George Will takes a look at the Republican coalition's internal
contradictions in
Grand Old Spenders. He writes:
The conservative coalition...will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades.
And he explains why, once in office, conservatives start to spend like liberals, owing to "Washington's single-minded devotion to rent-seeking-to bending government for the advantage of private factions" (which, of course, amply stuff politicians' pockets, whether the factions/special interests/professional fear-mongers are on the left or the right).
Will also quotes Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia,
who says:
Perhaps conservatives were naive to expect any party, ever, to resist rent-seeking temptations when in power. Just as there always was something fatally unserious about socialism-its flawed understanding of human nature-is it possible that there has also been something profoundly unserious about the limited-government agenda? Should we now be prepared for the national electoral wing of the conservative movement...to identify with legislation like the pork-laden energy and transportation bills, in the same way that liberals came to ground their identities in programs like Social Security?
Then Will warns of the possibility that "limited-government conservatives will dissociate from a Republican Party more congenial to overreaching social conservatives."
I think the social conservatives have crested (intelligent design and stem-cell research have done far more harm to their cause then attacks by the big-spending, bureaucracy-loving left). But then liberals do have a knack for scaring the country back to the right when a moderate course could deliver them victory. (hat tip: Right Side of the Rainbow)
Update: Andrew Sullivan has more on the GOP's lack of limited-government consistency, noting that not a single Republican Senator who voted against the federal anti-gay marriage amendment also voted for a recent spending-cut bill. [Correction: Sullivan was mistaken - one GOP Senator did vote for lower spending and against banning gay marriage: New Hampshire's John Sununu.]
So while there are plenty of social conservatives in the party
who expect the federal government to enforce their moral codes, and
a dollop of "moderates" who are socially liberal big spenders,
there seem to be few real "social inclusives and fiscal
conservatives" willing to step forward. But when one does, he or
she might find more support then they imagine.