The Republican noncandidate flavor of the week is Texas governor Rick Perry. If you squint just right, you could mistake him at a podium for his predecessor, George W. Bush. Except for his message.
There might be no more powerful symbol of the death of compassionate conservatism in the Republican party than Bush’s successor and former running mate in Texas stomping all over it with cowboy boots emblazoned with the words “Freedom” and “Liberty.”
Bush rose from Texas to the national stage in 1999 talking of his federal education agenda, the courage of single mothers, the power of drug and alcohol recovery programs, and the need for government to forge partnerships with faith organizations. Perry is emerging from Texas talking of the 10th Amendment, cutting government, defending freedom — and defending freedom some more.
Advertisement
Bush spoke in dulcet tones. He separated himself from the firebrand politics of Newt Gingrich and even took a swipe at the insufficiently cheerful Robert Bork. Perry is telling Republicans to stop apologizing and elect more conservatives. He’s Rick Perry, and he’s from the Republican wing of the Republican party.
The backlash against Bush has long been brewing. Compassionate conservatism was a product of the moment when Bush began to run for president in the late 1990s. The congressional wing of the party had immolated itself in the government-shutdown fights and then the impeachment of Bill Clinton. A rebranding was in order, and Bush wanted to signal to general-election voters that they needn’t fear him.
Bush-style conservatism never really took with the broader party, although it gained acquiescence. The president usually gets his way with his congressional majority, so Bush could push through No Child Left Behind and the prescription-drug benefit. The war on terror and the Left’s hatred for him bonded conservatives to Bush whatever their misgivings. The nomination of John McCain — himself no down-the-line conservative — obscured the anti-Bush feeling.
Now, it’s in full flower and evident on all fronts, from spending and immigration to foreign policy, as Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns point out in Politico. Running on his message circa 1999, George W. Bush would be hard-pressed to gain traction in the current Republican party. Running on his record circa 2008 — the spending programs, the bailouts, the attempted amnesty and the two ongoing “hearts and minds” wars of counterinsurgency — he’d be booed from the stage. If Michele Bachmann didn’t drop-kick him off it first.
The Bush Republican party had grown flaccid and deserved to be trounced and built anew. But Bush had two insights. He realized that the party had to win over the center as well as the right, and that unadulterated doctrine would appeal most only to the doctrinaire. If Rick Perry thinks the 10th Amendment is going to have cachet with voters worried about their jobs, their wages, and the value of their homes, he’s been spending too much time at Federalist Society seminars.
On top of everything else, compassionate conservatism reflected the prosperity of the 1990s. As a candidate, Bush sometimes seemed to forget that economic self-interest trumps all else. In this economy, Republicans would be suicidal ever to forget that. Even as he preaches the old-time religion, Perry in his proto–stump speech returns again and again to a highly practical theme: his success in fostering a pro-jobs environment in Texas. Republicans may feel no need to be “compassionate” in the Bush sense — defensively vouching for their own good intentions — but they need to connect their agenda to their solicitude for the livelihoods of voters.
As the press clues into the new anti-Bush drift of the GOP, we can expect a revival in Bush’s reputation. He will be portrayed as more reasonable, more internationalist, and altogether more statesmanlike than his benighted compatriots. If only it were still the party of George W. Bush will be the lament. And it will make the party even more glad that it’s not.
There's nothing compassionate or conservative about big government.
Big government has helped to create a generation of children who will never know their grand parents and who will grow up without both of their parents setting an example of life-long commitment to each other.
Thanks to big government, drug abuse is rampant. So is out of wedlock birth.
I whole-heartedly agree with JDG... your title of Uncompassionate Con suggests that bigger government is compassionate. To follow that line of thinking would make Barak Obama's administration look like Mother Teresa. It clearly is not. Just ask Texas about the EPA, Louisiana and Texas about the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Boeing about the NLRB, Arizona about the Justice Dept, etc. Our prospective candidates know that reversing the types of policies of the Obama Administration is what will fuel economic / job growth!! Now that, in my book, is compassionate!
As a Texan, I voted for Rick Perry for governor, but didn't like a couple of the programs he touted: TransTexas corridor and HPV shots for all females under 16. Hopefully, he learned that meddling in private matters and outsourcing state projects do not sit well with conservatives.
That being said, he has done a great job of leading this state to creating a climate for job growth and making the state live within it's means(however, it should be mentioned that the state constitution requires the budget to be balanced every two years). He has shown great leadership in staying the course of maintaining the $5 billion "rainy day fund" that the education forces want to spend on the shortfall in their budgets, as if more money will heal the education system.
He is one of several candidates that I would support if nominated, if of course he runs. It will be a great pleasure to have a nominee who isn't afraid to espouse certain values fearlessly. At least I won't have to hold my nose and vote for another McCain.
Um, Perry needs to run for president before he gets anybody's vote anywhere.
Which is the problem, no? Does he run in Iowa? He risks a nasty loss to Bachmann, who has the same conservative message AND a strong regional tie-in that he conspicuously lacks. Not to mention that he could easily finish down the list to other, better-organized candidates.
Does he run in New Hampshire? To put it mildly, the flinty, libertarian state is not congenial to his southern social-conservative message...especially with indies and Dems free to vote in the GOP primary.
So when does he get a good shot at actually winning something? South Carolina? Would his money even last till then?
Rudy Giuliani found out last time that waiting doesn't pay. I don't see it working for Perry, either.
I'm not a she, but if this comment is directed at me...
The real issue with Perry isn't timing. If he announces now or Labor Day or New Year's Day, I don't think it makes much difference. (Okay, maybe New Year's is pushing it a little.)
I just don't see how he does particularly well in either Iowa or New Hampshire. If I had to bet right now, I'd say third or fourth in both states...behind Bachmann and others in IA and Romney and others in NH.
At this point does his campaign even struggle on? Got me. A couple of mediocre-to-poor showings sure won't help.
If he actually gets into the debates and starts performing well, maybe this prediction changes. But he's not in the debates right now.
As for Pawlenty not taking on Romney, if I ever thought Tim had any kind of chance, I might have been interested. As it was, the moment just confirmed the obvious: Pawlenty is no factor now and probably won't become one.
I think Iowa and NH are irrelevant, though I think he blows Bachmann out of the water in Iowa, since she has literally zero executive experience.
Iowa picks the most religiously conservative candidate (is that Bachmann over Perry? Really?), and now NH picks the most liberal, because Democrats make up 1/2 the voters. In a wide field such as this, one can lose both and still win the nomination.
But why bother, right? Your favorite Mod's got it all locked up already!
(oops hit the post button to fast on that last one)
Rich Lowry sounds like a snarky liberal.
Why are conservative writers obsessed with the touting or denigration of candidates? It’s as if they are trying to sway the electorate by writing the narrative they want to foist upon us...sounds like liberalism to me.
Let the process work, let them debate (but please no more idiotic CNN debates), let them run through primaries and the best candidate will rise to the top.
I hold conservative writers to a high standard; they should focus on accurate observation and balanced analysis, not narrative manipulation.
Rick Perry would definitely get my vote in the primaries. I think a Perry-Bachmann ticket would be just about my favorite among the pool of likely candidates.
All he needs to do is run, and announce ASAP, so he can start getting his name out and build up recognition.
I'd rather have Perry any day rather than Romney--although, as someone said, I'd rather vote for a can of tuna than for Obama.
Shouldn't the term "Compassionate Conservative" be in quotes? It's a made-up seat of the pants philosophy that Bush created between his stints on his mountain bike.
I seem to remember Rich having written an article back in 2008 justifying the TARP slush funds, joining the chorus of Chicken Littles stating that financial ruin was imminent if action was not taken. Maybe I wasn't paying attention, but it was at that moment that his real stripes were revealed. Now I recall why I tend to avoid his columns, though I'm so glad there's a comment field now.
Believe it or not, this is article is a nice companion piece to a Nate Silver article at NYT. Silver notes that a recent CNN poll indicates that libertarian views have been on the rise (the same poll questions have been asked for 15+ years, I think).
I'm optimistic about the decline of "compassionate" conservativism and the slight uptick in support for libertarian ideas. At the same time, the CNN poll also shows that libertarian views were almost as strong in the mid 1990s, before dropping in response to the dot.com implosion and, more significantly, 9/11.
In that mid-to-late 90s climate, George W. Bush got a lot of mileage from "compassionate" conservatism. So, while the climate for "uncompassionate" conservatism and/or libertarianism might be a little more favorable than it was (even in the mid 1990s), we are a very, very long ways from turning the corner on Social Democracy/Welfare State "progressivism."
That said, I don't think the answer is for Republicans to fall all over themselves to capture "centrist" low-information voters.
Mr. Lowry - With all due respect, I must disagree with you. Gov. Perry can simply point to his record in Texas and the number of jobs created there compared to the rest of the country. [That I think will be his strongest selling point to the non-conservative voter.] He can tell the people, all the help the Federal government has given you has not helped you. It has hurt you. If you want jobs, the best bet is for the Federal government to step aside and let the market do its magic.
"If Rick Perry thinks the 10th Amendment is going to have cachet with voters worried about their jobs, their wages, and the value of their homes, he’s been spending too much time at Federalist Society seminars."
It has cachet with me. Tremendous cachet. States' rights versus the federal power grab is the central issue of our times and the central factor in the decline of the Republic.
Beyond getting out of the way and a fair and limited tax policy, I'm not looking to the federal government for "solicitude for the livelihoods of voters".
Follow
