To those who entertain jumping over to a third party, threatening to sit on their hands rather than hold their noses when they don’t get their dream candidate; and for those “all-or-nothing”, inflexible conservative purists out there who think they have the secret formula for winning future elections (basically, what would amount to shrinking the party of votes)….
Take a listen:
It’s time we finally bury this suicidal idea that we will dump on our own team just because they don’t meet some impossible standard of ideological purity. Now that we’ve seen the tremendous cost to our liberty and freedom of following such a destructive path I hope we have heard the last of it.
I had the idea in 2008 of a pledge whereby we promise to support ALL the nominees of our party. That doesn’t mean we have to give them all money, but that does mean we don’t openly trash them and threaten to boycott their election just because we disagree on one or two points.
The pledge is founded on the notion that if you want to be part of this party and have your conservative ideals taken seriously and given a full hearing then you have to be willing to support the eventual nominees of the party even if you disagree in part.
People who get mad and threaten to take their marbles and go home if they don’t get their way 100% of the time have no place in a successful political party and should not be given any consideration whatsoever.
In my book, any Republican in the House who votes to unseat Nancy Pelosi from the Speaker’s Chair and any Republican Senator who votes to unseat Harry Reid as Majority Leader is worthy of our support.
A number of conservatives have fumed over always having to choose “the lesser of two evils” and with claims of not seeing a difference between the two parties; or accuse the GOP of being “Dem lite”. Even when the GOP behaves in ways we approve of (all 178 Republicans in the House stood together to cast votes in opposition to passage of last Sunday’s healthcare vote), some hold GOP leadership in contempt over past grievances and for future grievances they suspect will occur again….or simply find it easier to judge them by past action, however accurately or inaccurately, rather than current action.
When McCain or Graham and other “despised” Republican Congressmen behave in ways we approve of, this should be acknowledged, welcomed, and encouraged just as vigorously as when we criticize them for they do things we don’t approve of.
Some conservative idealogues insist they aren’t asking for GOP purity tests, or that they expect anyone to agree with them 100% of the time on 100% of the issues; yet in some of their criticism, that’s exactly how they come across- as conservative purists on a RINO witch-hunt.
Palin campaigns on behalf of her former running mate and she gets ostracized and disowned by the intolerant members of the conservative movement.
The tone and the tenor of the partisan divide seems to have increased in shrillness within the last decade (What is it? The internet? Saturation of information-flow?). We on the right,in some degree or other, are becoming to Barack H. Obama what Daily Kos and Moveon.org were to George W. Bush. I’m guilty of it, too. Just wait and watch: After I post this up, I will be tarred and feathered as a CINO.
Some of us should pause and take the time to ask ourselves, “Am I on the fringe of mainstream American society?” “Am I a partisan Wingnut?”
Michael Medved is one of those center-right conservatives who can sometimes drive the hard-line conservatives nuts for being too close to the center.
Ronald Reagan never abandoned conservative positions, but his genial approach to political combat won him the moderate voters he needed for two landslide victories. Similarly, the George W. Bush slogan “compassionate conservatism” (much derided on the right) allowed him to contest moderate votes with Al Gore and John Kerry and to win two hard-fought victories.
Courting the moderates
The point to remember about those citizens in the political middle who decide every national election is that they’re the least philosophically committed, issues-oriented voters in the electorate. Interviews and conversation make it obvious that many citizens describe themselves as “moderate” because they feel uncertain of their place on the political spectrum, less engaged with the roiling controversies of the day. Moderates famously respond to personalities or atmospherics (“hope and change” or “compassionate conservatism”) more than they react to nine-point plans or detailed position papers. They also dislike strident, the other-guy-is-Hitler rhetoric because such appeals seem like a rebuke to their own uncertainty.
Republicans can’t win without rallying the plurality of Americans who prefer conservatism to liberalism, but they also can’t triumph (anywhere) with that group alone. Like Democrats, the GOP needs moderate votes for victory, and the only way to get them without sacrificing principle or core conservative voters involves deploying the same combination that has worked before: maintaining clearly conservative positions, but with those values presented in a manner that’s optimistic, constructive, reasonable and, yes, moderate.
For some fifty years, presidential elections have been mostly close – with ten out of the thirteen winners held to 54% or less of the popular vote (and five of them actually winning with less than a majority). Only three times since 1960 did candidates win in one-sided blow-outs, and in each of those races (LBJ’s triumph in ’64, Nixon’s in ’72, and Reagan’s in ’84) the opposing nominee looked like an impractical, reckless, wing-nut extremist. Barry Goldwater even embraced the title extremist (“extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”), George McGovern’s anti-war crusade offered an unapologetically leftist platform, and Walter Mondale proudly promised in his convention speech that he would raise the nation’s taxes. Their pathetic performance as major party nominees (winning 39%, 38% and 41%, respectively) showed the powerful national reflex against any candidate or party perceived as out of the mainstream, tilting too far in one direction or another.
By contrast, all three of the Democrats who have won the presidency since 1968 (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) campaigned as level-headed centrists, who pledged to build bi-partisan coalitions and to bring the country together. All three, however, governed with progressive tendencies and leftist associates that undermined their carefully crafted moderate images. Jimmy Carter in particular emerged as a sanctimonious scold, favoring impractical, inflexible liberal nostrums in both foreign and domestic policy that made him an easy target for the amiable, common sense appeal of Ronald Reagan. Though rightly embraced as a great conservative hero, Reagan’s 1980 campaign went to great lengths to appeal to the wary middle-of-the-roaders who decide every election. He chose a conspicuous moderate as his running mate (George H. W. Bush) and framed the campaign’s key question (“Are you better off than you were four years ago?”) to make the other guy look scary, extreme and dogmatic. In the end, Reagan won an election in which self-described conservatives made up only 28% of the electorate (according to exit polls), while “moderates” were 46%. In fact more than 60% of the voters who placed The Gipper in the White House called themselves “moderates” or even “liberals,” showing the classic inclination to support an impressive candidate who seems to transcend ideology rather than to exemplify it.
Despite pipe dreams of an unwavering right wing majority ruling the electorate, the highest percentage of voters who actually call themselves “conservative” occurred in 2008, when 34% chose that description (Exit polls showed precisely the same percentage in 2004 and 1996). Meanwhile, the number of “moderates” who cast ballots ranged from a low of 42% (in 1984) all the way to 50% (in 2000).
Bill Clinton tried to appeal to these swing voters by emulating Reagan’s optimistic “I’ll-fix-the-mess” campaign when he ran against the floundering George H. W. Bush in 1992, posing as a sensible “New Democrat” rather than a by-the-book liberal in the McGovern-Mondale-Dukakis mode. In his first two years, however, miscues like the clumsy push for gays in the military and the “Hillary Care” disaster gave the lie to his pretensions of centrism, leading to the historic sweep for Newt Gingrich and his resurgent Republicans. The Contract With America that made that political earthquake possible (giving the GOP 55 more seats in the House and eight new Senators) was a cunningly devised document that emphasized reformist “good government” promises (Balanced Budget Amendment, Congressional Term Limits, Welfare Reform) and scrupulously avoided polarizing (if worthy) pledges that might have seemed extreme (abolishing the income tax, a human life amendment, eliminating major government departments).
After this smashing Republican victory in ’94, perceptions of the two parties quickly switched, With the government shutdown (widely if unfairly blamed on Gingrich, rather than Clinton) over budgetary struggles, the triangulating President won the image battle as more flexible and pragmatic, while the professorial Republicans (both Gingrich and his chief deputy Dick Armey had backgrounds as brilliant academics) came across as more interested in principles than practicality. In his re-election bid, the chastened Clinton (remember “The era of big government is over”?) easily sailed to victory, and also blithely triumphed over his seemingly rigid prosecutors during the protracted impeachment crisis.
George W. Bush succeeded Clinton not as the fire-breathing right wing purist his opponents tried to caricature but as a self-styled “compassionate conservative” pledged to bring a new spirit of cooperation to the divided capital. In debates and on the stump, he offered an aw-shucks, ordinary guy appeal (paradoxical for the son of an ex-president) that contrasted with the stiff, self-righteous, shrill persona of Al (“Prince Albert”) Gore. His decisive response to 9/11 allowed him to win re-election as “a uniter, not a divider” (over John Kerry, a humorless Massachusetts patrician and unwavering liberal). But ceaseless Democratic attacks on Bush as “the most extreme conservative president in American history” finally combined with GOP Congressional scandals to give Nancy Pelosi the speakership in 2006, and Barack Obama the presidency in 2004.
The GOP’s Obama Opportunity
Obama used the classic winning formula in 2008: seeking the nation’s highest office as an open-minded problem solver, willing to use conservative as well as liberal ideas to address the nation’s woes. The 2004 convention keynote speech that made him a national figure overnight promised no more “red states” or “blue states,” but only “the UNITED States of America.” In his presidential campaign, the imprecise and soothing talk of “hope” and “change” did little to impress conservatives (who voted for McCain by a ratio of four to one) but drew a decisive 60% of the self-described “moderate” vote. The polls show that those same moderates and independents have now turned against President Obama with a vengeance, giving Republicans their historic opportunity.
In contrast to his gauzy promises of hope and healing, Obama and his Congressional allies have governed as divisive devotees of the hard left — willing, for instance, to risk economic and budgetary disaster for the sake of realizing the leftist dream of “universal health care.” Pollsters show mounting opposition to Obamacare not because the public rules out every form of governmental activism as a solution to major problems but because the people distrust big, dogmatic schemes to remake reality all at once.
Why Like Ike?
The Republicans can win back the Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012, if they highlight the Democrats’ fanatical commitment to liberal orthodoxy, and if they avoid seeking to replace it with a rigid orthodoxy of their own. In preparation for the coming political combat the GOP should continue to learn from Reagan (who never sanctioned purges or tests of doctrinal purity when it came to party building) but should also recall the triumphant example of an comparably popular Republican leader, Dwight David Eisenhower.
~~~ The American electorate will respond approvingly in 2012, as it did sixty years before. The people, with their conservative temperament, rightly fear attempts to impose purist, doctrinaire solutions on their own fragile, painstakingly assembled, practically constructed businesses and families. They therefore instinctively prefer modest, pragmatic leadership and will almost always avoid those public personalities who look ruthless, uncompromising and, potentially, irresponsible in their commitment to ideology – whether that system of ideas tilts left or right.
It’s much too early to select one presidential contender who can most effectively advance in the Republican cause in 2012, but any thoughtful conservative who’s asked to express a preference at this point would do well to recall one of the most successful campaign slogans in U.S. history: “I LIKE IKE.”
While I agree there are some who will vote values over winning
I think that most are willing to vote their ideals in the primary and then “hold their noses”, as you so quaintly put it, in the general election. So many of these posts on the blogs decrying the loss of moderate conservatives leave out the point of having a primary to sort these things out. If I have a choice between a conservative and a moderate I’ll go conservative. Since I live in California I have the choice of Liberal and more Liberal (Socialist). Forgive me if I do not see this as a valid choice. I’ll vote for the the candidate that more closely fits my political beliefs rather than the guy who just happens to have an (R) after his name. Especially since he or she is probably going to vote against my value system 60%-70% of the time anyway. In short, I vote values not party.
@dman:
I see voting party as being a principled position, in general. Losing elections does nothing to further your cause (leave aside arguments about how Obama’s win has been a good thing for the country- a costly lesson, like saying “We need another 9/11 to hit us to wake people up.”); so electability and “winnability” do matter in the equation as well as factoring in “Is he conservative enough?”. Voting “your conscience” by going with the candidate who most represents your values and issues is fine, in primaries (although I still think electability in the general should be considered); but after that, you go with your party- the one OF THE TWO that most closely represents the issues you care about the most.
Previous comment thread:
@Wordsmith….”The tone and the tenor of the partisan divide seems to have increased in shrillness within the last decade (What is it? The internet? Saturation of information-flow?).”
Here’s 2 reasons I think you’re likely to hear: There’s about 20 million more people voting now than there were a decade ago, and 1 less candidate on the ballot to boot.
But actually, I’m still left wondering, “What is it?” Sure, they all have their little quirks: McCain believes in Global Warming, Huckabee doesn’t believe in Evolution, Giuliani supports abortion, Cheney supports gay marriage, Paul supports non-interventionism, Brownbeck opposes capital punishment, Romney thinks the creation of his soul pre-dates the creation of the solar system, and Fred Thompson….well, Fred Thompson has Vito Corleone’s jowl’s. Hey, nobody’s perfect. But, by using Wordsmith’s concept of fidelity to a party as principled position, you can start to see how a candidate’s “imperfections” often expand a party’s gamut, and thus, offer your own values a greater chance of being considered.
Maybe I live in a parallel world, but I believe the GOP needs to open itself up if it wants to survive, because I think they’re losing ground. I see voters on both sides of the fence voting for cultural values over their economic best interests. The wealthiest people I know are Dems. None of these people would be caught dead voting Republican. Why? It’s only one thing: cultural rhetoric.
@Everyone…..would you support a Republican Conservative candidate who was an atheist?
@Danny D
Sure, only G-d knows the truth of a person’s belief or has the authority to judge it. We mortals, however, can be more sure about a person’s political party. An R by the name is one less in the D caucus.
Pooh on all these purists who are so purely good that they can’t support anyone who isn’t as pure as them. They should take their marbles off the voting roll altogether because obviously they are more interested in making statements about how good they are than about how the political process can be run. Jesus clearly said religion and politics don’t mix, it was dirty then and the politicians were compromisers then, I’m sure. Keep that purity in your church if what you want is an echo chamber for your beliefs. You can stay there in your pureness and pray for the ones who are willing to go root in the political muck.
As I’ve said before, there may be many who could never forgive McCain for actually listening to the huge Hispanic population here who had an interest in amnesty, but that doesn’t mean Hayworth would win–there’s still a huge Hispanic population, there’s still a very large body of Democrats. Geez, two days ago someone says (on another blog) “drop both of them–here’s a real conservative” and comes up with some unknown. The primary is in a few weeks, get real.
I’m happy to judge the GOP by current action. But that includes Grahamnesty stumping for the global warming fraud, he and McCain working to create 40 million new welfare recipients and democrat voters and Snowe, Collins, Voinovich and the rest of our senate sell-outs perpetually “crossing the aisle” because it is SOOOO much easier. Republicans controlled the house and senate 15 years ago…until limp-wristed, vote-buying, latte swilling party “elders” decided it would be best to act like democrats. Couple that with George Bush spending 8 years NOT replying to the fraudulent attacks launched against him by the left and we have HusseinCare!! Don’t tell me about republicans.
I think the tendency of some voters is that when their “guy” gets defeated in the primary they tend to stay home for the general. Now, it is obvious that this happens on the GOP side much more than on the democrat side. By doing this, the support for the GOP candidate does not end up being the aggregate of the GOP support from the primary, while the Dems enjoy great turnout for the general. In some, but not all, cases this allows a democrat with even less values in common with the no-show GOP voter to get elected.
As for me, I support whoever I most identify with in the primary, then whoever the GOP candidate is for the general. That usually works out pretty good as far as getting a candidate elected that I can be satisfied with, but from now on I will also vote against the incumbent, even if it is a GOP member, if their votes go against what I believe, and will do what I can to oust them in the primary.
right now it to put in next power the only one that is for the serving THE CONSTITUTION to AMERICANS so they can revive their creativity toward freedom,all for one will succeed to elect the one for all americans,
This is a reasoned argument if we all lived in a vacuum.
Reagan was not “Reagan enough” just four years before he was “Reagan enough”. He couldn’t defeat Gerald Ford in 1976.
DANNY D…hi,of course all are differents in personal life you would not want them to be all CLONES of the one you have chosen for personal reasons,,,but the one that you want to win is chosen because he will stand out to THE majority of ,
AMERICANS bye.
I believe that the GOP needs a purge of the McCains,Frums,and Ron Pauls.Supporting RINOS just gets us beat.When the GOP had the majority we could not get our judicial nominees through because we had RINOS like McCain LEADING the Dems.We have Lindsey Graham trying to assist the Dems in getting 20 million new Dem voters.No its time to show these Liberals the door.By the way I am thrilled Specter is gone along with Chaffee and jumpin Jeffords,We need to take back the GOP and make it conservative once again………By the way Sarah should not soil herself by assisting McCain.If you notice he fights conservatives a lot harder than he ever did Obama!
“It’s time we finally bury this suicidal idea that we will dump on our own team just because they don’t meet some impossible standard of ideological purity.” — Mike’s America
I think what most of us are saying is that many of those on our “team” shouldn’t be, despite their lack of real Conservative ideas, accepted just because they are “on our team.” Getting one’s act together does involve being realistic about what we have to work with. But it doesn’t mean giving up on striving for a tighter grouping around real Conservatism. For that a much more disciplined approach is required. Being satisfied with what we have is what got us into this mess in the first place. It has to stop.
The pecking order is in the process of being established, and only once it has been will we be able to begin to actually get things done. It’s important to let that process continue, and let the cards fall where they may. In the end it will be better than what we’ve had to put up with to date. And, if not, then what’s the difference between us and them, if we’re satisfied with anyone as long as they aren’t the other guy? Sorry, but that’s just not going to get the job done.
I DO believe that if the best we have isn’t what we might like, then by all means vote for them, but don’t stop there. Make an active search for a better replacement, and maybe it will motivate the less than optimum candidates to shape up. No standards are a recipe for disaster, …AGAIN.
Don’t ignore history, or it WILL come back to bite you.
@yonason
I am with you one hundred percent on that. Well said!
it is also interesting to see the person who seek to win that ultimate position if he can allowed the people to dicern him in all facets of him as a future owner of the fabulus and difficult job,does he realy need the gift of gab? if he meet the others qualitys of leadership wich are so important also with the gift of knowing when to be strong or humble ,
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Good communication skills may not be essential to a job like that, but they do help a lot. If he knows what to do, but can’t explain it to others, that could be a problem. Also, the way one expresses oneself can be interpreted the wrong way, if one isn’t careful. Keeping our enemies guessing about what we mean might not be such a bad thing, but we don’t want to put our friends in that position.
I agree that is not at all the most important attribute, but he should be able to communicate well for optimal results. Of course, Bush wasn’t much good at that, and he was pretty effective at what he was right about, so I guess he’s proof that it’s not essential.
We conservatives need to stop accepting less than the best……just sayin……Democrats choose the most liberal they could find and worked hard to get him elected.As a County Chairman it was tough motivating conservatives to vote for McCain.Whoever we nominated better be LOVED by the base and not simply a pill to swallow.
i beleive that you are right and the one that they choose should be the best of all too,strong enough to past the test of the conservatives,if he does ,he can become the topghy,he will have earn it,bye
The only people who benefit during in-fighting in political parties are the opposition.
In the UK Thatcher won 3 general elections with Major winning the next because the British Labour party was tearing itself between the moderates and far left – they were out of power for 18 years. Then the Tories fell into the same level of open warefare over such things as the EU and taxes which caused the fall of Thatcher and even though they scrapped through under Major in 1992 – when he finally lost power to Blair in 1997 (no thanks to those in his own cabinet undermining him) the Tories have now been out of power for 13 years due to fighting between moderates and conservatives. Only now have the Tories got a candidate, despite being a moderate, who can beat Labour – and a lot if due to the fact the fighting has been brought under control.
Values are important but if you are in a big political organisation you have to accept the different wings of that party rather than trying to do a witchhunt and force people out because they are too left or too right. It seems the GOP support for McCain was lukewarm at best at the last election – so now you got someone who is much further away from your politics as your President.
GAFFAUK yes, a good view to remember,bye
YONASON,if i can add to 14,it has a lot to do with the right team,a leader choose,they should not be the type to over shadow the leader ‘s diminish talent and not take advantage of it for their own purpuse, a leader is not much good if he had chosen a wrong team that quarrel among themself also it is to my mind a key to being successful in every company,
bye
Seems like the most high ranking US Presidents in polls are Presidents such as Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, Jefferson, Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, JFK, Woodrow Wilson, etc – who were for the most part good and notable orators and communicators. Similarly Churchill & Thatcher are notable UK Prime Minsters of the 20th century because they effectively communicated their ideas. Gordon Brown is a poor speaker and will soon (hopefully) be gone by May 6th. Bush was a poor communicator and I don’t see him being rated in many polls where he will be in the top 10 of Presidents – now or in 20 years time.
I think the recent debate on Fox between Crist and Rubio is an example one of my points in the first comment above. If Gov. Crist won the primary I would vote for him, holding my nose because he probably is closer to my value thinking than the eventual Democrat contender. However, the purpose of the primary is to allow a choice within the “big tent”. I’m hoping that Rubio wins the primary because he reflects my values more closely. If we listened to the RNCC leadership we would simply wait for the Republican leaders to tell us whom to vote for because they would know the best candidate for that electorate. Sorry, I am not a brainless democrat. I believe I can vote on my own. Without some elitist hierarchy holding my hand and twisting my arm.
I’d like to repeat this from Wordsmith in the post above:
Absolutely. The best way to get these guys minds right is to show them that we don’t hold a grudge and we are willing to forgive. What motivation would McCain or Graham have to be better stewards of conservative principles if we decided to damn them for eternity based on past votes?
Theodore Herrera, you really need to consider whether you would have a Graham and McCain supporting a GOP Senate majority that places conservatives in key senate roles or continuing a liberal/Dem dominance of that body.
I’ve been very critical of Graham and McCain. And in case you aren’t aware (others are probabaly getting tired of hearing this) I took my complaints to McCain IN PERSON and AT LENGTH in a small meeting that was held near my home in 2007.
The “purge” that you suggest is a sure fire way to make sure that Dems continue to run the House, Senate and the White House. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to understand?
P.S. To answer Word’s other query about where all this is coming from: Some of the conservative purist stuff is an old story. I worked for John Ashbrook, an early founder of the conservative movement on his Senate campaign in Ohio and ran across some of these purists. Ashbrook was the most conservative candidate EVER to run for a Senate seat in Ohio but that wasn’t good enough for these two. I hope they enjoyed the fact that their lack of support led to liberals continuing to hold power in Ohio for years.
When it comes to today’s angry conservative, some of it is being ginned up by the left who subtly try and manipulate these folks who claim to be on our side. You see examples of this in the comments of some lefties here who try and sow the seeds of conservative dissatisfaction with Palin.
I wish these paleo conservatives would get it through their head they are being used.
Mike,I reviewed your interview with John McCain and appreciate your questions put to him.The trouble was he was on the wrong side of fights that crippled his own campaign.If you look at McCain-Feingold it stunted his own campaign and it allowed the Dems to raise 1 BILLION Dollars for President Obama.As for the ‘Gang of 14′ the Dems in a similar position would have got ALL their nominations thru.Mike he almost switched in 2001 before ‘Jumpin Jeffords’beat him to it.He is said to have considered Kerry’s offer of VP in 04.Why then do conservatives have to keep sucking it up???Why do we have Lindsey Graham ready to give us full amnesty???These ‘moderates’like McCain and Graham almost never lead conservatives to any victory but are almost ready to stab us in the back at the worst times.Look at the people around McCain during the election.Guys like Mark McKinnon were ready to destroy other Republicans in the primary but he told McCain he would not stand in the way of Obama and McCain was OK with that.Look I vote for people all the time that are not going to give me 100 percent,but why do I have to accept a candidate who seemed more than willing to take a dive??I will be honest and say I would vote for JD Hayworth if I lived in Arizona and sit out the election if McCain won the nomination.I am willing to bet Sen McCain will be back to sticking it to conservatives if he wins again.LOYALITY is a 2 way street and RINOS like McCain and Graham deserve none.Mike we conservatives have every right to be angry.In the past election we had 2 Dems running except Obama was the nicer Dem!!!!John McCain has demonstrated nothing but contempt for us.