Obama’s America: A Course Charted by the Republican Party

This article was featured in The Bulletin (Philadelphia-area newspaper) on 5/8/09. Check out the newspaper version here, or catch the print column every Thursday or Friday.

President Obama recently completed his first 100 days in office, a period marked by an aggressive agenda in the midst of an economic crisis. His early policy initiatives have been nothing short of historic, and it is clear he hopes to redefine the nation. In this brief period, he passed the largest spending bill in history (the stimulus), initiated unprecedented government intervention in private industry (the bailouts, the AIG controversy, and the GM/Chrysler takeover), rewrote foreign policy (release of the torture memos, closing of Guantanamo Bay, the apology tour of Europe), and forwarded a spend heavy budget funded by aggressive redistribution taxation.

His election came in the wake of an incredible overturn in Congress, where Democrats now hold a powerful majority that it is virtually filibuster-proof. The course of the nation is now decidedly left. In reflecting back on President Obama’s first 100 days, what is perhaps most astonishing is how dramatically the course of American politics has changed in just four years. When President Bush was reelected in 2004, the Boston Globe declared that his sweeping victory granted him “a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years.” Conservatives are now left wondering what happened.  

While the answer to that question is varied and complex, it is important to note that the rise of the Democratic left came with the fall of the Republican right. The roots of the fall can be traced back to the decision to shun traditional conservatism.

The Bush Administration was arguably the most polarizing administration of the last three decades. “Conservative” or “Republican” meant you were a right-wing extremist who went to an evangelical church every Sunday, owned a gun, were pro-life, hated homosexuals and immigrants, and adhered to a rigid belief system. You also supported the Iraq War, thought global warming was a farce, believed stem cell research was immoral, and were a shareholder of Halliburton. The Republican Party had become a caricature of its leader in the White House.

In an effort to win two very difficult elections following the popular Clinton Administration, Republican strategists thought it necessary to mobilize the traditional conservative base through hot button social issues. Controversial lightening rod issues, like abortion and gay marriage, became the focal point of debate, and the party was “finally rallying behind its conservative base.” 

Such policy required a new brand of political activism, known to Bush advisors as “neo-conservatism.” At its core, neo-conservatism sought to advance certain “conservative” values through government intervention. With abortion, for example, neo-conservatism called for government funded abstinence programs, faith based pregnancy centers, and pro-life public relations funding. Stem cell research brought similar action, coupling tight regulation with increased spending on alternative methods of scientific research. The list goes on and on.

The party was realigning itself along highly controversial lines, forwarding an agenda focused on government activism, and by proxy, government spending. Interest groups within the party, and certain policy leaders, felt that the country ought to look a certain way and embrace certain societal, cultural, and religious values. Those values became “conservative” values. The “conservative” government was attempting to define societal and cultural norms.

“What’s the problem with being pro-life, or believing in the sanctity of marriage?” you may be asking. Nothing. Each of the social programs embraced by the Bush Administration had merit. The problem arose when Republicans became functional liberals, expanding government and spending wildly to enforce these values. The defining line between the left and the right was no longer marked by small government v. big government, low taxes v. redistribution, or personal responsibility v. welfare. The defining line was now marked by incredibly controversial and divisive issues, and the new level of government activism posed a direct threat to those on the opposite side of that line.

That threat brought about an astounding degree of political activism, and gave rise to a highly energized liberal base. The early years of the Bush presidency gave rise, among other things, to MoveOn.org, Nancy Sheehan, and a decidedly liberal media. When the movement began, they were not fighting for liberalism, they were fighting against President Bush. All the while, the Republican Party lost its conservative identity, and became a party marked by partisan politics. It was only a matter of time before the partisan tables were turned.

A recent Fox poll showed that 76% of independents worry government will spend too much to help the economy; only 12% worry it will spend too little. The same poll showed that the vast majority of Americans fear big government more than they fear big business. Americans are conservative at heart. Our nation was founded on the principles of personal industry, small government, and fiscal responsibility. Excessive taxes, after all, gave rise to the original tea party. When the Republican Party was its strongest, it embraced Ronald Reagan’s Big Tent: Anyone who believes in low taxes, strong national defense, and small government is welcome. Reagan left office with the highest approval ratings of any President.

It is a great shame that conservatism took on a wholly different identity over the past eight years. Now we are reaping the political consequences. It is time that conservatism become the foundational political philosophy it was always meant to be.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net