Conservative Populism: The Redheaded Stepchild

Originally published at F3 Coalition, Aug. 21, 2008.

I came across an interesting article today posted on HuckPAC’s site. It addressed something that’s been bugging me for months. Early in the primary season, the Republican elite tried to derail the Huckabee campaign by labeling him a “populist”. Being a bear of more than a little brain, I had a fairly good idea of what that word meant. It’s roots are the same as the word “people”. Still, I decided I’d better do some research because it obviously couldn’t mean what I thought it did. It was spoken with such venom that it must have belonged in the ranks of those words my mother used to wash my mouth out for saying. Imagine my surprise when I found the definition to be pretty much what I thought it was. Here are a few:
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

And from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1892, Amer.Eng., from L. populus “people.” Originally in reference to the Populist Party, organized Feb. 1892 to promote certain issues important to farmers and workers. The term outlasted the party, and by 1920s came to mean “representing the views of the masses” in a general way.

Yes, the word originated with the Populist Party, which, by the way, was formed to support the issues of the middle class and rural communities. Horrors! To think that people would actually expect to have their government interested in the needs of those that feed us and do our labor.

Being a good Political Science student, I decided that this wasn’t enough research. Obviously, I was still missing something. Certainly, there must be some connection with populism and some foul dark arts. As the primary rolled on, the word took on more and more negative connotation. I witnessed the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh spit the word out as if it were spoiled milk. So, I decided to call my favorite Poli Sci prof and pick his brains. I asked him what he could tell me about conservative populism. His response? He’d never really heard of it. Said it was a bit of an oxymoron. Seriously? You mean you weren’t aware of the fact that Ronald Reagan, the idol to which all good conservatives bow, was often referred to as a conservative populist? Nope. The only example he could come up with was the Puritans! I was amazed at how thoroughly the propaganda had done its job. Not even someone with a doctorate in Political Science could comprehend of a person being able to combine the values of conservatism with the compassion of populism. When did we conservatives get such a hard reputation? When did we decide that we must sacrifice caring for others to attain fiscal responsibility? And how, on earth, did they convince those of us that are Christians that this was ok? I said, as often as anyone would listen, during the campaign: When did we allow populism to become a dirty word? Isn’t the purpose of a representative government to protect the rights of the people? To “represent” us? Or is that just some of us?

It is becoming painfully apparent that those running the Republican Party aren’t interested in the “little people”. They are interested in those that can raise millions of dollars for them without breaking a sweat. And the DNC is anathema to our social values, and frankly, take the whole government helping the little guy way too far.

So where does that leave us? It looks like we’re the Cinderella of the party. Hopefully, our prince will come soon. Hopefully, he didn’t already come and we missed him.

Conservatism: If it’s a 3-legged stool, why do we keep falling off?

Originally published at F3 Coalition on September 4, 2008.

Ok, so I keep hearing that conservatism is a “three-legged stool”. Those legs are social, fiscal and national security or defense conservatism. Everyone knows that a three-legged stool is supposed to be more stable because if one leg is shorter than the others, it still doesn’t wobble. Unfortunately, you can only take that so far. True, if one leg is slightly shorter, the stool will tilt a bit but it won’t topple over. However, if you let one leg get considerably shorter than the other two, you’ve got a real problem. Unless you enjoy landing on the floor with a thud. The way I see it, that’s exactly the problem the Republican party has got. We are supposed to be the party of conservatism, but lately, we’ve only been really concerned with two of our legs!

For the last several years, the party has been consumed with national security. That’s perfectly natural. We were attacked on our own soil after years of ignoring the threat. It’s about time we focused on security. No one (well, no conservative, anyway) can argue about that.

We’ve also seen a focus on fiscal issues. After eight years of Clinton in the White House, there was obviously some work to be done there as well. The Bush tax cuts were necessary and welcome. Unfortunately, the party’s fiscal leg took a bit of a beating in Congress with an inordinate amount of spending. One of my biggest disappointments with Bush was his seeming inability to find his veto pen! Still, ever since Reagan the ficons have gained power steadily in the party power machine. That wouldn’t be a bad thing, in and of itself, except that it seems many of them are moderates, at best, on social issues. They are perfectly happy to push aside issues of life, marriage and family in exchange for some economic boon, whether real or perceived.

Social conservatives have been accused of being “single issue” voters, not only by the liberals but by members of our own party. I don’t doubt that some people are just that, but the vast majority of social conservatives would love to sit firmly on all three legs of our stool. Isn’t it about time we were given that chance? Why does one “leg” have to be sacrificed for the other two? If there’s a problem with the balance, the answer isn’t to keep cutting some off on one of the legs. The answer is to find something to prop up the shorter one. I don’t know about you all, but I’m getting real tired of sitting on the floor.