Forgetting the boundaries of conservatism in the US

Ted Cruz, when asked about how he could defeat Hilary Clinton suggested it was possible if the Republican’s maximised their level of electoral support from the evangelical Christian base of the party. This is quite similar to the argument advanced by the fervid supporters of Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom who argue that by having a pure socialist as leader of the Labour Party he will be rewarded with millions of extra voters from hard-left Britons who have stayed at home in the past. What party hardliners and committed supporters should ask themselves is whether there really are untapped reserves of voters who share their purist politics. Because in all likelihood they do not exist as they are imagined to be. Which will require searching for other means to build an electoral coalition that can win.

Stephen Harper by contrast emerged as a much praised leader of Canada by American conservatives despite his long record of political moderation. Conservative politics in Canada was wholly fragmented when Stephen Harper became leader of the larger of the two right-wing parties, the Canadian Alliance. He subsequently merged his party with a smaller moderate party and created a unified conservative force that was no longer localised to one corner of Canada. He stripped the party’s platform of unpalatable and unappealing proposals on abortion or direct democracy. He also went against the inclinations of many of his committed supporters in reaching out to Canada’s francophone and immigrant voters to make his party truly national and competitive in all of Canada’s diverse regions.     

David Frum made an observation of the Tea Party tendency within the Republican Party that has developed a strained relationship with the establishment leadership and moderates. The Tea Party aligned Republicans have sought to challenge and replace prominent incumbents seeking more conservative and uncompromising elected officials. Frum, mockingly but quite accurately described the Tea Party philosophy of achieving success as ‘the party will shrink until victory is achieved’. This is another way of saying that there is nothing to learn from changing circumstances and that returning to the party’s base voters is all that is required. This strategy goes against the historical lessons of conservative leaders such as Harper of Canada, John Howard of Australia, John Key of New Zealand and Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden. All of whom were considered quite conservative but adapted their parties program to the circumstances of their times and as such dominated the politics of their respective countries for long periods.

The modern Republican Party is struggling to construct a workable program that satisfies the expectations and beliefs of the moderate centre-right, the conservative Christian right and now the resurgent nativist forces inspired by Trump. It also is struggling to promote an image of responsible government for its return to high office. The Republican leadership is not leading the way Reagan and Gingrich did. Both figures were at heart intellectual activists who transformed their ideological considerations into a practical program of government. They could do this because they understood that the only means of achieving change is through political organisation and getting those you have organised to accept that a conservative approach must be anchored in the realities of the American political system.