Yuval and Ramesh — Good points. Let me respond to Yuval’s bafflement first. Yuval writes:
More importantly, though, I continue to be a little baffled by the idea that what you’re calling reform conservatism (and I’ll speak for myself, since I can’t speak for others on your list) is to be contrasted with the age of Reagan or the conservatism of the past several decades. Reform conservatism, if that is what I must call what I’m arguing for, is NOT a move away from Reaganism, it is a call for Reagan’s kind of instincts and attitudes applied to contemporary problems, and especially the concerns of middle class parents, who are the source of America’s economic, cultural, and moral strength.
I think the reason some people see a distinction between the Reaganite and Reform positions is that at least some of the reformers made very loud noises about how tired they were of hearing the GOP contenders invoke Reagan. And, for the record, I agreed with them.
Now I think your point is very well taken. It all depends on what you mean by Reaganism. The Gipper’s success stemmed from the fact that he offered conservative solutions to the problems of the moment. We have different problems today because we are in a different moment (and because Reagan helped solve many of the problems we once faced), and so we need different conservative solutions. But what we don’t need is me-too Republicanism. I’m not saying that the New Reformers, are me-too Republicans, not by a long shot (and I have the scratch marks from some of my readers who get cross with me for not saying as much). But I do think that my point still holds. Conservatives want something like a return to Reaganism and if the New Reformers are going to win the battles ahead they’re going to have to do what you do below: explain why conservative reform isn’t politically convenient deviationism but an authentic brand of conservatism. Ramesh makes a very similar point in the latest issue of NR. The Reformers who seem to want to destroy Sarah Palin are picking an incredibly self-destructive fight for the simple reason that, as a political matter, Palin is popular and they aren’t (How many divisions does David Brooks have?). Rather, they should be fighting to win Palin and Palin supporters to their cause.
As for Ramesh’s second post (I have no major disagreement with his first). Ramesh writes, in part:
One other thing, Jonah: As you know, a lot of the debate about the Republican future has been dominated by people who believe that Bush took the party off track by embracing big government—that had he not busted the budget and otherwise departed from the conservative path, the party would be in better shape. It seems to me that it is these folks who have failed to grapple with important elements of our political situation: 1) the circumstances that led Bush, along with many other conservatives—including Steve Forbes, the most free-market contender in 2000—to abandon the idea of a direct assault on big government; and 2) the fact that Bush’s departures from small-government conservatism have frequently been more popular than his instances of adherence to it.
Now, Ramesh and I have had this conversation, so I know where he’s coming from a little better than those just reading the above. Ramesh believes — and I apologize if I have this wrong — that something substantive like “compassionate conservatism” was necessary in the wake of Clinton. He wouldn’t have called it compassionate conservatism and his policies would have been substantially different. But the GOP needed a domestic agenda other than merely attacking big government in 2000. I think there’s a lot of merit to that point of view, though the devil’s in the details and there’s a longer argument to be had.
But I think both Ramesh’s points above and Yuval’s point to the fact that many of the Reformers (and I know they’re really not a monolithic ideological faction) need to be very clear who they are having their argument with. As it stands, I listen to some of them and I can’t tell if they’re mad at Bush or at self-described Reaganites or at both or neither. My only point was that if you want to win over the people fed up with compassionate conservatism, you need to explain why the New Reform stuff isn’t compassionate conservatism 2.0 — because to people who don’t read NR, The New Atlantis and a few blogs, that point isn’t very clear. In ideological fights of this sort the distinctions need to be much, much clearer and well-advertised (indeed, they almost always need a successful politician to embody them). This is one reason why I was telling Ross that he and his cohort need to become meaner. But that’s a conversation for the next installment of Adventures of the New Reformers.
By the way, I would really like either the New Reformers or the New Disraelites to stick. I never get naming rights for anything. And I get the sense that few people are going to carry the ball on Big Swinging Caucus for me.