There comes in the growth and maturity of one who ponders politics when cogito, ergo sum gives way to sum, ergo cogito. It is left to those who still ascribe to the former schema of formulating policy positions and opinions in their ponderances to keep those who ascribe to the latter in sync with the present times, while it is the duty of those who follow the latter to maintain the “spirit” of ideological foundation.

Today is the first day of the Republican National Convention. Over the past few weeks a big question has hung over my head, begging to be written about, and yet I could not find the words to do so, until now. For us political bloggers, the question:

Do you take the gestalt of your political positions and conclude that you belong to a particular ideology, or mixture of ideologies? Or do you say that you belong to a particular ideology or mixture of ideologies, around which such a declaration the gestalt of your positions form? Do you think a certain way so much so that you say you are a conservative? Or do you call yourself a conservative and proceed to opine based on what you believe is “the conservative” position?

The answer is, as I gave away at the very beginning, is that over time we tend to become comfortable with the ideology with which we have labeled ourselves, and then we start talking from ideology to reasoning, instead of having reasoning towards an ideology. It is only natural, I suppose, when we have to deal with large amounts of cognitive dissonance from those who we don’t even bother trying to convince. Political discourse these days—apart from tried and true analysis, partisan or not—consists mainly of ways to reaffirm that one’s beliefs are best, or, even worse, right, and that beliefs that deviate (though not necessarily contradict) are wrong.

In all the time that I have been blogging I have come to the conclusion that self-professed moderates are perhaps the most intolerant of the genera of political pundits. They have little patience for people who use “familiar arguments,” ignoring the possibility that such arguments may actually be intellectually sound, or may actually be arguments that have been independently thought of by those they cannot tolerate. Such familiar arguments get dismissed on the mere basis of their familiarity (and their vulgarity as a result thereof), leaving such self-professed moderates with an even less solid intellectual foundation.

It is how one argues a position that reveals one’s political leanings, more than the position itself, although there are positions on certain issues that seem to be exclusive to a particular ideology in that it cannot be rationalized in such a way that will fit the schema of the opposing ideology. (My favorite example of such an exception is the shrimp protectionism bill that ensures the jobs of New England shrimpers by slapping tarriffs on Vietnamese and Chinese shrimp, effectively tripling the price of imported shrimp. It is so non-Republican and non-Conservative that I cannot find a way to argue for that bill with the gestalt of my politcal thought.)

(I’ll take this moment to digress a little and define a few terms, since this is the first instance that a particular ideology or party has been mentioned. I consider capital-C Conservatism to be the modern term for classical liberalism, which was the bedrock of the Republican party of Lincoln’s era. I consider capital-L Liberalism as the modern term for Statism, whose foundations are rooted in social engineering and regulation of all things that can be regulated. I hear that Liberals prefer to call themselves “Progressives” these days, as if by adopting the title alone they wish to take a stab at Conservatives for the refusal to change. It goes with little clarification that small-c conservatives are actually the strange bedfellows of statists, and that they would just as regulate the private lives of the citizenry that the statists/progressives would other aspects of our lives. Andrew Sullivan likes to call them Theocons (theocratic conservatives) although I prefer Moral Authoritarianism as the term for their particular ideology.)

Whether one admits to it or not, any given ideology is simultaneously conservative and liberal towards itself. The rationales and positions of Conservatives today may be quite alien to the classical liberals of the past, but every ideology, thanks to the sum, ergo cogito wing, maintains its core values. It is this internal dynamic that allows the two major—and viable—parties to continue to exist and be populated by both true believers and lesser-evil members. These parties understand the game of politics, the numbers game involved in a democratic republic like ours.

As the Republican National Convention begins tonight and goes into full swing over the next day or so, I would like to speak directly to the ergo, cogito sum wing of the Republican blogosphere. Michelle Malkin, more than a month ago, whinged about how the RNC is not a welcome forum for small-c conservatives. Xrlq then took issue and wrote this post, and this post, to put a little bit of pragmatism towards the convention. He wrote:

A convention that “succeeds” only in riling up support among the true believers is, by definition, a failure. So it should come as little surprise that while the Democratic Convention played wonderfully for committed Democrats, and for political junkies like me who enjoy political theater but are rarely swayed by it, it failed miserably among the audience that should have been its target: the uncommitted independents who will decide November’s election.

— Xrlq: Why the Real Republicans are Real Rong

Today an interview on FOX News with the chairman of the Bush campaign was asked whether this convention was tailor made to “appeal to moderates and undecideds,” with the interviewer citing the presence of the more liberal members of the Republican party. He replied that it was more about their platform, and to some extent it is. The cogito, ergo sum wing of the Republican party has made sure that its current incarnation would appeal to a lot of moderates, because said wing is composed of moderates. There is no effort to centrify or triangulate, simply because, despite numerous reports of highjacking by the Moral Authoritarian crowd in the Republican party, its general schema still remains more appealing to moderates and undecideds (I speculate at this point) simply because the GOP has pitched a much larger tent than the Democrats did in their convention (not a speculation).

I would like to remind every Republican who feels spurned that the convention is not conservative enough that the convention, and the game of politics that will unfold before our eyes in the coming weeks, is not about winning a war of ideologies. It is about achieving the balance that help move the country forward, as well as being defined enough to withstand the constant temptations of triangulation.

It is a reality that the Republican party is a growing and changing establishment, all cognitive dissonance set aside. Paul J. Cella, writing at Red State:

In this issue, as in others, the G.O.P. is functioning rather efficiently as the consolidator of Liberalism in America. The process works this way. First the Left proposes some innovation on our constitution as a people (in this case, near-monopoly, near-mandatory public education). The Right reacts angrily, denouncing the innovation as, in fact, an unnecessary innovation — and not a particularly wise one either. Soon, however, the Right’s anger dissipates, its vigor flags, its opposition diminishes; and finally it acquiesces in the innovation itself. Not long thereafter, acquiescence becomes active support. The Right claims the innovation for its own, and sets to defending it with all the power of tradition and prejudice.

Thus we have a party which not so long ago sought to abolish the Department of Education boasting of its expansion of said Department.

— Paul J. Cella: Liberalism’s Right Wing

The comments to his post at times border on hilarity, but it is not a novel idea. Frank J., in a humor piece (riddled with hilarious footnotes that would make David Foster Wallace seem novice) almost a year old, writes:

Here’s the rub, though(8): if a “liberal” idea actually survives the rigors of conservative scrutiny (the beating, the shootings, etc.), it, being an accepted idea, is now a conservative one. Yes, the dark secret of conservatism is that, once, long ago, all their ideas were liberal. But(9), by being a conservative, not only do you get to be right almost all the time by opposing new ideas, you also automatically gain ownership of all the liberal ideas that are worth keeping. As the scientific community would characterize that, it is totally sweet!(10)

— Frank J.: Frank the Intellectual

And it is quite true. So, as the RNC starts, I must ask the question. Do you think that if the Republican party truly remained faithful to its core ideology—regardless of what you believe it is: Moral Authoritarianism, classical liberalism, or what have you—at the expense of all other ideas that are “un-Republican” or “un-Conservative,” it would be appealling enough to gain enough votes to maintain victory, and the authority and capacity to continue the fight against what may be the greatest threat to our civilization?

John Kerry and the Democrats thought so. They thought they could ride on the ideology of hate—Bush-hate—and the cult of celebrity and the appeal to authority. We’ll see, after Nov. 2, what the right answer to my question is.