Saturday, November 8, 2008

Out of the Wilderness: Conservative Comeback Awaits

In the weeks leading up to the conclusion of the 2008 campaign, a number of bloggers predicted an Obama victory, and many started planning ahead for the long road to a conservative comeback.

I discounted such talk, for example, in my post, "
McCain's Path to the White House."

In that entry, I cited Robert Stacy McCain, "The Other McCain," and his essay, "
How John McCain Lost." Robert pegged September 24 - the day John McCain suspended his campaign to return to Washington to work on the Wall Street rescue - as the beginning of the end for the Arizona Senator.

In response, after providing an analysis of the Electoral College projections,
I suggested:

The election's still close.

McCain needs to focus his core message now more that ever, hammering his ace cards of experience, accurate instincts on the economy, and unshakable patriotic convictions. That's the Maverick's path to the White House.
I wish my prediction was accurate, although at the time I knew I was really hoping against hope. Nothing seemed to go McCain's way in the last month. Even the presidential debates - in which McCain performed extremely well - we're interpreted as Obama wins, simply for what I thought was Obama showing up, looking moderate and contemplative, and not making any gaffes. Amazingly, we now have news that even the Obama campaign itself understated international threats as a way to tamp down public reservations on his foreign policy inexperience.

That's all under the bridge now: Conservatives of all stripes of will need years to regroup and find their way back for the GOP's return to power.

In an e-mail to me, Robert suggested the McCain camp veered far from bedrock conservative principles, and ignored warnings from the right-wing base while running the GOP ticket into the ground:

That is to say, the idiots running the McCain campaign, who repeatedly rejected sound advice from conservatives, spent the last three weeks of the campaign LYING about their prospects for victory, urging conservatives to believe in a cause they knew to be hopeless. And now those same lying idiots are trying to blame Sarah Palin for their own blunders.

The Reaganauts had a saying, "Personnel is policy." For too long, conservatives have accepted incompetence as a policy because incompetent personnel have escaped accountability for their errors. These self-dealing GOP incompetents need to be called to account. And those of us who saw through their barrage of [baloney] ought to get some credit for being right.
In reading bloggers and pundits the last few days, the dominant meme is that the GOP must return to Reaganite conservatism, i.e., consistent ideological principles focusing on low taxes, low spending, traditional social values, and peace-through-strength intenationalism (or thereabouts).

Yet, some have argued that the Reagan legacy is a chimera, and that it's time for a new generation of leaders on the right, and a new generation of ideas. For example, the National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru wrote:

Republicans have a history of moving right after defeats, embracing Ronald Reagan after Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford had failed, and Newt Gingrich after George H. W. Bush had. Each time the party thrived as conservative independents and Democrats joined it. Many conservatives think that the party will succeed again just as soon as it ditches the big-spending, soft-on-immigration George W. Bush. But Republicans succeeded on those previous occasions because they addressed the concerns of the day for the vast middle class; moving right alone was insufficient.

As it will be in today’s very different political landscape. Based on the exit polls from 2004 and Tuesday, Republicans have lost more ground among self-described moderates than among conservatives. Even if Senator McCain had won the same percentage of conservatives that President Bush did in 2004, he would not have won. Moving right will work only if moderates are given a reason to move right too.
Michael Medved took up the issue as well, in his essay, "Was the 'Maverick' Too Moderate to Win?":

Some of the nation’s most influential conservatives (on talk radio and elsewhere) have begun promoting the odd idea that John McCain lost the election because he ran as a “moderate” and a “maverick” rather than a “true conservative.” According to this argument, the GOP nominee could have won the White House had he only “taken the gloves off” and run to the right, without apology. This logic suggests that candidates fare better when they display ideological rigor and consistency, and that Republicans can never succeed by going after moderate and independent votes.

Fortunately, there’s an easy way to test this theory. McCain appeared on the 2008 ballot with some of the nation’s most outspoken, hard line conservatives, who won nomination for governor or US Senator. If the argument is true that you can win more votes by appealing to right-wingers, rather than aiming for the center, then conservative Senate and gubernatorial candidates should have out-performed McCain, particularly in solidly Republican Southern or Midwestern states....

In fact, McCain ran well ahead of Republican nominees for Senate and governorships almost everywhere – except in those cases when statewide GOP candidates had cultivated their own reputations for independence, centrism, and ideological flexibility.
The key point for both Ponnuru and Medved, from what I gather, is that there's more of an emotional appeal in the call for a return to conservative values than a rational one.

I'm not out to settle the matter here, and Robert will vigorously disagree (samples galore,
here).

I'm neoconservative. I want national greatness in foreign policy, traditional values in social policy domestically (especially on abortion, marriage, and race relations), but I'm more flexible on the scope of state power in addressing economic concerns and providing public goods (within reason).

Going forward, the party must pay heed to
the demographics of election 2008. Barack Obama won 67 percent of the Latino vote, and also 62 percent of the Asian American vote. First time voters turned out 62 percent for the Democratic ticket, and Obama won 69 percent of the college-age cohort (see also, "Youth Vote for Obama Bodes Ill for Future of GOP").

Moreover, Barack Obama indeed
appeared moderate to many voters (taking 60 percent of the centrist electorate), despite GOP attacks to the contrary (the attacks, of course, may ultimately prove prophetic, giving Republicans an opening to campaign against an ideological, overreaching Democratic Party).

Personally, I love Sarah Palin, who for all of her red-meat bona fides with the conservative base, is also pure neocon on American exceptionalism and moral clarity.

On that point, then, perhaps the various factions of the conservatve movement can unite, forging a way back from the wilderness.

7 comments:

Rich Casebolt said...

I think the conservative comeback must be thought out on an issue-by-issue basis ... with voter realities combined with a thorough dose of objective reason, that reaches beyond demographics to the principles involved in the issue.

For example, had the GOP fielded a candidate who had demonstrated they were serious about protecting our borders AND insisted on making an issue about it during the campaign, it would have resonated with many voters well outside the traditional conservative base ... especially when juxtaposed against traditional Democrat pandering to race and class. Not only were they weak on principle on this issue ... they ignored the voter realities that could have pushed them over the top.

OTOH, had the GOP stuck to its principles instead of acting like Democrats regarding lobbyists and spending from 1998 to 2006, their credibility regarding government economics would have been much stronger ... at the least, they would have taken away the talking point from the hypocrites on the Left that used such spending as a club to beat the conservative worldview down.

And, the GOP was right in standing strong on Iraq, from bases of both principle and pragmatism ... but did not do a good job explaining WHY that was the right choice.

Simply adjusting their position to match the media-created unpopularity with our presence in Iraq would have thrown out the baby with the bathwater ... but the White House and the GOP campaigns did not adequately explain our case to the masses, even to the degree that many bloggers and commenters have here and elsewhere.

Righty64 said...

Here is the problem. Don't call yourself a "neocon"! You and I are conservatives. We may not agree on all aspects of conservatism, but the thrust of conservatism is where we agree. The basic conservative ideas are where we agree. When we pigeon-hole ourselves, those opposed to us then try to define us. It should be the other way around. And, always remember this about the Great Man, Ronald Reagan. He really was a maverick! McCain lost because he did not have a center like Reagan, and like the running mate, Sarah Palin. I think it was the old "it is his turn" mentality and he ran a terrible campaign. Sarah Palin literally saved this campaign from being a rout.

The Vegas Art Guy said...

Rich has it correct. The conservative cause was not argued strongly enough with Americans. Part of that is due to the GOP spending money like drunken sailors. Part of it was due to the MSM not doing their job.

The ideas that conservatives hold dear like self determination, low taxes and governmental interference are more American at their core than the Euro-model socialism that the left clings to like socks with a static charge.

That message has to get out and it needs to be done sooner rather than later. It does mean that conservatives will have to go into the lion's den and fight the battles there, especially when Obama over-reaches like he is sure to do with all the pressure coming from the far (if there is such a thing) left of the party.

And the GOP needs to start fighting for a change. Take off the frickin gloves for once!

Stogie said...

Donald, a pox on "moderates" who are "ideologically flexible." Winning the White House and the Congress means nothing if we replace one bunch of liberals with a new bunch of liberals under a different brand name.

I think it's a mistake to think that the great mass of voters were issue-oriented and philosophically driven to elect Obama. Basically, they were upset about the financial melt down and the tanking economy and moved lemming-like for "change," blaming the melt down on the GOP since it held the White House at the time.

What will create a sound economy over time and a secure nation? Conservative principles. It is the sound economy and security that will draw voters our way, not the philosophical arguments. Most people don't understand the philsophical arguments and are too damned lazy to study them and their historical effects.

True conservative principles, once implemented, will be self sustaining because they work.

Rich Casebolt said...

Stogie ... relying on the successful application of conservative principles alone to draw others to adopting them ...

... does not adequately take into account the nature of the human species to seek the "easy way out" and/or instant gratification and/or blaming those who have succeeded for "stealing" from those who have not yet succeeded, and instead believe corrosive concepts like the Biggest Lie of All:

All you have to do is show up for work ... we in your government will take care of the other challenges in your life FOR you.

We tried the "it sells itself" philosophy regarding the War on Terror ... certainly at least regarding Iraq ... and even though I thought it should have worked, it did not.

We HAVE to be ready to proactively articulate alternative solutions, based on sound principle, in response to the various follies about to see the light of day in Congress.

A concurring opinion, from someone more articulate than I, can be found here.

We're going to have to harden ourselves, not against people, but against the folly they propose ... and this will be even tougher because many of our adversaries are relativists who "adapt" like Borg to sell their viewpoints, fact, reason, and integrity be damned.

Like the Spartans in 300, we're going to have to form a phalanx ... a phalanx whose shields are composed of matter-of-fact articulation, held by sinews of sound principle and muscles of wisdom ... and advance upon our adversaries under its strength.

As I see it, Glenn Reynolds' "Army of Davids" needs to become a PHALANX of Davids.

We're going to also have to be ready to expose the shortcomings of our adversaries' reasoning ... and persistently so, for many are stuck in denial as thick as tar.

Character need only be attacked when its weakness is obvious and/or a clear-and-present danger to the nation ... our primary focus must be to attack the foolish ideas that are about to pour over us like the Persian Army.

This means we're going to have to watch the name-calling ... I know I have descended into it, using it as shorthand (and emotional satisfaction) to deal with the knee-jerks that keep wandering into these forums with the same old D3 talking points. That is sometimes the "easy way out" described above, for us.

I've committed myself to praying for the new President, and our Congresspeople, that they may find and utilize wisdom in the conduct of their offices.

That will, at least for a while, render me referring to the one formerly known by me as the Big 0, as Mr. Obama and/or President Obama, in the same manner as I refer to President Bush at present.

That, however, does not mean I will be any less determined when it comes to articulating a critical analysis of the policies and reasoning that will now emanate from the White House ... especially when fact and reason run counter to them.

Nor does this mean that I won't use a little "on the edge" humor when doing so ... just as Elijah, Paul, and the Man who is truly The One in my eyes did during their tenure on this rock. But it will be (as I have always strived to make it) precision-guided humor, focused on the foolishness at hand ... to be replaced by voiced appreciation when our leaders act wisely.

Vengeance is mine, says the Lord ... and to coin a phrase ...

... in the blogosphere, His vengeance is a dish best served cold -- as in cold logic, cool and collected reasoning, and cold, hard facts.

Professor Douglas ... it appears that, if I am going to live up to the above, it's not enough to be reactive as I have been here and elsewhere. I'm going to have to figure out a way to sustainably do what you've been advocating for a long time ... and make a dormant blog part of that phalanx.

Tom the Redhunter said...

For now I'm going to leave the ideological aspects alone. I have my ideas but am not sure yet how to proceed.

What we all have to recognize is that it's not just about political philosophy.

Winning in politics is at least as much sweat and money as it is anything else. And the bottom line is that the left out-organized, out-hustled, and out-money-raised us.

We have nothing like Movon.org, ACORN, America Votes, Center for American Progress, the Thunder Road Group, or Media Matters. The Democrats killed us with their use of social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook. my.barackobama.com alone just about sank us.

So while it's all very fun to sit and blog about issues, the nature of conservatism, and what constitutes a RINO, much of winning is the grunt work of organizing and fundraising.

I'd like to see you write about this sometime, Donald.

Rich Casebolt said...

Dang straight, Tom. The Leftists have put their money (often earned by hard-nosed capitalism, in stark contrast to their ideology) where their mouth is.

We've kept to ourselves and put our money into making more profit, instead.

We need to change that ... and we need to think of it as fertilizer for the field that our profit grows from, not as welfare for conservative intellectuals.

We also need those who achieve public success in their fields ... particularly, but in no way exclusively, in pop culture ... to articulate their conservative worldview as "ambassadors" that can go where we can't. That will go a long way to infiltrate the social networks you referred to, as well.

This will be an uphill battle, though ... because the deceptive "easy way out" the Leftists keep dangling in front of people is hard for them to resist, especially when we have to tell them that the better pathway of individual freedom also comes with individual responsibility.

It may also take a long time, being that it is the mirror image of the Gramscian playbook the Left has been patiently following.

But at the least, we can slow down the destruction of our civilization in the near term ... and by the grace of God, maybe retake its ground faster than they took it in the first place.