Fringe binge
|
|
Here’s the current line on the Republican Party, nationally and here in Virginia. “We need to get back to our conservative roots and fight on principle!”
That’s fine and dandy for the activists, but it brings up one giant question to me:
What would we say if the Democrats stood up and said “We need to get back to our liberal roots and fight on principle!”
We’d tear into them like kids on Christmas morning (oh, excuse me. “Winter break” morning)
Every time the Democrats have catered to their base in a major election, they’ve lost. Like Newt was fond of saying, “Everyone calls themselves a New Democrat, because they’ve seen what happens to Old Democrats.”
Bill Clinton campaigned center-right on middle class tax cuts and welfare reform. He’s the only Democratic President since Jimmy Carter.
There are pro-life Democrats, pro-gun candidates, and the only real example of the Democrats turning on themselves was Joe Lieberman, who is still “Mr. Senator” by the way. But the list of Republicans pummeled by Republicans is long and wide.
If the Democrats catered to their fringe voters, we’d be laughing all the way to the White House. Why, then, do we on the right insist on catering to ours?
The old Republican playbook, which gets played today often without the candidate’s approval, by the way, is this - if our fringe beats your fringe, then let’s campaign so negatively that no one but fringes show up. If your fringe beats our fringe, nominate a moderate who can keep folks who aren’t so ideologically driven interested in the race.
The activist, ideological wing of either party is it’s passion and heartbeat. But the Democrats bit the bullet and have understood that it’s about being a majority first. Ever since Mondale promised to raise taxes and lost 49 states, and Dukakis’ response to someone murdering his wife would be a speech about how the murderer deserved to live a long and healthy life, the Democrats have given their left wing the silent treatment.
Meanwhile, Republicans are making a headlong dash to the right in the wake of McCain’s centrist win for the GOP nomination.
And the Democrats should be loving that.
Very well stated. I particularily like the line “The old Republican playbook, which often gets played without the candidate’s approval…”
The question comes if and when the Democrats are completely in the majority will their fringe left rise up and assert thier power. This seems the swing we are in. Whoever is in power battles among itself while the party out of power puts aside it’s differences to return to power.
Good points. I especially find it ironic when one of the main cheerleaders of the fringe binge is an absolute hypocrite himself:
http://tooconservative.com/?p=1999
Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can’t the Republican party stand up for human life, the dignity of marriage, and still provide real solutions to rising gas prices? Why do you insist that we can’t have them together?
Imagine just for a moment a pro-life, pro-marriage candidate who spoke on those issues, softly and convincingly, and still finds a way to reach out to moderates who don’t like abortion either but don’t want it outlawed?
You seem to be saying that it can’t be done.
I’m as pro-life as they come, and in some ways I agree with you that the “purists” of the pro-life movement are hurting more than helping. But that doesn’t mean you have to abandon the principle. Just find a way to talk about it that isn’t so angry.
I wish the Republican party well in running without the “fringe.” What exactly are its issues then? Let me guess, tax breaks for the wealthy, help for big oil and more war.
That’s a real winner.
Social Con,
You NAILED it. I had been thinking the same thing i.e. talk more matter of factly about sanctity of life instead of getting in people’s faces all the time. It is of course an important issue, and I know for a lot of people it is THE issue, but it can’t the only issue we should be concerned with. Can anyone say the vast majority of social conservatives aren’t concerned about taxes, the size of government, a strong military, and educating their children i.e. the EXACT same things the more centrist Republicans are for?
In 1860 the Republicans tailored their message depending on what was important to the particular area–while in New England they certainly talked about abolishing slavery, in Pennsylvania they emphasized the tariff, in the West they talked about limiting the expansion of slavery and a railroad to the Pacific, other places they talked about internal improvements, but no matter where they were the Republicans worked to WIN.
Did the party compromise its principles? I don’t think so.
Brian,
I would like to remind you that this Party came to a majority in Virginia when we were true to our conservative principles. During the ’90s, there was no compromise on principle in this state. We won Governor in ‘93, in ‘97 and took the General Assembly in ‘97.
People can say what they want, but the grassroots in Virginia were never as strong as the period when Pat McSweeney was State Chairman. It wasn’t until the end of the ’90s that we began to lose our way in the Commonwealth and we have paid the price for it. The grassroots organization is a mere shell of what it was during Allen ‘93, North ‘94 and Gilmore ‘97. The only way to get it back it to return to our roots.
It sounds to me like you may just be bitter because one of your candidates that was a big moderate cheerleader got knocked off by a conservative within his own primary. Sorry, but as an incumbent, if you are not strong enough to keep your seat within your own Party, then you don’t deserve it. I have NO problem with Republicans knocking off Republicans in primaries. It’s survival of the fittest.
Remember, “Republican” is simply a label. For the first half of this century, Republicans were the liberals and the Democrats were more conservative. The Party lables use to have nothing to do with platform until the realignment of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The real question is, “Are you conservative, moderate or liberal?” “Republican” and “Democrat” are mere titles.
Correction: First half of LAST century…
Actually, Brian, I try to say nothing at all about how Democrats run their nomination processes. And I’d appreciate the same courtesy from them.
And people say it because John Hart is precisely correct.
John, we came to power in the 90s when the Democrats veered way off to the left. Absent House Bank scandals, Clinton’s tax increases, and other assorted blunders, 94 wouldn’t have happened.
I’m not bitter. I just notice the party that veers off into the fringe loses. We say that’s true for Democrats. Why would it not be true for Republicans?
James, silence makes for quite a boring blog.
“Why would it not be true for Republicans?”
Perhaps because America is more conservative than it is liberal.
Reagan stuck to his Right-to-Life credentials when the experts said a Right-to-Life Republican could not win the Presidency.
George W. Bush ran to the right despite the fact he has been a pretty liberal Republican in many respects. And while his numbers were not great, he did win two elections.
George H.W. Bush lost an election after working with a liberal Congress to raise taxes.
Three recent Republican Presidential candidates–two catered to the right and they won twice. The other was a moderate, and he lost. H.W.’s first victory, in my mind at least, was not his victory, but a third Reagan–conservative–victory.
Duck, Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative” - not exactly “running to the right”
Brian,
Duck is exactly right–we win when we stick to our conservative roots. Bush(W) ran much more conservatively than he has proven to be.
To win again the grassroots must be motivated like they were in the 90s. While hatred for something is a good motivator, people still need to feel like they are fighting for something, not simply against. A strong conservative message will inspire the grassroots to get out there and work for our candidates. I can already see that McCain’s volunteer base is not what it needs to be. The conservative Republicans will vote for him because he is far better than Obama, but getting them to “work” for him is the question.
The reality is that we have a Presidential race between a socialist and a liberal–as conservatives we are voting for the lesser of the two.
Yes, Bush did run as a “compassionate Conservative” because at the time Conservatives were cast as heartless individuals.
My take on “compassionate Conservative” at the time was Conservatives are compassionate because we believe in the right of an unborn child to live, we believe in locking up violent offenders because we care about the victims the criminals prey on, we believe in the right for underprivileged students to be freed from substandard public education systems (school vouchers), we believe it is compassionate to lower people’s tax burdens, we believe it is compassionate to reduce the control the government has on us, giving us greater freedom, etc.
I agree W’s compassionate governing did not match up to these expectations, but this is where he said he was going. In governing he ran to the left–much like Clinton ran to the right when governing–because W. believed the crap in this blog that this country likes moderates.
Bush is so unpopular now because the Democrats have waged a pretty good anti-Iraq policy PR war, and because Conservatives have given up trying to defend a guy whose has abandoned so many Conservative policies, seeking to please the center. And in trying to please everyone, Bush has pleased almost no one.
W’s failings to live up to the expectations of Conservatives has fractured the Conservative base–splitting us between Paul, Romney, Thompson, Huck, and Giuliani (who was at least tough on crime) setting up the media and country-club Republicans to promote McCain as the only viable nominee.
The only chance McCain has to win is if Conservatives back McCain because we cannot stomach the thought of an Obama presidency.