Christine Whitman and Robert Bostock: GOP can't afford to remain hostage to social fundamentalists

Four years ago, in the week after the 2004 presidential election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America."

Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by "social fundamentalists," the people who base their votes on such social issues as abortion, gay rights and stem cell research. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.

At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the "base" at all costs was the way to go. A former speech writer for President Bush, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the McCain campaign this year, called the book "airy blather" and said its argument fell somewhere between "insufferable snobbery" and "complete cluelessness." Gary Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a "Michael Moore radical." National Review said its warnings were, "at best, counterintuitive," and Ann Coulter said the book was "based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false."

While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason John McCain lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry held just a 9 percentage point margin among moderate voters over President Bush. This year, the spread between Barack Obama and McCain was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 2008.

In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Obama's vote total exceeded the total won by President Bush four years ago. So even if McCain had equaled the president's numbers from 2004 (and he did not), he still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) -- and lost the election. McCain didn't lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Obama broadened his base.

Nor did the Republican ticket lose because "values voters" stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 -- 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, McCain actually won more votes from self-identified white evangelical/born-again voters than Bush did four years ago -- 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates.

Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, McCain tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party's social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, as his running mate was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable.

Palin has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment's notice was not obviously among them this year. Her selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to social fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party's consent.

In the wake of the Democrats' landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John McCain was defeated because the social fundamentalists wouldn't support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don't find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It's long past time for the GOP to do the same.

Christine Todd Whitman, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003, is co-chair of the Republican Leadership Council. Robert M. Bostock, a freelance speechwriter, was her co-author for the book "It's My Party Too." This column first appeared in the Washington Post.

It is clear how Christie Todd Whitman regards social conservatives. She despises them so deeply she cannot even give a fellow Republican to courtesy of a proper appellation, she calls them "social fundamentalists" and obliquely charges them with "demonization." Before the election I wrote that I thought that the real problem for the Republican Party would be to resolve the differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. In the context of what the fiscal conservatives must do if there is to be a rapprochement I said this:

Fiscal conservatives, for their part, must go to bat for Christians when they are embattled by the secularists who would rob them of their faith through the arm of government. Fiscal conservatives owe Christian conservatives one more consideration, they must stop their smug condescension and their eye rolling whenever Christians express their faith in public. Consider for example the execrable figure of the son of William F. Buckley Jr. abandoning the McCain/Palin ticket for ill disguised abhorrence of Palin's faith. This is probably the last kind of bigotry that is socially acceptable in America but it must no longer be acceptable among conservatives. Buckley claims that he is a "small government conservative" but I claim that no matter how small his government, he is no conservative at all but something quite alien to us.

It is clear that Whitman is not willing to stop rolling her eyes. I believe that this comes not from her green eye shade conclusions arrived at only after crunching numbers from the last election (which other analysts have crushed and come to exactly the opposite conclusion), but from the great cleft between the right and left in America: abortion. I think Christie Todd Whitman objects to Sarah Palin for one reason only and it has to do with abortion. I think that Whitman's objection to Palin and to social "fundamentalists" is purely visceral and comes out of the abortion issue. I want to Whitman to lose the argument which she makes as she contends for the soul of the Republican Party but I am very glad she is making the argument. It must be made and every body must understand that it has been made. At the end of the day conservatism will have to come to a bedrock understanding of its faith and that can only be done by a Darwinian process which hears out all sides. I had this to say elsewhere in the same post:

There will be finger-pointing and acrimony but that is necessary and good. We must rediscover our soul and that cannot be done without bloodletting.

Speaking of bloodletting, it is absolutely vital that the conservative wing of the party come to a final victory over the moderates or we conservatives simply must leave the party. There will be no better time, we will never have less to lose. We will be in control of most of the elected offices and we will be in solid red states, few though they may be. The moderates will be geographically scattered in occasional congressional seats with some odds and ends in statehouses. They will have their voices in the media and some access to money. Many of them will defect to the Democrat party. Some might become libertarians. But conservatives must get lean and mean and come to a clear understanding of who they are and what they stand for. Moderates can come along but only after capitulation. There is no sense taking stragglers and mutineers along into the wilderness.

Not less important than finding our soul, conservatives must ruthlessly enforce party discipline. That can only come after moderates are reconciled to conservative leadership or have gone their own way. There can be no doctrinal accommodation with moderates. There is nothing more to be gained by compromising principle for a few more votes in the caucus because the caucus will have no power anyway. Conservative power will come from the moral strength of ideas. Eventually, if Obama only perverts and does not subvert the constitutional system, the public will realize the moral corruption of the liberal regime.

Christie Todd Witless’ thoughts on the GOP if she was alive in the 1850s:

Two years ago, in the week after the 1854 midterm election, we were working furiously to put the finishing touches on the book we co-authored, “It’s My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America.”

Our central thesis was simple: The Republican Party had been taken hostage by “anti-slavery fundamentalists,” the people who base their votes on such social issues as slave abolition, human rights, racial equality, and moral values. Unless the GOP freed itself from their grip, we argued, it would so alienate itself from the broad center of the American electorate that it would become increasingly marginalized and find itself out of power.

At the time, this idea was roundly attacked by many who were convinced that holding on to the “abolitionist base” at all costs was the way to go. A former speech writer for the Whigs, Matthew Scully, who went on to work for the Fremont campaign this year, called the book “airy blather” and said its argument fell somewhere between “insufferable snobbery” and “complete cluelessness.” Gerald Bauer suggested that the book sounded as if it came from a “John Breckenridge radical.” American Review said its warnings were, “at best, counterintuitive,” and Harriet Beecher Stowe said the book was “based on conventional wisdom that is now known to be false.”

What a difference two years makes — and the data show it.

While a host of issues were at play in this election, the primary reason John C. Fremont lost was the substantial erosion of support from self-identified moderates compared with four years ago. In 1852 Democratic nominee Stephen Douglas held just a 9 percentage point margin among moderate voters. This year, the spread between James Buchanan and Fremont was 21 points among this group. The net difference between the two elections is a deficit of nearly 6.4 million moderate votes for the Republicans in 1856.

In seven of the nine states that switched this year from Republican to Democratic, Buchanan’s vote total exceeded the total won by Republicans two years ago. So even if Fremont had equaled the GOP’s numbers from 1854 (and he did not), they still would have lost in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Virginia (81 total electoral votes) — and lost the election. Fremont didn’t lose those states because he failed to hold the base. He lost them because Buchanan broadened his base.

Nor did the Republican ticket lose because “values voters” stayed home. On the contrary, according to exit polls, such voters made up a larger proportion of the electorate this year than in 2004 — 26 percent, up from 23 percent. Extrapolating from those data, Fremont actually won more votes from self-identified anti-slavery, Christian evangelical/born-again voters than the GOP did four years ago — 1.8 million more. But that was not enough to offset the loss of so many moderates.

Following the conventional wisdom of the past two presidential elections, Fremont tried mightily to assuage the Republican Party’s social-fundamentalist wing. His selection of Senator William Dayton, whose social views are entirely aligned with that wing, as his running mate was clearly meant to demonstrate his commitment to that bloc. Yet while his choice did comfort those voters, it made many others uncomfortable.

Dayton has many attractive qualities as a candidate. Being prepared to become president at a moment’s notice was not obviously among them this year. His selection cost the ticket support among those moderate voters who saw it as a cynical sop to anti-slavery fundamentalists, reinforcing the impression that they control the party, with the party’s consent.

In the wake of the Democrats’ landslide victory, and despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the GOP are arguing that John Fremont was defeated because the anti-slavery fundamentalists wouldn’t support him. They seem to be suffering from a political strain of Stockholm syndrome. They are identifying with the interests of their political captors and ignoring the views of the larger electorate. This has cost the Republican Party the votes of millions of people who don’t find a willingness to acquiesce to hostage-takers a positive trait in potential leaders.

Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to anti-slavery fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness. On Nov. 4, the American people very clearly rejected the politics of demonization and division. It’s long past time for the GOP to do the same.

Christine Todd Whitman, who served as administrator of the Fugetive Slave Bounty Board from 1851 to 1853, is co-chair of the Republican Leadership Council. Robert M. Bostock, a freelance speechwriter, was her co-author for the book “It’s My Party Too.” This column first appeared in the Washington Post.

Pardon me, ms. Whitman, but your ignorance is showing...

Shortly before MccAin't's campaign conversion at Saddleback, when he and his handlers came to the understanding that his "Giuliani Gambit" was not working... Remember that? That was MccAin't and the RINOs playing to the middle. Flat broke, packing their own bags, attracting crowds of 100 or so to ()bamas stadiums' full...

Yeah, Ms. Whitman, I can see where that was working for you... /not

I can see where even more RINOcracy might have saved the day. Too bad he couldn't hold out for a while more till all that big center/left money started rolling in... /ROTFLMAO

No doubt the chances would have been much, much better with Pawlenty or Lieberman as a VP pick, and no doubt they'd have been able t stir up the indys to the same roaring, speedway venue filling crowds that Palin brought to the ticket /BWAHAHAHAHA

In fact, I think you should be mad at MccAin't! He sold out his "principles" (or whatever you RINO dingbats have, Lord knows it ain't principles) for filthy Conservative money and silly rocketing polls! That's what I think! /*snicker*

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.