Another Poison Pill from David Brooks

So it looks like the Republican coalition might be coming apart at the seams. According to the Washington Post, Republicans in Congress are still divided over how to deal with DeLay and Schiavo. Bull Moose notes that the Mods are unhappy, and that people are beginning to realize how corrupt the party is. Ruy Teixeira notes that the once-solid GOP power blocs are splintering into smaller fragments which are increasingly opposed to one another. He thinks that the Dems might soon be able to pick some of these constituencies off.

But hold everything, says David Brooks. These divisions, far from a sign of weakness, are in reality a sign of strength. According to Brooks, the Republicans have always been fractious. The diversity of opinion makes for creative tension, not weakness. So according to Brooks, the source of conservatism’s success in the last generation is not its impressive political structure, but its ideas. The Decembrist agrees with Brooks’ analysis (about the diversity being a strength, if not Brooks’ cheap shot about liberalism’s intellectual consciousness).

I have one thing to say: bunk.

Yes the right has internal divisions, just as the left does. And yes argument among competing factions is an important element of intellectual ferment. But Brooks fails to credit the full importance of the political institutions that the right possesses and the left doesn’t.

First, the right wing structure creates venues for fruitful discussion. Liberals tend to fight with eachother in the newspapers rather than at thinktanks. This makes us look weak.

Second, the right wing infrastructure allows for coordination. The leaders on the right, because of these institutions, can manage internal debates so that they don’t become destructive, and can effectively impose discipline. Once a decision is made, it is made. Because these institutions exist, the right is also able to craft overarching strategy, which the left is patently unable to do. It is a classic collective action problem that the right has solved and the left hasn’t, with predictable results.

These institutions also generate a lot of psychological cohesion: conservatives realize they are part of a larger project, and remain committed to it. They identify themselves as conservatives. On the left, we define ourselves primarily as environmentalits, feminists, populists, whatever. This means that when we fight (in public, remember), we threaten to take our marbles and go home.

Finally, because there is an institutional apparatus on the right, they can have a message machine. Once a strategy is agreed to, they can hammer it home. We can’t.

Diversity is a fine thing, but it can’t exist without a contrary impulse towards unity. Liberals have the former, while conservatives have both. This gives the right an inestimable advantage, which I suspect Brooks is eager to maintain. The last thing he wants is for the left to get its act together.