The Earth Moving

A key anchor of my American Government course is an emphasis on the core ideology of America's political environment. Once students can identify the elements of the ideologies in competition, they can begin to understand the concepts of parties, interest groups, process and policy.

They come to the course familiar with the terms liberal and conservative but generally don't know what the principle perspectives of the ideologies entail. Ask them what are the essentials of liberalism or conservatism and they will offer a litany of issues such as abortion, gun control, welfare, healthcare, taxes or immigration. The positions, however, aren't the core beliefs.

If they can detach from policy they can begin to see the elements:

Liberals believe:

• Government solutions to social problems
• High taxes with a redistribution of wealth at the core
• Social spending over defense
• Labor over management
• Judicial activism over strict construction

Conservatives believe:

• Individual responsibility over government intervention
• Low taxes allowing for investment and opportunity
• Defense over welfare expenditure
• Entrepreneurship and free market
• Original intent over convolution of the Constitution

Where it has gotten difficult is when the question of traditional or fiscal conservativism conflicts with social conservative position. The conflict is one of whether a "conservative" wants government to mandate morally appropriate behavior. If you are traditionally conservative you would want government to stay out of your life. If you are socially conservative you want to force people to do the right thing according to your beliefs. That's an oxymoron.

So, I found this piece interesting:

Seeing the Emerging Coalition

When Ronald Reagan won the presidency he did so by bringing a coalition together of tradtional and social conservatives. That group found common interests that gave them justification for supporting the Republican Party. The coalition has crumbled over the ensuing years. The demands of the "Religious Right" have become a litmus test of candidates and in the process qualified people have been prevented from serving because they were not "pure" enough for the social conservative wing of the party. Along the way the moral authority to fill the image of such ideology has been tarnished by a series of scandals.

Now, the Tea Party movement enters. There isn't a political party there but a protest movement. It is clearly anti-Democrat, but not so obviously pro-Republican. As described in the American Thinker piece, the movement is certainly aligned with traditional conservative ideology. The question is whether it will be acceptable or even tolerable to the Religious Right.

The Tea Party folks are going to be influential and probably decisive in the next two elections. Will that lead to an improved government that is more responsive to the realities of our nation or will it lead to a series of poor electoral choices chasing after unrealistic emotionally based policies?