More Election Outfall, the Invisible Primary Continues, and more . . .
There seem to be two narratives flowing from last week’s elections. The first is the turning of the Obama tide, the beginning of the Republican resurgence, and the soon to be end of one party rule in Washington. That is a pretty good tale to tell, although some people do not get it. The other narrative centers on the NY-23 loss for Hoffman and what it means for the Tea Party movement and deep conservatism in general. Depending on who is discussing this later narrative, it is told as , “Well, the Republicans may be alive and kicking, but conservatism is dead,” or “Republicans find themselves in a tough situation and still need to build some unity.”
The coverage of this latter narrative has been extensive, let’s start by linking to a bunch of it, and then discussing it.
- David Brody on GOP ‘crossroads.’
- The Washington Times
- Some great comments from a number of smart people at The Hill’s Congress Blog.
- Henninger discusses the need for leadership (translate “unity”)
- From the left, Eugene Robinson calls it Attack of the Palinites
- At American Thinker, Elliot Schimel discusses Glenn Beck’s Jihad on Moderate Republicans
- In Tampa Bay, they wonder what is going on inside the Republican party
OK, plain talk, the Republican Party is having to redefine itself – that is to be expected in the wake of the kind of losses we suffered in ‘08. The battle over that definition is lining up along conservative and moderate lines. That is unsurprising , since those have been the battle lines in the party for as long as I have been watching. And frankly, the “true conservative” bunch have taken their ball and gone home several times in my life. The last time they did so, they did so behind Ross Perot – and where did that get us? About as far as it got us in ‘08.
The fact of the matter is simple, the heart and soul of the Republican Party is deeply conservative, but the realities of governance require that we act more moderately. See, we’re the smart ones. We don’t do “jam downs” ala the other side of the aisle – we actually try to run the country in the fashion it was designed to be run. If we force conservatism on the general population as much as this bunch is forcing liberalism, we are going to find ourselves suffering the same kind of electoral defeats they just suffered last week.
The energy of the Tea Party activists and the like is good and helpful and it really does represent the heart of the party – but we cannot, I repeat CANNOT, demand instant gratification, it will only result in further set backs. And we cannot, if we do not get that immediate gratification, take our balls and go home, then not only does “true conservatism” lose, but so does moderate conservatism and all that is left is, well, left – and none of us want that.
Which brings me to the question . . .
Is Huckabee Trying to Be Ross Perot?
In what was an amazing (he said cynically) coincidence, Mike Huckabee began his latest book tour last Wednesday – the day after the election. In the latest polling, the Huckster and Romney are more or less neck-and-neck. It should also be noted that Evangelicals played a large role in last week’s Republican victories. Interestingly, analysis from the UK does not even include Huckabee as a potential leader of the Republican party – even if it does include the now tired “Mitt Romney, a Mormon” formulation that has become old hat by now.
So, Huckabee has strong polling and his base was very influential in the most recent election. Sounds like a good place to be in to step up and try and exercise leadership, build unity, and catapult oneself into a genuine spot to win the primaries in ‘12. But when you read accounts of Huckabee’s appearances on the day after the election like
we encounter a Mike Huckabee that seems to want to divide the party. He keeps trying, seemingly, to carve out a place for “true conservatives” (read Evangelicals) when they clearly have a place and it is an important one. One of the Romney blogs is wondering if Huckabee mixes religion and poltiics too much. I do have to say I think he confuses them frequently. His comments in the wake of the election seem aimed far more at making sure “Evangelicals win” (win what, I have no idea) than at making sure Republicans win. That’s sad, because in the end Evangelicals cannot win anything unless Republicans do.
Of everything I have read in the wake of the election, Daniel Henninger’s piece above may be the most salient. Leadership is the key at the moment, for it is only good leadership that can bring about the unity and focus that the party needs. So, what Republicans really need is someone to lead them through a turnaround. Gee. I wonder who has that kind of experience?
Speaking of that someone, he is well-quoted in this lovely op-ed in advance of this Veterans Day. It is particularly relevant given the events of last week in Texas. Our prayers to all.
One more note on the Invisible Primary . . .
Jiggering with the primary schedule has begun. And in Minnesota no less, which I am sure is just a coincidence. (There goes that natural cynicism again.)
Religion and The Issues
Rod Dreher contemplates non-religious opposition to gay marriage and sees hard left, moderate left divide in Democrats like the hard right, moderate right divide in Republicans. He thinks the former may account for why same-sex marriage keeps losing, even in liberal bastions like California and Maine. That is certainly something for those in the hard right to think about.
OK, you just have to love this blog post. It is written by an Evangelical:
This article took me somewhat by surprise. Evangelical critics of Mormonism routinely point out that LDS leaders are quite fond of leaving out and glossing over the objectionable parts of the church’s history—a criticism I wholeheartedly agree with. Yet this article leaves me wondering: how often have we bothered to point those fingers back at ourselves and examine the way we’ve been doing history? How often have we been guilty of the same “whitewashing” which we accuse Mormons of?
That deserves a big “AMEN!”
Finally . . .
. . . Jay Ambrose writes an excellent piece about anti-religious bigotry, and specifically anti-Catholic bigotry. I’ve been seeing discussion in the Evangelical, theological blogosphere lately about whether Catholics were true Christians or not, which when combined with the kind of media nonsense, Ambrose is discussing, makes a pretty ugly picture, and one remarkably similar to what we’ve seen concerning Mormons. I wonder if Evangelicals realize that if the Mormons and Catholics (who are politically quite diverse, but growing increasingly politically conservative) formed a political alliance, said Evangelicals might very well find themselves on the outside looking in?
. . . Bob Weir at American Thinker wonders if religion is the last bastion of civilization. I tend to agree with him, and then I am frightened that inter-religious competition might be the force that sets religion to the side and truly ends civilization.
Some added thoughts from Lowell . . . 
First, I am a happy conservative but I don’t think conservatives own the Republican party. We are the base and the party cannot succeed without us, so conservatism deserves to predominate as the riving ideology of the party. At the same time, we can’t win national elections without some moderate and independent support. There just aren’t enough of us. That’s why this David Brody comment makes so much sense:
If conservative candidates are going to win, you have to have the correct type of candidate. For example, Ronald Reagan was a die-hard conservative but he didn’t come across as a fire-breathing angry guy. He had a natural and sensible appeal that went beyond his conservative policies. You can’t expect to run a Tom Tancredo type candidate and expect a conservative to win district after district. It may work in select districts but it is not a national strategy.
The next Republican leader is going to have to be more like Reagan, at least temperamentally, than like Glenn Beck or Laura Ingraham. I am reluctant to say this, but religion-based candidates tend toward the type of pulpit-pounding that conjures up the type of angry temperament that turns voters off. Think Jesse Jackson — and maybe Mike Huckabee, when he really gets going.
Second, Henninger’s piece is the most important of the bunch John links to:
Just as the Democrats in 2008 ran mainly against “Bush,” the Republican political model seems to be to let Democratic failure dump states like New Jersey and Virginia into their control. But I think most voters, no matter their party registration, know that in the past 12 months the stakes for them have suddenly become larger than political “control.”
I am sure Mitt Romney read these comments. I hope all the other Republican hopefuls did as well – and that they take the message to heart.
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 09 Nov 2009 at 10:00 am #
From this conservative’s view from the fever-swamp, Huckabee’s playing identity politics has less to do with intentionally dividing the Republican Party (except perhaps as to carve Romney out of the herd, so to speak) than keeping up a smoke-screen over the very important fact that, despite his values-conservative bona fides, his record as governor doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as a fiscal conservative by any stretch of the imagination. It is an effective diversionary tactic that keeps his core supporters distracted, even if it leaves him more as a spoiler than a contender (whatever the poll numbers may be saying right not–which, IMO, is “not much that’s relevant”).