GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
As our friend LJ has pointed out in recent weeks, there is a reorganization underway in the voting blocs, regional bases, and even the political behavior of our two major parties. The once-Republican North and West are now blue. The once Democratic South is presently red. Business is blue. The working class is red. The party that nominates its heir apparent by acclamation is blue. The party that holds the endless primary fight is now red. And so on. As such, it shouldn’t surprise anyone to find out that the Grand Old Party, which has been organized around a political philosophy since Goldwater announced the coming of Reagan, is now transforming into what the Democratic Party used to be: a collection of interest groups. Soren Dayton has more:
I’m going to get in big trouble for this.
My friend David Freddoso tried to define conservatism in relation to the Rudy Giuliani phenomenon with:
There is a long philosophical debate to be had over what makes a conservative, but conservatives in Washington have a rule of thumb for awarding the label to actual politicians: It’s the trinity of conservative issues: “Guns, Babies, and Taxes.” My own minimum definition of a conservative officeholder or candidate is someone who is “good” on at least two of the three, and one of them has to be “Babies.”
Except that JPod says, “it seems to leave out a few things, like, oh, national defense (unless you put that under “guns”). Not to mention crime.” Liz Mair points out spending. Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Chris Cannon are liberals because they support a path to citizenship. (and a free market in labor, in addition to goods) So throw in immigration. John McCain’s first real apostasy was campaign finance reform. Most of his other major sins occurred after that. Fred Thompson is a liberal because he extends federalism (a conservative principle) to gay marriage. And Ramesh points out that, on the original 3 principles, Reagan was 0-3 for quite a while.
This is the Democrat-ization (that’s a big “D”) of the conservative movement. That is, the transformation from the conservative movement from an organization around core of principles to a bunch of interest groups. This is the critical problem.
Because conservatism lost its coherence, it has also lost its brand.
It is a lot easier to have three litmus tests rather than 10. It is a lot easier to communicate 3 ideas than 10. In politics, less is more.
Erick Erickson says that the base is still focused on these:
We can certainly nuance here and there, and we can nit pick around the edges, but those are the three issues. You go to a Republican meeting in Bibb County, Georgia or East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana or Tipton County, Tennessee or Saline County, Illinois and those are three issues candidates must address.
But the base is not so happy right now. The party is angry because George Bush isn’t conservative enough. What does that mean? Taxes? Um, no. He cut those. A bunch. Babies? PBA. Judges. A huge number of executive orders. Probably not that. Guns? Well, he let the Assault Weapons Ban expire. Probably not the problem there. What are the problems? Spending. Immigration. Campaign finance reform. Etc.
When someone can count the conservative principles on one hand, I will know what it means to be conservative again. We aren’t there. We need new ideas. Some of that is a reorganization of our existing ideas. Some of it is new stuff. Time to start working.
Soren is really raising two distinct issues here. The first is the trajectory of the GOP away from a party organized around a philosophy and towards a party organized around a checklist. This may be the natural progression of a political movement as its goals are made obsolete either by its own successes or by history taking the movement’s core issues off the table. The Democrats experienced the same dynamic in the latter days of the New Deal coalition. Political coalitions unite over a few big goals that are the product of a shared philosophy. For the present conservative coalition, those big goals were the end of Communism, a dramatic reduction in federal taxes and regulations, and returning the concept of the separation of powers to the federal judiciary. With the first two of those goals largely accomplished to the extent feasible, and with significant progress made on the third, little remains to unite, say, James Dobson and Andrew Sullivan on a policy basis. The result is an attempt to keep the coalition solvent by grafting together interest-group-specific policies that are based on no coherent philosophy, and that only serve the interest of maintaining political power for the coalition in question. This sort of behavior portends the fall of a political coalition.
The second issue from Soren’s post that needs to be addressed is the continuing inability of many conservatives to move past the left/right battles of the 1980s and 1990s and tap into the political psyche of today’s America. The fact that both Freddoso and Erickson seem to agree that the GOP should be first and foremost organized around taxes, guns, and abortion is troubling, as the assertion itself is absurd. Gun control and taxes are basically dead issues, largely because conservatives have won the public debate on those issues. The fact that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president were unable to raise the top marginal rate of the federal income tax to even 40 percent is simply amazing given the range of the top rate for most of the mid-20th Century. As for gun control, even Democrats now have to voice support for the Second Amendment in order to win elections in red and purple territory. And these are the reasons for being of the modern-day Republican Party? Why not bring the gold standard into the equation as well?
The issue of abortion is more tricky, but not much more. Abortion will disappear as a federal issue just as soon as Roe v. Wade is rightly overturned. At that point, both sides will realize that there is no public appetite either for a national blanket abortion ban or a national blanket abortion right, and the issue will move to the states, where it belongs. The abortion issue, at the federal level, is really a subset of the judiciary. It’s one conservative judge away from being a dead issue as well. Again, gold standard, anyone?
The reason things seem so dour for the GOP, then, is that Republicans have both forgotten how to build a political majority (through a philosophy-based coalition, not a collection of interests), and have assembled around issues that are near-obsolete in the minds of the 21st Century American swing voters who will decide the coming election, as well as all of the subsequent elections. The only reason the GOP has a shot next year is that the Mark Warnerization of the Democratic Party at the state level in many parts of the country has yet to displace the Boomer Left at the party’s helm, led by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Queen Hillary, Empress of the West, whose high negatives guarantee a close election. Regardless of what happens next November, though, the future of the GOP lies in its ability to shelve its own pathologies and to reconnect with the political pulse of Middle America, learning which issues voters now care about and developing a philosophy to apply to those issues that will result in smart, popular, effective policies.
October 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
October 11th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Good post… I might even have to weigh in on this later.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I’m not a creedal conservative. Reality is more complicated and political solutions are never ideal.
We need to find a new set of issues that unite most Republicans. Our domestic policies just aren’t relevant or appealing to many voters.
This is by necessity a time when some Republican will leave and some will stay as our party changes. There is the possibility the party would turn into something I couldn’t support.
That’s why I’m very interested in how the party changes at this critical time. The nominee in 2008 may determine directly or indirectly the direction of the party for a couple decades.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
DaveG: ‘Abortion will disappear as a federal issue just as soon as Roe v. Wade is rightly overturned. At that point, both sides will realize that there is no public appetite either for a national blanket abortion ban or a national blanket abortion right, and the issue will move to the states, where it belongs. The abortion issue, at the federal level, is really a subset of the judiciary. It’s one conservative judge away from being a dead issue as well’
1. One conservative judge may be further away than you think. Clinton is likely to win next year, and she’ll get to appoint a few replacements. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that Scalia has not stepped down yet. He’s in pretty bad health right now, and I’m not sure he can hold out until Clinton (and maybe Obama/Bayh after her) leaves office.
2. I do think that national legislation guaranteeing the right to have an abortion will be passed. If you remember the Freedom of Choice Act; they tried to pass it in 1992, but it lost momentum after the Casey ruling. But will the American people stand for people in Louisiana criminalizing abortion even for women who have been raped? Can the country remain half slave and half free forever? I don’t think so. Eventually, legislation will be passed securing the right to have an abortion on a federal level, and then the issue will be settled. But I think the Freedom of Choice Act may be unconstitutional.
Other than this, you’re quite right.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Dave,
Good post. I think you greatly ignore the impact of the Iraq War in all of this.
I mean we can talk about all these issues all we want, but Iraq is still the major reason for the decline in the fortunes of the GOP and of conservative discontent.
All you have to do is imagine what things would be like if Iraq had gone as intended. If things there were fine and casualties were low and we had say 100,000 troops there but it was like Bosnia or Korea and no one was getting killed(or even if it was on the level of Afghanistan where casualties are minimal), the GOP would still have the Congress, in fact it might have even increased its majorities from 2004.
I mean, think about it, if we were going in to 2008 and the GOP candidate was touting how we haven’t been attacked since 9/11, how we kicked ass in Afghanistan and Iraq and how the economy was doing pretty good the dems wouldn’t stand a chance
The Iraq War is the big issue and everything flows from that. If things continue to improve there and US casualties go to around 1 day or less as they are now, that will only help the GOP.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I think things have changed a lot because the GOP is now filled with lots of Reagan and 9/11 democrats - and also democrats that just got really sick and tired of the Clintons and their scandals.
So, now it’s hard to know what pulls us all together. Just on this site alone, there’s a real divergence among Republicans about views on abortion and gay marriage, etc.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
“I’m surprised that Scalia has not stepped down yet. He’s in pretty bad health right now, and I’m not sure he can hold out until Clinton (and maybe Obama/Bayh after her) leaves office.”
Where in God’s name are you getting that? I have it on some pretty darn good authority that isn’t true.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I’ve always viewed the “taxes” portion of that trinity DaveG has written about differently. I prefer the term fiscal conservatism verses “taxes” primarily because fiscal conservatism covers both the offense and the defense sides of the equation, it encompasses both taxes and spending.
Republicans of late have done decent with that taxes side of fiscal conservatism, but Republicans have done very poorly with on spending. Government has expanded. Along with the expansion comes more Democrat power by way of unions and their contributions to liberal causes. There is simply no excuse for Bush and his spending especially when you consider he had a Republican congress for his first 6 years in office. There is still no excuse for the higher debt and spending even when you climate the costs of the War on Terror. Setting aside the GWOT expenditures, Bush’s fiscal conservatism still looks very democratic to this fiscal conservative Republican.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Even if Democrats do very well the Senate ought to have 41 pro-life Senators. You’ve got to remember that several Democratic Senators are pro-life (Casey, Nelson) and others would vote against such an act (Reid, Byrd, Landrieu, Johnson, Bayh) there are simply too many Democrats who would lose their seats if they voted against their socially conservative constituents.
At most only 3-4 Republicans would vote for allowing doctors to rip a 9 month old fetus apart and pull it out piece by bloody piece.
I’d imagine you’d need 64-66 Democrats in the Senate before an act condoning such barbarism even becomes possible.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
The days of Dobson, Land and Perkins are starting to wane. Some Christian leaders have become so political that they have no sway anymore (and rightly so) with regard to the spirit. It’s become all about power and political heft. There are some with so-con leanings that see those for what they are. Protestant Christian power brokers are on the way down. Catholics are smarter, they will look for the reasonable candidate to uphold Church teachings at best(but knowingly not perfect) within the secular world while rejecting the dualistic understanding of some Evangelical/Protestants who can only see things in black or white.
The purists are going to have to take a side seat in the next election.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Perkins, Bauer, etc., are already caving to Rudy:
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/social-conservative-leaders-back-off-third-party-threat-but-still-fear-giuliani-2007-10-10.html
October 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
BTW, I suggest that everyone here google some of Reagan’s speeches. In particular his 1976 convention speech, his 1979 candidacy speech, his 1980 convention acceptance, his victory speech, the 1st inaugural.
they pretty much focus on taxes and a strong defense and foreign policy with some stuff thrown in on energy, federalism and other assorted issues. nothing on abortion, social issues, guns, etc…
Given his past record and some of those speeches, I wonder if he’d be accepted today?
he even talks about a North American union that I bet would have most conservatives washing their hands of him
October 11th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Great post DaveG!! I think this might be why we have the “100 percenter” crowd. We have a Republican President and had a Republican Congress that has let every conservative down at one point or another and now the term “RINO” has expanded to cover anyone who isn’t a lifelong 100 percenter. Just because the issues are fragmenting doesn’t mean the party has to.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Cliff, are they caving to Rudy or leaning Romney?
October 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
DaveG,
I agree almost completely. We have nothing approaching a winning domestic agenda. Beyond the factors you’ve mentioned, I believe this has been exacerbated by the GOP’s 25 year focus on foreign policy. Without a new and vibrant domestic agenda, capable of appealing to both conservatives, and the country at large, we’ll only win national elections if we can temporarily revive the security advantage that the party’s had since Vietnam, and which has all but vanished. In that sense, even assuming Rudy is electable, nominating him might well be counterproductive, in more ways then those I’ve previously articulated. Aside from shunting masses of fiscally populist, socially conservative evangelicals to the Democratic Party long-term, Rudy’s might well ultimately result in further alienation among the “moderates” that would potentially propel him into the White House. Because Rudy is one of only two Republicans who could conceivably win a general election, on the old standby’s: terrorism and taxes.
In other words, counterintuitively, a Rudy victory, while meant to free the Republican Party to enter a new era, with a realigned coalition, might well be the one event that assures that it remains in near permanent stasis. In 2012, we might well be left with a party lacking a coherent and compelling domestic vision, a President’s lost much of his “Teflon” appeal, and a reduced coalition that has seen a large mass of socially conservative voters either leave the poltical arena entirely, or shift their focus to issues of “social justice”, a cause that sees them closely aligned with the Democratic Party. In other words, we would have jettisoned millions of social conservatives, while preserving the central domestic dogmas that assure our inability to permanently appeal to the moderates Rudy roped in for one election cycle.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Awakened,
Both Scalia and Thomas have already indicated they’d consider a national law making abortion ILLEGAL, unconstitutional. Given that you seem to believe they use their personal preferences in their judgments, they’ll almost certainly find a national law LEGALIZING abortion, unconstitutional. It’d be rather surprising if any substantial national legislation on abortion would pass constitutional muster for the strict constructionists. Therefore, I think it’s fair to say, if we do find the 5th anti-Roe vote, the issue won’t be returning to the national level at least until liberals regain control of the court. And possibly not even then, depending on how permissible state abortion laws become.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
DaveG, you remain one of the smartest bloggers on the Net.
They are right, those who posit that a Rudy nomination may cost millions of SoCon voters who are fiscally populist But, it fails to realize the countervailing gains of libertarian-minded folks like myself who voted democrat for years on social issues before fiscal conservatism overcame that impulse. There are a lot of Dems out there who are receptive to the end of Roe, fiscal conservatism, and letting the STATES decide the devisive issues of our times. they would be the Giuliani, McCain, Thompson, and (maybe even) Romney Democrats.
October 12th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Think, Matt! — “Aside from shunting masses of fiscally populist, socially conservative evangelicals to the Democratic Party long-term,”
This cannot happen without the social left leaving the Democratic Party, which would only lead them into the GOP. THen at last, we can finally have the big government and small government parties.
Will this happen? No, surely not. Should it? Yes.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Awakened, I think that, in due course, Americans will come to realize that the slaughter of the next generation is wrong, and finally, we will see real restrictions on abortion (such as those which forbid abortions “out of convenience”).
October 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Once again, you people are trying to tell Social Conservatives that life is not valuable, that the unborn are not worth protecting, and that there is nothing good about having a stable, two-parent family.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Dave G said:
“The issue of abortion is more tricky, but not much more. Abortion will disappear as a federal issue just as soon as Roe v. Wade is rightly overturned. At that point, both sides will realize that there is no public appetite either for a national blanket abortion ban or a national blanket abortion right, and the issue will move to the states, where it belongs. The abortion issue, at the federal level, is really a subset of the judiciary. It’s one conservative judge away from being a dead issue as well.”
ACT Blog said:
“Once again, you people are trying to tell Social Conservatives that life is not valuable, that the unborn are not worth protecting, and that there is nothing good about having a stable, two-parent family.”
How the hell do you go from what Dave G said to your thoughts, ACT? There doesn’t seem to be a logical train of thought. Unless you think that a blanket federal abortion ban will ever pass the Constitutional test, which seems quite unlikely to me.