Posted on 01/25/2008 7:35:34 AM PST by RockinRight
A few thoughts on what has happened to the GOP, and why the definition of conservatism is changing.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan formed the coalition of various types of conservatism and united us together under a big, but not too big, tent. You had the Barry Goldwater conservatives. Small government, free-market economics, Federalist, eliminate the Dept. of Education and welfare, leave us the hell alone, etc. You had the Rockefeller Republicans, who were never totally happy with Reagan, but as long as big business was at least treated respectfully, they were happy enough. You had the newest part of the movement, the old Reagan Democrats and social conservatives that Reagan pulled into the mix, and the one that put the party over the top, the Religious Right, who was primarily initially attracted to the GOP for the values issues - abortion, and, eventually gays and family values. In this Cold War age you also had the defense hawks, who also usually belonged to one of the other groups as well. Finally, you had the Reagan Republicans, who were updated Goldwater Republicans who also supported the issues of pretty much all the united factions and had a strong patriotic streak. Bascially, a pro-American, traditional values party that believed in capitalism and defending our nation. All is good and happy so far.
In 1994, it all came to a head. Republicans of all stripes swept the House and Senate and started off with a platform that made all factions of the Party happy. Even accomplished a few of them.
But then, as Washington changed the politicians, the factions started becoming more isolated. The Religious Right became the most dominant on one side, and on the other side the Rockefeller Republicans had a resurgence. The rift was developing, and the Reagan/Goldwater types were the least prominent in this whole mix.
Additionally, we came to discover that the Religious Right wasn't really all that "right wing" and in fact many of them (but by no means all) were perfectly happy with socialism, big government, liberal or populist economics, and nannystatism as long as the policy was to be pro life and anti gay marriage. The fiscal conservatives in both the Reagan/Goldwater camp and the Rockefeller and Neocon types started to actually veer away from social issues because they were losing so many other parts of the platform that had united all of us just 15 or 20 years earlier. Finally, the 9/11 terror attacks started yet a new type of Republican, a revitalized Defense Hawk, the WOT Republicans like Dennis Miller and Ron Silver, who weren't particularly conservative, but also not particularly liberal, but they wanted to kick as much Islamofascist ass as humanly possible. Thankfully, since the Religious Right, the Rockefellers, the Reaganites, and the Neocons are largely pro-WOT, these guys are currently the happiest in the GOP right now.
So in this election cycle, you have candidates representing each faction, but really nobody that pulls together the entire Reagan coalition the way it needs to be done.
Fred Thompson, who has dropped out, was the only one with the promise of that bread-and-butter, All-American conservative who appealed to ALL parts of the movement. Unfortunately, our media-driven culture didn't find him exciting or pretty enough.
John McCain is a mix of a defense hawk and a Rockefeller Republican and mostly appeals to older veterans, moderates, and Rockefeller types.
Mitt Romney is somewhat a Reaganite, but his past record makes it a tough sell for some. Most former Thompson supporters go here.
Giuliani is similar to McCain but more fiscally conservative and less socially, he's basically a classic Rockefeller Republican with a defense hawk streak.
Mike Huckabee is the perfect example of a Religious Right candidate who is only conservative on the values issues but ignores most of the others and is in fact liberal on many of them.
And then there's Ron Paul, over in the corner by himself, reading Ayn Rand and spouting off Alzheimer's induced rants about nation building, isolationism, and the gold standard.
American idle voters flushed good conservative candidates in favor of name recognition and the mythical electability beast.
(Hey, it's a comment)
Yeah, another vanity...
Well done. Depressing, but well done.
Did someone put something in your coffee?
He is moreso than any other remaining candidate, yes.
Good commentary. The GOP is tearing itself apart with its vicious name-calling that will very likely superimpose itself on the electability of whichever GOP members are selected. We can only hope the Dems will also take themselves to the same slaughterhouse although, having been out of power for so long, they are probably more driven to stick together at election time.
Additionally, we came to discover that the Religious Right wasn't really all that "right wing" and in fact many of them (but by no means all) were perfectly happy with socialism, big government, liberal or populist economics, and nannystatism as long as the policy was to be pro life and anti gay marriage.
It's the reason Huckabee is still viable. I hope, not for long.
Good analysis. I like the inclusion of “Rockefeller Republicans” as a wing because I think analysis often ignores this by calling them “economic conservatives” . . . but this lumps the Chamber of Commerce type in with the libertarian and movement conservative type . . . and they are almost completely different even if those groups all proclaim economic conservatism. Economic Conservative, National Defense Conservative, Social Conservative and “Moderates” (”Rockefeller Republicans” — often upper middle class or wealthy, business oriented, country club, good old boy network types) and libertarians make up the bulk of the party. Just seeing 3 legs on the stool is inaccurate in my view because it leaves out two major classes: Moderates and Libertarians who don’t fit neatly into any of the 3 commonly discussed “wings” of the party.
If he appealed to all parts of the movement then why did 84% of the movement vote against him in South Carolina?
Well, basically I included Moderates as Rockefellers and libertarians as the Goldwater types.
I could be considered a Goldwater type but I’m not really a libertarian, although I agree with them on a few things.
Read the next sentence. I should say he believed in all parts of the movement, and believed in the importance of having a united platform.
WHAT ABOUT HUNTER???
Hunter is somewhere close to Fred. And also dropped out.
I am working and typed this between work tasks, cut me a break.
What about him? He lost my respect when he endorsed Huck.
Well, basically I included Moderates as Rockefellers and libertarians as the Goldwater types.
______________________________________________________
Exactly, I think you are right and a lot of the cartoonists and pundits are wrong to ignore them or think that lumping them into “economic conservative” is sufficient.
Break cut. It’s really well written and I actually think you should make sure Hannity and Limbaugh see it.
Heard on Clear Channel, AGAIN this morning, about the “vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.