One of the principal objections among CPAC attendees is that the Republicans lost because they weren’t “conservative enough.” If Republicans had been more solidly conservative or espoused more conservative views, the argument runs, they would have done better last fall. At the risk of seriously over-generalizing, I’ll call this the “CPAC attendees” point of view.
The principal point in CPAC attendees’ favor is the “bailout” from last October, officially known as the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP). It passed with Republican votes, and it fueled many Republican voters’ anger. (Full disclosure: I favored the TARP at the time, thinking that it would be, well, a toxic asset relief program instead of the ad hocery that the first $350 billion portion eventually became.) Similarly, on spending, it’s hard to find a Republican of any stripe who doesn’t wish that President Bush had vetoed a spending bill at some point when the Republicans ran Congress. We threw away what should have been a natural Republican issue.
On Iraq, there should be no disagreement, except among paleoconservatives and some libertarians who opposed the war. Otherwise, full agreement with a policy of victory, led by the surge.
But let’s look at some other issues:
Financial deregulation: When the crisis hit, did it help or hurt Republicans to have been identified with a policy of financial deregulation, which left the country with, for instance, an essentially unregulated $55 trillion market in credit default swaps that led to the collapse of AIG? Again, I’m not talking about the fairness of the argument here (please, I’ve heard all the arguments about why the Community Reinvestment Act supposedly “caused” a global meltdown), but how Republicans are perceived. (If we were so concerned about CRA, why was there no real push towards greater regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Remember, we held Congress until 2006. So whatever proposals Secretary Snow would have favored were not enacted – by us!) And I know that the Democrats are the party of Goldman Sachs as measured by contributions. But then why were Republicans seen as supporting excessive deregulation, and did it help? (Catching Bernie Madoff might have helped.)
Immigration: Few issues dominated the Republican primaries as much as immigration. Many conservatives were vocal in their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. And the result was a sharp dropoff in support among Hispanics. The voice of the Republican Party on immigration was seen to be Tom Tancredo – not President Bush and certainly not our actual nominee, John McCain. Did this help or hurt? Would we have gained more votes from a harsh policy towards illegal immigrants? If so, in which states? Are there data on this showing that an upsurge in single-issue immigration voting would have offset a decline in support among Hispanics?
Climate change/environment: Rightly or wrongly, Republicans were seen as opposing climate change legislation and strong measures for environmental protection – or else criticized, as McCain and others were, for supporting it. In the election, did we get the benefit of this opposition for preserving jobs at a time of economic distress? Or did it turn off younger voters and some suburbanites
The elections of 2008 were far more than the Presidential contest. To make the case that the Republicans lost because they were not conservative enough, those who favor the CPAC attendees point of view should point to particular races that were lost from a deficit of conservatism, with numbers (such as changes in turnout) making the case.
John Sununu was an ideal Senator – an intelligent and principled conservative who represented his state well. Sadly, he lost. On what issues should he have been more conservative? I think it is simply the changing demographics of that state that determined the result.
In Virginia, Jim Gilmore ran a solidly conservative campaign – and barely over a third of the vote. Can one make an electoral case that Delegate Bob Marshall, the “more conservative” of the two candidates, who nearly knocked Gilmore off at the state convention, would have had a larger share of the vote?
In Colorado, a strong conservative candidate, Bob Schaffer, lost to a Congressman who represented liberal Boulder (Mark Udall). What about Elizabeth Dole or Gordon Smith? (I wasn’t happy about Smith’s sharp change of views on Iraq, but I don’t think that even that cost him the election. And it’s hard to see how being more conservative could have helped on the Pacific coast.)
“Bush fatigue” and the general state of the economy undoubtedly contributed to these and other results. But given the lousy results at all levels last fall, the CPAC attendees’ point of view must make the case that with their favored policies, more people would have come to the polls and more of them would have voted Republican. I don’t think they can do it. At any rate, I have not seen hard evidence.
So: which races, which issues, what level of turnout? That’s the basis on which the debate should proceed.
11 responses so far
1 mpolito // Mar 2, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Moving leftward, I’m afraid, will not help the GOP at all. Look at the 5th District of my home, Connecticut. Chris Shays is every “moderate Republican’s” dream- pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-environmental stuff, etc. He lost this year, proving that a Republican can be as moderate as anything, but they will not be spared in a Democratic year.
2 Go Dog Go! // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:00 am
The CPAC argument is, and will continue to be, the fatal flaw in conservatism. Whether anyone likes it or not, the problems of our country happened on the GOP watch and they are, at least in perception, the responsibility of a party that continues to deny responsibility. To continue with this denial and embrace Limbaugh as the party’s ideological leader will do nothing but create a long and prosperous Democratic dynasty.
If Republicans want to see power again, the party must move to the center, starting by abandoning this silly “we want Obama to fail” nonsense. To openly call for the failure of our federal government only proves to the world how out of touch the party is and that conservatives are wholly unfit to lead.
3 choccity2005 // Mar 3, 2009 at 12:14 am
Let me tell you the only way to regain the house,senate and presidency is to go the Glenn beck way.Critize the dems when the mess up and critize your PARTY WORSE when they do.40 % of repubs voted for the 410 billion dollar earmark bill.Where is rush’s OUTRAGE!!Why don’t he want those repubs to fail.If Rush says he wants socialism to fail,Then he should of said he wanted bush to fail…Bush grew the government first before obama,bush signed the tarp 1,AIG bailouts,medicare….SO WHY DID HE NOT SAY HE WANTED BUSH TO FAIL!!!RUSH has zero SOCIAL CHARACTER….The man can’t keep a marriage,can’t keep his weight down,isn’t even close to a christian.WE must marginalize this guy.WHy you ASK?Abortion is now a 50/50 issue with americans…30 years ago it was a 80/30 opposed,Blacks are voting 90 percent democratic,hispanics just voted 50 percent for obama.Women are now voting 50 percent for democrats.Republicans are getting killed politically in the North east and midwest.Sooner or later if rush is not silenced meaning moderates turn on him like michael smirconish did……there will be two partys.Liberals and BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS.Remeber jd hayworth,santorum,george allen…..GONE!!Go see who are in thier seats…..conservative democrats like jim webb and bob casey(a pro life democrat).They have figured out how to defeat conservatism….put up thier own.Yet we are destroying liberal republicans like swarzenegger,guliani,collins,spector.Did any democrat attack the ones that did not vote for obama’s bill?Hollywood,the MSM,and the blogs are mostly LEFT.The top 3 conservative talk show hosts are limbaugh,hannity and savage.The left loves this….cause it’s so easy to paint us as The rich white men party.While the speaker of the house is a woman,the president is black,head of Homeland security is a woman,secretary of state a woman,health and human services a woman now,Mayor of los angelos hispanic democrat who is going to run for governor.Do you see what the DEMS are doing…..they have been doing it for years now….The party of WOMEN,BLACKS,HISPANICS,IDEAS,The POOR,SCIENCE VS the PARTY of RICH OLD WHITE MEN stuck in the past.MICHAEL STEELE/sarah palin and JINDAL ARE OUR ONLY HOPE…….YOU LET RUSH WIN and WE ARE OVER!!!
4 Chekote // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:25 am
When conservatives said that the GOP wasn’t conservative enough, they mean that there was too much spending and too much expansion of the federal government. The GOP was sent to DC to eliminate the Department of Education not make it bigger. How hard is this to understand?
5 Chekote // Mar 3, 2009 at 7:47 am
“Remember, we held Congress until 2006. So whatever proposals Secretary Snow would have favored were not enacted by us!)” Have you heard of the 60 votes requirement? When did the GOP have 60 Senate seats? No wonder the GOP blew its turn at the wheel. I mean if this site is an example of the conservative illuminati in DC!
6 oenolicious // Mar 3, 2009 at 8:43 am
Chekote- When was the GOP sent to eliminate the Department of Education? Reagan always talked about it and nothing ever happened.
7 jjv // Mar 3, 2009 at 9:25 am
This is a good question. In 2008 maybe nothing with an R in front of it could win. I don’t think it is how conservative on litmus issues you are but how well can you explain them and can you organize a campaign? Elizabeth Dole lost where Jesse Helms would have won as he always did despite much greater opposition. She is a perfect representation of “establishment Republicanism” that loses where it should win.
8 sinz54 // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:01 am
The claim “We just weren’t conservative enough” is a corollary to the Karl Rove theory that elections are won by turning out your base to vote in large numbers. And that the 2006 and 2008 elections were lost because the GOP base stayed home, disgusted with the “moderation” of the GOP candidates. THIS IS DEAD WRONG. The 2006 and 2008 exit polls confirm that the loyal Republicans did turn out, just slightly less than in 2004. The GOP lost because of a massive defection of the Independent voters, who broke overwhelmingly for the Dems. Independent voters are now a larger voting bloc than either the GOP base or the Dem base. If the Independents break for the Dems, the GOP will lose even if its entire base votes. If the GOP is to win nationally again, it has to win back enough Independent voters so that they split roughly 50-50 again, as Karl Rove had assumed.
9 sinz54 // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:06 am
jjv: Times are changing. I’m not sure Jesse Helms could win again today. This is not 1975 anymore. Look at all the changes in the electorate. North Carolina is now a major high-tech center, with the Research Triangle bringing in college educated and cosmopolitan folks of all races. The entire Union is becoming multicultural, with a huge influx of Hispanics and Asians. Single moms are now a large and fast-growing voting bloc. And right now, the GOP isn’t appealing to Hispanics or single moms. If the GOP goes even further to the right, restricting even *legal* immigration as Mark Krikorian has advocated, passing a Human Life Amendment which would make many suburban moms guilty of violating the Constitution, it’s going to be even less appealing to these groups.
10 Realist // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:21 am
Another canard is the “We didn’t change Washington, Washington changed us.” Oh, boo-hoo. The only people who were obssessing about Abramoff or Stevens were the lefty bloggers. You saw minimal MSM coverage of that stuff, and once the juicy bits were exhausted, you never heard about it again. Now look at the ethics problems the Dems are having just appointing a cabinet. Face it people, people assume all politicians are corrupt anyone. When Karl Rove blamed our losses on ethics violations he was just covering his own rear end over having blown 12 years of GOP domination of government.
11 Rhampton // Mar 3, 2009 at 11:41 am
The GOP simply has to add moderate Republicans to the base. Why? There are two highly reliable sources that I use to track the Republicans and/or Conservative Trends, and this is what they have reported — “There was substantial issue fatigue related to the moral issues that usually rev up the troops on the right. Although the candidates had very distinct and dissimilar views on moral issues such as abortion andy marriage, those differences were not deal breakers for most voters. Voters are tired of fighting battles that seem interminable. And in a year when there were so many other significant crises and conflicts to consider, peoples focus shifted away from the usual throat-wringing issues.” (Barna Group, November 11, 2008) — The largest segment of the population – 24% – consider themselves to be both fiscally and socially conservative. Seventeen percent (17%) say they are both fiscally and socially moderate … Among Republicans, 47% are both fiscally and socially conservative.(Rasmussen Reports, November 24, 2007)
You must log in to post a comment.