Sunday, July 31, 2005

Grover Norquist Explains Conservatives

In this week's New Yorker, John Cassidy has written a profile of Grover Norquist. It's an interesting read - Norquist is an entertaining, smart, and very powerful conservative and Cassidy does a good job of explaining (or frequently, letting Norquist himself explain) what he's about and how he acquired and maintains his influence. One passage in particular caught my attention (unfortunately, the full article appears not to be available online, but you can get a sense of the thing here):

"Norquist's theory of American politics is disarmingly simple: liberals want something from the government; conservatives want the government to leave them alone. During the Roosevelt-Kennedy-Johnson era, he says, the Democratic Party prospered because it delivered things its constituents demanded: stronger labor laws for union members; retirement benefits for seniors; and affirmative-action programs for minorities. The reason the Republicans have replace the Democrats as the ruling party is that they cater to popular distate for the federal government.

"The guy who wants to be left alone to practice his faith, the guy who wants to make money, the guy who wants to spend money without paying taxes, the guy who wants to fondle his gun - they all have a lot in common," Norquist said one day this spring in a taxi going from George Bush International Airport in Houston, to the George R. Brown Convention Center, where the National Rifle Association was holding its annual convention. "They all want the government to go away. That is what holds together the conservative movement."

Now, this is interesting in itself because Norquist is a prominent and successful conservative activist. He's obviously had a lot of success turning his ideas (among them his idea of what holds the conservative movement together) into action. At some level, then, he's right, as a practical matter, or he wouldn't be successful. But is he really "right" about this, or has he simply been very successful at persuading a lot of people that he is?

Take, for example, his assertion that liberals want something from government, while conservatives want government to leave them alone. This is a nice bumper sticker, but does it really explain why many conservatives are in favor of an aggressive American foreign policy that demands the robust use of our military to achieve foreign policy goals? Does it explain why many conservatives are comfortable with increasing government funding to religious groups? Does it explain why many liberals are in favor of repealing or reducing criminal charges for petty drug crimes? Does it explain why many liberals are in favor of permitting gay people to have the same opportunity to marry that straight people enjoy? The answer is, of course not.

Conservatives and liberals alike think that government should do some things, and not others. The disagreement is over which things government should do. This is very different from "wanting the government to go away." Norquist has been successful at spreading the "conservatives want to be left alone by the government" meme, but it's not an accurate statement of conservative practice. Likewise, the idea that liberals "want something" from the government is a gross distortion (at best) of the more-accurate idea that liberals believe government should do more than conservatives do. The liberal motive for this is not simple selfishness (although eventually, liberals believe that government action of the kind they prefer will benefit everyone).

A clear example of this is the social conservative movement, which is opposed generally to the permissiveness of American culture. Nobody is telling Christians how and when and where they must worship. Nobody is telling them that they can't pray on their own whenever the spirit moves them. They can send their kids to Christian schools, or homeschool them; they can watch what they like, when they like it; they can move to communities filled with similarly-minded people if they so desire. What they actually want from government is more interference, not less: more money for religious groups, more oversight of television and radio broadcasts, more regulation of personal relationships, more interference with the personal exercise of moral agency. How this relates to Norquist's formulation can only be explained by the fact that many social conservatives actually do feel threatened by secular American culture. But this sense of threat is a far cry indeed from government-sponsored oppression of the kind that would make them natural allies of, say, the NRA (who indeed do want the government to stop regulating the possession and sale of firearms entirely). Indeed, with self-described evengelical Christians running the White House and Congress, it's hard to see where the government is anything but an ally of the social conservatives.

And yet, it's indisputably true that many social conservatives themselves believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that what they really want is less government interference with their lives. I can only attribute it to this: that Norquist has been incredibly successful at making conservatives believe they want the same things he does.


swampdragon said...

THis actually fits better than you think it does. Of course, there are many breeds of conservative, just as there are many breeds of liberal, and, like liberals, they overlap to an extent. Let's leave the people on the fringe alone and profile a likely republican voter. he's white, middle to upper middle class, lives outside the big cities of the Northeast and west coast, is married with children and attends church regularly.His goals are to maintain and improve his lifestyle, and to bring up his children to share his values and stay out of trouble, defined loosely as excessive alcohol use, any drug use, and premarital sex (he knows he will likely fail in the latter goal, but a reasonable facsimile will do). He relys exclusively on his automobile for transportation. There are tens of millions of voters that fit this profile. Think for a moment on what this guy will want from government, and I'll finish this later.

Eck said...

In my opinion, the article really did a good job of letting the extremely eloquent and intelligent Norquist explain himself, while still underscoring the essential tension within the current Republican coalition (which your comment brings out quite nicely).

I just don't see how the libertarian wing and the neo-cons can keep it together long-term. I think there's going to be a fratricide as soon as they suffer a serious electoral setback.

A. said...

I hope swampy finishes his thought, because I've given some thought to his typical Republican voter and what he's looking for. It seems to me that he'd want to take care of his family and himself (like anyone else) and so he'd be looking for lower taxes, schools that teach his kids what he thinks they ought to know (and don't teach them things he'd rather they didn't), and lower gas prices. I don't think he's all that different from a typical Democrat, actually, except that he's possibly a little better off and the Democrat guy is way more likely to belong to a union.

MannyTrillo said...

Norquist seems to be saying that people with an "I just want the government to leave me alone" ethos are what holds the conservative movement together. The post does an excellent job of showing how the religion issue doesn't really fit in with what he's talking about. I don't think the guy who just wants to fondle his gun fits in either. Sure, he wants the government to leave him alone, but in exactly the same way as someone who wants to smoke pot or have sex with other men does, or wants to have an abortion. And those latter groups ceratinly don't "hold together the conservative movement."

What we're left with on Norquist's list are people who want the government to leave them alone because it's in their material self-interest... but peoples' political views depend on a lot more than just that. After all, wasn't "values" the #1 reason people cited for voting Bush in '04? There are lots of wealthy liberals who vote Democrat because their feelings about how the world ought to be override their narrow material interests. Similarly there are plenty of poor Republicans for whom the desire to see a government that reflects their religious values is more important than getting more out of the government.

The notion people tend to be conservative because they are well-off and don't want the government redistributing their wealth, while people are liberal because they aren't well off and they want the government to give them some of the conservatives' money is part of the story, but not all of it. I would argue that it is in fact very much of the story at all- a person's poltical identity is determined by all sorts of complicated factors.

Amanda said...

I find this strikingly similar to how I feel that, despite Americans' ultimate rejection of a few of the more extreme of their ideas, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson et al. have convinced American Christians that they believe in ways often contrary to what they actually believe, or what they would believe if they had not been told how they believed so often for so long.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for my bad english. Thank you so much for your good post. Your post helped me in my college assignment, If you can provide me more details please email me.

Anonymous said...

[url=]cash advance loans[/url]
This is the best way to get all your health products online like green coffee, african mango, phen375 and others. Visit now

[url=]Phen375 Reviews[/url]