As the race for the Republican nominee has kicked off over the past few months, I’ve experienced strangeness and growing horror. A sense of alienation within my own party probably accounts for the strange feeling. The horror likely comes from realizing that if we don’t make the right choice in 2012, we could be in for a second term of Obama.
Advertisement
There was, of course, the embarrassment of Donald Trump, whose nutty birtherism seemed to give him entrée as a Republican contender. There’s been the rise of Michele Bachmann — a very talented politician, but the ability to get lots of media attention does not necessarily a good candidate make. (See Palin, Sarah.) The two candidates who actually have the most potential mass appeal — Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman — have been savaged most viciously by their own, Romney having run-ins with El Rushbo (who called Romney “out of step”) and Huntsman seemingly anathema to so-called conservatives who deride his service as ambassador to China under Obama, instead of appreciating that a competent and conservative public servant served our country at a flashpoint posting. Is this attempt to drive moderates to extinction, I wondered, going to prevent us from retaking the White House?
Anxiety is in the air. David Brooks put his finger on it when he questioned whether or not the GOP was still a “normal” political party. He categorized the tea party as more of a “psychological protest than a practical alternative to governing.” It might be tempting to dismiss Brooks’s column as another example of the longstanding tensions between the Huckabee-hating Beltway elites and the tea-party rankand file. But that would be missing the larger point. What Brooks described, and what the 2012 field has shown us so far, is really an ongoing fight over the party’s future viability, i.e., its very identity. It’s pretty clear right now who is winning the fight — and unfortunately, it’s not David Brooks, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, or even Tim Pawlenty.
With this in mind, I was excited to read an insightful and important book by Margaret Hoover called American Individualism. Hoover, a 34-year-old conservative commentator and great-granddaughter of Herbert Hoover (you’ve probably seen her on The O’Reilly Factor; disclosure alert, she’s also a friend) has written a manifesto calling for a major course correction. To attract the next generation of Republicans, Hoover says, we need to re-brand conservatism or risk extinction.
Hoover nails how Millennials — that next generation of voters, ages 18 to 29 — view the GOP’s brand as almost exclusively socially conservative. She discusses what she calls “conservative tribalism,” the labels — neocon, crunchy con, paleocon, lib-con, and theocon — that are tearing the party apart in the absence of a unifying leader. She points out that when Millennials look at the infighting, they see only the most socially conservative ideas winning. But if we were to focus on conservative principles embodying individual and economic freedom, we could actually tap into this fifth of the electorate. Hoover’s message is that there are conservative issues that should be a priority — such as education reform, expanding legal immigration, and combating radical Islam — and there are those that should not — fighting gay rights, pushing intelligent design, or denying climate change.
Hoover’s book is not going to make her the darling of religious conservatives, to be sure. In fact, she’s likely to become a target for what she dubs the “RINO hunters,” hunters of that elusive species, the Republican in Name Only. But she reminds us that many conservative heroes embraced by all the tribes, from tea partiers to neocons — heroes like Frederick Hayek, Irving Kristol, and Milton Friedman — weren’t social conservatives at all. They’d be targets of the RINO hunters, too. She points out that Reagan himself was very “impure” — he raised taxes, left Lebanon, and cut deals with Tehran — yet he was still the most successful conservative president — thanks to his pragmatism, not in spite of it.
So let’s be on the lookout for the next Reagan, not the next Trump. He or she is not likely to be found among the candidates the tea party finds most desirable (who are mostly unelectable) . With the debate over the debt ceiling raging in Washington, we have the chance to change course. There’s no culture to defend if the economy implodes because conservatives let ideological principle get in the way of the reality of governing, which seemed to be the tea party’s modus operandi last week.
By pandering too much in the run-up to 2012, we will not only lose an election. We’ll also lose the battle for conservative principles that can rebuild our government and country. It’s becoming a hard argument to win over disaffected Obama supporters who are disillusioned with his inability to stand for anything — be it gay marriage or the half-hearted, inept withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan — and keep the Millennials on board who want to vote Republican. It’s the cure for what ails the party, and for the moment, me.
— Elise Jordan is a New York‒based writer and commentator. She served as a director for communications in the National Security Council in 2008 and 2009 and was a speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This is a bit of a tired argument, isn't it? Don't you moderates ever learn? We hear this every four years. Frum and Brooks proclaimed it in 2008. "The death of conservativism as we know it, or the death of the Republican Party!" How'd that work out all of two years later?
Additionally, wasn't it the "unifying" MODERATE leader who had his lunch handed to him by the this disaster of a president? If you want to unify all conservatives, you find a candidate who will represent all their interests, not just a sliver while telling the social cons they will just have to hold their noses and pull the "R" lever. Talk about a way to destroy a party! Try again.
Ah. Yes. Because if there is one thing that history has taught us, it is that we can trust our Moderates to hold the line against destructive spending.
No, no, wait. That's the OPPOSITE of what we've learned. What is it with New York Republicans, anyway? There seems to be something in the water up there.
Too many tendentious points to try to correct here. I'll just point out that the fact that some poorly-observing 18 year-olds may see conservatism as only a collection of socons does not mean it is conservatism that has to change. It means that such 18 to 29 year-olds need to grow up and see conservatism for what it already is, a big-tent movement that includes socons and libertarians and other disparate wings but is ultimately held together by bedrock conservative principles.
It's not surprising that some, by no means all, young voters out there have proven to be credulous and have bought into the left's spin that all the GOP is about is trying to outlaw drinking and dancing. But for conservatism to base its future strategy on its rivals' false slurs would be the height of stupidity.
Yawn. Another article by a social leftist (self-styled moderate) who wants what, a tax break?
If the Republicans dump social conservatives, and by that I include a lot of otherwise nondescript folks, then there's no reason for them not to go Democratic and forget about the Republicans.
You see, a lot of socially conservative folk are not particularly big on guns, foreign intervention, and free-market economics in the sense that big business wants it. Toss out values, and that's about all that's left of the Republicans.
Alas, social conservatives find themselves represented by certain religions, or lifestyles (ranchers, etc.) that show a limited perspective.
She is right about the fight, wrong about some of the issues involved. But, cut this part of the electorate some slack, they were educated in an environment that was hostile to conservatism.
The more this group grapples with the economic fallout of the LBJ legacy and the leftist agenda, the more receptive they are to conservative alternatives.
And, the more we educate and listen to this group, the less the timebombs of the past 40 year culture wars will matter. When they take control of the political strings, the more culturally divisive issues, such as gay rights and abortion, will be negligible in light of combating radical Islam.
So we're not going to pander but we need to "rebrand" conservatism for Millennials? I grant you, certain Tea Party candidates have electability issues. That is more due to the fact that the Tea Party is attracting people who have little political experience, yet feel threatened by what is happening to our country. To think that we can solve the problems we face with a new PR campaign (as if that hasn't be done before, see Compassionate Conservatism), is ludicrous.
Don't you understand? The more we water down, the more they demonize us. The more we compromise, the more they take. They never give up. Ever. They will lie, cheat and do anything to maintain their power. We don't need slick, reasonable moderate candidates who can lull the electorate to sleep but who in the end are just a little less diabolical.
The other side hates us and wants to destroy us. What part of that don't you get? What we need is truth, spoken from the housetops until every conservative in America is hoarse, and every Millennial and member of every disparate group understands what we are facing.
As one poster on another forum put it, "If we can't get a conservative on the ticket this time, we might as well let them nuke us and get it over with." There are a large number of people in this country who will not take it anymore. We may have differences on the edges regarding social issues and foreign policy, but we agree that government is out of control. It's going to take all the strength, power, persuasion, passion and everything we have to get back the liberty promised to us in the Constitution. So either get on the freedom train or get off. There is no middle ground anymore.
The solution to social issues is good, old-fashioned federalism. Let those states which wish to allow abortion, gay marriage and so forth have them. Let those that don't want them not have them. It's as simple as that. If the state of New York wants to decide that human life begins at age five they are welcome to slaughter all the four-year-olds they want. It's none of my affair; I am not a New Yorker.
We need an end to nation building, and end to policing the world and a new isolationism. We need to protect our borders and expel every single illegal immigrant, thus giving our citizens a raise. We then need to inform the world that anyone who takes the ACT or SAT test and scores in the top decile automatically qualifies for citizenship.
Put America first and respect the right of the citizens of the sovereign states to govern themselves. Who can be opposed?
It's interesting to read the apocalyptical tone of some the comments here. It seems like a good chunk of readers of NR would agree with the overall sweep of the analysis below, if not the exact details (in short, right-wingers would rather destroy America if they can't be in control): External Link
Probably instead of "a good chunk" of NRO folks agreeing with your absurd Amanda article, it would be much more accurate to say "none of" the NRO folks would agree with that drivel.
Let me try again since my original reply seems lost in cyberspace...
Individual freedom and individual responsibility go hand-in-hand. One does not exist without the other. How can you expect people to behave with your money when these same people operate outside a defined moral (i.e. "social") code? Or, at best, in their own self-absorbed moral code, which varies greatly within the spectrum of DC "moral" codes?
This consistent attempt to separate social and fiscal Conservatives is lame. You miss the simplest definition of a true Conservative in the attempt.
Keep trying to separate the two. You're only making yourself an easier target for this particular RINO hunter.
Sorry, I have to disagree with this author for the most part.
1) As another commenter noted, going "moderate" doesn't help, we're still demonized by the Left. the NY GOP and gay marriage is a great example, what Dems are going to vote for one of the turncoat GOP senators? None, they'll just vote for a Dem who supports gay marriage.
2) In many cases one can make a strong argument that fiscal and social conservatism go hand-in-hand.
3) We've been doing the whole "moderate" thing for a long-time with the end result being the country goes left under a Dem administration and slightly less left under a GOP administration.
Conservatives are saying it is now or never. We need to stand up for our principles and fight for them and shift this country to the Right. I would argue that maybe conservatives could do a better job of explaining their principles (fiscal and social) and convincing people they are correct. Giving them up however, will not help.
cypher20, you get to the heart of the matter when you say conservatives need to do a better job of explaining their principles. Too many of them (and too many commenters) see reaching out as a false choice, a matter of pivoting off their principles. It is no such thing. It's a matter of communication--finding the words to sell what they believe to an audience who is not very familiar with it. What to say to millennials is pretty simple, actually, provided you believe it: Big government is outmoded and useless, freedom is the wave of the future. McCotter gets this--check him out.
The GOP needs to replace its older white Christian voters who have a nasty habit of dying (don't we all!), and the demographics are not favorable (to the Tea-Party/Evangelicals). By 2050 white Christians will comprise less than 50% of the population, so who will the GOP represent?
You bring an interesting point about how social conservatives view freedom. From the point of view of liberals, socons believe in the freedom of following traditional values and nothing else. Hence why Jim DeMint can wax poetic about liberty from one side of his mouth and contend that unmmarried, sexually-active women should not be allowed to teach children from the other. By the same token, right-wingers believe that allowing same-sex marriage is an encroachment on their freedom and have nothing but contempt for the ACLU. To sum up, socons only believe in freedom that they like, which is not freedom at all.
1. "what Dems are going to vote for one of the turncoat GOP senators? None, they'll just vote for a Dem who supports gay marriage."
Imagine a gay voter who agrees with the Republican economic policy but recoils from its anti-gay stance. Why wouldn't passing gay marriage make that voter less averse to the GOP? Now, that voter may also be against preemptive war, be pro choice, pro amnesty etc. But it's weird to argue that the policy has zero impact on voting preferences, especially at the local level.
2) "In many cases one can make a strong argument that fiscal and social conservatism go hand-in-hand."
I'd be interested to hear more details. To me the whole right-wing fusionism is a way for the business elite to push its narrow-minded economic agenda (i.e. tax cuts for the rich, economic pain for everyone else).
3. "We've been doing the whole "moderate" thing for a long-time"
You can say a lot of things about George W. Bush, but moderate is certainly not one of them.
Consider:
1. Huge tax cuts for the rich
2. A preemptive, hugely controversial war in Iraq
3. Hard-line right-wing judges
4. Gutting business regulations and environment protections
5. Massive increase in the defense budget
6. Global Gag Rule
7. Ban on stem-cell research
8. "Partial birth" abortion ban
I think you'd agree that none of that is left-wing in the least bit. And I'm sure in retrospect right-wingers like certain policies more than others, but to argue that this is not part and parcel of the right-wing agenda is bizarre. Oh, it's true that Bush also presided over NCLB, AIDS aid and Medicare Prescription drugs, but 1. that's small change in comparison to the rest and 2. the drugs program was written by lobbyists to maximize business profits and 3. was probably quite essential for Bush's reelection prospects (consider how close Kerry was to winning, and now imagine a bunch of disgrunted old voters staying home).
Wow. I don't want to keep you from your Antropology class, so I'll be brief.
"1. Huge tax cuts for the rich"
I got a tax cut, too, and I'm far from rich. Also, these cuts were extended by...well, you know.
"2. A preemptive, hugely controversial war in Iraq"
Actually, since Iraq had fired at UN aircrews, you might say it was simply the logical extension of Gulf War I. Also, GWB got an authorization from Congress to proceed with the war (something that seems almost quaint now), and had the support of both parties. The Dems had looked at the same intel, and drawn the same conclusions about the need.
"3. Hard-line right-wing judges"
Hard line right wing judges and justices simply use, as the basis for their decisions, the rule of law and the Constitutionality of those laws. Hard line left wing judges make up the law as they go. Which do you prefer: A system wherein you can, through your elected representatives and with popular sentiment work to change laws with which you disagree; or a system wherein you must suffer the whims of unelected persons who shape the laws in any manner they see fit?
"4. Gutting business regulations and environment protections"
This guy signed the frappin' lightbulb elimination law, for crying out loud. He reversed an Executive Order that allowed arseneic levels in water....to be what is found IN NATURE.
"5. Massive increase in the defense budget"
My guess is that you were about 5 when it happened, but waaaay back in September of 2001, something very big happened that resulted in the need for some additional expenses.
"6. Global Gag Rule"
Ya got me. No idea what this refers to.
"7. Ban on stem-cell research"
Oy. There was no ban on stem cell research. If you're going to squawk about something, at least know what you're squawking about. He prohibited the use of federal funding for the creation and destruction of new embryonic stem-cell lines. That is VERY different from what you are (falsely) implying.
"8. "Partial birth" abortion ban"
Ever see a "preemie"? That is, a baby born in the third trimester, but well before full term? In this country, they have an excellent chance of survival. (Our infant mortality rate is actually skewed, since we consider ultra-premature children in our calculations, since they at least have a chance on ex-utero. Medical types will deliver them anyway and work to help them live.)
Those kids can live out of womb, given decent medical care....or unless someone inserts scissors into the base of their skulls as they're being delivered, and then vacuums out their little brains. THAT is partial borth abortion. No way to sugar coat it. Not a part of a woman's body at all; an actual human being capable of survival ex-utero has its brain sucked out.
Please explain to me why "the Left" has no moral quandry with this. Please explain to me how anyone with an ounce of humanity can understand what this practice entails and not be mortified, repulsed, and apoplectic about it.
Well, if that's the case then explain to me why right-wingers are so nonchalant about America' potentially first ever financial defualt at a time of a global recession and jittery markets.
So what you're saying is that in order to soothe finncial markets, which have been warning the USA to get it's debt under control, the USA needs to add another $2 Trillion to its debt? Right. Furthermore, the party that's telling everyone they will not allow this w/o bringing spending into line is being non-chalant? But the POTUS who submitted a budget 3 months ago that was so ridiculous it was voted down in the Senate 97-0 is serious? Or Maybe the Dems who haven't passed a budget in 2 years are the serious ones?
Interesting, because the folks I know on Wall St all say the exact opposite and are scared to death of another Obama term. But hey, what you read on HuffPost or Daily Kos carries much more weight than what Moody's, the IMF or Wall St financial folks are saying.
This argument isn't going to get any traction with the base for another three or four election cycles, at which point the new generational realities will have grown too stark to ignore. Of course by then it will be too late.
You cannot be serious. This article is so poorly reasoned that it should embarrass the author.
Time for another McCain candidate BS should cause the author to hide in shame for saying something so risible in public.
