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.
Those are the proper distinctions, but then you can also add “neoconservatives” and “paleoconservatives,” too. And the thing is, one can fit into more than one category. So one can be a Western Conservative with paleoconservative tendencies, or a Southern Conservative with neoconservative tendencies.
The early thinkers at Buckley’s National Review (including Buckley, Frank Meyer and Willmoore Kendall, among others) struggled with these distinctions as much as we do today. It’s a very old story, really.
The process is called “vetting” the candidates. In liberal circles “vetting” is performed in front of a union or environmental guru – usually while kneeling.
D: True.
Stink: Heh.
One tiny quibble with your definition of “Northeastern Conservatives,” I think you ought to add “more pragmatic” and “hawkish on deficits” which seems to be a rather important distinctions. It may mean they’re more likely to go along with tax increases/revenue enhancements but they’ve also been more likely to support spending cuts or push for fiscal discipline. Romney has pushed for holding the line on taxes with a few additional targeted cuts but his heart (both when he ran for previous offices and now) seems to largely be about not adding more debt and he’s been pretty upfront about leading with the need for entitlement reform rather than just hiding behind the usual calls for getting rid of “waste, fraud and abuse.”
I am wary of Romney for several issues, chief among them Obamneycare and his refusal to explain how what’s good for the goose (Massachusetts) isn’t also good for the gander (all 50 states).
But the real question that needs to be answered on Romney is not his positions, but the reason for taking them. Take the example of Pawlenty and the smoking ban; the ban is a clear violation of the liberties of business owners in Minnesota, BUT, if the liberal legislature was hell bent on passing it and could reasonably sustain a veto override, then its a reasonable political calculation for Pawlenty to support the ban in exchange for some other concession.
If Romney is in his heart a moderate and voted his conscience on controversial issues, then we could be in trouble with him as president. But if Romney did un-conservative things because he was the governor or a very liberal state with a very liberal legislature, then I have no problem with him.
Dave, I’m not a Romney backer, but states are different than the Federal government. States are free to have any government they want (as long it is a constitutional republic). Your state can require you to have car insurance; the federal government would have to justify a car insurance requirement as being among the powers granted it by the Constitution.
When Mitt Romney is considered a conservative, we have really degenerated the language. Obama vs McCain. Obama vs Romney. Tomato, tomahto. When does Minnesota get it’s Solyndra? I need a job.
Terry, you’re missing Dave’s point: he worries Romney doesn’t share our view of the proper limitations of the scope of government.
Looking at his record is only partly instructive. If Romneycare only passed as Mitt was dragged along kicking and screaming against it, that’d indicate one thing about his views. If he was out in front promoting a massive government takeover of the private health insurance industry, that’d indicate quite another.
Mitch, I object to your classifications. Those categories work for “Republican” but not for “Conservative.” A New England Republican might be more conservative than his Democrat opponent and still be quite comfortable with policies antithetical to the Constitution and to historical understanding of the proper role of government. “RINO” is a better label.
Pingback: Dialog | Shot in the Dark