The conservative movement is dying for very different reasons than old-guard commentators think.  Conservative opinion leaders had better learn the substance behind their usual arguments rather than just repeating the same taglines they have been using for 20 years.  Reagan knew the substance and inspired others with it.  Many commentators today do not. 

 

Consider Rush Limbaugh as a primary example since he is the most popular commentator. He claims liberal voters and Huckabee supporters are emotional people just looking for group identity, implying intellectual laziness.  On the contrary, I hear nothing but laziness in Rush's old reruns of Reagan's record (his federal record; we all know his state record in California was quite different from his philosophy on federal governance).  Here are 5 examples:

 

1.  Laffer Curve:  Rush reflexively says reducing tax rates always increases revenue, so he slams Huckabee for an ambivalent taxrecord in Arkansas.  Does Rush really understand the Laffer Curve? It hardly says lower rates always cause more revenue.  It postulates an inflection point above which lower rates would cause lower revenues and some research has indicated that rate is in the low 20's when it comes to federal income taxes.  Capital gains taxes and state tax schemes would have different curves.  

 

2.  Federalism:  Rush assumes a Governor would adopt as President the same policies they had in their state.  Does he understand federalism? One cannot claim the federal government should not do anything because of federalism, and then also claim state governments should not do anything. A true federalist sees quite different roles for these levels of government. 

 

3.  Capitalism:  Rush plays into the liberals' playbook when he sells capitalism as “equality of opportunity” and curmudgeonly slaps anyone like Huckabee who dares to notice the existential reality of the human condition.  Rush’s usual taglines define capitalism as atomistic individuals who compete to realize their potential.  That is the caricature of capitalism liberals want people to believe because they know people will look to them for meaning of a higher order. The fact is, capitalism transcends other systems on metaphysical, existential, and even theological grounds.  It creates community and orients people around the material needs/wants of others rather than being an anarchical system of individuals competing based on how much talent they were lucky enough to receive from God.  Folks like Rush and Ann Coulter might not focus on the communal nature of capitalism because they compete as free agents.  They have both talked about their inability to work well with others in team environments in companies or in any environment with a manager. That comes across in their personalities and is terribly unfortunate. Conservatives better learn how to properly describe and sell capitalism or conservatism is dead.  If capitalism equals the lucky upper half of the bell curve getting rich and escaping their communities to live among their rich brethren in Boca because they got a better mix of talent from God, then it deserves to die.  This is not class envy.  It is simply recognizing that humans live in relation and desire meaning.  The secular philosophy that puts the pursuit of individual affluence on a pedestal will continue to slide us toward socialism because people will not abide such a system over the long-term.  Personal affluence should be a side effect of people otherwise pursuing more meaningful ends.  It should not be the ultimate end itself.

 

4.  Bell curve:  Rush ignores Murray's bell curve by claiming everyone can succeed and do well in this system.  That's simply untrue--see Murray's scientific book.  Again, this is not class envy.  I am a Harvard Business School graduate and have done well.  No envy here.  I used to be a pure free market theorist.  Free market theory is great and needs to be the primary driver of our economy.  However, to claim the market takes care of everyone and if somebody is not succeeding then they are not trying hard enough is false. That is good motivational lingo for the majority of the bell curve. But over the years as I matured, I saw too much evidence that it is not the case.  I am now a psychology/theology student where I come into contact with many on the lower end of the bell curve (and even many on the upper end of the bell curve who suffer greatly, but that is a separate topic). I saw these folks as I worked in corporate america too.  To not see them required myopia, distraction, and arrogance telling oneself that they must be lazy not trying hard.  Any politics that does not acknowledge this will fail in the long run because the truth is self-evident to millions. Sitting back and claiming the millions who exhibit Leftist voting tendencies and people like Warren Buffett are just idiotic, big-government liberals will only hasten our country's slide toward socialism.  The bell curve is real, proven by a conservative scientist.

 

5.  Metaphysics of politics:  Rush makes a huge mistake implying the free market is the ultimate purpose of politics.  He is right to attack big-government socialism.  But he better come up with a better defense than giving free market theory religious importance.  Free market economics is the study of price theory which occurs as a side effect of people otherwise conducting their lives for whatever means/ends they desire. When wealth, efficiency, and other utilitarian measures become the ultimate end, or at least the only hammer with which we beat socialists over the head on talk shows, then we have truly lost our purpose and people will continue voting for people who have an alternative perspective.  This defines Huckabee’s appeal.  He understands the human need for meaning.  It is not envy at all.  Conservative prognosticators like Kudlow and Rush create the impression that the GOP is a group of people who pursue free market activity as their ultimate, religious purpose.  It deserves to die if that is the ultimate end.  Rush and other commentators have done a great job opposing socialism, but their commentary has become reflexive as they immediately attack as closet big-government liberals anybody who dares to notice the lower end of the bell curve or the human condition in general.

 

Conservative commentators better wakeup.  You are killing the conservative movement.

Robert Novak's column criticizing Mike Huckabee for calling the Club for Growth the Club for Greed is typical of the power establishment of the GOP which has been in control for too long.  This establishment has won tactical elections over the years, but has consistently lost the strategic battle for the direction of the country as we have slipped further into cultural despair.  Conservative citizens should step back and assess how the GOP power structure has done.  Do you want to stay with the current game plan, the current pooh-bahs, the current message? 

This country is suffering from the meaninglessness of the rationalism of the Enlightenment.  We were built initially on a combination of the Renaissance and the Reformation, but 20th century forces have conducted a quiet revolution of the Enlightenment.  The Judeo-Christian consensus no longer exists.  The little pockets of meaning we have left in the heartland are being prosecuted into meaninglessness by the ACLU, i.e. stripping any ability for a community to express devotion to Christ or any other religious symbol. 

As we lost the Judeo-Christian consensus, it was replaced with what 20th century theologian Francis Schaeffer called the secular philosophy of personal peace and affluence.  This philosophy has been aligned politically with religious voters for several years because its devotion to freedom and economic growth prefers limited government.  But in the process of trying to limit government, this philosophy has stripped the very foundation of meaning this country had for its first 150 years or so--real community, real meaning, foundational belief in something other than rationality.   

Personal peace and affluence is the philosophy represented by the GOP power structure, the Club for Growth, CNBC, Donald Trump, and apparently Robert Novak.  The problem is, it's not a stable governing philosophy.  People will not suffer the results of this philosophy over the long-term.  As a Harvard Business School graduate and corporate professional, I have intimately witnessed the pernicious nature of this philosophy.  I am no Leftist, so you knee-jerk free-marketers need to take a deep breath and actually hear my words rather than writing me off as a Leftist.  I'm a die-hard free-market economist, trained by Chicago and MIT PhDs.  I'm a die-hard fan of business and capitalism.  But even Ludwig von Mises in The Anti-Capitalist Mentality revealed a disdain for people who busy themselves for nothing but pursuing wealth and possessions.  It is detestable.  Donald Trump's marketing acumen and business success are to be commended, but his philosophy, his raisson d'etre is horrrific.  Admit it.  I have lived and worked for too long among people who live by the philosophy of personal peace and affluence to keep naively trumpeting them as theoretically valuable to society.  Step out of the theoretical world!  Sure capitalism is the best system known to man for allocating resources.  Business people who drive supply curve shifts to the right via systemic improvements in the production potential curves are valuable.  We agree.  But the moral philsophy of the people operating within this capitalist system today can be destructive to society.  

Huckabee's point is that we don't exist on this earth for economic growth.  I'm a huge fan of growth, but the Club for Growth as a statement of primary purpose for our society is a statement of meaninglessness.  Properly understood, growth is just a byproduct of a solid society devoted to the Judeo-Christian consensus.  Growth was never pursued as the end goal of our lives until the mid-20th century in this country.  Growth should not be the end goal.  People are correct to reject that philosophy.  The problem is, their only alternative currently is to go Left and vote for Democrats for a better sounding philosophy.  But Marxism, viewing the world through a materialistic lens, is just as meaningless as personal peace and affluence, and it generates more poverty and toil than capitalism. 

Huckabee is attempting to knock growth, or any other symbol of the current GOP establishment off the flagpole and replace it with true meaning, something worthy of life, something that gives a nation a reason to exist.  Growth is not that reason.  Low taxes is not that reason.  Less regulation is not that reason.  These are all good things, but they are not a priori reasons for existence.  The Democratic a priori case sounds much more meaningful than that.  That's his only point.  Reagan was the last GOP leader who was able to make that point in a popular enough way to lead the nation.  Perhaps Huckabee will be able to as well.