Modern Republicans

City Pages has an interview with former Senator Dave Durenberger about the state of the Republican party today. It's an interesting read.

Dave Durenberger was before my time, so I don't remember much. I remember his censure, and that he was in general a moderate Republican who was interested in foreign policy. Because he is moderate, he would not fit in today's Republican party.

The interview goes into how that happened a bit, but I don't think it said enough about what it means to be a Republican today, aside from the obvious fact that people like Durenberger and Arne Carlson would not be allowed in. As I thought about it some more, some parallels suddenly emerged.

Everybody knows that there is a strong connection between Republicans and Evangelical Christianity these days, but I don't know if much attention is paid to the fact that the philosophical methods are the same. Not the philosophies themselves (which does get a lot of media attention), but how you arrive at them. We're talking about the metaphysics of Republicanism today, so bear with me.

As I read about how moderates are no longer a part of the Republican party, it struck me that most Republicans these days probably don't even know themselves what being Republican used to stand for. Many Republicans today legislate by slogan, not by any core fundamental beliefs. I spend a good deal of time thinking about issues and what it means to be liberal and conservative on them, but I am not seeing that kind of introspection on the part of many Republicans.

Instead, they believe these slogans simply on faith, not putting them together into some larger framework. Much like those Evangelical Christians today who say that they devote their lives to Jesus but hardly know the Bible from TV Guide. It takes more than just being handed down rules and phrases from on high to be faithful. The unexplored faith isn't very strong. Aside from your Rush Limbaugh-blasted catch phrases ("You are either with us or with the terrorists", "Pro-family", "Personal responsibility"), I don't see a coherent philosophy today, certainly not one strong enough to stand up under scrutiny.

Which brings me to my second thought: the reason why Republicans hate facts. If you have a philosophy that you don't understand well and haven't studied, it is going to be tenuous. Anything facts that contradict the shallow understanding of that philosophy are going to be seen as extremely threatening. It doesn't matter if that philosophy is religious or political. The Republican party today, because its philosophy isn't solid, thus denies facts that contradict their worldview.

Are there liberals that do this too? Sure there are; I've met my share. But these liberals have not taken over the Democratic party by any stretch of the imagination, while the conservatives who argue with basic facts have taken over the Republican party. It is hard to see somebody like Arne Carlson or Dave Durenberger or Elmer Anderson just flat-out deny facts, which is why they just couldn't be a part of the party today.

Kevin Drum over at Political Animal has this example: the effectiveness of needle exchange programs. Studies show that they cut down on the transmission of diseases. The Clinton administration acknowledged this fact but said that they don't believe in the programs anyway. That process is perfectly fine: they are admitting that the facts are accurate, but their politics takes them in a different direction. Republicans, on the other hand, deny the facts outright. They lie and pretend they say the complete opposite. They don't say, "Well, we don't like needle-exchange programs for such-and-such a reason," they pretend they don't work. They have done the same with abstinence-only sex ed as well. The studies show this approach doesn't work, but they say it does. Since the facts get in the way of their worldview, they have to change the facts because they are not strong enough to look at their worldview.

Or, take an example from right here. Governor Pawlenty will not raise taxes, or so he says. Now, everybody knows that his policies have raised taxes. They have raised property taxes, they have raised fees for nursing home residents who pay privately, they have raised tuition for college students, they have raised fees for just about everything. And he is going to keep on doing that. However, in order to keep to his Taxpayer's League-provided worldview, he just denies that this is happening. Instead of admitting that government revenues are going to have to go up somehow, thus providing a starting point for discussions about how this should happen, he just denies it. Nope, not a tax. Go away.

The medical malpractice issue is the same thing. All the studies show that malpractice costs are no more than 5% of health care spending, and that most health care spending comes from prescription drugs and care during the last six months of a person's life. Do they admit this, however? No, they say that the absolute number one issue driving up health care costs is malpractice. They have to deny reality, instead of saying, "You know what? Malpractice isn't a cost driver for health care, but we don't like Democratic trial lawyers and so we want tort reform." At least that would be honest, and a starting point for debate.

Obviously, there are Republicans that take this rejection of reality further than others. But the party as a whole is definitely moving in that direction. Eventually, something's going to give, and since the facts are pretty immutable, that means that it's the worldview that will eventually crack. But how long will that take, and what catastrophe will have to come along to prompt it?

I don't hate Republicans. I do think, however, that when one side of the political spectrum is so uninterested in facts and reality, the debate suffers. It can't even get started. Unfortunately, we all have to live in this reality, not the one concocted in the minds of some of our political leaders. I just hope that something will happen to change these people's minds.