Robert Stacy McCain examines the current state of internecine conflict amongst Conservatives and sees a pattern that goes beyond mere disagreement among issues. He starts with the motives of the Washington wonk, then compares between grassroots activism and Washington:

Imagine the bright young Cold War hawk, with a degree in international affairs from a top school, who hired on at age 23 as a political appointee at the Pentagon in 1987 or ‘88. He worked his way up a notch or two during the Bush years, the Soviet Union was vanquished, the first Iraq war was a triumph but then — purely because of domestic politics — this ambitious young fellow found himself dismissed from his job at age 28 as the Clintonistas took over.[...]

A real winner like Reagan who clobbers his opposition in a landslide will offer “coattails” for GOP candidates even in a heavily Democratic state, and so the Republican in Illinois (or New Jersey, or Michigan) takes a keen interest in presidential politics. This is why the GOP foreign policy elite and the Blue State Republicans so often sing from the same hymnal: Don’t pick fights over difficult domestic issues where a determined conservative stand might hinder prospects in the next presidential campaign.[...]

This is not about Glenn Beck. This is about the long failure of the Republican Party (and/or, the conservative movement) to define and enunciate a clear philosophy of domestic policy that differentiates them from Democrats.

RSM has been a hit-or-miss regular stop of mine on Google Reader; this time his piece is a hit. I have been working on a post on the role of social conservatives (and how they should be differentiated from theological conservaties). Reading this, I understand where he’s coming from. I have only been a political commentator early since 2003; I chose to be Conservative late that same year as I studied the effects of state intervention in economics. I don’t know what end it is to which I write. For me, it is an expression of my philosophical beliefs and my desires to see this country in which I have chosen to live to not descend to the depths of the country that I left.

I have changed focus on the political aspect of my site in that I prefer to talk about Leftist slander against Conservatives and Conservatism instead of arguing the minutiae of implementing a policy to achieve a desired result—a result, which in many cases is unacceptable upon further examination. For example, I will never get into a discussion on how to achieve the goal of “universal health care,” as I consider the goal itself, in the current incarnation of what we call health “insurance,” to be corrupt and unscalable.

I find the linguistic battle over rhetoric to be far more important that any argument over policy. This has become the most central themes of post-Bush-era Protein Wisdom, one of my favorite sites. This is also the reason why I have ditched any dissembling when I call myself a Conservative, as opposed to the Bush-era synonym of “Classical Liberal:” it seems as though there is a movement to make “Conservative” a dirty word in political discourse. And while there are different flavors of Conservative, such as PaleoCon, NeoCon, TheoCon., what it is not, and should never be, is banished from discourse altogether, for fear of being branded unfashionable.

It’s been extremely telling that Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny remains backordered everywhere. It’s even more telling of the social climate that Conservative buyers have gone so far to accuse bookstore employees of hiding the product. I don’t know about you, but all this Hope! and Change! hasn’t really done much for me other than raise my taxes, and to what end?

If the first step in fixing a problem is the honest realization that such a problem exists, then count me in among those who have realized it. The only question that I prefer to raise and explore during internal discussion is what that problem really is. Robert Stacy McCain has shone light on that problem, in that on domestic matters Conservatism as a movement is sorely lacking in a coherent policy. I must add, though, that it is difficult to run for governance when your platform is its very reduction: “vote for me that I may limit my power over you” seems on its face self-defeating. I think, though, that it is a greater symptom of society’s woes when there is a growing majority of those who think that greater governance is for the greater good.