It seems there are a lot of people on the right, scholars, pundits, bloggers who have thoughts about the 2008 contest for the GOP nomination which parallel those I expressed in the piece, 2008 Presidential Election: the GOP in Search of Itself, I posted on Monday. Either there’s something in the air or we’re all onto something. I think it’s the latter, given the number of political observers who have come to similar conclusions.
Scott at Powerline links this insightful piece by the Claremont Institute‘s Charles Kesler. (While we’re on the subject of books, his Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought, is a superb anthology of essays articulating the basic ideas of modern conservatism. Perfect for conservatives who want to better understand the background of our ideas and for liberals who would like to better understand this political philosophy.)
In his piece, Kesler notes the incredible flux of the Republican race, finding that many Republicans still haven’t made up their minds, even discovering uncertainty among those “who’ve endorsed a candidate.” He observes, “There are a lot of Republican contenders to choose from, too, and most are plausible as president.”
He does a better job of discerning what he calls “the perplexity” Republicans experience than has any recent political commentator, at least those I’ve read. Perhaps, that’s because he’s spent so much time studying American conservatism. He does see the various political philosophies at play in the party and understands the difficulty of forging a consensus:
Unlike the defeat of Communism and socialism, goals shared by all conservatives and functioning as the movement’s great amalgam and inspiration, shrinking the state and rehabilitating American morals are the favorite causes of different, and to some degree differing, parts of the Right.
Conservatism’s slow loss of focus after the Cold War’s end was predictable (and often predicted). That the “crack-up” never occurred quite as predicted, however, shows that a broad agreement persists among conservatives. Nonetheless, the bonds between libertarian and social conservatives have weakened. Although 9/11 revealed a new common enemy, the effect was more to change the subject than to forge a new consensus on the Right. After all, the issues that remain–how to limit government again, whether and how government should promote virtue, and more generally, how to restore the republic along the lines of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution–are difficult.
He goes on to look at how each of the leading candidates embodies some aspect of modern conservatism, but notes that “that Republican voters don’t recognize any of these trial versions of conservatism as the real deal, a distillation of American principles for our time.” I think he’s onto something.
This may well be the most important short piece (at least from the standpoint of ideas) on the contest for the GOP presidential nomination. So, without further ado, I suggest you read the whole thing!
Dan, I think there’s something much more fundamental happening within the ranks of the GOP loyalists… and I differentiate from them the armchair social conservatives who align with the GOP in elections when it suits their special interest.
I think there’s a strong base of disaffected GOP loyalists who are looking to distance themselves from the single issue sunshine patriots who habit various niches of the Party… and it splits into roughly the social issue conservatives and the ol’ affluent, mainstream economic and fiscal conservative Party regulars.
In a way, it’s a battle for the soul of the Party. I think the latter segment of GOP loyalists are more moderate on social issues (like civil unions, abortion, prayer in school, etc) than the social conservatives will tolerate.
It’s telling that FreddieT has literally failed to meet the pre-entry expectations of social conservatives… that Tancredo is now history… and that 3:4 top GOP contenders have a more moderate past than most social conservatives will abide or trust.
In Michigan, we will have a “closed” primary between Iowa-NH and Florida… people who want to vote in the GOP primary will have to declare themselves to be GOP supporters and go on record as such. I hope that keeps the social conservatives –who are squeamish about such partisan declarations– at home and sitting on their hands. It’s time for the Party to select their nominee… and select one who can beat Clinton or Obama or whomever the Dems toss up.
That isn’t to say the GOP ought to turn it’s back on the social conservatives… just that it ought not to pander to them and their special interests as we’ve done so readily since RReagan. The Republican Party doesn’t need to be just for social conservatives… nor should it.
To turn a phrase around, I’ve found that those social conservatives -as a block of voters- are the real RINOs. In 2006, they ran from the record of some conservative Congressional icons… and then blamed the Party for the political landscape they created. IMHO
It is difficult to discern who is the conservative. Most have given a glimmer of conservatism. Huckabee wants to to abolish the Internal Revenue Service (my favorite as I expressed in a previous post). Thompson seems to have more credentials than the others. Duncan Hunter on border security. John McCain lis the best on the War on Terror. They all talk about their dedication cutting taxes but I haven´t heard one say they would veto a bill loaded with earmarks. Senator Stevens received money for a ferry to nowhere to go along with his bridge. If Ron Paul wasn´t so naive on the war, as though 9/11 was a retaliation for going into Afganistan and Iraq, and not the other way around he could be good on domestic issues. He, too, feels the IRS is an illegally constituted entity. He does believe in strict adherence to the Constitution. Romney seems to appeal to the pro-lifers. Giuiani is stresses law and order. It is difficult to discern and we don´t elect co-presidents, although Gerry Ford tried to, as the Clintons are attempting to do.
This week, the Congress passed and the President signed legislation that outlaws incandescant light bulbs. The Federal goverment is now dictating to us what kind of lightbulbs we can use. I know people argue about the semantic difference between socialism and statism, but when the state is dictating what products manufacturers may produce and what products consumers may buy, along with thousands of pages of other regulations), I think the difference in word choice is irrelevant.
No wonder Ron Paul is so popular.
Meanwhile, Michael Barone agrees with me that the problem conservatives have is American voters have forgotten how terrible life is under the government of liberal Democrats.
I am 55 years old. My first house cost me $40k and my interest rate was 18% in 1980. It would have been higher, but I got a VA mortage as a vet. Those were Jimmy Carters inflation, unemployment and interest rates. It was like buying a home on a credit card. No one remembers the gas lines, the horrible moral of the American people beset by a truly incompetent liberal government. No one remembers how Reagan in his first three years had to right the ship and things actually got worse before it got better. Reagans underlying philosopy of, “government causes more problems than it solves”, saved the nation. He called on the people to stand up and dust themselves off. That men and women working, for a brighter future would save us. He didn’t encourage people to stand around waiting for govt help. He did allow us to keep more of what we earned, so people wanted to work, wanted to work more hours.
The Republican candidate that is closest to a Conservative is John McCain, yet he was against Bush 43’s tax cuts that grew us out of Clintons’ recession. McCain was for campaign financed reform, which is a bust and unconstitutional, and he WAS for comprehensive immigration reform…instead of secure the borders first strategy. And John is or will be 72 if he takes office. Too old I’m afraid and I don’ mind saying it. The next best “conservative”? Who knows. Modern polititians are so used to bending and swaying with the winds. It is why someone like Ron Paul has resonance. But all of the leftist candidates will be horrible and will send us galloping towards a nannie state.
MM, aren’t you that commentor who often invents outlandish accusations that so-and-so wants to impose a “loyalty test” on people? Why, I believe you are. It makes it strange to see you emphasize sheer party loyalty as a virtue, now.
Huh? In most states, it’s precisely the social conservatives who are most likely to not only be registered Republicans, but hard core Party loyalists and activists. That’s precisely HOW the Party careens too far to the right (when it does). It’ll hold a convention, caucus or primary and mainly – not exclusively, but mainly – social conservatives will turn out. 🙁
How generous of you. How very thoughtful of you, that you don’t want to reject the GOP’s base of social conservatives utterly, but only to keep their money and votes as you purge their leaders and influence.
I predict that you are politically brilliant, MM, and your desired political strategy will succeed brilliantly. That is, in 2008 and beyond, with your strategy, you will succeed in electing lots and lots of those big-spending, “compromising”, “moderate”, Big Government, pork-fed politicians whom I have seen you post comments in favor of, the last few weeks. (Mike Huckabee, Trent Lott, etc.) They’ll be called “Democrats”.
There are many people trying to put a stake through the heart of conservatism, but as always there is something that makes people realize why they are conservatives in the first place. And, in this era it is the War Against Islamofascist Terror. It is like the Cold War in the sense that there is a common enemy. Then it was communism, particulary the expansive Soviet Union. Now, it is a perverted, radical Islam that seeks to replicate the world under an Arab-dominated Caliphate. Like the Cold War, it appears that many on the left side of the spectrum want to accomadate and try to buy peace at any price. Notice, the serious Republican candidates are all serious about fighting the war, only the charlatan, Rev. Mike Huckabee, seems willing to go the other way. And, there will always be debates among conservatives because, by our nature, we are not in lockstep as the left has increasingly become. Thus, whenever there appears to be cracks in conservative “orthodoxy”, the left pounces on it. It is not that there are cracks, just open and usually thoughtful debate. It would be nice to see the left try that every now and then.