Republican vs. Republican
It doesn’t take a lot of smarts to recognize that intra-party politics seems angry these days, particularly on the right (the left is hardly immune, but I’m going to focus on the right for now). One big reason is the threat Obama has posed for the last seven years, and Republicans’ relative impotence at stopping him. Another is that in recent years the Republican nominees for president have come from the more moderate ranks of the Party rather than the more conservative,and the latter group feels thwarted by this. Still another is that Congress seems to have been rolling over without enough of a fight. Another is the influence of talk show hosts who for years have talked a great deal about how rotten the establishment is, and who energize their listeners further in their anger against the perceived wrongdoings and betrayals of that group. And the amnesty issue, on which Congressional Republicans have looked especially weak, has further brought people to the boiling point.
Have big-government Republicans controlled the party for much of its 20th-21st Century existence, as it often claimed? Well, what about Coolidge? He was tapped for the Vice-Presidency by GOP Party bosses, and he was about as small-government conservative as they come. He became president on Harding’s death, finished out Harding’s term, and went on to a term of his own. And the only reason he didn’t go for another term, in 1928 (the Party certainly would have let him) was that he bowed out, saying, “If I take another term, I will be in the White House till 1933 ”¦ Ten years in Washington is longer than any other man has had it””too long!”
Compare and contrast to FDR, who succeeded Coolidge’ successor Hoover, who was more aligned with the “big government” wing. Coolidge’s attitude towards serving another term was in the tradition of George Washington, and FDR’s showed both his ego and his split from that tradition.
And yet, despite FDR and the fact that his big government policies increased the general dependency of Americans on the federal government and got them more used to thinking of that as a good thing, the Republican Party—that “establishment”—still nominated (or allowed to be nominated; it was accomplished against their will) small-government conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964. How is his nomination explained? It wasn’t popular-vote primaries, it was that smoke-filled room, the establishment, nominating him—but as a result of a conservative effort to organize against that establishment, an effort that succeeded that time.
The story is instructive:
[Phyllis Schlafly’s book A Choice, Not an Echo] called for conservatives in the party to organize to counter this wing of the party and their “kingmaker” approach to nominating candidates. The book was a rallying call for conservatives in the party and helped Goldwater win the nomination. Reagan gave a speech as part of a “TV for Goldwater-Miller” television ad campaign which made him an up and coming star among conservatives…The 1964 Goldwater campaign was also followed by the rise of a growing conservative campus movement during the 1960s…the rise of a small libertarian movement which also supported Goldwater but would later split with conservatism over the draft and drug policy…
So the way for conservatives to fight the establishment candidates in those days was felt to be to organize and defeat them according to the rules. Goldwater’s nomination was a bold move, because he was very conservative (although more a libertarian than a social-con). Here’s an excerpt from his acceptance speech at the Convention; you probably recall the famous first paragraph here, which got a lot of negative press at the time. I’d never heard what followed it, which still seems very relevant today:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
I sure can’t argue with that. It seems mighty prescient. Nominating Goldwater was a bold move that backfired, because he got absolutely creamed in the election. Why? Well, he wasn’t an appealing politician; he didn’t have Reagan’s winning personality. But it’s not at all easy to combine conservatism with winning on a national level, unfortunately. And although that doesn’t mean it’s impossible, it may take someone with conservative principles plus a charismatic personality to do it (Trump lacks the former and IMHO also the latter, and Cruz lacks the latter).
The flaw is in people as a whole, not some special flaw of the Republican establishment. People like politicians who offer them pie-in-the-sky, not tough-love. Liberals and big government people sell the idea of helping and caring to the voters. Conservatives sell liberty, yes, but at what cost? Teach people to fish instead of giving them fish, yada yada yada.
So all elected officials—or people who would like to be elected—will naturally tend to drift in the direction of big government even if they didn’t start out that way. It’s not an evil design to thwart the Republican “base.” The base just hasn’t always been big enough and strong enough to counter it.
No Republican was going to win because the economy was booming and the St. Johnny sympathy vote combined were too much to over come.
It was Reagan’s speech for Goldwater and Goldwater’s speech at the convention that really gave me the motivation to sit down and examine the principles of conservatism as opposed to progressivism/communism. This is an exercise that few adults in this country have performed. As a result, we have the chaos of today, where it is all about feelings not reason.
I agree with Paul. Keep in mind that the 64 election was less than a year after the Kennedy assassination.
Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That alone worked mightily against him.
And, of course, 1964 was also the year an innocent little girl sat in a field picking daisies when suddenly the whole world went KABLOOEY!
Because Goldwater…
geokstr:
I discussed that ad here and here.
Drudge is apparently confused about the GOP using conventions and caucuses to select the final delegates.
All and every are confused about the fact that delegates are almost ALWAYS long time GOP supporters.
Ditto for the Democrats.
One by one, Ted is gaining on Donald.
Who, BTW, needs 60% numbers to get the nomination on the first ballot.
Trump is being expelled by the GOP faithful as a foreign body.
The fact that he can’t possibly fund his Fall campaign and that EVERY poll shows him losing Big Time to Hillary or Bernie — somehow Drudge can’t fathom that.
“the rise of a growing conservative campus movement during the 1960s”
What happened to that?
Eric:
The information in that ellipses in that quote is “led by Young Americans for Freedom” and if you follow its link, you’ll come to this entry on the group at Conservapedia, which says this:
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Goldwater:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
Call for activism sufficient to compete and win.
Neo:
“The base just hasn’t always been big enough and strong enough to counter it.”
Market inefficiency from deficiency of competitive activism.
Ann (quoting Conservapedia):
“In 1974, YAF and the American Conservative Union (ACU) found the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the largest annual gathering of conservative leaders in America.”
Clearly not competitively activist enough.
CPAC sold out to the establishment some time ago. It turns out that there’s no money in integrity or small government.
“So all elected officials–or people who would like to be elected–will naturally tend to drift in the direction of big government even if they didn’t start out that way. It’s not an evil design to thwart the Republican “base.” The base just hasn’t always been big enough and strong enough to counter it.”
Maybe from a different angle…
Too many people, even many (most?) on the right, say something similar to “there ought to be a law…(fill in favorite issue here)”.
This begets a virtual “arms race”, where the right, when in power, push through their favored laws. Likewise, the left push through theirs when they have the baton.
We rarely have laws abolished. Instead, each side finds ways to leverage existing laws well past their intended scope. (Witness, recently, the various state and territory AGs vs Exxon using several different legal avenues).
So it is not just the elected officials, thwarting the GOP “base” (if that still exists).
Ultimately, it is, as it has always been “We The People” who are saying (in millions of individual voices, each with their own opinion on what should be) “There Ought to be A Law…”
I believe the ONLY way a conservative can win is with an engaging personality, because a Republican in general and a conservative in particular is going to have to fight through the wall of hate that the MSM and the liberal institutions will throw against him/her; as opposed to the felon Hillary, who will get kid gloves, and as some blogger said, would get voted in even if wearing prison orange.
That’s why, even though Cruz is my guy, I have no hope of victory if he wins the nomination, because I don’t think he is engaging/endearing enough to fight through the wall of hate. We will need a Reagan clone to win.
I have been trying to be prepared for a Trump nomination and Hillary Presidency. Three major papers have let it be known Trump is unfit (NH, WP, MWJS). NYP endorsed him on the basis he can change. And he isn’t the nominee yet. I expect a flood of papers will run similar editorials, and cannot recall if other candidates have been appraised so poorly so soon. We will have Trump unfit with high negatives, and Hillary with negatives that are climbing the longer the campaign wears on.
Trump is the bad boyfriend that voters are determined to date. Hillary is the grownup they will marry.
These are historic times, and unless some miracle happens, I don’t think in the good sense.