Category Archives: politics

a hypothetical republican party

So, the Republicans in Congress and President Trump couldn’t undo Obamacare this week and replace it with something better.

I don’t know any fair observer who’s surprised by this, and right now the news cycle is consumed by whether and how President Trump and the party recover, whether they can pass tax cuts or infrastructure spending. There’s also good writing about how deeply divided the Republican party is among the extreme right, the used-to-be-far-right-but-lost-the-title right and the hand waving, sort of right. Of course, the Democratic and Republican parties are each coalitions, collections of interests who agree to get along with each other because they have enough in common to make it worth their while, but it’s hard to see how this particular coalition doesn’t come flying apart. There’s just a lot of daylight between the Freedom Caucus and the moderates.

So what would a coherent Republican party look like? A few thoughts. (I don’t endorse these positions neccessarily; this is a thought experiment.)

  • The most important words are “pragmatic” and “creative.” Republicans spend way too much time limiting their choices. Sure, if you’re a Republican you want to do things with private enterprise first. But if that doesn’t work, don’t cut off your options. This isn’t giving up; it’s acknowledging the way the world works. And once you stop saying everything outside a narrow range of options is off the table, you open up the door to creativity. The Republican Party should be the party of hackers – in the old, good sense of the word – and makers, in the not-Mitt-Romney way. The Ryan health care plan is exhibit A in the “failure of creativity” exhibit.
  • The other most important word starts with “r.” Not “rights.” A Republican party that works emphasizes individual rights and responsibilities in equal measure. Responsibilities without rights lead to a dismal, conformist state; rights without responsibilities turn feral, and lead to bizarre, impossible-to-settle standoffs.
  • The party honors religion, and believes in science. Full stop. You can’t have creative problem solving if you can’t use the tools we have. Science, both pure and applied, is the toolbox of modern life.
  • Markets first, but…. You’re a Republican, so you believe markets work. And they do, often. not always. And the answer can’t just be, “get government out of the way.” Much of the time, government’s already well out of the way. Sometimes markets are simply broken, and you need government to make things work. The underlying premise of Obamacare, the individual mandate, is common sense. If the auto insurance market was voluntary, only terrible drivers and old people (pending bad drivers) would get it. And premiums would skyrocket. Why would you expect health insurance to work any different? The market for home internet service doesn’t work because each market is effectively a monopoly so a.) there’s no price competition and b.) there’s no incentive to build out to sparsely settled areas, or into poor areas. Government could serve as a market maker, either directly or indirectly.
  • Support business. Big business, not so much. The overused expression about capitalism, that it’s a force of “creative destruction,” is applicable here. We have less innovation, less disruption of the good sort, because the large incumbents in the economy have too much sway. A healthy economy needs constant churn; we have something closer to a monoculture, with a few big retailers, giant drug companies, a lot of tech in very few hands.
  • Oppose discrimination of all sorts, but equally oppose identity politics. Democrats don’t do this; the two get conflated. If you’re a Republican, let differences just be…differences. Not there to be celebrated or condemned. Just acknowledged.
  • Let cultural issues lie. You may feel to the depths of your soul that abortion is wrong, but a majority of Americans disagree, though I’ve never met anyone on the pro-choice side of the argument who is enthusiastic about the procedure. Understand that there are good people on both sides, downsides however you look at it, decide that you’re going to speak your mind when you can, and move on.
  • Which brings me to my final point for the moment: the problem with what passes for conservatism now is that it has more in common with the radicalism of the 60s than it does with classical conservative thought. The radicals of the late 60s, early 70s believed the state (and drugs and music) would get them there, but they believed in the perfectibility of the human condition. At their core, they believed in utopia. Today’s conservatives have a hard time seeing the similarity,  but they believe in free markets and small government just as irrationally, just as religiously, as their counterparts of 40 years ago. True conservatives, I think, believe in the blues; they know life is short, options are limited and imperfect, and that you can only do the best you can, which is no guarantee of results. I see exactly zero sign the current crop in Washington understands that; until they do, you’ll get what we got this past week and worse.

(And read David Frum on the week’s events here, and Dave Winer’s take on Frum here. Both are excellent.)