David Brooks has a column, and Paul Krugman a post, on the GOP and conservatism in today’s NYT. I would say that both of them are correct in their way, but neither has described the entire picture.
A “conservative,” by any common definition of the term, is someone who is suspicious of change, and objects to it except when circumstances make it unavoidable. If you apply this definition to the various factions of the GOP in relation to current circumstances, here is what you get:
- The enormous tax and entitlement cuts and regulatory rollbacks that are the centerpiece of the PBP agenda are dramatic changes to the status quo which can hardly be called “conservative.”
- The CL attempt to radically roll back the powers of the federal government is not “conservative.”
- The Reactionary agenda to turn the clock back a minimum of 50 years from today’s social, political, and economic conditions cannot reasonably be called “conservative.”
- Only the CDs are in any way “conservative,” and they only make up about 10 percent of the GOP.
The process wherein the GOP became radicalized (some, but not all of it, after 2008) will be the subject of a future post. Suffice it to say, however, that Krugman is right when he says that the Democrats are the true conservatives in today’s polity.