George Will (who has a new book out this week) sat down for an interview with Politico, which included this exchange regarding grievances (clearly distinct from conservative philosophy) and politics as the stuff of public policy:
Q: This brings to mind a conversation I had earlier this year with a devout Christian who expressed alarm at the number of people who self-identified as evangelical Christians but whose idea of what that means is entirely cultural instead of being rooted in scripture. It feels like you’re describing something similar with Trump: That there are self-identified “conservatives” whose idea of what conservatism means is entirely based on cultural identity and cultural grievance instead of those tenets of conservatism as a philosophy. Do you think that that’s a fair comparison?
Earlier in the interview, Will remarked:
One of the striking things to me about our politics is that the grievances — which multiply like rabbits and cause people to be constantly furious — are very difficult to address with “politics” understood as “legislation and policy.” I mean, if people feel condescended to, how do you write a bill and take care of condescension? It’s very hard to address, which is why politics becomes sort of cut off from the normal stuff of politics. Donald Trump says, “these people despise you and we should despise them.” What do you do politically? I don’t get it.
This is related to a recurring theme of Jonathan Bernstein on why Congress can’t solve hard problems, which he has attributed to a post-policy Republican Party. Thus, Mitch McConnell (when in the minority) refuses to engage with the majority and thereby foregoes the possibility of influencing public policy (to nudge it in a Republican direction); or the members of the Freedom Caucus oppose a Republican Speaker (who has used his leverage to forge a compromise) even though it’s clear that by undermining him they will ensure a policy win for Democrats.
Owing the Libs
To “own” someone on the internet is to dominate and humiliate them, and the “libs” can loosely be defined as anyone to the left of Sean Hannity. -- Eve Peyser, "The Summer's Hottest Trend Is Owning the Libs," Rolling Stone (2017).
Peyser added: 'The problem is, the “owning the libs” model of politics doesn’t have a point of view. It isn’t about furthering an ideological goal, only churlishness — it seeks to make the world a nastier and dumber place. The emptiness of it all is haunting.'
Well, maybe so, but let's shift our focus away from national politics to the state level. Let's look, in particular, at Red states where Republican governors and state legislative supermajorities are in place. Public policy for good or for ill gets enacted. No compromises or even engagement with Democratic legislators (or other officials) are necessary. And one critical strand of Republican public policy commitments has become clear: to employ the coercive power of the state to own the libs.
Domination and humiliation, via a Twitter exchange or an insulting provocation on Fox News Channel, may not advance policy or ideological goals, but a churlish governor backed by a spiteful state legislative majority can inflict damage on a community. I suggest that this is a lesson Republicans -- where they have a lock on power -- have learned.
Republicans in Texas and Florida (for instance) have made a point of forcing cities, counties, and school districts, as well as private enterprises, to bend to the will of the state. Bans on both vaccine requirements and mask mandates can be seen in this light. They are inconsistent with conservative principles. They are antithetical to public health. In the absence of cultural grievance, they wouldn't come to pass. Apart from owning the libs, these policies make no sense. They are methods of domination and humiliation -- and, crucially, they transcend mere ridicule and rhetoric.
Trolling on social media by a senator or spewing non sequiturs by a Fox News personality may be no more than performative politics. That is, in Will's words, "making one’s adherents feel good. And people nowadays feel good by disliking the other team."
But the state can squash the policy preferences of city councils, county governments, and local school boards. If you are a parent in an urban area that embraces science, values public health, and votes Democratic, the governor can deliver state-sanctioned punishment to you and your child by making certain that your community's wishes count for nothing. While making your child's school less safe. That's owning the libs for Republicans in power.
George Will alludes to the fact that the Republican base despises its political opponents (such as, I suggest, those in Houston or Miami); he then asks: "What do you do politically? I don’t get it."
What you do is wield the coercive power of the state against the communities your side despises. This doesn't, by any stretch, count as principled conservatism, but it is a clear policy preference. And this where the Republican Party is today.