Join The Debate!

So now they're the Republicans' problems

In the abstract, this is a good analysis and explains a lot. Unfortunately IMCO it also goes on to explain a few other regrettable things beyond Mr. Bartlett's stopping point.

First of all I disagree with this premise that some politicians have ideologies and others don't. Everybody has an ideology of some kind, & they all stink (except mine! ;) ). Show me a person without an ideology, & I'll show you a corpse. "Ideology" has been flung around in the pop media as a word for principled outspoken conservatives, because it seems to have undeserved negative connotations and "focus-groups" poorly. Others have ideologies that entail some kind of socialist collectivism and victimology, while still others, e.g. Bartlett's 'prostitutes', have an ideology of enriching and empowering themselves and advancing their own careers. Let's get that clear now.

The problem with the migration of the 'prostitutes' from the Demmies to the GOP is that the dynamics are not really symmetric. To be quite blunt, I never saw much difference between belief in a socialist utopia, or at least Big Sugar Daddy Pork Barrel Welfare State, and pragmatic political careerism. The two fit hand in glove, different sides of the same coin. Big totalitarian government is created by and for those who want a nice cushy lifetime career wielding power, and manipulating and condescending to the little people, and spending their wealth for them.

It follows that the constitutional ideal of the limited federal republic is inimicable to the aspirations and methods of these 'prostitutes.' They don't want to work within limitations and leave people alone to prosper for themselves. They don't want to refrain from meddling and confiscating. That's the one message they're incapable of hearing from the electorate, no matter how loudly it is spoken. So long as the ruling party is controlled by these opportunists and careerists, we can kiss the possibility limited government goodbye. The steaming mound of horrifyingly bad legislation that might have come from the most liberal Democrats, and the vast expansion of government, is the inevitable product. They resist and footdrag everything that might reduce rather than increase government's stranglehold: lower taxes, Social(ist) (in)Security reform, conservative apellate judges, you name it. I'm deeply skeptical about the theory that there is really a huge population of 'moderates' who like basically the status quo we've inherited from the Democrats, but might nonehteless vote Republican provided they're not too "extreme," "divisive," "mean-spirited," or engage in "partisan bickering." I think this reluctance to embrace conservatism comes from the career political class itself, and its allies.

So long as these "moderates" are regarded as the population of voters considered to be "in play," we will continue to get bland big-government politics, with the occasional condescending bone thrown to us like an unsuccessful flag-burning or gay-marriage amendment.

The people did not displace the Democrats with the Republicans because they have a fetish for elephants, or because they prefer the GOP running and growing the Big Sugar Daddy Pork Barrel Welfare State instead. They want truly smaller and less expensive and less intrusive government, not just everything the Democrats offered but less.