Glenn Reynolds makes some interesting observations on a piece by Bill Kristol, who argues that “You fight an election with the politicians you have,” and reactions by Bill Quick: “No, you fight an election over the principles you hold. When you are reduced to fighting an election with whatever politicians come to hand, you are admitting you – and your party – no longer have principles, and that you are merely engaged in a squabble for power at any cost.”
Lamenting the third-place showing of Fred Thompson in South Carolina, Quick complains, “In essence, the GOP has rejected the one real conservative in the race, and will now pick from a NYC moderate, a “maverick” RINO, a budding populist theocrat, and a Massachusetts country club Republican in the Rockefeller/First Bush vein.” I think that’s too harsh; the length of this campaign shouldn’t blind us to the fact that it’s still early. Fred has barely begun to fight, and Rudy, who is more conservative than Quick allows, hasn’t really begun even now. We shouldn’t count their late-start strategies out before they have a chance to develop.
But Reynolds puts his finger on the key issue: “if you want to make things better, party politics is probably not your best focus. Politicians are weathervanes, and the winds they respond to come mostly from forces in the culture and the media. If you want to turn them around, work on that. Change the culture and the politics will follow.” I think that’s right, which is why I’m a humanities professor rather than a politician.
I do worry, however, about the short-term perspective that democracy encourages, especially when voters have little historical perspective. I’m starting to think there’s something to Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s 30-year cycle theory, simply because each generation has to relearn the same hard lessons. I see echoes of the 1970s all around me, and so far it looks as if those who are succeeding in this campaign are those most likely to repeat its mistakes.
The View from Alexandria 
Philo, unfortunately you hit the nail on the head, we are going through a repeat of the seventies. Bush is aping Nixon’s spending and general economic shortcomings. Congress is detached from reality and pursuing the Members’ interests instead of the Nation’s.
The Federal Reserve has lost control over the money supply with financial innovations over the last several years, and allowed a real estate bubble to be worsened by excessively loose monetary policy. Hello, inflation! Bush’s tax cuts are set to largely expire in a couple of years, so we will have loose money and higher taxes. Hello, stagflation!
Congress mandates new fuel economy standards for cars, outlaws the incandescent bulb in a few years, and adds a week to Daylight Savings Time. That’s Seventies-style gestures substituting for sound policy.
Yes, this generation remembers only the post-Reagan growth and optimism years. They are about to learn not to take such times for granted.
Thirty years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Now we caucus instantly, everywhere, via internet. The generational test is healthy, essential, but no longer constrained by research burdens. Relevant information accessible through a few keystrokes makes fools of those who do not seek and consider it. Cycle duration must change; it can’t be otherwise. So Schlesinger’s the test of a generation could reduce to months. We’ll see. I think a revolution is gathering to the sound of our father’s drums.
It’s an interesting thesis, except for the fact that I was born in 1946, and remember not only the 1970s, but the 1960s perfectly well.
From my current vantage point in my long march from New Leftist to small-L libertarianism, I think our biggest mistake back then was in not looking at our putative leaders with unblinkered vision.
Anybody who thinks Rudy Giuliani, for instance, is a conservative instead of a moderate simply doesn’t know the historical meaning of either term. But for those of us who worked as junior volunteers for JFK in 1960, we know full well that Rudy would have fit perfectly well into the Kennedy wing of the Democrat party. He’s a moderate with some strong statist tendencies loosely masked by his concerns for crime fighting.
John, I’d like to think that you’re right, and that the blogosphere can do a lot to help to remind people when they forget basic facts. I’m not yet optimistic that it can succeed, but perhaps this campaign will improve my outlook.
Bill, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that you didn’t remember. I was a Fred Thompson fan, and his withdrawal today when, in my view, he had barely begun to fight troubles me. I don’t see anyone else who looks like a principled conservative. I like Giuliani better than you do, partly because I’m impressed with the people he’s surrounded himself with, and partly because, if he appoints the right judges, his own views on social issues won’t make much difference. (I also think that JFK, from a contemporary perspective, looks like a Republican, but that’s another issue.)
Still, I admit that things look bleak for conservatism at the moment. I’m frustrated that Hillary and Obama are achieving success by peddling what ought to be widely regarded as economic snake oil, and I’m baffled that President Bush seems to have abandoned conservatism completely. (As the Wall Street Journal asked in its lead editorial today, “Is anyone at the White House still awake?”)
I try to remind myself that we never get a President who embodies principles fully. I used to become frustrated at President Reagan for his pragmatism—among other things, for agreeing to tax hikes, for endorsing a tax reform that imposed the income tax on at most half the population, for nominating O’Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court, and so on. Yet, I doubt that one can do better. So, I think it’s true that you have to fight with the politicians you have, but also true that there are some principles you mustn’t sacrifice in order to win. For me, Giuliani and Romney fall within the tolerance range, admittedly with big question marks hanging over both.