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

Sideshow Bob | January 29, 2008 | Sideshow Bob

[Sideshow Bob]

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?

Nope.

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.

[ejonesie22]

There are no conservatives left in the race, save Alan Keyes, if one wants to say he is actually in the race.

If you mean Ron Paul, since I see your name on his threads, give me a break, he is a Libertarian and best politically and out of his mind on the most important issue of the day.

[ejonesie22]

And twice as crazy too...

Damn, just damn...

I should have known.

[pke]

Thank you for the analysis.

[MeanWestTexan]

Yeah, my flimsy basis for this suspician is: (1) Gingrich was toying with running; (2) Gingrich was vocally jealous of a draft-Thompson campaign (and clearly thought he should be the subject of the draft);(3) Gingrich was using Dobson as a sort-of father-confessor figure at the time; and (4) I don’t like Gingrich, as he is an ego-maniac.

I just susepct Gingrich was using Dobson to make the path clear for himself, but that may be more of a product of my personal dislike/distrust of Newt than anything.

[Sideshow Bob]

Yeah, my flimsy basis for this suspician is: (1) Gingrich was toying with running; (2) Gingrich was vocally jealous of a draft-Thompson campaign (and clearly thought he should be the subject of the draft);(3) Gingrich was using Dobson as a sort-of father-confessor figure at the time; and (4) I don’t like Gingrich, as he is an ego-maniac.

I think your points 1 & 2 are probable-bordering-on-what actually-happened.

And points 3 & 4 are likely and fit the facts.

Thanks.

[MeanWestTexan]

I know point #3 to be a fact, as it was widely reported that Newt was essentially confessing his sin of infidelity to Dobson and seeking absolution.

Newt also had the connections (and political timing) to make Dobson’s leak most effective.

[Designer]

"..the most important issue of the day."

So you say the issue of terrorism is the most important issue of the day?

Is that by your assessment?

I say there are many important issues:

Some will say that it is the issue of abortion.

Some will say it is our ecomomy.

Others will say it is the issue of our losing our sovreignty.

I say that a realistic candidate should address each and every issue, and not just one of them.

Ron Paul at least recognizes where the terrorists have derived their power, their training, and their money.

My money's on Ron Paul.

[ejonesie22]

If we lose our ability to fuel our vehicles and industry the rest are moot points.

If one American citizen dies at the hands of a terrorist on our soil, the rest are moot points.

Ron Paul wants to run away, wants to give in, that is not American, that is cowardly.

Thankfully the rest of use are at least clear headed and sane enough not to follow his lead.

So keep your money on Ron Paul, at least it is in good company with money from the left and other fringe groups, and maybe it is getting back into the economy as RP signs and other paraphernalia are being made.

If nothing else you can server as a shinning example of the old adage about a fool and his money.

[roamer_1]

their song reflected the pride that all Southerners have in what they are, what they believe and where they come from, warts and all.

Is there anyone in Dixie that doesn't know "Sweet Home Alabama" (not to mention any redneck from sea to sea) by heart? It may well be that you can find a few, but the song is iconic, and as you said, speaks to the vast majority of Southern folks. One would do better to bad mouth NASCAR than to hack on "Sweet Home".

I found the inherent ignorance to be eye-opening, and may well be the same sort of thing as one finds when talking of the Rebel flag (another Southern and country icon oft held in ill repute), both of which speak to the blood of a native son.

I think it is that "country" thing that others cannot understand, that is the heart of hearts regarding Conservatism. It is why their sophistry and connivance always hit a brick wall south of the Mason Dixon line and west of the Mississippi River. A good thing, too.

[roamer_1]

what’s even sillier is I am neither a Dobson nor Huckabee supporter but the inherent bias some supporters have against them for their own private reasons rankles me

I am not a supporter of Huck or Dobson either, and as to the rest, I see it much the same way as you do. I have considered getting onto the Huckabee bandwagon just to piss them off. Montana is said to be a close thing for Huckabee, so my vote would even count in that regard.

It is funny to me when they ridicule Huckabee, spraying him with "hick" rhetoric. They don't realize that they are solidifying and energizing his followers, and the same can be said of the anti-Christian spiel as well.

[roamer_1]

Keyes is fairly conservative, and I was a supporter of his once, but this time we have Ron Paul, who is more conservative than Keyes.

I will disagree. Keyes is a quintessential Reagan Conservative. Paul, OTOH, seems to be a big "L" libertarian with some Socon strains. I cannot fathom his pacifism, especially in the face of the present danger. His foreign policy is anathema to me. "Blame America first" doesn't hunt.

I like many of his domestic ideas, and largely agree, but wrt his method, and what he has already promised, he has bitten off far more than he can chew. I am all for small government, but with pruning shears over years of time. He is proposing an ax, and too much pruning all at once will kill the tree.

[roamer_1]

Sorry, I left out the word "viable" conservative. That would eliminate both Keyes and Huckabee.

LOL! And just how do you propose to win the South with an anti-life,anti-gun big government RINO named Romney or McCain? Without the South there is no win.

Your definition of "viable" must be different from the norm.

[roamer_1]

While Fredheads may be slow to realize that they lost because Fred mishandled the situation with the Christian voters who vote en block[...]

Is that a bit of a concession? ;)

[...] the Huckabites are more slow to realize that he cannot win without convincing Republicans that all of his liberal acts as governor aren't indicative of who he'll be as President.

Agreed.

Socons need ficons and vice versa.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I think that both sides are guilty of supporting candidates for their own purposes, while failing to see that their respective candidates are not palatable to the other.

This is precisely what ails Conservatives. It is voting AGAINST the coalition compromise to do so. No candidate should be palatable to any of the three factions unless the candidate embraces all three pillars of Reagan Conservatism.

It is in this way, and only in this way, that we force the Republican party to give us respectable candidates. The three factions apart cannot win anything, and RINOs rule the day.

[the808bass]

Is that a bit of a concession? ;)

I think it's self-evident. I defend his decision to do exactly what he did as I would have done the same. I would've never kowtowed to anyone who decided I wasn't a Christian without ever having a conversation with me. I don't think Fred was suited to kiss enough behind to get the nomination. He wouldn't tell enough people what they wanted to hear. As it stands, we have 3 people who will tell everyone what they want to hear. And 1 batty uncle.

[Sideshow Bob]

And just how do you propose to win the South with an anti-life,anti-gun big government RINO named Romney or McCain? Without the South there is no win.

I don't. I expect the GOP to lose. Which is why I posted my vanity analysis.

And with the news today that Dr. James Dobson will not support John McCain under any circumstances, things will only get worse.

If Dobson makes this announcement 10 days earlier, Fred Thompson wins both South Carolina and Louisiana and the GOP would still have a viable conservative in the race.

Instead, we're going to get stuck with McCain as our nominee and Dobson's single-issue evangelicals won't even get lip service in a McCain or - more likely - Obama/Hilary administration.

Boy, that Dr. Dobson has shrewd political skills.

And for those evangelicals who are pinning their hopes on McCain selecting Huckabee as his Vice Presidential nominee -- not so fast, my friends!

McCain's VP choice could be Huckabee. But I wuldn't be shocked if Juan McCain chooses Joe Lieberman instead, especially if the Dem's nominee is Hilary.

McCain hates conservatives - always has. He only uses them when he needs to. McCain prefers to reach across the aisle and craves the media attention a bipartisan ticket would give him.

Right now, McCain & Ed Rollins are crunching the numbers.

Lieberman could help McCain carry New England (ME, CT, MA, NH, DE, RI), maybe even New York. Huckabee would give the Northeast completely to Hilary or Obama.

Lieberman could help McCain carry the Mid-Atlantic (PA, DE MD, NJ, DC), except maybe Maryland & DC. Huckabee would give the Mid-Atlantic completely to Hilary or Obama.

Huckabee could help McCain carry a few states in the Midwest (WV, OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, IA, MN, MO). Minnesota, Michigan & Illinois will vote Democrat no matter what, but especially for Obama. All the others (sadly even OH & IN), are leaning Democrat, but MO, OH & IN are still in play.

Huckabee could help McCain in the Plains (OK, NE, KS, SD, ND), especially against Hilary. Lieberman provides no real benefit, especially against Obama.

Neither Huckabee nor Lieberman provide any benefit in the Mountain states (NM, AZ, CO, WY, MT, NV, ID, UT). New Mexico leans Dem, but the rest should be safely GOP.

Lieberman could help McCain carry the Pacific states (CA, OR, WA, AK, HI), especially California, Washington & Oregon. Huckabee provides no support out west. Hawaii will vote Hilary/Obama no matter what and Alaska will go GOP unless Ron Paul runs 3rd party.

Add that up.

McCain has
Locked up: CO, WY, MT, NV, ID, UT, AK (w/ no Paul)
Leaners: OK, NE, KS, SD, ND

Hilary/Obama has
Locked up: HI, MI, IL, MN, MD, DC, MA (if Obama)
Leaners: WI, IA, WV, CA, OR, NJ, WA, NM, MA (if Hilary)

In play
OH, IN, MO, PA

In play w/ Lieberman
RI, CT, NY, ME, VT, NH, NY

The key to November is again in the South (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, KY, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX). But first, McCain & Rollins need to figure out whether they will face Hilary or Obama.

If it's Hilary, McCain has to calculate if it's better to try to appeal to Huckabee backers and actual "hold their nose to vote for McCain" conservatives & Republicans (3 distinct groups) OR to appeal to African-Americans & Clinton-fatigued Democrats with Lieberman.

If it's Obama, McCain is weighing Huckabee & the above 3 GOP groups versus Lieberman & white, racist Democrats and other Clinton backers.

My bet is that McCain will continue to string Huckabee along and use Huckabee to stay in the race and split the consevative vote unitl he has enough delegates to lock up the nomination. After that, McCain will resort back to his nature, stab his fellow Republican in the back and select Lieberman as his VP.

And when that happens, Victor Davis Hanson and the rest of the McCain apologists will still defend him.

[roamer_1]

You and I have gone around a bit, but I'll give you this the808bass, You are a straight shooter.

I defend his decision to do exactly what he did as I would have done the same.

And I am happy to concede that he had every right to do as he did, and I can understand your defense in that regard, even though I don't believe his actions were all that wise. I will also say the very same thing wrt Dobson.

As it stands, we have 3 people who will tell everyone what they want to hear. And 1 batty uncle.

LOL! On that we are in complete agreement, I assure you.

[the808bass]

Here’s to conservatism, at least what’s left of it. Good posting with you.

[roamer_1]

I don't. I expect the GOP to lose. Which is why I posted my vanity analysis.

Me too.

And with the news today that Dr. James Dobson will not support John McCain under any circumstances, things will only get worse.

Dobson made that announcement in January of '07. He has always found McCaine extremely distasteful. The first eliminated by Dobson was Giuliani, the second McCain. The third was Romney (at about the same time as McCain), though based mainly on the idea that Evangelicals would find it hard to vote for a Mormon, and then Fred late in the summer. Sometime shortly thereafter, he gave a nod to Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, and Brownback, though endorsing none over the other.

Instead, we're going to get stuck with McCain as our nominee and Dobson's single-issue evangelicals won't even get lip service in a McCain or - more likely - Obama/Hilary administration.

That does look to be the case, but the spoiler isn't Huckabee. The spoiler is Romney.

And for those evangelicals who are pinning their hopes on McCain selecting Huckabee as his Vice Presidential nominee

Such a case is very unlikely, and those who promote it here on FR, are without a reasonable knowledge of Conservatism. Huck and Romney are fighting for the Conservative vote. McCain has none of that. He is an establishment RINO, and as such represents the liberal RINO vote, and has a shot at the seccons (who have no other home, divided w/ Romney). Romney is the "business/free trade/economy" and for some reason the "small government" vote, and Huck represents the socons.

That is why you see a fight between McCain and Romney, fighting over the seccons and the business RINOs, and a fight between Huck and Romney over the socons and libertarians (both of which are futile attempts).

There is no fight between Huck and McCain, because there is no reasonable chance either can take the vote of the other.

My bet is that McCain will continue to string Huckabee along and use Huckabee to stay in the race and split the consevative vote unitl he has enough delegates to lock up the nomination.

This statement is based upon the faulty assumption that Romney could ever own Huckabee's supporters. This notion is most certainly false, as well as any notion that McCain could own those votes.

Your entire overview of McCain's chances due to VP is tainted by te faulty assumption that the Republicans can win any red state with a pro-choice, anti-2a presidential candidate, regardless of his VP pick. A dubious scenario at best.

You are correct that unless the Conservatives field a dark horse or fire up a new party, the Dems are going to take it.

If it is Hillary, expect an easy win, but a reasonably static situation in the House and Senate. If it is Obama, It will be a huge win with coattails, and super-majority a possibility.

[roamer_1]

Here’s to conservatism, at least what’s left of it.

Hear, Hear!

Good posting with you.

Likewise. CYA

[Theophilus]

Socons need ficons

Most Socons are Ficons! We see Abortion as a fiscal issue. People are a nation's greatest resource. That is why we are being challenged by China and India. With less people you get less producing, less consuming, less economy of scale. Demography is destiny.

BTW Abortion should be a Defcon's biggest issue as well. A nation of single children is very hard to recruit. Many are selfish, and of those who are not, many of their parents dissuade their desire to serve. I know this because I live and work very close to recruiting. A nation without soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines is a nation without defense.

Abortion is first a formost an moral issue, but like so many moral issues, it is also a fiscal and security issue. It's not merely a "single issue", it's any issue at the nexus every other issue of human concern. Children are our future. Life is what we treasure most. Let's stop the bleeding like our nation's life depends on it. Because it does.