HOW TO SAVE THE RIGHT
Try a mash-up of philosophies
What does it mean to be a conservative in 2015?
In Canada, Stephen Harper’s coalition of libertarians, Red Tories and social conservatives struggles with new debates on drug laws, prostitution and assisted suicide.
Stateside, the rebuilding Republicans battle to reconcile their small-government reputation with George W. Bush’s disillusioning legacy, and to attract millennial voters who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal.
In his new book, The Conservatarian Manifesto, National Review contributor Charles C.W. Cooke proposes the U.S. Constitution sorts it all out. The Founding Fathers never intended Washington to have as much power as it does, and it’s impractical to expect such an enormously diverse population to live under the same gun control or abortion laws.
Cooke proposes libertarians and conservatives combine their best instincts to “re-establish (the GOP) as the party of liberty” — a party that’s “tolerant of ... how others wish to live their lives,” and that’s, above all, committed to local governments running things as their constituents see fit.
Q Why does America need a “conservatarian” movement?
A There are two reasons. First, there’s a generational divide within the Republican party, especially on gay marriage and on the war on drugs. If it doesn’t adapt, it’s going to be out of step with future generations. Second, the Bush administration wasn’t the success that conservatives hoped for. Some of that was the product of 9/11. But even when conservatives had no pressure, they voluntarily violated the rhetoric that arguably put them into power. They passed No Child Left Behind, a federal takeover of education; they expanded Medicare without paying for it; and, although I understand the instinct, they intervened in the Terri Schiavo affair. So you have a party that talks a good game, but spent too much, intruded too much, invaded too much and controlled too much.
Q Is there anyone in contemporary American politics you see as a likely champion of this movement?
A Intellectually, the person who has most in common with what I’m suggesting is Rand Paul. But I’m not sure I’d want him as a champion because — well, first thing, his father is a kook.
Q Many view America’s experience with guns as a mark of shame on conservatives. You argue it’s been a triumph.
A Since 1994 we’ve seen almost 180 million guns sold in the U.S. But the murder rate has dropped 49 per cent. And the general crime rate with guns has dropped 75 per cent. Now that’s not to say the U.S. doesn’t have more gun crime because it has 350 million guns. But pretending there’s some hard-and-fast link between the number and the outcomes is folly. The second point I’d make is that it’s the law, and laws matter. It’s enumerated within the constitution, its meaning is clear, and if advocates wish to see a change, then they’ll need to repeal that law.
Q Pretty much every western country has been stupid about drugs. But the U.S., to me, is the most glaring, because liberty is supposed to be the ideal. And yet we see enormous incarceration rates, the prison-industrial complex, outrageously militarized police forces ...
A Conservatives claim to be the true defenders and champions of the constitution as it was written and amended. And yet, on the question of drugs, they’re happy to tolerate all sorts of intrusions
upon the constitution’s precepts that they never would otherwise. It’s not just the obvious violations of privacy, it’s not just the militarization of the police. It’s the fact the federal government is involved at all. Conservatives claim to wish issues of commerce be restricted to the state. Drugs is an issue of commerce. This has been a disaster financially; there is still widespread drug use that’s created perverse incentives that lead to gang activity. And finally, I think it puts people off. They look at the conservative offering and say, “Well, I don’t understand how you can talk all the time about liberty and small government and localism and then support this monstrosity.”
Q On same-sex marriage, a common libertarian position is that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. You don’t agree.
A The problem as I see it, and this is the problem with libertarians in general, is that it presumes
the state has been shrunk to the size of a pea. The reality is that marriage is inextricable from government because government is inextricable from our lives. Although I find this difficult to imagine as a libertarian-leaning person, the most effective argument in favour of gay marriage has been that, to refuse to acknowledge or accept it is some form of animus, and that the state is refusing its imprimatur. Now if what you want is the imprimatur of the state, then you’re not going to accept the removal of the state completely from that process.
Q It strikes me that your plan relies, above all else, on people being principled, being willing to stick to their democratic beliefs even if they lead to outcomes they don’t like. But as you say in the book, most people aren’t like that at all. How do you overcome that?
A If conservatives were so committed in the abstract to the values I’m putting forward, the book wouldn’t have been necessary. Where I disagree is that, not just within the conservative movement, but in America writ large, we’re seeing an extraordinary amount of ideological and intellectual and even spiritual division. If you look at a question like drugs, now more than ever voters in Colorado and Washington have a reason to question federal power, because the federal government still has laws on its books that are in conflict with the will of the voters (on marijuana legalization). The Baptist in Mississippi and the hipster in Portland, Oregon, have almost nothing in common, and yet they’re expected to live under the same government. And, if we don’t want to live in a country that yo-yos ridiculously every four or eight years, with the makeup of the national government, some of the powers that are currently being exercised in Washington, D.C., need to be returned to the states, so that those who vehemently disagree with one another can live locally as they see fit.