The Tyranny of Ideology

I continue to be amazed at how ideology trumps facts in some people's minds. Some people, even those very prominent within their movements, are so convinced that they are right on principle that they cannot even appear to contemplate that they might be wrong, and are oblivious to the disastrous effects that clinging to such ideology in the face of a changing reality will have to their own goals.

In yesterday's New York Times article, Grover Norquist, the president for Americans for Tax Reform and a prominent conservative, scoffed at those who called for the Republican party to move left politically. "They will be cheerfully ignored," he said.

But what does he offer to regain a political majority? What has he or his movement proposed to deal with the real issues facing people today? We just had an election, and there seemed little appetite in the public for less economic regulation, a hands-free approach to health care, or letting people get kicked out of their homes. When families have problems paying the bills, ideology purity is not on their list of priorities. Though I think claims of a political realignment may be premature, there has been a significant shift in public attitude. And unless Mr. Norquist's party adjusts, he will find their proposals being uncheerfully ignored at the polls.

The same article cites Texas governor Rick Perry as advocating that the Republican party continue to stay focused on social issues, claiming that anti-gay marriage measures in California, Arizona, and Florida show that conservative social values still matter to many Americans and so would be an asset to the party that adopts and promotes them.

But he's fighting a losing battle. Regardless of the ability of people to change their minds on such matters (and some do), the demographics regarding gay marriage at least is inexorable: older people think this issue is far more important than younger people. The California anti-gay marriage voters have been losing ground every time it has been brought up, and most people think that the outcome will flip in four or eight years. People of course are free to have their individual opinions on the matter, but it would appear to be self-destructive for a political party to bet its future on what is clearly a losing demographic battle. Why a sitting governor would think that this approach is good for rebuilding his party is a mystery.

And in another context, Stephen Moore, founder of The Club For Growth and presently on the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was on the Colbert Report last week arguing that higher taxes would kill the economy, that we should cut all government spending by 25%. This despite clear evidence that the marginally higher tax rates of the Clinton years was a period of robust growth. This despite the fact that there is no serious possibility or will to cut our massive expenditures in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense by 25% (which, with debt financing, constitute over 65% of the budget), much less aid for schools, law enforcement, environmental protection, or a host of other less costly programs. Even if he's right that smaller government will make everyone better off in the long run, such a proposal has no political support whatsoever and is simply not politically possible. It doesn't address people's present needs and won't serve as a plausible platform for Republican reconstruction.

Principles are important. But they shouldn't be considered inviolate when reality requires a different approach.