I’ve made a disturbing discovery: I am a member of the conservative “establishment.” I feel like Michael Douglas at the end of Falling Down: “I’m the bad guy?”
Largely in response to the real and perceived excesses of the Bush years and the overreach of the Obama administration, the base has become more populist. In particular, the rank and file of the GOP and the conservative movement have become deeply disenchanted with what they see as the rubber-spined, foot-dragging quislings drinking from a trough of Chablis at some Georgetown party. The term “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) has become an epithet of ideological enforcement, spit out in much the same way Mao cursed “running dog capitalists.”
Advertisement
In 2010, the tea parties and the conservative base (not always synonymous terms) tried to cull as many RINOs from the herd as they could in the primaries. They were extremely successful, with only a few stumbles.
Things are messier this time around. And to some extent this is to be expected. Presidential primaries rely on much larger pools of voters than primaries in midterms. Moreover, rather than a single Tea Party candidate challenging a worn-out incumbent, the field has had lots of candidates seeking the Tea Party or “true conservative” mantle.
Each of them has tried to play the populist card, not just against the liberal media establishment but also against the so-called conservative establishment. “I believe it is a deliberate attempt to damage me because I am not, quote unquote, the establishment choice,” explained Herman Cain when asked about his troubles.
Though he never intended any of this, Mitt Romney is largely to blame for the anti-establishment tumult. Somehow, he has managed to become the Arlen Specter of the 2012 field. (Specter is conservative-speak for “demon RINO from hell.” You’re supposed to spit on the ground after you say “Arlen Specter.” Ptooey.)
In 2008, Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain, earning endorsements not just from National Review but from many titans of right-wing talk radio — Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham. Now Limbaugh insists that support for Romney proves that “the Republican establishment does not want a conservative getting the nomination.” Erick Erickson, a CNN contributor and editor of the conservative site RedState, says that if Romney is the nominee, “Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins.”
I would argue that populism, particularly in the context of American politics, is not, never has been, nor never can be "conservative."
The Populist Party of the 1890s. The Greenback Party. The Progressive Party of 1912 led by Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party of 1924 led by Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and the Share Our Wealth movement of Huey Long in 1933–35. George Wallace's "American Independent Party." Ross Perot's Reform Party.
And Ron Paul's Tea Party / Occupy Wall Street 'movement," truly a populist thing to all populist peoples.
All populist, all left-wing. None conservative.
Which is why we've got Ron "I promoted gingivitis in anti-Semites by taking their toothpaste money" Paul, Rick "Hillarycare was a great idea and TARP even better" Perry, Herman "Jesse Jackson's lawyers say I need a promotion" Cain, and Michelle "Obama's stimulus is my kind of Keynesian scheming" Bachmann presently postulating themselves "conservative" and failing miserably, at least in the eyes of this conservative.
One would get the impression that the Tea Party dislikes Mitt Romney because, bless his moderate heart, he's not quite left-wing enough for them. It certainly would explain their gung-ho willingness to shut down the borders rather than say, oh I don't know, shut down an entitlement program?
[Psst. Obama cutting $500 Billion out of Medicare is not a bad thing. Obama not turning that $500 Billion into a tax cut is.]
I think the wheels will finally come off the ridiculous and absurd presumption that "Tea Party" = "conservative."
What else but a left-wing "movement" would try to pass off the volatile mix of nudge-and-wink racist furtiveness (Ron Paul), shrill "Christian" dyspepsia (Michelle Bachmann), "bankrupt" billionaire advocates of increased taxation on the middle and lower classes (Donald Trump), Hillarycare and TARP cheerleading (Rick Perry), and up-by-his-Rainbow PUSH-lawfare-bootstraps tokenism (Herman Cain) as a conservative endeavor?
Thomas Nast could hardly caricaturize and strawman actual conservatism more cruelly in the media than the "former Democrats" that created and populated the Tea Party "movement" have on their own, misspelled homemade placards and all.
Romney having been "the conservative alternative to John McCain" is a classic example of being damned with faint praise. Or, in the case of the previous endorsements cited, praised with faint damnation.
Jonah, Every time I think the grass roots are going overboard about the establishment people, I am brought up short by a comment from Georgette Mosbacher (sounding very much like Leona Helmsley) saying "We all know who's going to be the nominee, don't we?"
The reason people think there is an establishment is because of comments like this, or Karl Rove's unnecessary trashing of Christine O'Donnell after she won the primary, or any one of dozens of snarky comments from people like Steve Schmidt or other political consultants.
Perhaps if those who are in DC and New York would make the effort to speak diplomatically and with courtesy to those of us out here in the Midwest and South, maybe people wouldn't be so defensive and conspiratorial. I am not talking about you personally.
Sorry, Jonah, but Romney was only the begrudging choice of actual conservatives late in the primary process, as someone who, because of his slender record, *might* be a smidge more conservative than McCain was known to be.
Fred Thompson was supposed to have been the relatively late entry so there would be at least a little more conservative candidate (besides possibly Duncan Hunter, who wasn't going anywhere, Alan Keyes, who was a wackjob, and Ron Paul, who was Ron Paul). But then it became clear that in his lack of energy, he was in to help 'his friend' John McCain, just as Bachmann and and Cain clearly have not been far from the Romney strategists this time around.
The problem then has got only worse: what GOP prospects we have tend to, through their experience, be thoroughly co-opted by the big-government Republicanism that the party has seen fail under two Bushes now.
The issue isn't that conservative activists are pining for a candidate to the right of their constituents, it is that so many of our conservative pols and, yes, established 'conservative pundits, (ahem, ahem) are to the left of Republican voters.
If you don't see the problem that we have when the voters through an organized, but effective, tea party rebellion only to have Boehner and McConnell subvert the will of the new cost-cutting legislators, then perhaps it is time for you to give up the conservative moniker and join the likes of David Frum and Jennifer Rubin. I only ask that you be more honest than they and assign the 'moderate' label for yourself.
I was with you until you implied that Jonah Goldberg is as moderate as David Frum and Jennifer Rubin. That is simply not so. It might be so of some writers at NRO, but it is not some of Jonah Goldberg.
I also think some of the new active tea party conservatives are about as conservative as David Frum and Jennifer Rubin. They are CINOs; the former because they have not thought enough about their political philosophies, and the latter because they are liars.
The republican establishment is the ruling class. Look at the senate R's. Look at the house R's. Not a whole lot of intersection in those two sets.
All of the establishment, R's and D's, need to be replaced. Once they're "in", it's all about staying "in". Then it's all about the Benjamins (money). How else do you explain Pelosi, Boxer, Clinton and the other "1%" that got to that percentage while in public office?
No, the conservative establishment is useless unless it stands for conservative ideas. The 'nation' will decide, one way or the other whether that is the best path forward.
I saw Charles Krauthammer on Fox denying the very existence of a Republican Establishment so I guess that's a bad word. NRO used to be an every morning automatic for me, but lately I've become increasingly put off by the sound of the Chardonnay swirling I hear in the background.
I am so very tired of being offered a choice between two or three wishy-washy candidates for president. We have a golden opportunity to put a staunch conservative leader who can try to reverse the effects of BHO II in office and this is the best we've got?
Sir I believe you are the confused one. The group we are opposing is Washinton establishment ruling classers, not the conservative establishment.
I'm mostly referring to the dreadful US SENATE GOP lifers who party and play golf with Dems, attend the same parties and their wives are besties.
These are far worse than RINOS. This naive magician actually believes his magic and condescendingly explains it to the poor idiot voters who are so 'outside the beltway' they can't possibly know what's best for them.
These people no longer have any interest in their home states---they would never move back there as they have cut most ties to that cold, awful place except those that are politically expedient every 6 years during the reelection cycles.
These people and their favorite lobbiests like Trent Lott are no longer conservative public servants repersenting their state, they are power mongers and wealth brokers whose goal is to attain as much personal wealth as possible before either their voters get wise and throw them out or they decide to retire to a warm climate on a beach.
The American people see and know the Senate and its ilk are the problem. Mitt Romney too is one if them--hand picked to lead them to more riches while disregarding issues that must be addressed for the successful future of our country.
So as you're writing about the internal struggles of the GOP candidates, be sure you know who the enemies are because we voters certainly do. Those people know who they are and should be expecting pink slips next November.
I believe Jonah's off the mark when he writes, "In 2008, Romney was the conservative alternative to John McCain."
He wasn't. He positioned himself as *A* conservative candidate, but he wasn't *THE* conservative candidate. Rudy wasn't conservative on social issues, and Huckabee wasn't fiscally conservative, but they drew conservative blocs for various conservative reasons. Only Fred Thompson was a credible, accross-the-board Reaganite, and he ran a tepid campaign. Romney TRIED to check off every box in the conservative agenda, but I don't think he ever did so plausibly.
The reason conservatives like Limbaugh supported Romney was because of the unpalatable campaign of John McCain. Romney was the last man standing in the Anybody-but-McCain horserace, and that outcome doesn't suddenly make him a principled conservative.
Or, if it does, the same logic would apply to Gingrich or Paul, if one of them emerges as the last man positioning himself as the conservative alternative to Romney.
--
The broader point, that the conservative establishment has moved right, may well be true, but:
1) Has the chasm between the base and the establishment still widened? I'd say yes: with the Tea Party, the base moved (say) three miles to the right, but the establishment has maybe only moved a mile to the right.
2) Has the establishment moved sufficiently rightward to diagnose the problem of big government and prescribe a strong enough medicine to avoid the entirely predictable catastrophe that's coming? I'd say no. That Steyn and McCarthy are such bracing writers isn't just a testament to their rhetorical skills; it suggests that they're still the exception to the rule that the conservative establishment is still too comfortable with the idea of managing Leviathan and making reform around the edges.
Jonah writes:
"What’s harder to understand is how nobody has noticed that the conservative establishment, which includes many of my friends denouncing it, has become vastly more conservative over the last two decades. It’s more pro-life, more pro–Second Amendment, more opposed to tax increases."
It's inarguably become more conservative on certain issues, but the biggest issue is the growth of government -- not just tax increases, per se, but more spending, more borrowing, more regulations, and more entitlement programs. The establishment isn't vocally united behind the removal of Bush's health care entitlement (prescription drugs), and it has no problem running a candidate who is in the worst position to argue forcefully against Obamacare.
Steyn wrote a few months back, "A majority of the citizenry seem to agree that the nation’s mired and that their homes and jobs and futures are sinking with it. But that same majority is not yet sold on transformative rollbacks of government and the public sector."
Well, how forcefully is the conservative establishment advocating that transformative rollback?
And, while the establishment is more staunchly pro-life, it has become positively squishy about the definition of marriage.
Late last year, Jonah Goldberg himself described Judeo-Christian sexual ethics as both immoral AND irrational, writing that he finds it "cruel and absurd to tell gays that living the free-love lifestyle is abominable while at the same time telling them that their committed relationships are illegitimate too."
Jonah himself believes in the "inevitability" of the radical redefinition of marriage, when Buckley urged us to stand athwart history yelling Stop. He shouldn't be surprised that the base isn't singing the establishment's praises for drifting rightward on a few issues.
Compared to McCain it didn't take much to qualify as "the conservative candidate." I think Bill Buckley would have been ashamed to the hit piece the editors of NR did on Newt. How have the mighty fallen.
They took away my Sarah Palin and part of the reason is that many in conservative punditry thought she was not electable. I don't know why Michelle Bachmann hasn't caught fire but some of the reason is the way the msm and some of our guys have lampooned her. It looks like Perry isn't going to work and I am still angry at Santorum for vehemently backing Specter over Toomey or Toomey might be running for president now as a successful Senator, highly intelligent, responsible, and with excellent business and executive experience.
So it looks like it is down to Gingrich and Romney. So what do our guys do just as Gingrich is taking it to Obama and company? They assume the only electable guy is Romney and he is our best hope with their big headline attaacking Gingrich.
Well, I hope our pundits are satisfied with themselves because if I wanted class warfare and redistribution of wealth, I can keep Obama. Here is our accommodating candidate who seeks common ground with the left in congress. Here are some excerpts of Romney on Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE, "
WALLACE: Governor Romney, at long last, welcome back to FOX NEWS SUNDAY.
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks, Chris. Good to be with you.
ROMNEY: ...Leaders actually spend time meeting with people on the other side of the aisle, understand their needs, understand their concerns, get their input and look for some way to find common ground. Not to violate their own principles or to insist that the opposition violates its principles, but instead, finding places where there's common ground upon which to build.
And this president instead has gone to the people and attacked. It's been a constant attack either against Republicans or against people in the business world or whatever group he somehow feels is opposed to his agenda.
The right course for any leader is to work with other people. Good Democrats love America. Good Republicans love America. We need a leader who understands not just the words of unity, but the practice of building unity.
WALLACE: On the other hand, the president says he rescued the country from the great -- another Great Depression. He killed Osama bin Laden and he says you and your party would restore policies that caused the financial meltdown in the first place.
ROMNEY: It's great rhetoric. But again, it's just -- it's hollow. First of all, he was not the reason that the economy hit bottom and then begins to recover.
We have gone through recessions before. He made this one worse. And he made the recovery more tepid.
I get the chance to speak with business leaders of big and small businesses, largely small. And I say to them -- do any of you believe that the policies of this administration have helped you be more successful in your enterprise and hire more people? I don't see a single hand go up when I ask that to an audience. His policies have hurt, not helped.
With regards to Osama bin Laden, we're delighted that he gave the order to take out Osama bin Laden, any president would have done that. But this one did and that's a good thing.
I'm not going to say everything he's done is wrong. But with regards to the economy, almost anything he's done made it more difficult for this economy to reboot.
WALLACE: Before you face the president, of course, you have to win the Republican nomination and you have in recent days been escalating your attacks against your main competitor in the polls, Speaker Gingrich. You now say he's zany, he's an unreliable leader in the conservative world, he lacks the temperament.
What's your basic argument against Newt Gingrich?
ROMNEY: Well, we're different and the campaign is about pointing out differences.
I mean, for instance, the great issue that has been brought before this Congress with a new Republican Congress is, are we going to deal with entitlement reform or not? And Republicans came together and proposed a program to make sure that Medicare is sustainable. Paul Ryan was the author of the plan but almost every single Republican in Congress voted for it and the world watched to see, OK, are we going to have progress?
And the speaker said this is right wing social engineering. I mean, talk about unreliable. At a critical time, he cut the legs out from underneath a very important message.
The same was true with regards to cap and trade. This was being battled on Capitol Hill and the speaker sat down with Nancy Pelosi and spoke in favor of legislation dealing with climate change. He has been unreliable in those settings and zany, I wouldn't think you'd call mirrors in space to light highways at night particularly practical or a lunar colony a practical idea. Not at a stage like this.
WALLACE: Are you prepared for a long, bitter primary battle all the way to the convention?
ROMNEY: I hope we don't have that. But my guess is that's certainly a possibility. We now have adopted the Democratic Party's approach for allocating the early delegates on a proportional basis. And we watched what happened when the Democrats did that. Their primary process went on for a long, long time.
So, we are prepared. If we go on for months and months, we will have the resources to carry a campaign, to each of the states that will decide who gets delegates and who becomes the nominee.
WALLACE: One of the knocks against you is that at a time when Republican voters want dramatic change, that you are offering fine tuning. (Freedom says, yes exactly)
Let's start with taxes. Rick Perry calls for a 20 percent flat tax. Newt Gingrich has a 15 percent plan.
You would keep the top tax rate at 35 percent. And in contrast to most of your rivals, you would not lower the tax on capital gains and dividends for anyone making more than $200,000 a year.
Question: aren't you basically right there with Barack Obama, the rich should pay more?
ROMNEY: No, I'm just saying don't raise taxes on anyone. I want to make sure that with the precious dollars we have, that we can provide tax relief, that those dollars go to middle income Americans. (freedom says how is it not raising taxes on anyone if you allow the top rate to go back to 35% and how is this not redistribution of wealth and Obama lite?)
The people who have been hurt in the Obama economy are not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing just fine. (freedom says, I used to feel much better off than I do now and I got hurt big time for the first time since I began saving, so what is he talking about?) The people that have been hurt are the people in the middle class so I focus those precious dollars that we have, I focus that on the middle class. (freedom says, and how is that not redistribution of wealth and supporting class envy? How is this a conservative model?)
WALLACE: What's wrong with the 15 percent flat tax or the 20 percent flat tax? You're keeping the top rate for the wealthy at 35 percent.
ROMNEY: Look, I would love to see a tax system which brings down rates, which is more broad-based tax system which eliminates some of the deductions and exemptions. The Bowles-Simpson plan, for instance, I think has a lot to speak for it. And I'll work on a plan of that nature.
The policies that I've seen put forward of that nature have represented dramatic reductions in tax for the very highest income people. I'm not looking to dramatically reduce taxes for the wealthiest in our society, (freedom asks anyone earning over $200,000?) not that there's anything wrong with being wealthy. I'm pleased to have done very well myself. You understand that. Others do.
But my intent in running for president is to help middle income Americans and a plan that dramatically cuts taxes for the very, very wealthiest is in my opinion not the right course. (freedom says and who is he describing as the very, very wealthiest?)
Freedom now says what gets me is not one person in the discussion at the end of the program brought up this very unconservative type of thinking. So how are those panelists different from the msm? Whose side are they on? This is Fox News yet.
And is this what NR wants us to have as our standard bearer? Is it any wonder that Romney is not a tea party favorite? I know all of Gingich's flaws. But he is taking it to the left and doing a good job of it. With a good congress and with the Tea Party yapping at his heels, he would accomplish more to set this country right in two years than Romney any day. And I believe he is more electable than Romney, too.
As a Reagan-style Republican, I stand opposed to Rockefeller-style politicians like Romney.
That's why Newt shines and Romney stays well into the background. He's doing his best to be visible without committing to anything at all.
If Romney's positions were astounding and beautiful and earth-shaking (heck, if they were even sensible), I am sure that the Establishment Republicans would be trumpeting them from the heights.
Instead, we've heard next to nothing about MR's positions.
It took a reader, freedom, to tell us what he's actually saying.
Don't you wonder why we've not read front-page stories about the wisdom of Mitt Romney?
What's hard to understand about the establishment failing to stop the debt limit from being raised without cutting federal spending, or agreeing to a "super commitee" that was doomed from the get-go, or demanding that the Senate pass a budget(what about that McConnell?) or other failed opportunites that was not challenged?
We are sinking like the Titanic and all we see is the federal government rearranging the deck chairs. That's why conservatives want a real conservative candidate to vote for in 2012.
Follow
