Posted on 02/25/2008 7:22:22 AM PST by SJackson
| Comeback |
FP: David Frum, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Frum: Thank you – it is very generous of you to invite me. FP: What inspired you to write this book? Frum: My worries – and my hopes. Conservatives and Republicans are in a lot of trouble going into 2008, obviously. But what’s at stake here is not just an election. If we lose this election, we lose a war. FP: What is Comeback’s main argument? Frum: Conservatism as you and I know it coalesced in response to the failures of liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s. The Soviet threat – inflation – slowing economic growth – crime – oil shortages – social disorder – on issue after issue, we could offer answers to problems that baffled the liberals of the day. And our answers were right! They worked! They worked so well that we conquered the problems.
Political success always creates new problems however. And to those new problems – from soaring healthcare costs to the decline of the western alliance – conservatives are still offering answers from 30 years ago. It’s like a (true) anecdote I quote in the book, punchline: “Young man, your answers are so old I’ve forgotten the questions.”
Middle class incomes are under strain – yet our usual medicine, tax cuts, can no longer help, only a healthcare policy can.
Young voters and women care intensely about the environment, and yet we treat that issue with distrust.
The most direct and effective way to handle the immigration problem is with an ID system plus meaningful employer sanctions. But because we cannot bring ourselves ever to differ with our business base, we have committed ourselves instead to the least cost-effective approach, a border wall.
You see the same thing in energy. You want energy independence? Great! Use tax policy to keep prices high and encourage conservation and substitution. It’s Econ 101. But since energy taxes are anathema, we instead – we conservatives! – endorse government investment in energy R&D, as if the US government could do a better job than private markets identifying and funding promising new technologies. FP: What kind of trouble is conservatism in? What kind of trouble is the party in? Why? Frum: Conservatism suffers from intellectual exhaustion. The Republican party suffers from a dwindling of the social basis of its support. Republicans draw their strength from the married, from parents, from people with intermediate levels of education and income, from churchgoers, from the native-born, from whites. All those social groups are experiencing relative demographic decline.
And even within our core group, we see decline. This may change after a year of two of an Obama administration, but middle-of-the-road Americans have come to perceive the Democrats as the moderate, business-minded, pragmatic party, and the GOP as the immoderate, interest-dominated, ideological party. FP: Why do you think many conservatives and Republicans have put their blinders on in terms of the negative trends in their own ranks? Frum: We have been so successful for so long that we find it hard to imagine that we could ever not be successful. Not since 1964 has a Republican candidate for president lost to a Democrat in an undistracted head-to-head contest. We lost to Clinton in 1992 and 1996 in three-way splits; we lost to Carter in 1976 under the shadow of Watergate. And even those defeats were speedily reversed: Carter led to Reagan, 1992 led to 1994. So it’s natural to think that the old Nixon-Reagan coalition might be able to manage one last hurrah in 2008 – or that even a bad result in 2008 will be the prelude to a happy ending in 2010.
Yet I fear that we may be facing a 1980 in reverse: not just a one-time election win, but a real turn of the ideological tide toward the left, unless conservatives can get their act together – and soon. FP: Since 2004, you’ve often found yourself at odds with the Bush administration. On what issues? Frum: I very much disliked the prescription drug benefit, especially when it was severed from the Medicare reform package for which it was originally intended as a sweetener. I helped to organize the opposition to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in 2005 – still have some scars from that one. And immigration. Don’t get me started. FP: Comeback has provoked great controversy, with some of the harshest comments coming from Republicans. Can you talk a bit about that? Frum: I suppose it’s understandable up to a point – nobody likes bad news. And some individual conservatives have taken exception to particular individual ideas: My National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, was horrified by my suggestion that conservatives need to take seriously the public health issue of obesity, which already costs one health dollar in ten and soon perhaps much more.
Beyond that, however, I think we as conservatives face an even more profound challenge. Conservatism is many things: a political movement, a philosophy of government, a legacy of writing and thinking. It is also an industry, and a large and lucrative one. And as in any industry, the interests of individual participants sometimes conflict with the interests of the whole.
Opposition – confrontation – anger: these sell magazines, generate web hits, boost ratings for tv and radio. Yet they are not necessarily the best frame of mind for successful governance. FP: How is the abortion issue working for the GOP? Frum: In the past, it worked well. Only a small minority of Americans cared intensely about abortion, and of that minority a majority were prolife. I worry however that this may be about to change. If the prolife movement pushes ahead of the national consensus, which remains broadly prochoice, it could provoke a backlash just as Roe v. Wade once did. In the end, abortion will be reduced in much the same way as the US reduced alcohol abuse: by persuasion and education. Over-reliance on legal sanctions will not only fail, but will likely prove counter-productive – and not only for prolifers, but for the whole conservative movement. That’s what happened in the Terri Schiavo case. FP: What is the place of environmentalism in future Republican politics? Frum: It will have to be near the center – because it will be near the center of national politics. When you think of environmentalism, don’t think only of the favored headline issues of the big name enviro groups. Voters are at least as likely to be thinking of the town dump and six-lane highways when they refer to “the environment” as they are to global warming and biodiversity. It may be that our party’s first responders on these issues will be local and state officials. Practical successes to small scale problems can do a lot to rehabilitate our party’s image of unconcern. FP: What other problems are there with the GOP that you would like to talk about? Lobbyists, entrenched power, etc? Frum: No disrespect intended to Senator McCain, but it does seem odd to me that we are once again about to nominate as the presidential candidate of the Republican candidate the guy who finished second last time. Truly, it is almost eerie: Reagan loses in 1976 and wins in 1980. George HW Bush loses in 1980 and wins in 1988. Bob Dole loses in 1988 and wins in 1996. John McCain loses in 2000 and wins in 2008. George W. Bush is the exception to the rule – but maybe Republicans were compensating him for his father’s loss in 1992?
Look at recent political history: Bill Clinton defeats George HW Bush, son of a famous senator. Then Bush’s son defeats the son of another famous senator. Now Clinton ’s wife is trying to follow him. The Republican runner up is also the son of a former governor and presidential candidate. The whole thing kind of reminds one of HBO’s “ Rome ”: a struggle of dynasties, not ideas. And look at the Congress, full of sons, daughters, wives, and grandsons of former legislators. This is not a happily functioning political system.
FP: So what new approach do you recommend? Frum: We have to be careful. So many of our present troubles can be traced to unsuccessful past reforms. In general, though, I’d like to see the parties strengthened. When parties have stronger identities, a famous personal name matters less. Yet the whole drift of so-called campaign finance reform over the past three decades has been to weaken the parties. FP: Is it at all realistic to think conservatives can "come back" in time for 2008? Frum: Probably. Barely. But there is not much time. FP: David Frum, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview. Frum: Thank you Jamie.
Conservatives need new answers. Comeback attempts to provide some.
So, basically, if the conservative movement simply abandons conservatism, it will succeed.
What would we do without such great minds as Frum?
There are some merits in what Frum is suggesting. But his overall panacea seems to be moving the GOP to the left. No thanks!
It’s always good to hear Frum tell us all how abandoning our principles is a sure recipe for success.
I am principled.
I voted for Ross.
My National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, was horrified by my suggestion that conservatives need to take seriously the public health issue of obesity, which already costs one health dollar in ten and soon perhaps much more.
This one statement of his basically says it all. Obesity is not a "public health issue" in any sense of the term -- except in that it imposes enormous costs on taxpayer-funded health systems that are completely incompatible with anything that I would see as remotely "conservative." Changing our principles in order to accommodate something that has no place in a free nation in the first place is absolutely idiotic.
I read about two-thirds of it. IMO they guy skews things off target considerably.
His main focus, how we have held the same answer until the question is no longer remembered is so severly flawed an idea, that it taints his whole presentation. And then he procedes to skew things from there.
How can you slam conservatism for holding on to an answer for too long, when conservatism isn’t being tried. This guy blames conservatism for turning people off, when people aren’t even being exposed to it for the most part.
What turns people off about conservatism. Respecting our nation? Not stealing from it’s citizen wage earners? Not redistributing wealth? Not supporting massive domineering federal government? Upholding the Amendments of the Constitition? Respecting our military and the service it’s men and women provide? Caring for “the least of these”, as it relates to the unborn? Thinking our laws should be respected and enforced? Yes tell me, what questions to these answers have grown silent. I can still hear the questions to these answers. They are being asked anew every single day.
I could go on. Why bore people? LOL...
Frum misstates the Invasion by Mexico (he calls it “Immigration”) as simply needing employer sanctions. What he refuses to admit is that that 40 million man/woman horse has already left the barn!! THEY’RE HERE and emplyer sanctions alone aren’t the answer! What IS the answer? STRICT ENFORCEMENT of our Federal Immigration laws which means MORE ICE RAIDS EVERYWHERE, particularly in Southern California where the problem is the worst, ending “catch and release” which liar Chertoff said was finished but which continues to this day; EXPEDITED REMOVAL of illegals from our country which would no longer allow illegals and their ACLU brethren to “game” the system in Immigration Court; using those 600 FEMA prisons setup at closed military bases and abandoned airport hangers all over the country to house them before they’re deported.
Frum is one of those guys who doesn’t understand that conservatism can’t survive in a non-conservative culture. He wants to concede the culture to the left, and then talk about how we’re going to cut taxes and reduce red tape. But in a leftist culture, you’re not going to be able to cut taxes and reduce red tape.
Case in point: California.
Why do I keep reading this interview as if the interviewer and interviewee have English accents?
You have made your political bed Mr Frum, now you may go lie down in it.
“So, basically, if the conservative movement simply abandons conservatism, it will succeed.”
Ditto.
“What would we do without such great minds as Frum?”
Well, we’d have someone to vote for this November.
Okay, if conservatives are to come back we will have to cave on healthcare, global warming and find a compromise on social issues, which shouldn’t make any difference since the modern conservative movement had nothing to do with Christian conservatives coalescing together into the Moral Majority that helped elect Reagan and the 94 Congress (/S). Meanwhile we can prosecute employers of illegals (a point I agree on). All we have to do to make this new, “conservative” intellectualism work is support McCain. This is wonderful, new, conservative thinking here. ...I say conservatives should make an intellectual argument for tort reform to curb the rising cost of health insurance. That goes before any corporate, socialist schemes like mandatory health insurance, or single-payer fascism. If tort reform works, forget the rest. Walmart’s cheap prescriptions have helped my medical expenses more than anything the government has done. Encourage more of the same. Any government scam that raises the cost of my healthcare while lowering the quality should be run out of Washington with the lowlifes who dream it up. As for global warming that Frum addresses as environmental issues neglected by conservatives, wait until it gets colder. Stop federal funding of the global warming religion in universities, and let the faithful go out and collect donations. The problem will be over soon enough. ...As for McCain, ...well, ...if you think electing him is the way to win this war, ....go for it. Frum isn’t describing a new conservatism. He is laying out the road map for the new Republicanism. People are going to have to make a choice.
That a false statement. This is more a 40-40-20 issue with he middle 20 agreeing that there are reasonable limits that should be place on Abortion (i.e. Partial Birth Abortion Ban) That the reason why Abortions are significantly down in this society currently. The people at large are NOT "broadly pro choice" while the current political class is.
But you can figure a DC Establishment type like Frum is simply going to repeat the DC Establishment's bubble world mantra rather then bother to actually examine the data and reach a serious conclusion
I voted for Ross.
I agree. Winning is for losers.
“The people at large are NOT “broadly pro choice” while the current political class is.”
That’s a great statement. I think most, maybe 80%, of the women in this country would never have an abortion.
I think you're right. However it may still be too soon to make a pro-live amendment, even with a legitimate health exception, a viable political issue.
I would have defined the national consensus as prolife rather than prochoice since that's the perspective I approach it from, but he's correct that there is not a national consensus backing an abortion ban, even with exceptions for legitimate health risk, rape and incest. It's probably not the top issue to run on.
More important in his identification of the enviornment as a major issue. It's number one amongst under 30s, and frankly very poorly defined by both parties. That's an area the GOP needs to move on, with sensible positions, as well as demanding financial accountability for dem positions. No one is against higher gas mileage or for dirty air and water, the costs are the issue, and younger voters with whom the issue resonates are also financially sensitive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.