'Free To Lose' Isn't Good Philosophy

by Mark Steyn - November 19th, 2006 - Chicago Sun-Times

If Milton Friedman had to die, then a week after the defeat of a Republican Congress that had apparently forgotten every lesson Friedman taught in Free To Choose is eerily apt timing. As it happens, had ill health not intervened, Professor Friedman would have been disembarking round about now from a National Review post-election cruise with yours truly and various other pundits and commentators.

Instead, we were obliged to sail without him, and in the days that followed I found myself wondering what the great man would have made of the most salient feature of our deliberations: On the one hand, there are those conservatives for whom the war trumps everything and peripheral piffle like "No Child Left Behind" can be argued over when the jihad's been seen off. On the other, there are those conservatives for whom the war is peripheral and, insofar as it exists, it doesn't begin to mitigate the abandonment of Friedmanite principles on public spending, education and much else. There is a huge gulf between these two forces, to the point where the War Party and the Small Government Party seem as mutually hostile as the Sunni and Shia on their worst days. If the Republicans can't reunite these two wings before 2008, they'll lose again and keep on losing.

At least one aspect of this is the need for Republicans to talk about these differences. George W. Bush and Karl Rove have not talked about these issues with anyone. They have simply dictated the course for the last six years, and in the process reviled those who disagree with them through insults. Remember the insult to the vast majority of the party when Bush called them "vigilantes" for disagreeing with his plans for amnesty and a guest worker program that was so beloved by his rich corporate buddies?

When I returned to the Inner Banks 2 years ago, I was simply amazed at how many "conservatives" still cling to the democrat party. I started talking with them about why and they rejected the belief that the democrat party is ruled by socialists who are militantly anti-American. No evidence will convince them they are a minor part of the democrat party and their wishes don't matter.

Today there are many in the Republican Party who support Bush. They ignore all evidence that he has abandoned the party. Over his record on this one issue of the war, they give him a free hand to change the party in all other ways to whatever he wants. Steyn is right about his conclusion in this article. Unless and until someone can reconcile the two warring parties inside the Republican Party, we are handing control of the nation to a party that is controlled by people who are enemies of free enterprise.

The consequences will be horrible.