As we’ve discussed in this space, conservatives tend to be more “tribal,” i.e., more concerned about in-group solidarity, than non-conservatives. This is one reason why idiosyncratic liberal thinkers like Will Wilkinson are, despite their emphasis on the welfare-enhancing nature of dynamic market economies, are so hostile to the political right. While my views are in many respects indistinguishable from more libertarian-minded thinkers, I have belatedly realized that I am somewhat more comfortable with “tribal” thinking, per the Haidt thesis, possibly because I have always placed a premium (some would suggest an irrationally high premium) on interpersonal loyalty.
That could be one reason why conservatives tend to be skeptical of party-switchers, particular those who don’t seem sufficiently willing to condemn their erstwhile political allies. During the last presidential election, there was much talk of Sen. McCain choosing Sen. Lieberman as his running mate. The symbolism would have been extraordinarily powerful. Having served as Al Gore running mate in 2008, Lieberman would in effect be saying that the Democratic party was no longer the centrist party for which he had been selected as a standard-bearer. Naturally, this wouldn’t curry favor with left-of-center Democrats, many of whom bitterly opposed Lieberman over his vigorous support of the invasion of Iraq and the broader effort to vanquish Al Qaeda and allied Islamic extremists through the use of military force. But it might have resonated with some small but significant number of independents and Democrats. The trouble, of course, is that Lieberman remained a champion of abortion rights, despite his instinctive cultural conservatism, rooted in his devout religious convictions. This wasn’t necessarily disqualifying for Rudy Giuliani. Yet Giuliani had proven himself, i.e., he had proven his in-group loyalty, by doing battle against constituencies that conservatives see as particularly inimical to their goals and values, and his vigorously confrontational political style demonstrated a keen willingness to take the fight to the left. Lieberman problem, in contrast, is that he seemed sanctimonious, preachy, and, despite his hawkish views, simply weak.
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the truth-telling turncoat role was played by Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who in the 1990s had established the template for Clintonite Third Way populist progressivism as the middle-class-friendly governor of Georgia. Miller’s cultural conservatism and hawkishness were sufficiently deep that he was able to deliver a ferocious stemwinder against Democratic liberalism, perhaps most memorable for his charge that Sen. John Kerry had, through his efforts to starve the military of resources, essentially committed to defending the United States with “spitbaaaaaaaalls!” That is the kind of party-switcher Republicans have been inclined to embrace.
Unfortunately, party-switchers in the vein of Miller aren’t likely to peel off many Democratic voters. Neither are party-switchers in the vein of Lieberman, single-issue voters who seem, fairly or otherwise, as not sufficiently robust. The ideal is to find party-switchers who can unlock the key to new constituencies. Lieberman, in theory, could demonstrate to socially liberal upper-middle-class white voters that backing the GOP was acceptable if you shared its foreign policy views. More narrowly, he offered a signal to religiously observant Jewish voters and voters for whom the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is a key foreign policy issue. Miller represented socially conservative, hawkish Southern white men, a constituency that was already solidly Republican.
But who else? In my column, I reference Susana Martinez, the Republican governor of New Mexico, who was, until the 1990s, a Democrat. Were Martinez to develop a higher national profile, she could, in theory, unlock the key to wooing upwardly-mobile female Mexican American voters concerned about issues like education (her signature issue), wage growth, and crime and disorder. One of my favorite examples of a potent party-switcher is Randy Altschuler, a successful young Jewish American entrepreneur who lost the narrowest congressional race of 2010 in the East End of Long Island. The key thing about Martinez and Altschuler is that neither of them seems to have repudiated their group affiliations. Martinez is quite comfortable with her regional and ethnic identity, and the same is true of Altschuler. Republicans in the Northeast must project that they aren’t conservative Southerners in disguise, but rather that they reflect the cultural style and the priorities of their region. For example, it should be entirely natural for Northeastern Republicans to favor public investment in mass transit, provided it is cost-effective, transparent, and open to competition.
None of this is to suggest that there should be no red lines. During Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign, for example, he insisted that abortion rights should be settled at the state level, a position that much of the GOP can live with. To insist that there should be one-size-fits-all laws prohibiting abortion restrictions during the first trimester would, however, be disqualifying. In a similar vein, a broad support for sustainably low tax rates also seems like a reasonable red line, though of course the sustainably low part is often neglected by Republicans. That is, tax revenues should be high enough to keep the budget deficit at a manageable level over the business cycle — not as low as possible when Republicans are in power while spending levels remain high.
I spend a large part of my column suggesting that Artur Davis, the former Alabama congressman and erstwhile Blue Dog Democrat, should be aggressively wooed by Alabama Republicans, given his apparent openness to running as a Republican in the future. Davis has observed, however, that Alabama Republican primary voters tend to be hostile to party-switchers. In the case of Parker Griffith, I can sympathize. But Davis has the potential to grow the Republican Party, not just in Alabama but nationally, among upwardly mobile voters. Among other things, Davis has acknowledged that vote fraud is a legitimate problem, and not just a racist smokescreen; and he made the case against President Obama’s health system overhaul on the grounds that it was neither well-targeted nor cost-effective. One assumes that Davis would be a moderate Republican, like Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts. And perhaps Alabama Republicans believe they can do better, i.e., they can win statewide office with a more conservative candidate. Richard Shelby, Alabama’s senior senator, was a Democrat until the 1990s, and he has proven staunchly conservative in office. Alabama’s junior senator, Jeff Sessions, is widely considered one of the most right-leaning members of the upper house. Even so, I’d argue that Davis’s party-expanding potential is worth pulling out all the steps to, say, clear a primary field on his behalf.
You can find my column here.