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.

ever notice those who revile “Evangelicals” here tend to be from certain parts of the country

I'm from Missouri.
And I'm an Evangelical.
And I revile the "Evangelical movement" (as exemplified by Dobson and Huckabee) here on FR.
And I have a pretty solid understanding of salvation by grace through faith tied to the believer's responsibility to make disciples while going into all the world.
And I don't recall ever using the term bigot of anyone who is to the right of Joe Lieberman.

But other than that, you were spot on. It's like you were psychic.

Your propensity to believe the absolute worst about a man who has done nothing to deserve that is bizarre.

Did you read the article? That is what he said!

Contrast that with the ability to take everything a Huckster says at face value without batting an eyelid and it becomes some sort of alternate universe.

I've never said or implied that I take anything Huckabee says "at face value without batting an eyelid" much less "everything".

No sane person would have read the article you quoted and thought that Fred was talking about Christianity in general when he said the quote you posted.

OK mr/mrs sanity, what was he talking about, the price of tea in China? Did you read the article?

Why you feel the need to continue to paint him in a negative light after he's dropped out is indicative that you have nothing left to fight for in the election.

I'm not attacking Thompson, I've been defending Dobson.

Which is indicative of how effective the strategy of the Evangelical Right was overall.

The "Evangelical Right" have no strategy. We have all sorts of different denomonations, pundits, leaders and opinions and absolutely no organization to tell us what to do. No sane person would think otherwise :-). We've been voting all over the place just like the rest of the conservatives. If we had an unmistakable Evangelical Conservative to vote for as a block we probably would because we could understand his worldview and trust him.

I won't be voting for Romney or McCain, I think that Huckabee still has a chance but my hope is not in him anyway.

I'm sorry I offended you but I hope we can agree to pray for Thompson and our nation. Both will need lots of prayers.

Dobson was describing the Evangelical Christian point of view, he was not steering it. If he was, why would he begin his sentence with "Everybody knows Fred is a conservative"?

NOOOOO! Dobson was describing just HIS point of view.

You have got to stop thinking that evangelicals are uniform in their thought and action. And neither you nor even the holy and infallible Dr. James Dobson speak on behalf of all evangelicals.

To be certain, Dobson is influential - not as influential as he believed in his attempt to play GOP kingmaker - but very influential within certain religious circles.

Since you appear to have a reading comprehension disability, I will repeat this one point of many contained witihn my vanity post - Dobson's unprovoked attack on Thompson was the most signifcant recent mistake in the continuing decline of conservatism within the Republican Party.

Again, you are making obscure points which the average voter has no knowledge of. They did what they were told. Every additional post you make highlights that point.

So it is your position that all of Huckabee's support is because Dobson told them to do so? That's the only reason you can believe?

Wow. Then Fred really screwed up, didn't he? The man spoke a few words and moved something close to 60% of Fred's numbers over to Huckabee. I guess Fred shoulda made nice.

If we had an unmistakable Evangelical Conservative to vote for as a block we probably would because we could understand his worldview and trust him.

Ahem. We are now entering the 8th year of the presidency of an evangelical conservative. I fully understand his worldview and trust his integrity. While I believe his faith was a boon in dealing with 9-11 and its aftermath, it has been an anethema in advancing conservative positions on immigration and government spending.

The "Evangelical Right" have no strategy.

Correct.

Did you read the article? That is what he said!

The article simply said that reporters asked him to clarify his statements on religion. They did not say, "What do you think of Christianity?" Nor did they say, "What do you think of Jesus?" You say that he answered a question that wasn't in fact asked. And yes, I did "read the article." Weird that someone would read an article and come to a diametrically opposite point of view on it. I'm betting this isn't the first time.

OK mr/mrs sanity, what was he talking about, the price of tea in China? Did you read the article?

He was not going to say "I believe in Jesus so you can vote for me" or any other sundry throwaway dumb quotes which mean absolutely nothing in a political campaign ("I go to church twice a week." "Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior, now vote for me.")

He said, in effect, I'm not going to toot my own religious credentials to try to hype my candidacy. I respect him for that. I probably would have done the same thing. It's probably the reason that his candidacy ended this early. But it's probably the reason he'll be able to look himself in the mirror in the morning with integrity and self-respect intact. I'm not sure a Republican candidate left in the race can do that. Ron Paul probably could, but mirrors aren't in the Constitution so he doesn't have one.

I'm not attacking Thompson, I've been defending Dobson.

By attacking Thompson. It can't be both ways. Dobson can't be a highly intelligent and articulate defender of the faith and simultaneously be unaware how his statements about Thompson would be perceived and used.

Both will need lots of prayers

Why would Thompson need any more prayer than my Aunt Barb?

no less gracious than you who replied as a condescending wiseass to my sincere post

so don’t cry when you get some of your own medicine back at you...that’s so female passive agressive

btw....it probably escaped you and sideshow but you both exemplify what I was alluding to

congrats again

So it is your position that all of Huckabee's support is because Dobson told them to do so? That's the only reason you can believe?

Not just Dobson. It's much more organic than that. It's local pastors. It's email chains. Homeschool associations. But if you gave them a quiz on the difference between the Supreme Court's overturning Roe v. Wade and a RLA, I don't think the simple majority of them could quantify them to any real degree. And they would be glad to have either one. And if they can't quantify the difference between the two, why are they suddenly and adamantly opposed to one of the positions? Because they were told to be.

So, attacking a person who holds a slightly different position strategically while aiming to accomplish the same goal is the epitome of stupidity. And Huckabee attacked Thompson, knowing that that was where he could gain support. He didn't attack McCain, even when McCain stood between him and victory in South Carolina. Any reports of push-polling against McCain by Huck's surrogates at Common Sense Issues? I didn't think so. Does McCain support a RLA? I didn't think so.

In short, seeing a vast sea of difference where's there's really only a stream of difference in tactic and magnifying that difference into a question Peter's going to ask us at the pearly gates is exactly what was done to Thompson by Huckabee's campaign and his willing supporters in Evangelicaldom. Cynical and machiavellian. Which Jesus is way down with. As long as we advance the cause, right?

no less gracious than you who replied as a condescending wiseass to my sincere post

If you could direct me to the parts which were sincere, that would be great.

it probably escaped you and sideshow but you both exemplify what I was alluding to

Um...except "exemplify" has an actual meaning. And it does not mean "wrong on every single solitary point."

And neither you nor even the holy and infallible Dr. James Dobson speak on behalf of all evangelicals.

I know that but since Dr. Dobson is an Evangelical, and I am an Evangelical and he described my point of view, a point of view about Thompson that I have corroborated with my family and lot of other Evangelical Christians, I'd say that Dobson nailed it this time. He did not influence me, he just agrees with me. There's a big difference.

I don't think that Dobson attacked Thompson, he simply pointed out, in a conversation with a reporter, that Thompson did not appear to be Christian, a fact that did not help him with evangelicals. That's all. I believe that if Thompson had assured Dobson, in private conversation, that he believed that Jesus had died to save him from his sins, that Dobson would have proclaimed "Thank God we have a Conservative Christian running for the presidency!!!". If Thompson is a Christian, he should not have been ashamed or afraid to say so. But he simply wouldn't say so. He is what he is and he ain't what he ain't but thank God that can change if God wants it to.

Nice post BTW. I agree with many of the mistakes you listed.

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.