It may already be too late for McCain to recapture the conservative base of the Republican Party. As with Nixon, McCain seems to believe that Republicans have nowhere else to go but with him. Whoever carries the banner for the party in 2012, and we can only hope it’s a certain charismatic and conservative Louisiana governor, should look to Reagan, and not Nixon, as his inspiration.
Back in early 1960, Sen. Barry Goldwater found himself with quite a problem. In his role as a senior Republican, it was Goldwater's task to travel the United States to raise money and campaign on behalf of the presumptive party nominee, Vice President Richard Nixon.
The problem was that there was a growing tide of distrust about Nixon amongst conservatives. Republicans weren't sure whether Nixon was an actual conservative or simply a "me-toer", someone pretending to be conservative but in reality anything but – someone today derisively referred to as a RINO, Republican In Name Only. Everywhere Goldwater went he was asked "Where Stands Nixon?" on the popular issues of the day.
That tide nearly manifested itself into open revolution when Nixon began dealing with New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller – South Carolina actually pledged its delegates to a shocked Goldwater before being convinced to unite behind the vice president.
Goldwater's biggest problem, however, was Nixon's campaign strategy – he was ignoring conservatives in favor of campaigning to the left. In a March 24, 1960 journal entry Goldwater recounts a meeting he had with the Los Angeles Times editorial staff about Nixon.
"It was during this discussion that I received the first real confirmation of my suspicion as to the reason for Nixon's detour. Mr. Bassett, who has been a leading figure in Nixon's past elections, remarked to the effect that Republicans have no place to go but with Dick Nixon, and this being the case, he was correct in trying to attract the liberal or left-wing votes. From this and other discussions I have concluded that this indeed the thought that motivates Nixon as he detours around conservative principle. If that is so, and as of now we must assume it to be the case, he is in dire danger of losing the 1960 election."
History records that Nixon narrowly lost the 1960 presidential race to Goldwater's friend Sen. John F. Kennedy. Goldwater himself, of course, was destroyed in 1964 by Lyndon B. Johnson while actually pursuing a conservative campaign – though the assassination of Kennedy made any tactic he used a moot point.
If all of this seems familiar to Republicans in 2008, it should. The current presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, constantly faces questions from the Republican Party's conservative base about his ideological underpinnings and alliances with liberals – and as with Nixon, deservedly so. And like Nixon, McCain seems determined to ignore – even insult – conservatives while pandering for votes from the political left. As with Nixon, McCain seems to believe that Republicans have nowhere else to go but with him.
McCain is, of course, very wrong and his strategy is one that is doomed to fail. Conservatives have a very real option to McCain: staying home on November 4. Although the radical left threat of Barack Obama is worrisome to them, the stream of slights and lack of motivation from the McCain camp could very well keep them home that day. It may be short-sighted, particularly in the light of the U.S. Supreme Court nominations that will likely be made in the next four to eight years, but it's also understandable. If John McCain is determined to hammer his own base, they will hammer back.
Nor is pandering for votes from the political left a wise alternative for McCain. As Rush Limbaugh is fond of pointing out, Republicans who run as liberals against actual liberals nearly always lose. After all, why vote for the counterfeit when you can get the real thing? Despite his positions on climate change, campaign finance and other liberal causes, McCain is not palatable enough to the political left to capture significant votes.
It may already be too late for McCain to recapture the conservative base of the Republican Party. His uneven political ideology and dealings with the left has likely already damaged beyond repair his standing with the political right. The oft-made comparison of Obama with Kennedy may prove right after all. Republicans will once again lose a closely contested election thanks to a candidate who apparently despises his own base against a charismatic candidate that has the media behind him.
At some point one can only hope that Republicans learn from the past – from its finest teacher, Ronald Reagan – and rely on their conservative base for victory. Whoever carries the banner for the party in 2012, and we can only hope it’s a certain charismatic and conservative Louisiana governor, should look to Reagan, and not Nixon, as his inspiration.
As Goldwater, writing two weeks later in that same journal and on that same topic noted, "If he is a man who sets his course not by the stars of principle but by the winds and tides of expediency, he will never be on any definable course."
editor@enterstageright.com
http://www.enterstageright.com/
Read more articles by Steven Martinovich
With the generic Dem vs GOP congressional ballot now running 13% to the blue:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot
it is irrelevant to the outcome of the presidential election whether conservatives return to the fold, which they probably will, but who will capture the middle.
McCain is the only one in the GOP who could remotely do that. Not the faux conservative Romney or the real conservative Thompson or the category of his own Huckabee.
McCain is not down the line conservative, never has been, so to label him as "pandering" to the left is an improper use of the term. He never completely followed the conservative ideological position to begin with.
His steadfast consistent stand on Iraq is not geared to winning friends with the majority of Americans who are negative on Iraq. And nobody ever credits him with his truely fiscal conservative stands against earmarks as opposed to such bonafide conservatives as Ted Stevens of the famed bridge to nowhere.
Yes, Ronald Reagan was a phenomonon of his time as was FDR for the Dems but I think they were both riding waves of ideological change that occur periodically, but do not necessarily linger.
If you look at the other GOP winners- Eisenhower x 2, Nixon 2 of 3 , George HW Bush 1 of 2 , and George W Bush x2 vs the losers Goldwater, Ford, and Dole, I don't really see a pattern.
And how can one think that, in this election year, when the only conservative candidates could not even win over Republicans, that somehow they could win over the country.
Limbaugh is less an expert on these issues then one of the causes of the silent majorities turn to the left. Much as Abbie Hoffman and the loudmouths of the left gave the tide to Nixon, the abrasive hatefulness of the Limbaughs and Hannitys have turned off Americans who do not share their belief that those that disagree with them are less than human.
Comment by yonkel | July 29, 2008
Every conservative writer in recent months has felt compelled to analyze the horns of the dilemma American conservatives are dangling from. Should I stay home on Election Day out of disgust with McCain? Should I vote for McCain, even though I detest him, because the alternative, Obama, is even worse? Maybe it’s too many years engaged with the business community, but I think part of the problem lies with conservatives’ view of the Republican Party as their ideological and philosophical advocate rather than as a full-fledged business providing a consumer product – and that product is candidates for political office and the marketing of those same candidates.
Like General Motors, the Republican Party has a revenue stream, full time employees, legal regulations to be followed, a management organization and hierarchy, consultants and clerks – in fact, all the familiar trappings of a major corporation. Like General Motors, the Republican Party offers different products and services to different markets. And, like the problem currently afflicting General Motors, McCain, in the view of many conservatives, is a 6,500 lb. GMC Yukon sporting a 300 horsepower engine during an era of $4 a gallon gas. Wrong product offering, from a conservative’s viewpoint, for a traditional philosophical and political market.
But, from a business viewpoint, is McCain a bad product for the Republican Party? Has the majority of the country, despite conservative claims to the contrary, moved left on the political spectrum, toward what is usually labeled “creeping socialism”, and away from a small government, low taxes mentality? If it has, then the Republican Party, as an ongoing business, should be fielding a product (candidate) that can compete in the modern political arena. Perhaps the business managers within the Party feel it’s the conservatives who are out of touch, perhaps they feel McCain is the right product for today’s political market and a harbinger of directional change within future product offerings. Come November, the market will decide the issue. If McCain wins or the election is very close, Republican Party managers will feel they made the right decision; they may also feel they, not conservatives, accurately assessed the market.
No well-run business will deliberately anger its customers, but the business will also recognize the hard fact not all their existing customers will embrace their products with equal fervor. And, some potential customers may deliberately boycott their products: I have friends that “hate” Microsoft and buy only Apple computers, many families in Detroit still avoid purchasing Japanese cars out of “buy American” principles, regardless of their actual consumer needs. Emotion is an important part of marketing, but “bottom line”, it’s what sells and contributes to profitability that matters – “philosophical principles” are for children and the mentally handicapped.
So, are conservatives a fading market for political parties? Should conservatives be looking for another candidate supplier? Normally, political wisdom isn’t expressed in terms of business and market dynamics – but could the problem be with the supplier and not the product?
What has kept this concept from being actively debated is the seesaw nature of America’s two party system. Western democracies eventually grow tired of one party rule and vote for the opposing party mainly in the hope for change. A new “Conservative” Party won’t emerge as a legitimate player as long as the Republican Party can win elections every so often. And, would a true conservative support a political party that faithfully represents their principles but can’t win elections?
Astute readers will immediately spot the flaw in this political parties are like businesses argument. A consumer can still buy a large, roomy gas hog even if the rest of the country is opting for small tin boxes powered by lawnmower engines – as long as the individual consumer will put up with the downside. But, there can be only one president, a conservative can’t have an SUV if the rest of the country wants a sub-compact. And, as the counter-argument goes, if conservatives insist on the SUV, they may not even get to ride in the sub-compact, they will either have to walk or take the bus. In other words, Obama, the fuel efficient, “green” hybrid, will be the only car on the road. The predicted dire consequences of that outcome are liberal Supreme Court justices, tax and spend economics, risky foreign policies, etc. So, as the Republican message goes, vote for McCain or suffer the consequences.
However, that’s a self-serving position by the Republican Party. For many conservatives, McCain is the unpleasant “consequence”. Yet, the only alternative may be a new political party willing to field candidates that have no chance of gaining office. Our fundamental problem isn’t with the candidates, it’s with the mounting excesses of populist democracy – traditional religious and moral restraints, which once provided a steady flow of conservative candidates defined by their unbending integrity, have been all but banished from the public arena and our national political dialog. All that’s left, apparently, is “what will you give me if I vote for you?”. The underlying problem for conservatives may go far beyond suppliers and their political products.
Comment by Pat Skurka | July 30, 2008
I wouldn't say Obama is the fuel efficient "green" hybrid. I would say he's more of a "green" concept car, with the designers presenting a sleek look, but unsure about the mechanics and whether they want to power it with gas, batteries, hydrogen, solar, or a combination. The designers are waiting to see what becomes the more popular method, instead of using what works. The problem is, somehow the car is on the market, and a blind mass of consumers will end up with a car that looks good, but won't go.
It'll always end up being towed by a liberal tow truck, and never drive the streets on it's own. But hey, at least it looks good.
Comment by Notebartello | September 4, 2008
Notebartello and Pat
Thanks for resurrecting this ghost of July.
Pat, I truly think that all the upset and gnashing of teeth about McCain will be gone by Nov. 4 and conservatives will vote for McCain. In fact, most polls show Nader running well ahead of the equivalent on the right.
I actually think the GOP is more united than the Dems, which is surprising considering that there were stark ideological differences in the GOP whereas the Dems really had to work at inventing their differences. The Dem primaries endeded up being a clash about personality and character and that has left more residual bitterness than the GOP.
Although the Clintons' speeches were portrayed as mending fences, my view from their convention speeches was that the support was more perfunctory and tepid than from the heart, whereas e.g. I think Fred Thompson had his whole heart into supporting McCain at the GOP.
Pat, I like some of your business analogies. American politics has always tracked the center and the parties have moved as the center changes. The Dems did not stay with William Jennings Bryan and the silver standard and although most of the IC bloggers would like to stay with Ronald Reagan in 1984, it is a different world.
Environmental concerns are real, health care concerns are real, and people do not trust the Republicans on these matters. The fact that McCain will likely win this election despite the drubbing the GOP is expected to get in Congress is a reflection that, besides being a likable guy and the Dems having once again produced a lackluster candidate, he is willing to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with a conservative working to protect the environment, opposing torture, and being humble and magnanimous about working with people of differing views.
Notebartello, I don't really get the car analogy.
I agree that Obama is a bit slick, although it is nice to see somebody that can speak the English language well, but, whether you agree with them or not, the Dems are actually more united ideologically than the GOP at this time.
As to the car going or not, I think that the current occupant of the white house has led us to defecit, recession, and international isolation. Either of the current candidates would have a hard time doing worse.
Comment by yonkel | September 4, 2008
Yonkel,
Haha
Yeah, I'm not sure I understood it either.
I was more or less getting at the fact the Obama's message changes all the while remaining under the umbrella of "Hope" and "Change". Urge!! I've come to hate even saying those words, I can remember when they entered into the current Dems lexicon, and it gave me a headache then.
Anyway, he never misses a beat, his speeches sometimes even get me wrapped up. But as sleek and refined as it is, there's nothing inside. I don't look at a principled Barack Obama, I look at an opportunist, who may actually really care about America, but who's opinions shifts when convenient, and more often towards the liberal, the really liberal side. Which makes me question his want for the best for America. And I see my generation going gaga and it frustrates me to know end. Maybe it's the lack of principles in my generation, or the selfish "victim" ideology we grew up around, I don't know, but I upsets me. What really sucks is you and Barack are right on one thing, more of the same, with our jaw dropping deficit, I don't want to imagine that future.
Comment by Notebartello | September 4, 2008
Notebartello:
The vacuity in speeches to me appears bipartisan. I agree that Obamas speeches are more vague than specific but the electorate tends to punish you if you say something specific. The Democrats promise a bunch of benefits without implying the necessary taxes, and the GOP promises tax cuts without listing what programs they will cut.
I have heard Obama discuss substantive issues in a non stump speech setting and he is quite intelligent albeit much more liberal than myself. You don't get to be president of the Harvard Law Review by being stupid. And that he speaks well, is refreshing and in the tradition of Lincoln and FDR. Anybody running for president is an opportunist.
Also, the GOP has plenty of cliches of their own including adopting the change one. All this "Washington insider" stuff makes me sick. If you are running for president, what is wrong with knowing Washington. Were Carter, Clinton, and GWB so much better presidents because they didn't have the Washington experience of GB senior, LBJ, Roosevelt, or Nixon. You have good and bad in both groups and we probably disagree on who is who but it had little to do with whether there experience was local or national.
I think that we can agree that there should be more talk about the issues than trying to make or destroy images, but in the words of HL Mencken " Nobody ever went broke under estimating the tastes of the American Public". The mantra at the GOP was that somehow the common man was better than the bad politicians, but it is the common man that elects them in the first place. A panderer requires a panderee.
I think both McCain and Obama are honorable and intelligent men and I wish there were serious discussions of the issues.
I don't think you need to worry about BA winning because of his youth appeal. I think he is one of the least electable of the Dem stable and John McCain is the most electable Republican this year. Barak captured peoples imaginations early and was well organized, but at the end of his campaign he was less popular than Hillary and weaker in head to heads with McCain. I don't think Obama can take Florida or Ohio. He would need to hold all the Dem states of 2004 and add Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorodo. McCain is running almost ten percentage points ahead of his party on the generic vote. The public now leans Democratic but since BA is on the liberal end of the Dems whereas McCain is on the liberal end of the GOP, McCain I think is closer to the middle.
I am a defecit hawk and I would support a law requiring balanced budgets. Whether you are a Dem or a GOP that to me is a moral imperative. If you buy something you have to pay for it. You can't cut taxes without equally cutting expenditures and you can't raise expenditures without equally raising taxes.
Comment by yonkel | September 6, 2008