Was George H. W. Bush a charlatan?
I mean, he wasn’t a Reagan-style conservative; during the 1980 nomination drive, he aggressively attacked Reagan’s economic proposals, calilng them “voodoo economics”, proposing a much Sturdevant-friendlier, “moderate”, less-anti-Keynesian approach to the economy.
He was wrong, Reagan was right.
And Reagan made damn sure everyone knew it, comdemning the elder Bush’s anti-Austrian apostasy with a vigor that destroyed Bush’s career in the GOP…
…wait. No. That’s not right. Reagan made his case gently and with good humor and – for better or worse – brought Bush into his inner circle and reached out to his supporters and, most importantly, convinced them he had the right idea. He beat Bush and the moderate wing of the party with fact, with rhetoric, with a better plan (in a year when the country didn’t want just an incremental rejection of Jimmy Carter and stagflation), and with the understanding that your opponents in February need to be your staunch, solid allies in November.
Which is why I’m concerned with some of the Romney-bashing I’m seeing.
Over at LFR, Gary Gross tucked into Romney yesterday, in a piece called “What’s In A Word”, as he – who is, to be sure, to the right of Romney on the great conservative continuum – has been wont to do this cycle:
Wednesday night, Hannity interviewed Sarah Palin. Though he didn’t say it in this interview, Hannity has repeatedly said that Mitt’s a conservative. Shame on him for pulling his punches with Mitt. It’s intellectually reprehensible for him to criticize the mediaa for not digging into President Obama’s past, then do a half-assed job of scrutinizing Mitt.
Now, before I get overwhelmed with comments and email from the “Anyone But Romney” (ABR) crowd – I’m with Gary so far. Scrutinize away. Pull like crazy for your candidate, Newt or Santorum or Perry or Paul or Huntsman or, I don’t know, Mitt, even. Now’s the time to stand on principle and accept no substitutes.
Go for it!
Here’s where I gotta push back, though:
If the gutless media, Hannity included, did their jobs, charlatans like Mitt Romney wouldn’t gain traction in a GOP presidential campaign. At minimum, they wouldn’t be allowed to call themselves conservatives. They could mouth the words but they’d be ridiculed mercilessly.
And as Reagan would say, “there you again”. Let’s address Gary’s question, “what’s in a word?” – in this case, “conservative”.
What’s a “Conservative?” In America, the inconvenient truth is that it means three different things, and that’s just counting significant American political movements:
- Southern Conservatives: They are largely evangelical, and focused heavily on social issues – abortion, euthanasia, gun control, gay marriage – and, oddly, frequently quite comfortable with big government (because the South needed lots of government help to rebuild itself from the 1870’s through the 1940’s). Think Mike Huckabee, and Dubya and to some extent Rick Santorum (although it’s not a perfect description, and these definitions allow for significant overlap) The media have spent the past thirty years trying to make this synonymous with “conservative” in the media – largely because it’s easy and convenient (albeit largely mistaken unto the point of group slander) to play the race card here, and partly because its overt connection to fundamentalist Christianity makes it big John Stewart-fodder.
- Western Conservatives: Think everyone from Reagan through the Tea Party; heavily libertarian, pro-growth, the bastard child of Jefferson and Jackson in many ways.
- Northeastern Conservatives: Soft on social issues, comfortable with big government (because that’s what most of the Northeast has and has always had), but pro-business (in many varying degrees) and pro-law-and-order (which, again, means many different things. Think Nelson Rockefeller, George H. W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Brett Schundler, Chris Christie (and Arne Carlson, maybe, and that’s being charitable) and the guest of honor in this post, Mitt Romney.
Is Mitt – the “conservative” option on the 2008 GOP short list – a conservative?
Depends on what you mean, doesn’t it? Is he as libertarian as Ron Paul? Of course not. More than Rudy Giuliani? Maybe. More than Barack Obama? Definitely.
If he has to work with a Tea-Party-infused House and (God willing) Senate? Beyond any doubt.
Is he as pro-life as Rick Santorum? Nope. Is he pro-life enough to not turn the entire apparatus of government over to Planned Parenthood while working on the economy and dealing with Iran? I’m pretty confident. Is he – late to the table and all – better than Obama? Absolutely.
If he has to work with a Tea-Party-driven House and Senate? Beyond any doubt.
Will he do a better job on the economy than Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum? I’d call it a tie, and that’s being very ecumenical.
If he has to work with a solidly-conservative House and Senate? Slam dunk.
And when Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy or Breyer (or, heaven forfend, Scalia or Thomas) retire? Will he appoint vastly more palatable replacements than Gingrich or Santorum? I’ll call it a draw. Better than Obama?
Especially working with a Senate and House that are more conservative than he?
What do you think?
There are three morals to this story:
- We’ve got to take the Senate, and extend our lead in the House. That means working like hell on both federal levels this year.
- We’ve got to observe William F. Buckley’s (another Northeastern conservative, BTW) dictum; vote for the most conservative candidate who can win.
- Fight for Newt, or Perry or Santorum, or Ron Paul for that matter, until the convention; your fight will either pay off with a Newt/Rick/Rick/Ron nomination, or a Mitt Romney who notes your objectsions and moves to the right. Think Tim Pawlenty in 2002, tacking to meet Brian Sullivan to overcome a split party. It matters.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.