George Packer on the Conservative movement: Has it run out of ideas?

This is from last week's New Yorker, but it's worth reading. You can throw the standard lazy response and say "stupid liberal New Yorker bias!" but only, I think, if you don't read the story. It is conservatives making this claim, not liberals. They're essentially saying what we've been talking about here for the last few months: modern conservatisism needs a total overall. That isn't to say modern liberalism doesn't have its own problems. But it makes the interesting point that one of the reasons why McCain got the nomination this year is because, right now, he's the only conservative who can win. The strategy of dividing up America into 51-49 and playing to people's anger seems to have run its course. Nixon's strategy of demonizing the left isn't going to be a winner forever. A lot of conservatives want to remake the party because they fear there is going to be a real cultural shift, and if they continue to beat the same drum, they'll be left behind, just like the left was after McGovern.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer/?currentPage=all

Really interesting stuff. If you're on the right and you want to slam Packer, you're kind of missing the point. It's guys like David Brooks, David Frum, Newt Gingrich, etc., making this point the loudest.

 

I just put together a compilation of how the candidates view the immigration issue and was surprised how close all three are on the issue overall. For all the sturm and drang of the anti-undocumented worker folks, it sure didn't play out in the GOP primary. Which kind of gets to the root of the problems with the conservatives. They've been doing a plate spinning act attempting to please the evangelicals, the big business community, the war hawks and the anti-illegals and the performance of the Bush administration has fractured that alliance.
The biggest dilemma facing the GOP is their base (white folks) is becoming a smaller percentage of the pie year by year and their immigration rhetoric has damaged attempts to woo Hispanics who would be a natural for the party based on family values and economic issues.

 

I hate Packer, he makes me want to mute the Final Four.

 

The Republicans (and lately, Democrats, too) have been making more like Alfred Packer.

 

How many ideas did they ever have?

1) What's good for big bidness is good for Amurrica.

2) COMMIES!!

3) Negros are coming to rape your wife, your mama, your daughter.

4) Jeebus will save us all so no need to worry about health care, oil supplies, the environment, etc etc.

 

Good find and a good read.

One thing Packer's piece skipped over, and I think it's crucial.

Nixon devised the strategy. Reagan and W. Bush were figureheads for it. Post-Watergate, Conservatives twice embraced "beacon on the hill" presidential candidate. Good-looking, charming, tough talkers, naturally confident. Cowboy types.

The sweaty, ugly, angry, brilliant, idealistic meglomaniac - the Nixon prototype - still churns a lot of earth. They just do so as advisors and commentators. In Karl Rove - the cutthroat zealot who never graduated from college, the outsider with a massive chip - you see Nixon.

 

Darth Cheney learned well from his master, Darth Milhous. Always two Sith there are, a master and an apprentice.

 

C'mon folks, it's party cannibalization.