cheap wages, no pensions, and no benefits. Meanwhile, Mainstreet style, small business Republicans, law and order Republicans, as well as the populist wing of the GOP are outraged by an invasion by 12 million illegals that Bush is ready to reward with amnesty. On this issue, there ought to be crossover and common cause with all the remaining "Reagan Democrats" and traditional Union Dem,ocrats who are losing jobs, wages and their membership in the middle class to the illegals.

- ChanRobt

December 19, 2006 at 4:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Middle class folks aren't losing jobs to uneducated spanish-speaking campesinos! Our good middle class jobs are going to India. Funny how the exportation of good jobs to India is okay, but let some poor guy from Mexico take a minimum wage job that you don't even want, and the sky is suddenly falling. If you want to protect a job in America, you needn't worry about immigration. It's Wal-Mart and every big company that is moving good jobs to the third world to save a few bucks.

- purcellneil

December 19, 2006 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close