The Bush Second Term Agenda: Marginalization of Opposition
Movement Conservatism is rooted in a deep certainty of entitlement to power. Whether this proceeds from the “might makes right” beliefs of those at the very top who resent the inconveniences imposed by democratic processes, or from the closed-minded certainty of fundamentalist religious or ideological belief, it manifests in a failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of dissent or compromise. Suppression of effective checks on their power is therefore a significant priority, and one to which they devote considerable effort, often to the exclusion of the traditional activities of governance.
Since the 1970s, Movement Conservatives have become increasingly sophisticated about the nature of their political opponents, and have mounted a serious and sustained effort to marginalize them on a number of fronts. The conservative tactic of creating misleading and benign labels for their divisive messages – “family values,” “tax relief,” “war on [whatever]” – is one well-recognized result of this effort. Perhaps less obvious, however, is the calculated and deliberate series of policy initiatives designed specifically to cut off the institutional support for progressive political activity. The leadership of the movement at some point made the strategically-sound decision that, rather than kill ants one at a time, take a flamethrower to the entire nest. A second Bush term will give Movement Conservatives their best opportunity since the days of Richard Nixon to do exactly that.
Two important factors separate the activities of MCs from the spirited competitiveness typical of any partisan politics. First is the thoroughness and ruthlessness with which they wish to crush their opposition, and second is the unwillingness to recognize any rules or standards of conduct in their tactics. This gives them an enormous advantage over moderates of any political leaning in that they see no need to acknowledge the legitimacy of open debate and have no stake in the continuance of the democratic institutions that their scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs campaign may undermine in the course of achieving victory. For people who know they are right and know it is their obligation to impose their rightness on society, the conventions of democracy are simply tools to lever themselves into power, to be used indiscriminately when convenient and ignored whenever necessary.
Since the early 90s, Movement Conservatives have used the apparatus of government against their political opponents in a number of ways. Most obviously, they have employed the extraordinary tactics of impeachment, recall, mid-term gerrymandering, judicial fiat, regulatory rulings, and legislative maneuvering to circumvent or marginalize the expressed opinion of the public at the polls. We are certain to see more evidence of this in a few weeks.
They have also passed legislation designed to splinter Democratic constituencies and systematically disempower key pillars of institutional support, such as organized labor, minorities, the educational establishment, arts and entertainment, and the traditional media (not that I am arguing that the media is partisan, but it is, as I have discussed elsewhere, institutionally liberal in its conception). Much of the debate around the 2002 Homeland Security Act, which cost Max Cleland and several other Democrats their jobs, pivoted on whether the employees of the new department would be permitted to unionize or enjoy civil service protections. This was framed as a policy debate; in fact, it was intensely political, part of a sustained effort by Movement Conservatives to strangle organized labor and cut off the oxygen supply of union dollars to Democratic coffers.
The Democratic constituency that has suffered the most at the hands of MCs, however, is government itself. Many conservatives, both “movement” and conventional, support the idea of “small government” out of ideological conviction and a sincere belief that government sucks too many dollars out of the economy and stifles individual initiative with burdensome regulations. This is an important and vital aspect of the political debate. Genuine conservatives are often right in their criticisms of particular programs, and are certainly correct that galloping socialism would create many more problems than it would solve.
However, Movement Conservative hostility to the whole idea of government is only partially explained by rational objections to government inefficiency. Since the 1930s, “big government” has provided substantial, well-paid jobs to millions of ordinary Americans. Government provided a system for educated, upwardly-mobile people, including first- and second-generation Americans, minorities, and people who took advantage of the GI Bill and the expansion of state and city universities in the 1940s and 50s to advance into the ranks of the middle class without indoctrinating them into the conformist authority structure of corporate life or the petty-bourgeoise provincialism of the small businessman. It also provided a socially-sanctioned institutional platform from which they could exercise the authority of technocracy over the privileged and powerful, who resented (as always) having to answer for their often anti-social actions.
In other words, “big government” was not only wrong for exercising power over private interests, but also for putting that power in the hands of the “wrong” people – uppity middle-class professionals, overwhelmingly ethnic, urban, liberal and Democratic. For Movement Conservatives, opposition to “big government” is as much sociological and political as it is ideological and economic.
Opposition to government is an especially easy position to leverage into one with substantial popular support. Rural and suburban voters whose environments do not require the visible density of infrastructure necessary to support urban life resented the structures of government that intruded on their freedom and prerogatives. And really, if your only contact with government is with the DMV or applying for a building permit for a new deck, it is hard to avoid a bad impression. Likewise, the idea of lower taxes appeals to our basic greed and resentment that someone else is benefiting at our expense. Democrats, for whom the arguments for public administration, public accountability, and the economic benefits of infrastructure and government services are so familiar as to be intuitive, were at a loss to combat this rhetoric and were slow to recognize the threat it posed to their political fortunes.
Unlike traditional Republicans and mainstream conservatives, Movement Conservatives have no ambition to govern in the public interest. Their motivating ambition is the exercise of power and the suppression of opposition, always short-term gain with no serious thought to long-term consequences. Since they now control the government, they are obliged to present the illusion of legislative activity and progress. However, all of their legislative achievements since Bush took office have resulted in notoriously poor, ineffective and Constitutionally-dubious public policy: Medicare Reform, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the Energy Bill and numerous instances of regulatory “reform.” Part of this stems from their ineptness at policy-making (or simple indifference to laws that do anything but reward their cronies). However, the Movement Conservative legislative agenda can’t be properly understood without recognizing the central role of punishing, marginalizing and expropriating the opposition. Should Bush consolidate his power with a win on November 3, we will see this effort move into its next stage.
11:59:43 AM 
|
|
