Analyze This
February 27, 2009
Remember Henry Hill, the organized crime figure whose life story was the basis of the 1990 classic Goodfellas? Hill was a loyal soldier for the Mob, but he could never become a “made man” because he was not a full-blooded Italian-American.
The conservative movement is not the Mob (despite what progressives believe). Yet it does seem like there’s a similar pecking order on the right these days: evidently, it’s not possible to be a member in good standing unless one is a full-blooded conservative.
It’s well-known that moderates–Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, etc.—are at the bottom of the right’s totem pole. In the middle are those who are largely conservative, but who have disagreements with doctrinaire conservatives on certain policy and strategy issues. Michael Steele, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, Tim Pawlenty, William Kristol, Ryan Sager, Fred Barnes, Ross Douthat, Charles Krauthammer and George Will are members of this group.
Then there are the full-blooded conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence. These figures are considered pure and true in their beliefs, the template for what a “real” member of the right should be.
One of the biggest problems facing the right today is the (accurate) perception that, unless one’s views correspond line-for-line with those of Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, Cantor and Pence, one will only be tolerated, not accepted, by the conservative movement. It’s one thing for the Snowe-Collins-Specter crowd to be held in contempt by full-blooded conservatives; the “FBCs” would argue that members of this faction invite such negativity with their own actions and statements. It’s quite another thing for the “FBCs” to have a problem with the center-right coalition of which Steele, Frum, etc. are members.
There aren’t many people in this country who would consider themselves full-blooded conservatives. A number of folks who voted for Ronald Reagan nearly three decades ago opposed certain elements of his political vision; in fact, many so-called “Reagan Democrats” voted for the 40th President because they were tired of the Democrats’ handling of such issues of crime and education, not because they were for supply-side economics.
Steele has argued that the GOP must be open to those who agree with most of the party’s conservative positions, but who might have disagreements on one or two issues. He is right. Being wrong (from a conservative perspective) on one or two issues does not make one a “dogmatic dissenter.”
It used to be that a “dogmatic dissenter” was someone who disagreed with the conservative movement on a majority of the issues; former Massachusetts Governor William Weld, a nominal Republican, was a good example of someone clearly out of step with the American right. Now, it seems the definition of a “dogmatic dissenter” has been expanded to include anyone who deviates from the conservative platform even slightly.
The antagonism between full-blooded conservatives and the center-right coalition is profoundly foolish. Where does such antagonism come from? Is it left over from the right’s anti-Communism days, when certain conservatives became a bit too vehement in their quest to root out American Communist sympathizers? Perhaps full-blooded conservatives feel that those who disagree with even one element of the conservative/Republican platform are susceptible to being swayed by progressive arguments on other issues. Isn’t this a little bit paranoid?
There’s no reason for full-blooded conservatives to be suspicious of the center-right crowd. Center-righters and full-blooded conservatives are equally staunch in their opposition to President Obama’s government-centric vision. Both factions believe in a strong national defense. Both factions believe in a vibrant middle class. Even when it comes to social issues, both factions generally agree that abortions for birth-control purposes should be reduced, and that the American family is the country’s bedrock.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to thin the ranks of true “dogmatic dissenters.” After all, if the left thinks it’s fine to ostracize Joe Lieberman because of his sharp disagreements with progressives, why shouldn’t the right do the same to its malcontents? However, it is wrong to classify center-right Republicans as being no different from the Snowe-Collins-Specter crowd.
Just because one is not from the South or a fan of Ann Coulter doesn’t mean one shouldn’t be considered a legitimate member of the conservative club. If the full-blooded conservative Godfathers of the right insist upon blurring the line between a “dogmatic dissenter” and a center-right conservative, sooner or later the right as a whole will get whacked.
