Back before the election, I linked to a piece by Richard Viguerie, in which he declared that the Big Government Republicans needed to lose the election. Ever since, I have been receiving e-mail from one of Viguerie’s groups.
One great thing about that is that it contradicts my pessimistic view that the right does not have a handle on how to use new media to rally grass-roots support. I get e-mail like that from Newt Gingrich and a couple of others, as well. Good for you, guys.
At any rate, the other day, I received the following statement from Viguerie, in response to the President’s State of the Union speech.
“I was struck more by what I didn’t hear than by what I heard.“What he did say was mostly big-government economic, energy, and education schemes that could have just as easily come from President Clinton or President Carter. What he did not deliver were any Reaganesque calls for reducing the size of government, or getting the government off our backs—a core conservative goal since the 1950s.“The underlying message in this State of the Union Address was directed toward the Democrats: In effect, we can work together–let’s make a deal. The underlying message directed toward the conservatives was: You have no place else to go.“Among the other omissions in the President’s speech:♦ He did not acknowledge any mistake in pursuing the liberal, big government policies that have driven the Republican Party from power on Capitol Hill.♦ He did not announce any changes in personnel in a conservative direction.♦ He did not announce that he will veto any increase in discretionary spending.♦ He did not call for the downsizing or elimination of any government programs.♦ He did not call for eliminating the corporate welfare shelled out to big business.♦ He did not announce that he will veto any legislation that contains ‘earmarks.’♦ He did not launch a serious war on the institutionalized government corruption between big business, their lobbies, Congress, and the Administration.♦ He did not announce any significant initiatives to protect traditional moral values.
“Accordingly, conservatives must continue to declare their independence from the Republican Party. We must act as a Third Force in American politics, seeking to draw both major political parties to the Right. Conservative principles and goals take precedence over partisanship. We will support Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the right thing, and oppose Democrats and Republicans alike when they do the wrong thing.”
While I don’t agree with every single thing that Viguerie wanted the President to say, I think he has an interesting idea – for conservatives to abandon their allegiance to a party and act as a force that draws both major parties to the right.
I think the case could be made that the reason both major parties are moving toward the Big Government side (I’ll refrain from using the classic left-right designations here) is due in large part to the efforts of different social activist groups to gain public support for their movements. Public support = votes. Ergo, the politicians started moving in the direction where they thought they would find the most public support.
One need not look very far to find examples of public policy being shaped by a couple of loud voices, whether or not the general public agrees.
Could this strategy work for conservatives?
In light of the former Republican majority’s near total abandonment of fiscal conservatism, would it make sense for conservatives to abandon the party and work instead on influencing the entire political landscape by influencing public opinion through independent activist groups?
I don’t know if this is what Viguerie is proposing, but it does make sense for small government conservatives to start getting out and actively educating the public as to why Big Government policies are harmful.
And I agree with Vigueire that the conservative vote cannot be taken for granted to belong to the GOP.
