Posted on 01/25/2008 7:35:34 AM PST by RockinRight
A few thoughts on what has happened to the GOP, and why the definition of conservatism is changing.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan formed the coalition of various types of conservatism and united us together under a big, but not too big, tent. You had the Barry Goldwater conservatives. Small government, free-market economics, Federalist, eliminate the Dept. of Education and welfare, leave us the hell alone, etc. You had the Rockefeller Republicans, who were never totally happy with Reagan, but as long as big business was at least treated respectfully, they were happy enough. You had the newest part of the movement, the old Reagan Democrats and social conservatives that Reagan pulled into the mix, and the one that put the party over the top, the Religious Right, who was primarily initially attracted to the GOP for the values issues - abortion, and, eventually gays and family values. In this Cold War age you also had the defense hawks, who also usually belonged to one of the other groups as well. Finally, you had the Reagan Republicans, who were updated Goldwater Republicans who also supported the issues of pretty much all the united factions and had a strong patriotic streak. Bascially, a pro-American, traditional values party that believed in capitalism and defending our nation. All is good and happy so far.
In 1994, it all came to a head. Republicans of all stripes swept the House and Senate and started off with a platform that made all factions of the Party happy. Even accomplished a few of them.
But then, as Washington changed the politicians, the factions started becoming more isolated. The Religious Right became the most dominant on one side, and on the other side the Rockefeller Republicans had a resurgence. The rift was developing, and the Reagan/Goldwater types were the least prominent in this whole mix.
Additionally, we came to discover that the Religious Right wasn't really all that "right wing" and in fact many of them (but by no means all) were perfectly happy with socialism, big government, liberal or populist economics, and nannystatism as long as the policy was to be pro life and anti gay marriage. The fiscal conservatives in both the Reagan/Goldwater camp and the Rockefeller and Neocon types started to actually veer away from social issues because they were losing so many other parts of the platform that had united all of us just 15 or 20 years earlier. Finally, the 9/11 terror attacks started yet a new type of Republican, a revitalized Defense Hawk, the WOT Republicans like Dennis Miller and Ron Silver, who weren't particularly conservative, but also not particularly liberal, but they wanted to kick as much Islamofascist ass as humanly possible. Thankfully, since the Religious Right, the Rockefellers, the Reaganites, and the Neocons are largely pro-WOT, these guys are currently the happiest in the GOP right now.
So in this election cycle, you have candidates representing each faction, but really nobody that pulls together the entire Reagan coalition the way it needs to be done.
Fred Thompson, who has dropped out, was the only one with the promise of that bread-and-butter, All-American conservative who appealed to ALL parts of the movement. Unfortunately, our media-driven culture didn't find him exciting or pretty enough.
John McCain is a mix of a defense hawk and a Rockefeller Republican and mostly appeals to older veterans, moderates, and Rockefeller types.
Mitt Romney is somewhat a Reaganite, but his past record makes it a tough sell for some. Most former Thompson supporters go here.
Giuliani is similar to McCain but more fiscally conservative and less socially, he's basically a classic Rockefeller Republican with a defense hawk streak.
Mike Huckabee is the perfect example of a Religious Right candidate who is only conservative on the values issues but ignores most of the others and is in fact liberal on many of them.
And then there's Ron Paul, over in the corner by himself, reading Ayn Rand and spouting off Alzheimer's induced rants about nation building, isolationism, and the gold standard.
American idle voters flushed good conservative candidates in favor of name recognition and the mythical electability beast.
(Hey, it's a comment)
Yeah, another vanity...
Well done. Depressing, but well done.
Did someone put something in your coffee?
He is moreso than any other remaining candidate, yes.
Good commentary. The GOP is tearing itself apart with its vicious name-calling that will very likely superimpose itself on the electability of whichever GOP members are selected. We can only hope the Dems will also take themselves to the same slaughterhouse although, having been out of power for so long, they are probably more driven to stick together at election time.
Additionally, we came to discover that the Religious Right wasn't really all that "right wing" and in fact many of them (but by no means all) were perfectly happy with socialism, big government, liberal or populist economics, and nannystatism as long as the policy was to be pro life and anti gay marriage.
It's the reason Huckabee is still viable. I hope, not for long.
Good analysis. I like the inclusion of “Rockefeller Republicans” as a wing because I think analysis often ignores this by calling them “economic conservatives” . . . but this lumps the Chamber of Commerce type in with the libertarian and movement conservative type . . . and they are almost completely different even if those groups all proclaim economic conservatism. Economic Conservative, National Defense Conservative, Social Conservative and “Moderates” (”Rockefeller Republicans” — often upper middle class or wealthy, business oriented, country club, good old boy network types) and libertarians make up the bulk of the party. Just seeing 3 legs on the stool is inaccurate in my view because it leaves out two major classes: Moderates and Libertarians who don’t fit neatly into any of the 3 commonly discussed “wings” of the party.
If he appealed to all parts of the movement then why did 84% of the movement vote against him in South Carolina?
Well, basically I included Moderates as Rockefellers and libertarians as the Goldwater types.
I could be considered a Goldwater type but I’m not really a libertarian, although I agree with them on a few things.
Read the next sentence. I should say he believed in all parts of the movement, and believed in the importance of having a united platform.
WHAT ABOUT HUNTER???
Hunter is somewhere close to Fred. And also dropped out.
I am working and typed this between work tasks, cut me a break.
What about him? He lost my respect when he endorsed Huck.
Well, basically I included Moderates as Rockefellers and libertarians as the Goldwater types.
______________________________________________________
Exactly, I think you are right and a lot of the cartoonists and pundits are wrong to ignore them or think that lumping them into “economic conservative” is sufficient.
Break cut. It’s really well written and I actually think you should make sure Hannity and Limbaugh see it.
Heard on Clear Channel, AGAIN this morning, about the “vast right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton.”
I think Hunter is solid on everything as a conservative, except for the “Moderate” or “Rockefeller” wing, where they would be scared of his nationalist trade policy ideas and his immigration stance.
I just don’t know how I missed it. And besides, I just got another donation request!
From Hunter?
do you think if you keep repeating that it means it’s true? There are more Dems than Republicans now. The Demographics have changed dramatically in this country. Your thesis does not explain the losses of Conservatives already in office.
I would but I don’t want my name mentioned on the radio...
The demographics is another factor that will be the subject of another rant. I’m more focused here on the in-fighting that we’re experiencing.
I can’t explain the stupidity of voters but if the GOP becomes another liberal party they can look for their votes elswhere.
On the other hand, many of the democrats that were elected in the last round are more conservative than their predecessors. In my district we threw out a RINO and replaced him with a conservative republican.
Nationalist trade policy?
I think it was his name I heard proposing a ‘double fence’ act...?
Yep. And I feel bad because I gave Thompson $200 and Hunter only $50. None of which is deductible. And never will be if McCain has his way!
RR, I think your piece would stand on its own even if you sign it Anon E. Mouse.
You've seen the explanation at FR from various sources. Somehow, Fred failed to court ardently enough the swooning schoolgirls who call themselves Republicans.
Yeah, sure, you get these "conservatives" who tell you that they're different because they really think about the issues, but the Thompson candidacy pretty much kicked that pretension to the curb.
They didn't want to think -- they wanted flowers and candy. And that's what they'll get, too.
Ping!
If that’s the case, then the nod will go to Romney and not McCain!
Anyway, the picture you paint suggests also that Thompson’s beautiful wife somehow interfered with the ‘swooning schoolgirls’ ability to picture Fred in the White House!
I only wish I could have given Thompson more. I’m writing in his name in the primary.
Yeah, Reagan was called a "kook" for his call for small-government and a return to the Constitution, too.
I don’t know what I will do. Nothing would please me more than for Hillary to drop out. Please, Lord!
LOL! Interesting mental image, but no, that's not what I'm suggesting.
Rather, look at the complaints directed toward the Thompson campaign. The problem was not his positions, but rather his approach to campaigning. It tells me that Republicans apparently needed to be wooed like naive schoolgirls who choose a beau on the basis of his clothes or car, rather than his long-term prospects as a husband.
It won’t happen, but cheer up. Obama and Edwards are equally as bad.
I’ve come to the conclusion that Thompson’s run was half-hearted and he was in part operating as a stalking horse for McCain; George Will’s recent column pointed out that Thompson attacked Romney in New Hampshire beneffiting McCain and Huckabee in S. Carolina benefitting McCain. Thompson did give a mild dig at McCain in S. Carolina, but not like the thrashing he gave Romney and then Huckabee respectively.
I seriously doubt that.
I think Thompson entered the race and ran as he did, on the assumption that Republicans would flock to a man who stood for the right things, and who eschewed the yapping and preening that has characterized the primary process for the past several election cycles.
Clearly his approach was unsuccessful. But I don't blame Fred Thompson for that.
Midnight voodoo?
And why is that?
There’s a BIG difference between Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul.
For one thing, he could speak without sounding like he needs a straitjacket. Additionally, he realized the reality of the modern world. Paul does not.
I think you’ve nailed the candidates quite well. As for me, I choose to fool myself and vote for Flipper.
Hunter was a great conservative, but for me the armor was chinked when he kept bashing Romney over Bain Capital.
marked for later.
Why do you think they changed? Do voters out there know what Republicans stand for or hear any compelling arguments for those issues? Why do you think the numbers changed? Voters haven’t heard many good reasons to support for Republicans in four years.
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.