Eye of Newt

Looking into the contradictory cauldron of conservatism.

By Sky Andrecheck, University of Illinois

Earlier this summer I had the opportunity to hear Newt Gingrich speak at the American Enterprise Institute about the future of the conservative movement. With him was neo-Newt Mike Pence (R-IN), who has patterned himself after Gingrich right down to the fluffy white hair.

After a few pats on the back regarding how Republicans have taken control of both the White House and Congress, Pence opened the event by extolling the virtues of conservatism – first and foremost by damning big government. “As government expands, freedom contracts,” said the congressman from Indiana. However, in the same breath he spoke of how the conservative movement needs to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment and outlaw abortion and stem cell research. Pence said he was dedicated to freedom and limited government, but to me, those sure sounded like big government laws designed to take away freedoms.

Conventional wisdom tells us that the foundation of conservative ideology rests on the bedrock of limited government. Don’t buy it. The line is spouted by Republicans to great effect – it sounds powerful and principled and it often coincides with their political ideology. But unlike what they’d like you to believe, it’s not what drives their ideology – there are too many exceptions. Abortion, the death penalty, mandatory school prayer, flag burning, stem cell research, the Patriot Act, medical marijuana, right-to-die laws, the Terri Schiavo case, and the Federal Marriage Amendment are all cases where the conservatives have argued for more government involvement and less personal freedoms. If, as Grover Norquist suggests, government becomes so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub, where would we find the resources to enforce the conservatives’ hypocritical campaign for “family values” and the “culture of life”?

When asked about this contradiction, Pence looked a little uneasy and responded – I’m not sure whether facetiously or not – “thanks for such an easy question.” He then paddled around the question and ended up saying, “well of course we have to protect our unborn.” Not only was I not satisfied with the response, but neither were the young conservatives in attendance, as two additional questions were asked along the same lines, with little substantive response from Gingrich and Pence – not so good for a panel on the future of the conservative movement.

I don’t believe that Pence’s policy views are wholly incompatible – and, of course, many liberals have the same views except reversed – but it’s clear from the 10 examples above that the principle of limited government is not at the heart of what drives the conservative movement. There must be some other common thread, something bigger than just the principle of limited government that ties the ideology together.

My conservative grandfather has a saying that he uses quite often and quite seriously: “What’s right is right, what’s wrong is wrong, and I’m right and you’re wrong.” Unfortunate as it may be, in many ways this reflects the attitude of the right and conservative ideology as a whole – a closed stance based only on limited personal experience with no room for tolerance or acceptance of views other than one’s own.

Reconsider the policy issues mentioned above in light of my grandfather’s bon mot: I’m not gay so others shouldn’t be allowed to have homosexual relationships. I’m a Christian, so it’s OK to have Christian prayer in schools. I love the flag, so others shouldn’t be allowed the freedom to burn it. My religion is against abortion, so others shouldn’t be allowed to choose an abortion either.

Their underlying philosophy is consistent with traditional anti-government stances as well: I’m not poor, so why should I give my money to those in poverty? I have health insurance, so why would I pay to insure those who have none? I don’t work for minimum wage, so why would I upset the status quo for those who do?

Newt’s limited government creed also doesn’t explain why they have no problem handing out massive “big government” defense contracts to back hawkish policy. However, viewed with their true “what’s right is right” philosophy the contradiction disappears: My country is always right and therefore we need to build up our military so that we can do everything our way in Iraq. (This might also have just a little something to do with conservative fealty to their corporate donors.) While big government may be what many on the right say they fear, they really fear a loss of their own personal wealth and personal comfort.

As Newt and the other conservatives at AEI planned their attack on how to dismantle 60 years of progress, they did so under the guise of “that which governs least, governs best.” However, whether they would admit it or not, their true philosophy is far closer to my grandfather’s favorite phrase: “What’s right is right, what’s wrong is wrong, and I’m right and you’re wrong.”

Related Stories

• Gender-Neutral Housing Comes to Princeton
• Campaign Communications Director, Repower America
• Toke Up Marijuana Laws
• Send a Health Care E-Card
• The Battle for Pittsburgh