Fear and Loathing at the Altar of Reagan

We were somewhere around Amelia Island, just off the coast of northern Florida, when the fine wine began to take hold.  I remember leaning over to one of my SFL colleagues and saying something like, “I feel a bit lightheaded, maybe you should sit through this.” Then, suddenly, there was a terrible roar and all around us hundreds of conservatives erected from their tables to applause the majestic unveiling of a Ronald Reagan painting freshly wheeled onto the main stage. Then it was quiet again.

This was evening number three at the State Policy Network’s 20th Annual Meeting, and I was doing anything I could to maintain a poker face, while Grover Norquist and friends stood behind a squealing microphone and romantically lauded Ronald Reagan as the grandest assemblage of tissue and cells to ever grace planet earth.

The meeting, however, which spread four days and encompassed roughly 700 activists, wasn’t about living in the past. Reversely, it was about looking ahead and served as a sort of grandiose opportunity for likeminded liberty aficionados from across the country to network, exchange ideas, and discuss policy.

But while the alcohol may have flowed like there wasn’t a care in the universe, behind the inebriated smiles rested an unmistakable, albeit undeniable, philosophical divide that was simply too palpable to ignore. That is, while Republicans and libertarians may divvy common ground on economic issues, they still wield two very different—still yet to be resolved—social visions for the future of the country.

Nowhere was this clearer than during a panel I attended entailing four self-professed “anti-establishment” conservatives discussing how to broaden the umbrella of the Republican Party. The discussion, which most would probably agree has been a long time coming, sounded promising so I listened in hopes that I might actually hear a few contrite admissions on gay marriage and immigration. I was gravely mistaken.

Instead of an earnest and enlightened discussion about reigning in the Tea Party’s inflammatory rhetoric, or conceding the fact that America’s pigmentation and sociological assessments have altered and evolved, discourse antagonistically orbited around the notion that Republicans merely lost November’s election because they “weren’t conservative enough”—paving the way for a stunning exhibition of willful and malevolent denial.

But that’s not to suggest that the ball wasn’t in the right park. Indeed, if modern conservatism still embodied the spirit of, say, Robert Taft, such an assertion might have been vaguely suitable. The problem, however, is that today’s conservatism is far from that of Taft. On the contrary, today’s conservatism both condemns and admonishes any notion of sociological inclusivity—as well as non-interventionism—in the name of moral absolutism and subjectivity, even if it means governmental coercion to sustain and proliferate such antiquated philosophies.

The lone exception to this standard, of course, is Ron Paul and, to some extent, his son, Rand Paul. But even Republicans in the vein of Marco Rubio, despite clinging to social views like the last piece of driftwood in a changing sea, have begun to see the writing on the wall and, as of recent, express pro-immigration sympathies.

In fact, this past January Rubio criticized conservatives saying, “For those of us who come from the conservative movement, we must admit that there are those among us who have used rhetoric that is harsh and intolerable, inexcusable, and we must admit, myself included, that sometimes we’ve been too slow in condemning that language for what it is…”

Nonetheless, a handful of dissenting Republicans on a single issue are hardly adequate to convert an entire party whose broader fanatical nucleus still insists “the gays,” as one panelist phrased them, are tarnishing Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.” Never mind the gross and ignorant assumption that one’s sexuality somehow correlates with one’s economic and/or systemic views. And never mind the fact that immigration—both legal and illegal—is a vital keystone to any free market and robust economy.

But perhaps the most profound irony of this all is that Reagan was everything but a conservative—much less a “limited government” luminary. Aside from the fact that he more than tripled the U.S. national debt, increased U.S. federal aid from $10 billion to $22 billion, and added more than 230,000 federal jobs during his tenure in office, he likewise both supported abortion in California as governor, and granted Amnesty to roughly 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986 (his one noble accomplishment).

And so it is with this that those of us—that is, those of us who subscribe to the “Old Right” wing of conservatism—frequently find ourselves disenchanted and habitually loathing at the altar of Reagan, as well as the modern Republican Party. Subsequently, we find ourselves more at home in the classical liberal and/or libertarian—or more broadly, “liberty”—movement which, by all accounts, demonstrates a conviction seldom sustained or appreciated in today’s irresolute political climate.

Indeed, I have a number of gay friends who, despite identifying as conservatives, align with the libertarian movement because of the bombastic oratory and policies that emanate from the likes of conservatives such as Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity. Moreover, having spent my entire life in a variety of cities predominantly comprised of Latinos, I have witnessed the hardworking contributions of both legal and illegal immigrants firsthand, and recognize the devastating effects those cities would sustain if the federal government were to, as so many modern conservatives selfishly advocate, “throw them all out.”

That being said, my assessment of the State Policy Network’s annual meeting shouldn’t go misconstrued. In spite of the stanch differences exhibited between libertarians and Republicans, the State Policy Network—which doesn’t necessarily subscribe to any particular faction of the Republican Party or libertarian movement—organized a spectacular event. The hotel was great. The food was superb. And I had the wonderful opportunity to meet and speak with a number of splendid liberty loving individuals—they just weren’t conservative Republicans.

Furthermore, the breakout sessions, even if a few did get a bit contentious at times, still wielded incredible value, for they offered libertarians a formal opportunity to challenge conservative convention at its ever-vanishing face, and remind the Republican Party that they’re in the arena to stay.

Perhaps with time, and after a few more spectacular general election losses, the Republican Party will eventually bring itself to acknowledge what much of the country has already recognized—that the world is round.  But until that day does come—and I hope to see it happen in my lifetime—keep the fine wine coming.