The Great Illusion

Even in its infancy, the political system of the United States was bipartisan in nature, as the Federalists and Anti-Federalists clashed as to how most efficaciously structure the new nation.  Time passed, names changed, parties came and parties went, but even the vividly cataclysmic episodes of history proved incapable to disrupt the two-party tradition cemented in Washington.  To be sure, certain third parties would make solid electoral performances, particularly in 1912, 1948, and 1968, but nevertheless the United States has maintained a two-party governing system throughout its history.  This is partly due to tradition and partly due to elected officials beneficently passing self-preserving legislation.  For better or worse, however, it is undeniable that the bipartisan system in the United States is deeply entrenched in history and tradition and unlikely to be threatened in the imaginable future.

 

But what are political parties, really?  The truth is that they are, always have been and always will be organizations with a view toward one, simple goal: winning elections. Partisan bureaucrats, operatives, and especially elected officials are not necessarily ideologues beholden to a particular political philosophy.  Ergo, the only option for enthusiastic politicos, other than veering into the abyss of third party ventures, is to align their loyalties to one of the big two in the nation’s capital.  This creates the oft referenced “big tent” scenario in which individuals like Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan can be members of one party, and Grover Cleveland, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama can all be members of another.  Simply put, a democrat is not necessarily a liberal, and a republican is certainly not necessarily a conservative.  Unfortunately, this reality seems to escape many pundits and voters who, due to either intellectual laziness or subconscious ignorance, equate political parties with supposedly corresponding philosophies or ideologies. 

 

While this bewilderment and mystification is no new phenomenon, the tiff between RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh and the subsequent revelation of the nefarious White House strategy involving the leading voice of conservatism highlights the perpetual state of confusion in which the average American voter and pundit live.  To label Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican Party either intentionally or subconsciously equates the GOP with the conservative movement.  While conservatives certainly have had a comfortable home in the Republican Party since 1964 and especially 1980, to associate them too closely is an exercise in egregious fallacy.  Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican Party; he is, conversely, the unequivocal and undeniable leader of the conservative movement, and insofar is exclusively concerned with the promulgation and proliferation of genuinely conservative principles and policies.  If that occurs through the Republican Party, then so be it.  Should another tectonic shift occur in partisan ideological association (not unprecedented, but unlikely), Mr. Limbaugh would continue to disseminate conservatism and support candidates of whatever party more closely aligns with those core principles.

 

Beyond this minor spat, which soon will pass from the headlines, the greater travesty wrought by this illusion of American politics is the notion that the policies of the last eight years are wholly illustrative of quintessential conservative ideals.  Simply put, if President Bush signed a bill into law or if his administration instituted a policy initiative, then it is assumed, by many imprudent individuals, to be inherently conservative.  Reality suggests, however, that the Bush administration was one of the most moderate since, say, the last Bush administration ― of course President Clinton would lobby for that title as well.  To his credit, President Bush indeed held the line against the more nonsensical policy proposals from Congressional liberals, but save certain initiatives set forth by the administration, his term in the White House can at best be described as moderate by any reasonable and honest observer.  Yet somehow, the election of President Obama, seen as a direct repudiation of the Bush Administration, has been and is being interpreted by some as the “death of conservatism” and the end of “Reaganomics”, ushering in a post-modern belle époque for American liberalism.  Individuals grounded in reality understand this notion to be pure and unadulterated sophistry, because the “end” of Reaganomics and conservatism in the White House ended in 1989, unfortunately, with the inauguration of President George H. W. Bush ― a republican, not a conservative.