Jeffersonian Conservativism ®
So where do we go from here? Bill Bolling is now the new leader of the Republican Party -- a conservative leader at that. Bob McDonnell is the heir to the battle standard -- yet another conservative leader.
Pro-life and anti-tax values are now at the top o' the ticket, and the moderates in the GOP have zero leadership to hang their hat upon. This having been said, the pro-tax moderates aren't going anywhere, and the Senate Republicans (Chichester et al.) seem more willing to work with the Dems than with their own party.
So where do we go from here?
Bottom line here is that we need a flag to rally around. 10 years ago I might have told you that the pro-life issue was that flag, but the introduction of social conservatives have allowed a rival tent pole to be eroded. That pole which has forever been what keeps the Big Tent afloat is the pole of limited government and fiscal conservativism. The Republican Party is the party of lower taxes and smaller government.
Or we used to be anyhow.
Now we have four potential positions. Are we pro-life or pro-abortion? Are we for smaller government, or are we for making the Democratic leviathan more efficient?
I have always been of the opinion that the limited government long pole is first and foremost what makes us Republican. True, all of the social issues are important, but a government that is so small as to be a non-factor in the lives of it's citizens is the most true to that omnipresent of all American virtues, that of self-reliance.
So what brings us back to sanity? Senator George Allen is running for re-election in 2006, and as Republicans we will be looking to him to bring us back together.
Jeffersonian Conservativism has always been the calling card of Senator Allen. I know what Jefferson beleived, and I have a good idea of what conservativism is (and what it used to be). In the past, Jeffersonian Conservativism meant lower taxes and minimalist government, with a small degree of ambivelance with regards to abortion.
But let's consider the following. If a new Republican Party emerges in Virginia that is so strong on the tax principle, that demands and encourages entrepreneurship in the face of big government, that seeks a minimalist government that seeks to defend the Jeffersonian principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that ultimately could become the answer to neo-conservativism, if that kind of ideology that borrows from the classical liberal tradition emerges, the whole world changes.
If you look at Tuesday's results, I see an electorate ripe for a new way. Jeffersonian Conservatism, with Senator Allen as it's prime advocate, is the golden key to a GOP in search of itself.
|
 |
Shaun Kenney 
3 Comments:
Firstly, those familiar with Virginia politics understand that Senator George Allen first coined the phrase "Jeffersonian Conservative," and certainly not myself. Reading this beginning to end, those familiar with Virginia politics got the inside joke. Never intended to confuse anyone.
Secondly, with regards to Hamilton, I would recommend the excellent book Reclaiming the American Revolution out of Palgrave Press. It centers around the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (nullification if you'll remember your 7th grade civics classes), but it gives an incredible insight on Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and many of the other Founding Fathers in the early 19th century.
Hamilton was no democrat in the purest sense of the word. Hamilton believed strongly in aristocracy, and in a market that benefited that aristocracy. If what you say is true - that Democrats are embracing Hamilton - then you have a dark road ahead, one that many neocons might envy.
One problem that many who reach back for the Founding Fathers to validate their modern ideas is that they forget that these men were 18th century thinkers, and men of their age. This isn't to say that their ideas don't apply today (as a fan of Aristotle, I certainly beleive the past has something to teach us moderns who are no less intelligent than they), but it is to say that Jefferson and Hamilton are not 21st century political leaders. Both are silent on issues we might consider to be of vital importance, both expound on items we may think to be trivial. It was the spirit of the age.
In short, I wouldn't get too caught up with pitting Jefferson and Hamilton against each other and in 21st century terms. There's much we can borrow, and I certainly beleive there's much Jefferson and any of the Founders have to teach us about our roots as Americans.
Let's just be careful about using them as divisive us v. them poles with 21st century goggles on. Nitpicking over the copyright symbol I hope can be forgiven!
Without the system of schools, abortion clinics, counselors, social service workers, psychologists, and other government-paid workers to prop up the abortion industry, it would fall apart overnight.
This is where we get into the idea of first causes. If government were maintained at a minimal standard whose job were to regulate and not impose an ordered society, it emasculates the power of government to impose ideologies.
So while I agree that moral standards are important, in order to allow those morals to operate freely we must have a small, limited government.
This is the difference between Thomistic (as in Aquinas) political philosophy (citizens should be able to freely choose virtuous acts) as opposed to Russell Kirk's political philosophy (citizens should be massaged into choosing virtuous acts). Yes, both agree that certain frameworks need to exist for proper government, but Kirk is more of a positivist - might makes right - while Aquinas is more firmly rooted in the natural law (laws stem from a lawmaker, God).
In short, a low tax and limited government is the long pole becasue it is moral and fosters, but does not impose, a moral society.
shipwrecked
I imagine you have already read First Things letters in this month's issue? Wow!
When the cases are small, then I think we can get to the real heart of the abortion question and start making real inroads into resolving the issue. But as it stands now, the government is ultimately subsidizing a practice designed to kill unwanted, poor, or minority children.
Reduce the power and size of government, and maybe we'll take care of the root problems (want, poverty, and racism) rather than dress up the extermination of all three as "choice".
Get rid of the size and scope of government, and charity rather than blank checks can change the world.
Post a Comment
Home