The Death of Conservatism? - 43 Mistakes and the GOP's Dobson's Choice

There have been more than a few recent articles and editorials attempting to affix blame for the demise of the Republican Party. Peggy Noonan blames President Bush. Rush Limbaugh believes a McCain nomination will kill the party. However, even in a worse case scenario, the Republican Party will probably stagger along for several years much like the last decade of the Whigs. Conservative Republicans should probably be more concerned about the impending demise of the conservative movement within the party. Some individuals can be blamed more than others, but this folly has many fathers. The latest blow to conservatives has come from within – thanks to Dr. James Dobson and other egotistical evangelicals. Political doomsayers may be correct and it is likely too late to save the conservative movement in 2008. Conservatives can correct their path to destruction for 2010 and beyond, but only if they look back at recent history, recognize the actions and actors that have brought the party and movement to this point, and to learn from a long series of missteps and mistakes.

Ronald Reagan built a winning coalition of conservatives, independents and establishment moderate Republicans in 1980. A coalition of social, economic and security conservatives had come together to form a plurality within the GOP and wrest leadership of the party from the establishment, moderate GOP. The Iran-Contra scandal (Mistake #1) weakened the coalition and the moderate wing of the party regained control of the GOP (Mistake #2), which led to the election of President George H.W. Bush (Mistake #3).

While the elder Bush had adopted – albeit reluctantly – many conservative ideals, he and the moderate GOP leaders advocated a “kinder, gentler” approach (Mistake #4). Conservatives might have been content to take a back seat to moderate GOP leadership, but they read Bush’s lips and their support and enthusiasm for the Republican Party evaporated after the Bush tax increase (Mistake #5). In 1992 some conservatives were taken in by Ross Perot and his anti-establishment, anti-Washington message (Mistake #6). Others just stayed home (Mistake #7) and helped Democrats elect the Dope from Hope, Bill Clinton, with just 43% of the popular vote (Mistake #8).

The only positive to come out of 1992 was that it helped create an opening for an obscure, but brilliant Congressman from Georgia to lead conservatives to regain control of the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich reformed the three-legged conservative coalition and took an upstart innovative approach of leading the GOP from the House with a 1994 national congressional campaign platform – the Contract with America.

It is important to note that prior to the ’94 elections, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole and other establishment, moderate GOP leaders scoffed at and were dismissive of Gingrich and the Contract. Dole and Senate moderates rode the Contract’s election coattails, but made it plain that the GOP Senate did NOT sign on to the program, was not obligated to it, reluctantly followed Gingrich's lead, and worked to water down each and every one of the Contract's provisions (Mistake #9).

By January 1996, Dole was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee (Mistake #10). Dole sought to convince Speaker Gingrich to fold up the federal government shutdown stalemate with President Clinton and allow Dole to lead the GOP via his presidential campaign.

Dole gave Gingrich the choice of single-handedly continuing the shutdown and fight with Clinton and the media with Candidate Dole seeking a different path from the House GOP or deferring to Dole's presidential campaign and resuming the conservative battle together with Gingrich’s friend Trent Lott to keep President Dole honest after the ’96 elections. Gingrich made the wrong choice (Mistake #11). Gingrich probably should have run for President himself in 1996 (Mistake #12).

We all remember what happened. By caving in and compromising on the shutdown, the conservative House leadership lost some of their ability to control their more moderate members (Mistake #13). Bob Dole lost (Mistake #14). Trent Lott built his own voice separate from the House (Mistake #15). And with no help from Lott & the GOP Senate and a Clinton veto looming on all conservative issues, Gingrich, Armey & DeLay focused too much of their efforts on the growing Clinton scandals (Mistake #16).

Gingrich was able to maintain order within the House even during the Clinton impeachment. But after the Senate RINOs failed to do their duty and convict Clinton (Mistake #17), the House moderates began feeling their oats (Mistake #18).

Then, the impact of the missing FBI files took effect. Allegations of marital affairs Gingrich and Hyde took their toll (Mistake #19). Seeing his conservative House coalition slowly diminish and Lott's desire to set on a different path, Gingrich stepped down as Speaker (Mistake #20). Then his presumed successor, Bob Livingston from Louisiana, was also taken out by a marital affair (Mistake #21).

House Moderates became emboldened and championed the lackluster Dennis Hastert as Speaker to muzzle Armey & DeLay and appear less confrontational (Mistake #22). This effort also helped to clear the agenda of party leadership for the 2000 GOP presidential candidates (Mistake #23). And in 2000, conservatives settled for the "compassionate conservatism" of George W. Bush (Mistake #24). Many conservatives stayed home, nearly costing Bush the presidency and actually losing GOP control of the Senate in 2000 (Mistake #25).

To be fair, conservatives should thank God everyday for W's leadership in dealing with 9-11. But Bush also squandered the opportunity to push the party and country to the right following that horrible event (Mistake #26). The GOP regained control of the Senate in 2002, but based solely on the country’s fears of Democrats’ inability to deal with national security concerns and not on conservative social and economic principles. Meanwhile, the House drifted further to the center (Mistake #27).

Conservative fears of repeating Florida 2000 helped Bush win reelection in 2004, despite the party's overall drift to the center. By now, any conservative elements in the House and Senate were in complete retreat. The moderates ruled the roost in both houses. RINO defections on the Iraq war (Mistake #28), wasteful earmarks (Mistake #29) and ethics scandals (Mistake #29) were now front and center for the GOP. The only conservative victories of 2005-06 were the confirmations of Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. And it took a battle to defeat Bush on his nomination of Harriet Miers to do it.

By Fall 2006 conservatives had become utterly disheartened. Attempts to make the Bush tax cuts permanent stalled (Mistake #30), the continued treachery of Arlen Spector, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the Gang of 14 (Mistake #31), increased dissatisfaction with George Bush and the Miers nomination debacle all caused conservatives to stay home in November 2006 (Mistake #32). And the GOP lost both the House and Senate.

Occasionally, the conservative movement can still rise up. The reaction to the Amnesty bill was encouraging. But other than that, conservatives have again been wandering in the wilderness. GOP moderates and RINO's have been resistant to allowing a conservative to assume leadership in Congress. And any potential conservative congressional leader has held back (Mistake #33), in part due to the extremely early start of the 2008 presidential race (Mistake #34).

And what did conservatives get for 2008 GOP candidates? Were there any Reagan conservatives who possessed all three legs of the coalition stool - strong national defense, social conservatism, economic conservatism?

Instead, we got Rudy Giuliani. An autocrat who has little affection for social conservatives, but pledged to nominate strict construction judges. Whoopee!

Instead, we got John McCain. An angry RINO maverick who enjoys flouting social and economic conservatives AND even the GOP establishment to gain favor and positive reviews from the liberal media.

Instead, we got Mitt Romney, an uber-wealthy GOP establishment moderate. At least Romney panders to social and economic conservatives with recently discovered flip-flopped positions on issues of importance to those two factions.

Instead, we got Mike Huckabee – the Dope from Hope, part II. While he is just as slick and manipulative as Bill Clinton, Huckabee is nowhere near as smart.

Instead, we got Ron Paul, a true blue, libertarian nutbag. Paul has a few economic bona fides that have pulled away a few non-nut job libertarians. But I'm sorry, Dr. Paul is a kook.

Instead, we got the Obscure Four - Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, Tommy Thompson & Duncan Hunter. Tancredo & Keyes are single issue candidates. Tommy & Dunc are well-rounded politicians (especially Hunter), but they lacked the ability to have broad nationwide appeal.

Seeing this morass of blech, Fred Thompson entered the fray expecting to be the savior of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Fred should have been that candidate.

Unfortunately, Dr. James Dobson and a few evangelical leaders decided to cut off their nose to spite their face (Mistake #35). You see, Fred's not a Bible thumper. Neither was Ronald Reagan. And like Reagan, Fred is a bona fide, all-around, federalist conservative. That wasn’t good enough for Dobson. And when Fred refused to kiss Dobson's ring of evangelical purity, Dobson went shopping for a candidate he thought he could control.

Flim Flam Huckabee seized on that opportunity. Huckabee played Dobson into thinking that Dobson could be a GOP kingmaker (Mistake #36). A handful of evangelical leaders blindly pushed Huckabee as a viable conservative (Mistake #37). The media, who knows a GOP loser when they see one, helped fan the flames of Huckabee's support. For a time, the scheme worked. Huckabee won Iowa (Mistake #38), but eventually the truth of Huckabee's Christian Socialism became evident to most conservatives.

But the damage had been done. Social conservatives were now spilt. Some had been taken in by Huckabee's class warfare (Mistake #39). Some had been taken in by the media's false depiction of Fred as a lazy campaigner (Mistake #40) and settled for Romney, Rudy or, worse, McCain (Mistake #41).

Added into this deceptive mix was the ability of independents and Democrats to participate in and distort the Iowa, New Hampshire & South Carolina Republican primaries (Mistake #42). Media darling McCain was back! McCain – the new Comeback Kid – was ready to lead....the GOP down to defeat. Meanwhile, Fred's race and the ability for the GOP to unify behind a Reaganesque conservative died (Mistake #43).

At best, the GOP could still end up with a George W. Bush-lite nominee like Mitt Romney. He will at least pretend to care about conservative ideals from his Country Club wing of the party.

At worst, the GOP could end up with John McCain. McCain, the perennial thorn in the GOP's side who was once touted as a possible VP running mate for John Kerry!

Who knows? It’s still remotely possible that none of the moderates and RINO’s still in the presidential race will win a majority of the primary delegates. Maybe a conservative nominee could still rise up in a brokered GOP convention. Maybe a conservative national congressional campaign like the Contract with America could still arise in time for the 2008 elections. But really, that’s a fantasy.

The reality is that conservatives will have to wait until 2010 or 2012 to reassert itself as the true and legitimate leaders of the Republican Party. The reality is that conservatives have allowed numerous people to make numerous mistakes which have led the movement to this precarious point. The reality is that conservatives and the GOP are now left with this Dobson's Choice of Romney or McCain. Pass the nose clips and prepare for the worst.

I generally agree with your scale, but I think Fred gets too much credit for being extremely conservative. Voting against tort reform is a major blemish. My ratings would be:

Obama = 2
Clinton = 9
Edwards = 10

McCain = 55
Giulinai = 58
Romney = 62
Huckabee = 64
Thompson = 67

Hunter = 95

Hunter is a protectionist, so even he has a chink in the conservative armor.

That is simply misinformation. He supports domestic production sufficient for defense related industries and opposes currency manipulation and cheating on existing trade deals. Such is hardly "protectionist."

>>>You blame Dobson for Fred’s loss, but the fact is, Fred ran a lousy campaign and thumbed his nose at the evangelicals.<<<

I believe you have it the other way around. It was Dobson who publicly trashed Thompson. Whatever the case, any group that Dobson is attached to will never get another dime from me or my wife.

>>>As for me, I prefer Huckabee, but will take anybody over Romney. And that’s includes ‘rats if need be.<<<

I am astonished! Huckabee is a socialist. Not sure about the Christian part. For example, where in the New Testament does it so much as imply that forced redistribution of wealth by government is “Christian”. Yet, along with his like-minded Compassionate “Conservative” currently occupying the White House, that is what the Huckster thinks compassion is. So does all the left, including my wacky left-wing sister.

Also, why am I getting these vibes that you dislike Romney because he is a Morman? If that is the case, that is very Christian of you.

If a re-branded Libertarian party got some traction, it could probably pull many Democrats out as well as Republicans. Imagine if there was a Socialist, Libertarian, and Conservative party? It would be a different dynamic, and probably would better represent the nation.

Some things do need to be federalized. I'm in favor of adhering to the constitution. I'm against using federal matching funds to intefere in things that should be explicitly state rights. But there are things that need to be federalized that are not presently in the scope outlined for the federal government. And that does call for Constitutional amendments.

So you're for adhering to the Constitution except where you disagree with it in its present state?

And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?

I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."

The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.

"But just your issues. We got it."

Issues that tend to cross state lines, sometimes need Federal regulation. Marriage is of that nature, because existing benefit legislation forces national companies and insurance companies to set up processes for gay marriage the minute one state allows it. States have to decide how to treat gay marriages or civil unions when the people relocate to their state, etc.

If there is no need to federalize some stuff, then why do you think the founding fathers ever federalize anything?

OK, I’m waiting for the primary cause-surely you don’t believe it was Dobson. If so, would you say that Christians are mind numbed robots and that easily led?

Yes, but just the Christian Hucakbaee supporters.

lol

You have a good memory and analytical mind. I would disagree, however, with points #1 and #16, and I would add a #35 and #36: Letting Senator Rick Santorum get beat, and letting George Allen slip away. Conservatives are too reluctant to get in to the fray to defend their side.

OK, I’m waiting for the primary cause-surely you don’t believe it was Dobson.

There wasn't a primary cause. It was a perfect storm. I think Romney's camp did a great job of spreading the "Fred's lazy" mantra which Huckabee picked up all to easily. Huckabee benefitted in Iowa from being an unknown. By the time people figured him out, Iowa was over. Dobson hurt Fred immensely in a place he should have been strong, evangelical conservatives. I don't think Christians are mind-numbed robots. I do think the average Christian (or average self-identified Republican for that matter) doesn't have any idea how an Amendment to the Constitution is passed. So, when Huckabee said "Thompson's against a Defense of Marriage Amendment" they were swayed. Ditto for RLA.

Finally, I think the conservative media ignored his campaign. Fox clearly bought into the establishment candidacies of Rudy and McCain. And you could not read an article about Fred without seeing "fire in the belly" somewhere within it. Additionally, campaigning as an adult does not draw media attention. Slamming others does. So, his running a campaign as an adult was a mistake.

So, it wasn't just Dobson. It wasn't just evangelicals. It wasn't just Fred. It wasn't just slimy, smarmy Huckabee and his illegal push polls (looking forward to his FEC report on Jan. 31st). It was all of those. And some more.

No, you just need firm state laws and firm state supreme courts.

The convenience of a federal law or constitutional amendment is NOT a reason to have one.

"So you're for adhering to the Constitution except where you disagree with it in its present state?"

I'm for amending the constitution in accordance with the provision in the Constitution for amending it.

"And matching funds? Has this even been mentioned during the 2008 campaign?"

Matching funds is the primary way that the federal government excerts influence over issues that has not been delegated to them. Thus matching funds is at the heart of state rights. Has it been mentioned? Sadly not.

I utterly disagree on your "need" for things to be federalized. Feel free to call for Constitutional amendments on anything you think you "need."

Then I suppose that you dissagree with the founding fathers on the things that they already federalized?

The fact that me & my buddy Fred think there are more effective means of achieving the same or similar political results doesn't make us bad people or not Christians.

Dear Supersensitive Sideshow Bob, I didn't call you bad people or un-Christian. But a lot of conservatives, Dobson, and myself included, felt protecting marriage and abortion were key issues and Fred, a great guy, just wasn't on the same page.

Marriage is of that nature, because existing benefit legislation forces national companies and insurance companies to set up processes for gay marriage the minute one state allows it.

No, it doesn't. Insurance companies have to deal with various state regulations for interstate companies all the time. Illinois requires fertility treatment. Aetna doesn't have to cover fertility treatment in Missouri because Illinois mandates it.

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.