Tribal conservatives
Matt Zeitlin (whose blog you should read) gives a pretty succinct summary of what Jesse Helms represented in the Republican Party:
Helms was the embodiment of a very certain type of conservatism, the type that is not only reactionary politically (which his certainly was) but is also reactionary at its very essence. Helms defined himself in opposition to whatever “liberal elites” wanted – whether it be civil rights, gay rights, UN dues or arts funding.
Jesse Helms represented political tribalism at its most “pure.” As Zeitlin points out – aside from his naked racism – Helms didn’t really have any deeply felt convictions, he was strictly a creature of reaction. The only thing which really mattered for Helms was that he was “not liberal.”
In a way, Helms was an antecedent to the current crop of Bush “conservatives.” For pundits like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, or for the “community” at Free Republic or Townhall, conservatives aren’t defined by adherence a set of principles or ideas so much as they are defined by what they are not, liberals. When you take that into consideration, their (former) rejection of John McCain makes perfect sense.
It’s not that McCain isn’t conservative – in fact, he’s one of the most conservative men in the Senate – it’s that he isn’t hostile to liberalism, which for most “conservatives” these days, amounts to being a liberal and thus, outside of the tribe.
Would you not also apply this logic to Liberals. It seems to me that the Democrats for some time haven’t had any platform or real ideas just saying no to everything the GOP threw out there.
I think that you’re both right. The major powers in both parties aren’t ideas-based at all, they’re just anti-the other guys. Which is pathetic, since it means that Democrats are just anti-anti-Democrat and Republicans are anti-anti-Republican. Not much of a reason to get up in the morning, if you ask me.
But you’re absolutely right. A number of ideas get shot down because they’re “liberal.” Not because someone is actually fighting and winning, or even trying to win, an argument about principles. It’s just thrown out as “liberal” or “right-wing.”
in2thefray,
I think the crucial difference – at least for most liberals – is that we’re not defined by what we aren’t. We are liberals for particular ideological reasons, for a lot of conservatives though, it seems like they don’t have any ideological commitments so much as they just hate liberals.