« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

“Self-Destructive Conservatism”

Why the GOP Should Not Support the Stimulus

This content requires the most recent version of the Adobe Flash Player. Get this version below:
Get Flash

Charlie Cook has an article up in which he decides conservatives are self-destructive.

A fellow who oversees lobbying in all 50 states for a major corporation recently told me about a certain Republican U.S. senator up for re-election in 2010, someone generally regarded as fairly conservative who might face a serious challenge from a very conservative fellow Republican. The incumbent has not been tainted by scandal, has never embarrassed himself by making a major mistake, is highly regarded in Washington, and is considered a very effective senator.

I was dumbfounded. Although it isn’t hard to see why a moderate Republican such as Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter could face a conservative primary challenge, it is difficult to understand why a conservative Republican would be challenged from the right. This is a party in danger of cannibalizing itself. . . .

And it means that GOP primaries, particularly in open-seat races, will be even more likely than in the past to nominate ideologues. The party’s contraction and rightward movement have become self-perpetuating, and will continue to be until something breaks the cycle.

This, I think, is wrongheaded and is part of the inside the beltway thinking resonating with too many Republican Senators who will keep the GOP in the minority by following Charlie Cook’s conventional wisdom.

Let’s back up. According to the 2008 exit polls, 34% of Americans considered themselves conservative, compared to ~22% who considered themselves liberal. The rest considered themselves independent. That means a conservative starts off with a larger base and only needs to pick off about 17% of self-described independents/moderates to advance their agenda.

We conservatives recognize that we have to build a coalition to govern. We’re not the purists Charlie Cook would have you believe.

But here’s the thing — there are a number of GOP Senators who have bought in to this and have decided to ignore the base and cooperate with Barack Obama. They are willing to start with 0% of the base in order to capture some portion of the country that considers themselves independent or moderate.

Saxby Chambliss had this problem. I suspect the senator Charlie Cook references in his article is the same way. Campaigns are won with the base. Pissing off the base causes you problems.

Take Chambliss. He supported a hugely unpopular immigration bill. He supported a hugely unpopular farm bill. He supported a hugely unpopular energy compromise. Why? Because he wanted to be seen as bipartisan.

The GOP does not have to “move” to the right. The GOP needs to begin from the right. Presently, it is not. The GOP has betrayed the trust not just of the voters, but of its base. It will not win a majority again unless it first gets its base back.

So I’d say Charlie Cook is wrong. The problem with the senator in question, and I think I know who it is, is that he compromised on immigration, energy, taxes, judges, the bailout, financial regulations, and other matters. He’s also from a Republican state. It’s no wonder someone might challenge him. If he’s going to ignore his base, he has no one to blame for a primary challenge but himself.

Right now the GOP base wants Republicans to oppose the stimulus package. Even the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, led until today by Barack Obama’s new budget guy, says the stimulus bill won’t do much good.

So why support it?

Barack Obama can pass his stimulus package with zero Republican votes. In two years, whether he gets Republican votes or not, the stimulus will not have worked. Inflation will be high. Unemployment will be high. Growth will be low.

If the GOP holds together and opposes it, they will escape blame for it and re-excite the GOP base — reasserting that the GOP gets the need to support free markets.

If the GOP will not start off opposing the expansion of government Barack Obama wants, the GOP will stay in the minority. Elections are won and lost by rallying the base. So far the only rallying going on is the base rallying to toss out the Republican senators who won’t listen to them.

COMMENTS

  • icbm

    Republicans on the Hill would follow your advice…

    Alas, it will probably take much more pain than we have already suffered as a party before our leaders will reform themselves or be replaced.

  • janis

    If not, he fits the bill you list. As to cooperating with Barack Obama, I found a lovely tribute by him about Obama’s new Sec of Education, Arne Duncan. Alexander says that Duncan is the “best” of “several outstanding nominations made by President-elect Obama”. And all about how he looks forward to working with him.

    It is to gag.

  • Praying

    Write your congressmen/women, and share Erick’s advice with them. Every one of you who has a GOP senator or representative needs to send a letter, email, or telephone their office and pass along this advice. Will they listen? I don’t know, but at least you won’t be sitting here in 2 years saying “I wish I’d done something – anything!”

  • Steven Willis

    I’ve heard it all before. In 64, in 76, in 92 – always the same, the GOP is dead unless it goes left. Hasn’t worked before and will not work now.

    Oppose the stimulus bill: it is just pork and it cannot work. Take a pledge to end pork and big government and mean it.

    This bill will pass and the waste will be almost beyond imagining. Then the next bubble to burst will be worse. But if we have any chance of fixing things, we must finish the race, fight the good fight, and keep the faith.

    Now is not the time to become democrats.

  • Praying

    But Lamar Alexander was actually up for election in 2008. By the time we figured out he wasn’t always on the side of the GOP, it was past the primary and we held our nose and voted just to have one more senator with the R behind his name – in print, if not in action. I’ve been giving him a bit of my opinion lately, too! He was one of the six R senators who voted for the second half of TARP. Booooo.

  • Old_Crow
  • ColoKid

    that he’s talking about Lindsey Graham.

  • Steven Willis

    That would be

    Let it be said we fought the good fight, we finished the race, and we kept the faith.

    I guess I am too upset about that benediction to remember Timothy correctly. Sorry.

  • IJB

    There is *zero* electoral advantage to a Republican office holder supporting Obama’s agenda once Obama’s poll numbers start to decline. If they do, they risk either a) losing in a primary, or b) losing in a general election to a “true” Obama supporter.

    As such, I expect Republicans will start opposing Obama’s agenda in a month or two.

    And we have to hope that Nan & co. can’t pass the “stimulus” is just a month (and I kind of doubt they can).

  • spainishirish

    There are several sound reasons to oppose the stimulus bill. The first is history shows it will not work. That should be enough. The next is political but just as solid: because the bill will fail to produce results, make damned sure it has a Democratic face on it.

    The Democrats, of course, are desperate to attach Republican faces to the stimulus package so they claim it was bipartisan. I’m watching some of the usual suspects to see if they abandon sound fiscal policy for the fool’s gold of a little good press for a day or two. You just have to watch the majority opposition to know you are right, Erick. They are scared to death to go out on a limb on this one. Good. As you point out, they don’t need our votes.

    And I’ve made my phone calls.

    Good work here.

  • spainishirish

    There are several sound reasons to oppose the stimulus bill. The first is history shows it will not work. That should be enough. The next is political but just as solid: because the bill will fail to produce results, make damned sure it has a Democratic face on it.

    The Democrats, of course, are desperate to attach Republican faces to the stimulus package so they claim it was bipartisan. I’m watching some of the usual suspects to see if they abandon sound fiscal policy for the fool’s gold of a little good press for a day or two. You just have to watch the majority opposition to know you are right, Erick. They are scared to death to go out on a limb on this one. Good. As you point out, they don’t need our votes.

    And I’ve made my phone calls.

    Good work here.

  • icbm

    left, not when it went too far right (barry goldwater being the sole exception).

    enough with accomodation with liberalism.* generally, accomodation only renders the party faithful less enthusiastic and less loyal, leading to democratic victories. not to mention the harm it does to our country as liberal policies accumulate and dig themselves deeper into the mind of the american people.

    (*except in select areas like the northeast)

  • IJB

    It’s not Roberts of KS (just reelected) either.

    But I’m guessing it’s someone from a state like KS or WY.

  • janis

    to guess about. I flat forgot that I just voted for Alexander this past November, which is probably a reflection of how enthusiastic I was about it. I have heard that Trace Adkins and Hank Williams, Jr. are both interested in challenging Tennessee policitians in the near future. Williams may look to challenge Corker when he’s up for re-election.

  • skey

    David Frum and company have started a new blog, NewMajority.com, where they’re pushing the idea that the party needs to return to its progressive roots when it was based in the northeast, and redefine conservatism to mean that. This is just more of the same.

    In the northeast we should be running progressives with some conservative tendencies, in the south we should be running social conservatives, For national candidates we need to run guys who are both, and have both wings satisfied with that. We didn’t have that this time, and that basically doomed us. Only one major candidate, Romney, even tried this, and his problem was that he simply wasn’t believeable. I believe that Fred could have been the guy if he hadn’t waited so long, but that’s water under the bridge. The utter contempt that the Romney/Giuliani folks had for the Huckabee folks, and vice-versa, certainly didn’t help, as well.

  • Praying

    but I’ve only been plugged in to politics since about… last September, so I don’t really have a good historical perspective. He’s been responsive to my correspondence, and so far has voted the way I hoped he would, though. I’ll have to do some more research – thanks for the heads up!

  • Kayla

    look at the record. Can’t the geniuses in the GOP see when they abandon conservative principles they get defeated? When Bush 41 raised taxes ,what happened? When you nominate someone like John McCain, what happened? Stick to your base and build off it, not push it away.

  • Darin_H

    You should send this to every Senator and Representative

  • janis

    that stuck a spoke in the wheels of the House Republicans who stayed on in the House chamber when the Dems went on vacation in August. These were the Republicans that were trying to get the Dems to come back and vote on an energy bill to permit drilling. This was when gas was $4+ per gallon. Corker and his other Senators, including Chambliss, were promoting a piss-poor plan that would forbid offshore drilling in areas where there actually WAS oil and allow it where there wasn’t. When confronted with overwhelming rejection of the plan, Corker got very defensive. He was looking to take a page out of McCain’s book and make his bones on being bipartisan.

  • Kayla

    Everytime I see him on tv, I hit the mute.

  • DerKrieger

    Even Mark Levin is calling for JD Hayworth to challenge McAmnesty in the GOP primary. GOPers like McCainn, Graham, Chambliss, et al would rather be feted by the NYT than serve the voters who brought them to the dance.

  • Jack

    needs to be hit with a primar. He needs it bad for the hope and the future of the Republican party.

  • roscopico

    … after all, the libbies are so far left as to make any but a complete moron vote “moderate”… and especially at $4.00 per gallon.
    I’m sure there was some motive for the RINOs to cut the conscionable Reps off at the knees.
    I’m pretty sure, anyway… was there?

  • mbecker908

    His time in elected office in AZ is long gone. He is viewed as the last angry, loud mouthed, failed politician around. Harry Mitchell beat him because people “like” Harry and feel comfortable around him.

    Combine that with the fact that with Janet gone there is no credible competition from a Democrat with any statewide name recognition at all and the fact that McCain has just shy of a bazillion dollars in his campaign account that, because he won’t have credible competition in the general, he can spend on the primary. It would be a wipeout.

  • czs

    I am not sure I agree. Of course, Republicans should stop shirking from conservative principles in order to win MSM plaudits. And we need to whack these guys in line whenever they start swaying to the pied piper of ;bipartican harmony.’

    But I think there is a risk to challenging mostly conservative Senators in strongly Republican states. Take Lamar Alexander, mentioned above, as an example. (I know he’s not up in 2010, but I know TN better than the other states at issue). Any state polictical fixture like Alexander will have built a strong core of personal support over the years with their constituents. These folks are lower information voters and are typically loyal to their man more than his ideas; they will resent a challenger to “their guy” even if they themselves are rock-ribbed conservatives. So, if a more strongly conservative candidate successfully wins the primary challenge, the significant loyalist constituency is alienated and many will stay home or even stray to a high profile, perceived “moderate” from the other side. In the Alexander example, Harold Ford or Phiil Bredesen could definitely win against an Alexander ‘usurper’ while having next to no chance against Alexander himself.

    If we want to make sure the party falls in line with movement conservatives – without risking safe seats to do so – the best case is to pick a single bad apple (-cough- McCain -cough-) and pull a Lamont v. Lieverman style attack. Believe me, if we could oust a signle long-term RINO legend that the MSM thought was untouchable -(-cough- McCain -cough-) it would cause a real Damascus road experience for the remainder of the Republican caucus. Essentially, this is how the Democratic Senate Caucus became the Daily Kos’s [lady dog].

    Just my two (or maybe four) cents.

  • The_Rebel

    Jeff Flake, who has been raising his profile of late. On second thought, I hate to say this, but, having been through this the past election cycle, his Mormon religion would take all the air out of his campaign balloon before it even got started. We all remember McCain’s mother blaming the Mormons for the scandals surrounding the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City. And how could we forget that liberal wacko, Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC fame, stating that Mormonism is “demented, Scientology-like” and is rooted in racism. You just know McCain would pull out all the stops.

  • baseketball

    “Let?s back up. According to the 2008 exit polls, 34% of Americans considered themselves conservative, compared to ~22% who considered themselves liberal. The rest considered themselves independent. That means a conservative starts off with a larger base and only needs to pick off about 17% of self-described independents/moderates to advance their agenda.”

    Assuming the Republican wins 100% of Conservative voters and 0% of Liberal voters, winning 17% of moderates would give the Republican candidate (100*.34)+(17*.44)=41.48% of the vote. Assuming no third parties, this is a loss of ((83*.44)+(100*.22))-((100*.34)+(17*.44))=17.04 points! Were you just trying to muster up enough votes to hold a filibuster, or is there a benchmark at 40% of the popular vote that you’re aiming for?

    I calculate that in order to win a two-party election (assuming 34% of voters are Conservatives carried by the Republican and 22% are Liberals carried by the Democrat), the Republican has to get (34+.44x>50) x>36.36….% of moderates to win. Now, this is still a low number, granted, but the difference in carrying 17% of the moderate vote to carrying 37% of the moderate vote is a big shift in tactics.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    Obama is better at the whole dreamboat act than Clinton was, so he’s going to be able to sustain higher poll numbers longer than Bubba. The media will never cross him. They think their job is to make his road smoother and broader, not to speak truth to the new power.

    I heard from Billy Baldwin just now that everyone should give Obama 12-18 months of support for and free time to accomplish his agenda. By that time, if Republicans play along the whole time, they will be permanently tarred for the 2010 elections with all the bad votes that they could have opposed in the meantime. There is NO benefit to Republicans supporting the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Frank/Murtha agenda. Bipartisanship is another word for Republicans doing whatever the Democrats say to do.

    Appeasement is another word for the same thing.

    Appeasement is a coward hoping a murderer is satiated before it’s his own turn to be killed.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    You wouldn’t be a blond would you?

  • USNJIMRET

    is indeed doing whatever the left says they want.
    Appeasement is another word for surrender, nothing more, nothing less.
    As for the killer analogy….
    I’d say it’s more like hoping that they murderer only wounds you a bit less the fatal.
    All in all, refusing/failing to stand by your claimed core values is exactly the same as giving in to a terrorist. It simply and absolutely emboldens them to demand more the next time.
    And over time,it silently declares that you don’t believe in the values you claim to be “core”.

  • http://whereswalden.com/ Jeff Walden

    …and note that “17% of self-described independents/moderates” is not the same as “17% of the total electorate which also happens to be self-described independent/moderate”. In other words, 17% of all votes is different from 17% of all independent/moderate votes.

    I’m not quite sure I buy the argument in the original post; in particular, I know a couple former Pennsylvanians I respect who say if Specter doesn’t run, Republicans don’t have a chance. That said, I think we may generally be more afraid than we need to be, so long as our candidates are firm and forthright in their principles as exemplified in their actions. Further, next time around we’ll be greatly helped by Bush no longer being president to drag all the good names down in the polls, a phenomenon which unfortunately cost some good people in this past election and the one before it.

  • Hammer2008

    If this center-grabbing continues much longer, we will be the RINOs. The RNC Chair election will be a bell weather of sorts. If the GOP does not begin to hold the right and tack to the center (when ‘must needs’ to quote The Prophet), then all that will be left is the center.

    We on RS are in this for the long haul. I do not want another United We Stand movement, but will stay true to the movement that Reagan built upon the cornerstones laid by those before him. If memory serves, [President Ronald Reagan was the ONLY two-term president in the 20th century to have his vice-president be elected to carry forth that legacy.]

    As Fred Thompson said in a debate (was it?) last year, “The moment I put down (having read) The Conscience of a Conservative, I knew I was.” (sic)

  • Praying

    You’re talking to a former exploration geologist here. Drill here. Drill now. As I said, I really need to do some research – but I’m glad to hear there is some interest from others who would be better suited and more loyal to the CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES of the GOP.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    What I was saying was that the math was easy to figure out even though it was misphrased. And I also don’t buy the argument because I don’t want to win by 51:49. I want to win with 60-80% everywhere. That’s the proportion of people who prefer conservative principles when they are asked.

    It’s a matter of education. The free market is the font of American prosperity, yet is a loser in the polls if nobody knows anything about real economics. The education should start with Harry Hazlitt Economics in One Lesson.

  • indym

    that republicans will oppose President Obama. I personally don’t think that very many republicans will support the stimulus package. However there may be some who are in states that are in need of financial support from the Federal Government. Ohio, for instance has a high unemployment rate and a sizeable budget deficit. I think most republicans will oppose Obama on his social policy agenda and his defense security agenda.
    As to the second issue of republican primary fights, each time I have read of a more conservative candidate running against a less conservative candidate, the more conservative candidate almost always loses. We had a candidate who ran against Mitch Daniels in 2004 for the republican party nomination and lost. He represented a conservative group that seemed on surface to have a lot of backing.
    Here is my opinion. We need to support candidates who have a chance to win. I understand that there are those who care about ideology. but politics is about making deals and trying to move your agenda forward as much as possible. I do not fault republicans in congress now for being nice to the President and trying to look for ways to accomodate. We only have 41 votes. If we fight on each issue we will lose. More importantly, we will lose more seats in 2010.

  • AceInTX

    He has a 45% lifetime ACU rating….only in Washington and in Charlie Cook’s world is a Senator who votes with the Democrats 10% of the time more than he votes with Republicans a Conservative!

    Oh…and where the hell does Charlie get the stupid notion the Republican Party is still lurching rightward….Good Lord I wish that we true!

  • AceInTX

    “Staying home is the same a s a vote for the Democrat”!

    I’m so sick of hearing that crap it makes me want to scream…We tried to tell these crap monkey’s what would happen if they pandered to moderates and pissed on the base…and that’s what we heard in reply…Well…have fun the next four years and continue in your delusion that you can dump a steaming pile of crap on the base and they’ll just fall in line anyway and Obama will win in 2012!

  • baseketball

    More riskily, Clinton was a two-termer, but his VP won the popular vote. On the other hand, Reagan left office less popular than Clinton or FDR did, so George H.W. Bush’s election may have more to say about the endurance of his political ideals.

  • Achance

    give you the 60-80% win. The CW since the Sixties has been the “minimum winning coalition” of 50% +1 to limit the promises you have to make and the constituencies you have to keep. I think the margin is too narrow with a MWC win and any misstep could cost you re-election, but three or four point wins are a good goal.

  • AceInTX

    I understand that there are those who care about ideology. but politics is about making deals and trying to move your agenda forward as much as possible.

    Deal making is fine if you get half of what you want…but that is never the way it works…The Dems almost always get half of what they want while Republicans give up 150% of what they wanted.

    for example…The Dems start out asking for a $1 billion dollar spending increase and the Republicans start at a $1billion dollar spending cut…Once the so called “deal” is made the Democrats get $500 million dollars in spending increases and the Republicans give up all they were asking for and end up on the short side of the ledger by $500 million with a small tax cut thrown in so they can say they won something…of course in exchange for the tax cut crumb their Dem masters feed them…they end up repealing some business deduction and we belly up to the bar for another round of the Democrat Kool Ade!!

    Enough with the deal making BS…Politics isn’t a game of compromises the way the squishes on our side always say it is…it’s all out friggin war…The Democrats understand that and they play the game accordingly…all we do is serve as their punching bag and ultimately a means to their ends!

  • http://whereswalden.com/ Jeff Walden

    However, I really don’t think it would be clear to the average observer that that was what you were saying. There was a little too much shortness and snippiness in the post and too little basis in its words to reasonably draw that meaning from it.

    More education would indeed be awesome; see, for instance, We Are What We Learn and what those results tell us about how knowledge of economics can change actions (and, presumably, beliefs). Aside from the classes I took directly within my major, the economics classes were the most informative classes I took in college; their “big ideas” are simple, unintuitive, and profound all at once. Unfortunately, I’m not sure how to take economics to the average student; calculus (or at least a decent practical and conceptual grasp of differentiation) was very important for much of micro, and you either get that in your last year of high school in an honors track (I know nothing of the AP economics classes or how they fit into typical schedules), at college if you’re interested already, or not at all.

    (Here’s hoping this comment box actually accepts HTML input; the complete absence of any formatting controls or directions leaves me uncertain about what will actually happen to this post. Neil, if you happen to be watching, a minimal note that typical HTML formatting is allowed would greatly aid in comment-section learnability.)

  • SIConservative

    Going through the members of the Gang of 14 based on Erick saying that the person had compromised on judges, that’s who I came up with too. I have to think that Erick is wrong. To be sure, it wouldn’t surprise me if McCain faces a primary challenger, but it has been a very long time since he was regarded as “fairly conservative”.

  • Fr. Jim Rosselli

    The Republican Party needs Republican Senators, not Democrats with
    decent haircuts.