Mark Steyn notes with some dismay the two types of Republicans in existence at the moment. One school of thought is that which supports the war as the central issue. The other is one which treats the war as peripheral. Therein lies a major problem for the future.
If Milton Friedman had to die, then a week after the defeat of a Republican Congress that had apparently forgotten every lesson Friedman taught in Free To Choose is eerily apt timing. As it happens, had ill health not intervened, Professor Friedman would have been disembarking round about now from a National Review post-election cruise with yours truly and various other pundits and commentators.
Instead, we were obliged to sail without him, and in the days that followed I found myself wondering what the great man would have made of the most salient feature of our deliberations: On the one hand, there are those conservatives for whom the war trumps everything and peripheral piffle like "No Child Left Behind" can be argued over when the jihad's been seen off. On the other, there are those conservatives for whom the war is peripheral and, insofar as it exists, it doesn't begin to mitigate the abandonment of Friedmanite principles on public spending, education and much else. There is a huge gulf between these two forces, to the point where the War Party and the Small Government Party seem as mutually hostile as the Sunni and Shia on their worst days. If the Republicans can't reunite these two wings before 2008, they'll lose again and keep on losing.
Shortly after the election when people were pointing fingers about why the Republicans lost, I noted:
Actually, I think that both groups are correct, oddly enough. The Republican-conservative coalition depends on certain conservative tenets being a bedrock foundation for the Republicans. But at the same time, conservatives must realize that there are times when moderation rather than ideological purity are the better way to go. That was Reagan's strong suit, being able to stand on the truly important issues while yielding enough on other things to make it all work.
I think that reasoning is correct, as does Steyn:
It has been strange for me in these days since the election to spend so much time with so many figures I admire and to find that each group barely recognizes each other's concerns. The War Party is the War Party, the Small Government Party is the Small Government Party, and ne'er the twain shall meet, apparently. That way lies disaster: You can't be in favor of assertive American foreign policy overseas and increasing Europeanization domestically; likewise, you can't take a reductively libertarian view while the rest of the planet goes to pieces. Someone in the GOP needs to do what Ronald Reagan did so brilliantly a quarter-century ago:reconcile the big challenges abroad with a small-government philosophy at home. The House and the Senate will not return to Republican hands until they do.
Reagan's genius was to be able to hold to the core values while still being able to work with the middle. He is sorely missed right now.
