Why are so many Republicans freaking out about John McCain’s primary success?

I’ve given quite a bit of thought to that question this week because I happen to be one of those freaking out over the prospect of a McCain nomination.

Some cite McCain’s positions and past votes and say he is on the wrong side of too many issues, but the same can be said of George Bush. Why does McCain seem to ignite such emotion and strong opposition in so many? There are a lot of positions McCain has taken that have angered conservatives, to be sure. Opposition to the Bush tax cuts, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, Gang of 14, the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, global warming and drilling in ANWR are just a few.

The strong negative reaction from conservatives is not solely because of his positions on issues, though. The reason so many conservatives are concerned about the prospect of a McCain nomination and a McCain presidency has almost as much to do with the way McCain has taken the positions he has, as the positions themselves.

As I often tell my children when they get in trouble for talking back or giving me attitude, sometimes it is not what you say, but rather how you say it.

I was not happy about McCain’s opposition to the Bush tax cuts. As disappointed as I was with his vote, though, what really angered me was the "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric he used to explain his opposition. I think it is horrible when Democrats play that class warfare game, but realize that many of them actually believe it and even those who don’t believe it know they need to say it because that is what their base wants to hear. It was hard for me to imagine any reason a true conservative would want to say such things. I still can't.

For many years McCain has displayed what appears to be a need for the love and acceptance of the media and Democrats. He often seemed to go out of his way to find fault with those in his own party in order to further cultivate his maverick persona. Instead of being a representative of the Republican party, or even of conservatism, he often emphasized his differences with others in the party and the movement, or allowed those in the media to do so for him.

I suspect many of those “freaking out” about McCain being the standard bearer for the Republican party have gone through the same progression I have over the past year.

McCain has been working hard for a year or so now to assure conservatives that he is one of them. His strong support for the war effort and the surge went a long way in making that case. He also softened his rhetoric against those in his own party. Over the summer I forgot many of the reasons I had opposed McCain as a presidential candidate. When he was down in the polls and did not appear likely to have a shot at the nomination, it was easy to forgive and forget.

When McCain started winning primaries and took the lead in the national polls, though, some of those reasons for my original opposition starting seeping back into my memory.

One of my earliest recollections of a negative reaction to McCain was in 2000 over what appeared to me to be a meltdown in South Carolina over “dirty tricks.” In 2000, going into the South Carolina primary, McCain ran a television ad accusing George Bush of “twisting the truth like Clinton,” while at the same time complaining about negative campaign tactics. I couldn't help but wonder how he would react to criticism and dirty campaign tactics from Democrats in a general election.

Comparing a fellow Republican to Bill Clinton back in 2000, knowing there was a good possibility that candidate would end up being the nominee and Democrats could use those words to discredit him, did not sit well with me at all. It led me to believe I could not trust McCain to do what was in the best interest of the party.

In 2001, speculation that McCain might change his party affiliation to switch the balance of power in the Senate only fueled that mistrust.

In 2004, McCain made his "dishonest and dishonorable" comment regarding the Swift Boat Vets. He sided with John Kerry, rather than with 250 plus Vietnam vets, including some fellow POWs. He didn't just say that he would have to look into the claims of the Swifties, or that he didn't know the specifics. No. He called the actions of those men "dishonest and dishonorable." Not only did he not apologize for that comment, but he reportedly entertained the idea of running with John Kerry.

I had put much of that out of my mind though. It is now 2008 and my desire to see Republicans retain control of the White House, and particularly to see a Republican commander in chief, seemed most important and polls repeatedly showed McCain the candidate most likely to beat a Democrat in November. The performance of McCain in the most recent debate, characterized by some as angry and sneering, along with what appear to be unfair attacks on Mitt Romney over the issue of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, brought it all back – the temper I saw in 2000, the repeated high profile breaks with Republicans on big issues and the flirtations with Democrats about switching parties. Unlike some conservatives I am hearing from, I will vote for McCain in November if he is the nominee. Even for all his faults, McCain has many strengths and is vastly superior to Hillary or Obama. He has impressed me on the conference calls he has held frequently with bloggers where he has patiently and candidly answered any question put to him. Foreign policy/defense is one of my top issues, and I think McCain will be strong there.

It will take a lot to convince me that he can be trusted on issues important to conservatives, though, or even that he can be trusted to positively represent the party. He has built his entire political persona on showing how much he differs from Republicans and conservatives. That does not bode well for those wanting a White House that is more conservative than the current one.

Huh?

My explanation is dirt simple. The mid point of the electorate is about 5 points to the left of president Bush, instead of being 2 points to his right as it was in the last election.

McCain is 5 or 10 points to the left of Bush. Romney is 5 or 10 points to the right of Bush.

Romney is a higher "bid" by conservatives, hoping that we can get more on policy. If the country were truly with us in that respect, Romney would poll well ahead of McCain against Democrats - and Bush would also poll well above 50%. McCain would lose the right wing and fail to pick up any numbers of people centerward, because there wouldn't be much room between Bush and Hillary, so nearly every voter to Bush's left would be a convinced Dem.

But instead, it is not true that nearly everyone to Bush's left is a convinced Dem. Instead, the Dems are bidding very high on pacifism as well as economics and social policy. And plenty of people in the country are not willing to follow them all the way on such things. Bush is perceived as failing and as too far right overall. But the Dems do not have over 50% of the public sewn up.

Instead there is ground between Bush and Hillary, and McCain is attempting to stand smack on that ground. He has positioned himself close to the Dems on numerous high profile issues, but kept strongly to their right on the war and security. He thinks war and security is our big winning issue against them, while he has tried to neutralize their other differences.

Huckabee is an attempt to neutralize differences with them over economics by selling economic populism, and even to limit differences with them over the war (see his foreign affairs love letter to the Kennedy School of Government), while distinguishing himself from them over the social conservative issues, faith and abortion etc. It has not sold, even to Republican primary voters. It performs horribly against the Dems in head to head polling.

Romney has attempted to neutralize the Dems on health care, through policy wonkism and reference to his past Massachusett's-required socialist compromises. Although he has softpeddled it in a conservative Republican primary process, he has in the past also attempted to neutralized social issue divisions e.g. gay marriage etc. He has bid right on economics, the war, and immigration, making him by far the most conservative candidate left in the race.

But it hasn't won him even half of the republican primary vote, at least not yet. And it so far leaves him 15-20 point behind the Dems in national head to head polls. He might improve that with better name recognition etc. But he represents a much higher "bid", expecting the electorate to be considerable more conservative than they were last time, or the time before that, or the time before that. Because Romney is running to the right of either Bush term, and to the right of Dole in 1996.

We lost one of those against triangulating Dem centrism, and barely won two rounds of it against pretty hard left pols. The pres and republican in the house and senate have lost at least 5 and perhaps 10-15 points of support since then. Some of the latter may be particular to Bush, but at least 5 of it is not (see congress last time). The electorate, in other words, has trended left, largely because of discontent over the war.

Perfectly conventional political expectations when the public has moved left by a substantial amount, when we barely won the last two times, is that it would be necessary to move somewhat left merely to remain as competitive as the last two times. That is what McCain thinks is required and positioned himself for. The same conventional political expectations would say, if instead we tried to move 10 or more points to the right, with the public going the other way, then we would lose by double digits. Which is exactly what the head to head polls of Romney vs. either Dem are saying.

All of that conventional understanding might be wrong. The country might epically shift by more than Reagan revolution amounts, in favor of true blue conservatism, in the brief span between now and the general election. But that is what it would take to elect a president Romney. As currently positioned, only Goldwater 1964 and Reagan both times, were more conservative stances. The public is not remotely as hostile to Democrats as in 1980, nor remotely as happy with current Republican governance as in 1984.

So why, exactly, should we expect Romney to be more likely to win that McCain? Or forget relative chances, why exactly should we expect Romney to pull more than 50%, when he is to Bush's right, Bush is well under 50%, and the electorate is trending left?

One might, I suppose, pretend that Bush is failing because he isn't right enough. But if that were the true reason, then Dems would be getting slaughtered in the congressional and governor level races, because they are positioned way, way to Bush's left. Instead they are pulling more than half the electorate.

I do not have to like any of this to be able to see it. The right simply is not strong at this time, because we are held responsible for what are perceived as failing Bush policies. Our own attacks on Bush over other issues, and conservative attempts to distance themselves from him, have weakened the entire right.

I don't care about blame questions for that, just the accuracy of the assessment. I want to live in the real world, and the real present strength of conservatism is important to me. I do not think wishing or pretending it is 25% stronger than it actually is can make it so. I see how few republicans voted for the likes of Thompson, or even for a Romney. The center of my own party, let alone the whole electorate, is far to my own left. I see it, I face it, I reason about its consequences.

And it entirely explains McCain. He is moving left chasing the median voter. He needs me and those who agree with me far less than even Bush did. He is finding more votes toward the center than he is losing to his right - I can tell, because he is winning primaries and because everyone else still standing is doing similar things in one fashion or another. I can also tell because all the big republicans who have to fight and win state wide races are also running centerward and many are endorsing him - not chasing after the approval of the Ann Coulers and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

You don't need to be a weatherman to see which way the wind blows...

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.