I haven't been in the mood to write anything personal today, other than admitting my obvious inaccuracy in predicting this election. So instead I've been reading. I came across two very good pieces discussing where conservatives went wrong in 2008, and would like to note them. The first one begins the conversation and the second one completes it.
First, from Nancy at Conservtive Insights:
Get Rid Of The "Moderates"- Moderates are the poison of our party, they are the ones who want to grow the size of the government and instead of defeating democrats they want to reach out to them. This is a recipe for continued losses, if the electorate has a choice between a Democrat and "Democrat lite" they choose the Democrat.
Crystallize What Conservatism Means- Conservatism is simple, its about smaller government, tax cuts and social decency. So called "conservatives" have been tarnishing our brand in not only the government but in our press. There are many folks who are called "conservative" commentators who are not. Bill Kristol, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, ect., they are the moderates that are killing the party. Real conservatism needs to be promoted and explained, we are going to have to go back to square one, that is how badly conservatism is misunderstood.
Vocal Minority- If Republicans in the House and Senate play their cards right, we could have another 1994 in 2010, if they stick to conservative principles. Republicans in Congress are going to have to fight these tax increases and spending increases to remind people who is really on their side. Republicans need to be vocal in their opposition and not assimilate to the will of the Democrats. This is all a part of the redefining that needs to happen, actions speak louder then words , they need to show the American people what conservatives really believe in. Conservatism has been perverted during 8 years of spending excess that may get worse under Obama, as the minority in Congress they need to fight to right the ship for the taxpayers of this Country.
More at the link. So Nancy believes we need to reclaim conservatism in the Republican Party and stop running poor imitations in their place. She is, I believe correct. When given a choice between a real liberal and a person acting like a liberal, the people will choose the authentic every time. But Ace, at Ace of Spades, notes that we need to be more discriminating on what conservative issues we run on.
Another problem is the misplaced faith in "running on principle." Principles are important -- but if principles can't be articulated in such a fashion as to persuade a majority of the public (or close to a majority, so the point is a net wash or close to it), it's a principle that either needs to be reexamined, or at least strongly deemphasized. We can't fight for all "principles" with equal vigor. I don't have any particular principle in mind here (social cons always assume they're the ones being eyed, which doesn't happen to be true in this case), but I do know that "principle" isn't enough.
Gingrich didn't run on mere principle in 1994. He ran on six promises which had been poll-tested and commanded a great deal of public support.
Did they reflect conservative principles? In the main, yes. But it was not merely a randomly-selected list of promises. They were popular promises, not merely principled ones.
One thing everyone has to remember: Any candidate or any movement gets elected for a slate of popular policy points. They can then implement their less-popular policy points -- but such points get "smuggled in," as it were, packed up with the issues that actually win elections...
There are issues a party leads with and gets elected on, and then there are issues a party doesn't particularly advertise and doesn't actually receive a popular mandate for, but implements (to some degree anyhow) nevertheless when it's elected on the strength of its lead issues.
Social cons and capitalist cons and national-security cons all need to keep this in mind. We all do. The candidate who most strongly professes an allegiance to your key issues may not in fact be the one most likely to be elected, and hence the one most likely to actually deliver (to some degree) on those issues.
There is no issue that's more important than a political winner -- because only a political winner has any chance at all to actually push an agenda.
A political loser gets to start a PAC...
I happen to believe that Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney might well have turned out to have been better candidates than John McCain... I am chagrined that so many members of our party demonstrated a lack of political savvy by voting for a somewhat implausible candidate, Mike Huckabee, rather than focusing on more plausible socially-right candidates. Resulting in the nomination of a man who, while possessing many fine qualities, was less of a social con than any of the plausible alternatives...
Huckabee was a mirror-image. He might have been the dream candidate for some religious cons... except he couldn't win many beyond that large, but not nearly majoritarian, segment.
Because we couldn't seem to agree collectively on a candidate we could all live with (and I cite myself as an offender in that regard, pushing Giuliani well beyond his expiration date), we got backed into a candidate that really excited a small segment of the party.
And of course we got President Elect Barack Hussein Obama...
Note: To clarify, I certainly do not suggest throwing the pro-life issue under the bus. Even if it's not my issue, I recognize it as a key part of our issues.
The issue animates 40% of the country, and 90% of Republicans. Therefore, it's crucial our candidates be pro-life (at least in the main, or at least against Roe v. Wade or judicial lawmaking in this arena).
My suggestion is more nuanced. It is this: One cannot lead with this issue, as Huckabee did. 40% is a big number, but it cannot be overlooked that 40% is less than 51%.
A candidate less forward-leaning, less publicly strident, on the pro-life plank -- rather soft-spoken about it, as George W. Bush was in 2000 -- has a chance to advance the pro-life position.
And Ace is 100% correct. In search of the perfect, we rejected the good and ended up with the horribly flawed. We can't stand as individuals, picking one issue and looking for the candidate that is best for us on that issue alone. We have to look for the best package, the person who will move forward the majoriity of the issues that we care about and that can still win a nationwide election. Either that or we will be doomed to repeat this debacle.
Recent Comments