Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Conservatives Have Lost the Political Battle for America’s Soul
The Tea Party Economist ^ | April 18, 2012 | Gary North

Posted on 04/19/2012 12:14:56 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This was posted on one of forums.

The battle for America’s political soul is always fought on the battlefield of federal politics. That’s why conservatives lose, generation after generation.”

Dr. North, would you please elaborate on this, why you believe the battle for America’s political soul is fought in Federal politics and why it is that conservatives continue to lose, generation after generation?

From the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution, American politics shifted to the national level. One of the things that I realized late in my career, even though I had been trained as an historian of the colonial period, was this: it is virtually impossible to write a history of the United States after 1788 without dividing it into four-year segments. Presidential election years set the tone for the direction of the country, and this has been true ever since the early 19th century, when the federal government’s share of the economy was minimal. It is not a matter simply of money; it is a matter of political legitimacy. Issues of legitimacy are much more important than issues of taxation. Legitimacy tells what the taxes will be spent on. That is far more important than the amount of taxes collected.

The problem is this: voting for the President, who is the only representative of all the people, is functionally a covenantal act. People ratify a particular President, and in doing so, they transfer authority and legitimacy to him and to his administration.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, these events were limited to state and local governments, and before that to colonial governments that were technically under the authority of the King of England. Politics was local, and the great issues of the day were also local. These issues differed from state to state, or from colony to colony.

There was no national civil government. There was no national political issue that confronted citizens in every region. Because there was no national government, there was no means of covenant ratification, which first took place in 1788. There was no means of covenant renewal nationally. So, people did not think of themselves as Americans; they thought of themselves as residents of their particular state.

It is difficult to write a history of the United States politically prior to 1775. Other than the American Revolution, there were no national political events. There were so many different colonies, and so many different issues, that the focus of the historian of necessity moves to issues of economics, social institutions, literary trends, political theory in general, marriage patterns, church planting, and basically nonpolitical issues. These are what conservatives regard, at least in theory, as the central issues of civilization.

The problem with political conservatives today is that the Constitution created a national government, and this national government has the power to tax. It has grown systematically and without reversal since 1788. The issues of the day are increasingly those of national politics, because the federal government extracts a greater percentage of the public’s wealth than any other single institution. When there is that much loot to be divvied up, everybody wants to get his hands into the pile of loot. In taking this money, the government legitimizes certain activities of the government, and these activities steadily replace private institutions and local governments. The money that the government collects baptizes the various proposals that special interest groups have for national renewal. Renewal is seen as political. It takes a lot of money to redo the whole nation.

Conservative social thought de-emphasizes politics. This is why conservative social thought never gains much of the hearing in the modern world. The modern world is so obviously political, and the power of central governments is so great over every area of life, that all issues become politicized. The traditional conservative opposition to the very suggestion of political salvation is co-opted by their enemies. Conservatives over and over go out to vote as if their votes will fundamentally change the nature of American society. Ultimately, this cannot be true if conservative social theory is correct. Ultimately, the political institutions represent the people, and the great issues of daily life are not political; they are social, ethical, economic, ecclesiastical, and educational. The great issues of life are not political, yet at the same time the central government is pushing its way into every area of life. It is politicizing that which was not political prior to the Enlightenment.

So, the conservative faces a dilemma. He wants to make the case for a particular national political candidate in terms of conservative values, but conservative values tell him that no political candidate can do much of anything to make the country any better. If the essence of social life is nonpolitical, which is what the conservative says is the case, then how can an election every four years fundamentally change the foundations of American life?

I always quote the letter written by political activist Paul Weyrich in 1999, in which he specifically said that we have lost the culture war, which ultimately is an ethical war. He did not see how politics could roll back the debauchery that America has become. He did not think that anything that could be done at the federal level through politics could fundamentally reverse what Robert Bork called slouching towards Gomorrah.

The liberal believes in something like political salvation. He believes in political healing of every area of life. He believes that federal power, coupled with federal money, can make society better. Therefore, he is active in politics, he puts faith in politics, and he puts a whole lot of money in politics. He sees political mobilization is the heart of social transformation. He becomes highly skilled at getting votes. He becomes a master at political fund-raising. He has all of the skills that a professional has in any field, and he is up against conservatives whose very philosophy of life militates against political salvation and hard-core political mobilization.

So, every four years the conservatives go off to vote, telling themselves that this is going to change something fundamental in the country. It never does. It can accelerate certain trends. But, given what George W. Bush did to the budget deficit, and given what he did in Middle Eastern wars, it is hard to make a case that the election of Al Gore would have made America far worse than it is today. The great thing about Al Gore was that he was indecisive. He did not trust his gut in the way the George W. Bush trusted his.

I suppose the best example in my lifetime was Franklin Roosevelt’s decision in 1944 to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman as Vice President. Henry Wallace was the most radical political figure ever to advance to national politics. He was further to the left than Huey Long. He would have replaced Roosevelt in April of 1945. Had he done so, America would be a far better place to live in. Harry Truman personally imposed the modern national security state. It was Truman who created the CIA. It was Truman who created the foundation of the Department of Homeland Security. It was Truman who expanded America’s Empire around the world. It was Truman who got us into the Korean War, and would not even call it a war, never gaining congressional approval. Wallace would never have been able to get that through Congress, because conservatives in Congress would have opposed him. Everybody knew how far to the left he was, and he had no national constituency of his own. Conservatives looked at Truman in preference to Wallace. They make that sort of mistake all the time.

So, the conservative movement by its own nature is not an effective political competitor. Because local issues are far more tied to social issues, where conservatives say a country is established, they are better equipped to fight political battles of the local level than liberals are. Liberals look to Washington for salvation; conservatives ought to look to county government as a barrier against the expansion of the federal government into their lives. But they do not know the philosophy of local government which undergirded the foundation of this nation, beginning in the colonial era, and extending even through the period immediately preceding the ratification of the Constitution. That legacy has got to be restored, and conservatives have got to adopt it. If they do not adopt it, we are simply going to get more of the same, until the federal government finally goes belly-up.

Sadly, I think that is what is going to happen. I do not think most conservatives are going to spend the time, money, and effort to build up local resistance governments at the county level to step in when Washington’s checks bounce. They will have to do it after the Great Default.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 9thamendment; biggovernment; congress; conservatives; constitution; elections; liberals; liberty; limitedgovernment; localgovernment; president; smallgovernment; society; states; teaparty; tyranny; voters
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: rarestia
Would it be harmful to discuss an orderly secession of States no longer willing to take part in the contemporary Federal government? Is it legal?

No, but it would be a waste of time, since most of the states that people talk about seceding are close to going Democrat within the next decade or so, and there would not be a clear majority supporting it in most of them. There are those who think that as long as 51% are okay with secession, that's all that matters, but by forcing the other 49% to along with it, they'd be no better than the very government they are trying to avoid.

I'm in Texas, and I always get a good laugh out of the "Secede" license plates, since Texas is already minority-majority, and soon Hispanics will be the largest group. Secession wouldn't work out too well for us.
21 posted on 04/19/2012 3:25:22 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
America’s epitaph will read: United States of America, 1775 - 2012. Cause of death: voter stupidity.

No, voter apathy. Although apathy could be just another word for stupidity in this case.
22 posted on 04/19/2012 3:25:58 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sand88
I have nothing but utter contempt for those of any party who worship at the Alter of State Power. For they are enemies of our Constitution and enemies of God. If they succeed in destroying all we have, then I pray they are shown no mercy when our Republic rises from the ashes. May ALL the politicians of today, all the judges, all the sadistic workers at the EPA and other Federal agencies be put in non air-conditioned prisons out West breaking big rocks into little rocks for a long time. As added punishment, may they have to endure looking at nightly repeats of Sarah's acceptance speech at the GOP convention in 08 :) [Her speech totally annoyed Statists of all stripes -- I loved it]

Agreed, doubly so for the EPA people.
23 posted on 04/19/2012 5:47:02 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (General James Mattoon Scott, where are you when we need you? We need a regime change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

States rights started it’s death throes during a stormy overcast July about 1 mile south of a small whistle-stop PA town in 1863. It took 3 days to finish the job.

24 posted on 04/19/2012 6:01:15 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
America’s epitaph will read: United States of America, 1775 - 2012 1865. Cause of death: voter stupidity Lincoln and Northern arrogance.


25 posted on 04/19/2012 6:04:21 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Didn’t Henry Wallace later renounce his liberalism and endorse that liberal Richard Nixon in 1968?

26 posted on 04/19/2012 9:23:40 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Does the writer and his ignorant interviewee not remember someone named Ronald Reagan? Margaret Thatcher? Karol Józef Wojtya?

Things are not the same today

Demographics is destiny

Even if Gas was $9.00 a gallon and Inflation and Unemployment were 30%+ a Ronald Reagan would still lose California, New York and Illinois and many other states.

Within 10 years the same will be able to be said of Texas

America was mortally wounded in 1965 with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act,

27 posted on 04/19/2012 9:28:05 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

He’s popular over on Lew Rockwell, one of those “not welcome on FR” sites:

He cites the late Paul Weyrich, and I found this interesting, in light of the former FReeper and moonbat Willie Green:

Rail transit activism

In contrast with many conservatives, Weyrich had a long history of ardent support for rail mass transit.[12][13] He opposed “Bus rapid transit”,[14] (a particular type of bus transit with higher capacity but also higher costs than ordinary bus transit), and instead supported rail transit as a more effective alternative. In 1988 he co-founded a quarterly magazine on the subject of urban rail transit, called The New Electric Railway Journal, which until 1996 was published by FCF, and he was its Publisher.[15] He wrote an opinion column for most issues and contributed a few feature articles. FCF discontinued its affiliation with TNERJ in 1996, but the magazine continued being produced, under a different publishing company,[15] until the end of 1998, with Weyrich listed as “Publisher Emeritus”. In early 2000,[16] about a year after the last magazine was published, Weyrich and William S. Lind (who had been the magazine’s Associate Publisher until 1996) launched a website where they could continue to post their views and news about rail transit. They called the webpage “The New New Electric Railway Journal”,[16] and Weyrich wrote numerous op-ed columns in favor of proposed light rail and metro systems. He also supported bringing back streetcars to U.S. cities.[17]

Weyrich also served on the national board of Amtrak (1987-1993)[18] and the Amtrak Reform Council, as well as on local and regional rail transit advocacy organizations.

Thanks Tolerance Sucks Rocks.

28 posted on 04/20/2012 6:56:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
Didn’t Henry Wallace later renounce his liberalism and endorse that liberal Richard Nixon in 1968?

If he did I'm unaware of it, and I'd be hard put to explain, if it's the same Henry Wallace, why a lifelong Red would endorse the consummate and preeminent anticommunist politician of his day.

29 posted on 04/20/2012 10:20:07 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Theodore R.
Theodore R. appears to remember correctly.

From Wikipedia, FWIW:

In 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea, Wallace broke with the Progressives and backed the U.S.-led war effort in the Korean War.[5] In 1952, Wallace published Where I Was Wrong, in which he explained that his seemingly-trusting stance toward the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin stemmed from inadequate information about Stalin's excesses and that he, too, now considered himself an anti-Communist. He wrote various letters to "people who he thought had traduced (maligned) him" and advocated the re-election of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956.[5]

In 1961, President-elect John F. Kennedy invited him to his inauguration ceremony, though he had supported Kennedy's opponent Richard Nixon. A touched Wallace wrote to Kennedy: "At no time in our history have so many tens of millions of people been so completely enthusiastic about an Inaugural Address as about yours."[5]

I learned something, too.

30 posted on 04/20/2012 10:31:44 PM PDT by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Thanks for the post. Perhaps Comrade Stalin sent Wallace a typical Stalin gift ... a brand-new pistol, his present to failed generals during World War II. (Khrushchev was his delivery boy for that particular sort of political errand.)

Wallace was a raring-to-go Red in the 30's. Be interesting to know what, if anything, changed his mind -- other than HUAC breathing down his neck.

31 posted on 04/21/2012 1:43:37 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Wallace's professed (if you can trust it) change of heart later -- assuming it's any good, arguendo -- does not say anything about what Wallace would have done, or how he would have governed, had he become President during the War.
32 posted on 04/21/2012 1:53:11 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: qam1
America was mortally wounded in 1965 with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act

So, we don't just lie there and bleed out and wait for the guy with the chalk. We get our butt to a hospital, get help, heal up, and then go looking with a bunch of our friends for the guy who cut us.

And we solve our social problem.

33 posted on 04/21/2012 1:57:19 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson