Conservatives’ “reformicon” sham: Why this “movement” is still not really a thing!

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/12/conservatives_reformicon_sham_why_this_movement_is_still_not_really_a_thing/



In regard to what is to be done when holding the reins of power, leftists and liberals have plenty of disagreements. But when the two groups start bickering with one another, at least in my experience (which is usually online), the major source of tension isn’t over policy so much as it is over politics. Or to put it another way, the fighting is often more about style than substance, with liberals calling leftists rigid, narrow-minded, and sanctimonious utopians; while leftists accuse liberals of being opportunistic hypocrites who lack the courage of their supposed convictions.

Nine times out of 10, of course, the whole fight is a waste of everyone’s time and has more to do with the narcissism of small differences than anything truly political or important. But every now and then, one of the criticisms levied actually does speak to a fundamental difference between the two sides’ worldviews. And as I read the latest New York Times dispatch from the celebrated Thomas B. Edsall — an exceedingly credulous look at the “reformicons” and the GOP’s tentative embrace of the politics of inequality — I couldn’t help feeling that the leftist caricature of the liberal as fearful of conflict and utterly desperate to find common ground with conservatives might have a point.

I’m a fan of Edsall’s work, and he’s probably forgotten more about American politics and journalism than I’ll ever know. Still, the reality is that his reformicon profile, while being far from the worst of an already voluminous genre (a distinction that goes to Sam Tanehaus’ piece from last summer) suffers from the same mistakes as nearly all of the rest. It exaggerates the reformicons’ influence, it minimizes their conservative orthodoxy, and it ignores the fact that they lack the one crucial element of any successful political reform movement: a dedicated constituency. I’ve said it once before but it bears repeating: There is much less to the reformicon project than meets the eye. It’s the Potemkin village of political movements.

It’s a shame that Edsall’s piece devotes so much of itself to puffing up the reformicons, because I think it’s pretty incisive otherwise. When Edsall argues that the GOP’s halting movements in the direction of talking about inequality (or what they prefer to call a lack of “opportunity”) should unnerve Democrats, he’s right. If Hillary Clinton is indeed the Dem nominee, she won’t be able to assume Republicans will cede the issue of economic fairness to her campaign. True, early indicators suggest that the GOP plan for combating inequality will be to promote the same supply-side nostrums they’ve peddled since 1980 — but to do it while saying the word “opportunity” a bunch. But as George W. Bush proved in 2000, a candidate can absolutely lie his ass off and still win.