Battered Elephant Syndrome
Last night was a wake-up call for economically conservative Republicans. They are but a small minority of their own party and their party has little reason to respect them.
Nearly 90% of Utah’s Republican voters voted for Mitt Romney. While many likely cast a ballot for Romney because he is LDS those who supported Romney because they thought he was the only real small government conservative option now know that they are the least important segment of their party behind the economic moderates/liberals who are foreign policy hawks (neoconservatives) and the religious right.
I abandoned the Republican party because I saw this happening quite a while ago. It will be interesting to see what happens to Republicans after they get smashed in the general election (and there is little doubt that they will be utterly smashed). The knowledge everyone should take away from this primary election is that economic conservatism is less popular with voters than it ever has been since Ronald Reagan. As much as I hate the Republican party this development is really disheartening. There doesn’t seem to be a sizeable small-government constituency any more. That is really bad.
UPDATE 2/06/08 10:44: It looks like participants at this Sutherland Institute gathering came to roughly the same conclusion about Republicanism in Utah as I have about Republicanism nationally. Small government conservatism just doesn’t seem to be a governing principle for most Republicans.
H/T Senate Site
UPDATE 2/06/08 2:48 PM: Mick Stockinger makes a good argument for the case that it is all about identity politics…not the issues. I still think Republicans who stick with their party hoping for small government conservatism are deluded but Mick’s point that voters don’t care about the issues in elections makes a ton of sense.
8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
So why should last night have been a wake up call for economic conservatives? Many people voted for McCain because it is arguable that he is more economically conservative (at least on the budget) than Romney. One such person is Eugene Volokh–http://volokh.com/posts/1202166709.shtml
Comment by Daniel — February 6, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
I’m not sure whom the republicans could vote for and be classified as championing economic conservatism. Granted, Romney is a brilliant businessman and wants to try to balance the budget, but he also wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and keep the war going. To me, those goals are incompatable, and I don’t have to guess too hard as to which goal Romney would favor.
Ron Paul is really the only true economic conservative on the republican side. My spouse signed up as a republican at the primary (he was independent) and voted for Ron Paul. He is disheartened that nobody else is voting…
I vote for Barack, but I’m not dumb enough that I think he’s going to try to balance the budget much. I think the budget has pretty much flown out the window at this point. Unless you’re willing to vote ron, who as one friend recently put, has a “snowball’s chance.” Traditionally conservatives are unlikely to vote for a losing candidate.
Comment by nosurfgirl — February 6, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Daniel,
What economically conservative candidate would come up with a plan like this?
http://www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_139_summary.cfm
I’m not arguing that Romney actually would have been economically conservative but I am arguing that based on the written and spoken opinions of many political commentators Romney was considered the favorite of Party conservatives while McCain is seen as more moderate/liberal.
Volokh seems to be in the minority if he is arguing that McCain was the best choice for Republican conservatives. I guess an argument can be made that he is right but the concensus of political opinion doesn’t agree.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — February 6, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Jeremy,
Only on the issue of budget would John McCain be considered an economic conservative. The sad truth is that economic conservatives should have been woken up prior to Super Tuesday that the Republican candidates for President sucked.
Romney might have talked a good game, but the problem is that he had no real conservative bona fides. The only thing I know that Romney believes in is that he wants to be President. Other than that I don’t know if he actually believes anything.
I don’t understand how conservatives could have voted for McCain. At CPAC today he claimed he believes in small government. How could anyone who believes in small government sponsor, year after year, the McCain-Liberman energy diet bill that you linked to in your comment? No where in his speech did he talk about the taxes and economic suffering required by his plans. Forget any plans Obama and Clinton have to increase the size of government, his climate bill wouldn’t dwarf those plans. So much for small government.
I not sure what lessons Super Tuesday had for economic conservatives other than they have to hope that in four years they can find some actual economic conservatives to run for President.
Comment by Daniel Simmons — February 7, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Daniel,
Amen and Amen.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — February 7, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
If I may contribute a little different perspective here:
What needs to be understood is that institutional goals are never anything but the pursuit and acquisition of power. Whether its Democrats or Republicans, the goal is the same–stay in power.
The institutional parties trade for power–our votes for support of objectives and principles we favor. They are perfectly will to play Peter against Paul, and in the current calculus, the Iraq war trumps all other suits–in both parties. Democrats promise to get us out, Republicans promise to win.
Its the war stupid.
Ultimately, its really up to the people on what basis they will aware power, which means that the persuaders really hold the whip hand in all of this. A lot of words have been typed to support the war, and to oppose it, so its no small wonder that these have become the keys issues. What’s remarkable about it is that very few people have actually been affected by the war–it a very real way, its a lot like the global warming alarmism–all theoretical, but effective because people believe its real (or in the case of Democrats, that the threat of Islamofascism is unreal…)
This is nexus of modern politics–the manipulation of the electorate by media production.
I think we’ll see a turnaround on this, but not because we hit crisis proportions on the economy–because afterall, Americans are stupid and need to see their homes on fire before thinking about buying fire extinquishers.
Comment by Mick Stockinger — February 10, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Mick,
You make your own point here very well. Phrases like “Islamo-fascism” and “Global Warming Alarmism” are two great cases where the facts of a situation have stopped mattering, and only the talk points remain.
I think claiming that not many have been effected by the war is an absurd generalization. The war disgusts many. One needn’t lose a loved one to be able to recognize wrong.
You are right though that the institution tries to maintain the institution, but an informed electorate will keep that cycle just that; a cycle. The exchange of power creates the balance, bad policy is replaced with good policy, and unfortunately vice-versa. In the end, the hope is that it balances.
What we see here in the election before us is a rejection of the Bush Republican’s (Neo-Cons) and the GOP turning in on itself, without a focused goal. The party will survive it, but as I’ve argued elsewhere, they must redirect their very ideas and values. The GOP must either rediscover it’s roots, or abandon the image they are trying to apply now to Romney and McCain. As Jeremy argues here, they are non-fiscally conservative candidates running (often as front-runners) for nomination in the self proclaimed fiscally conservative party. It’s described as a fracture by the media, but it’s more akin to an identity crisis. Either the candidates are full of it, or the party is, this time around.
The Democrats will hand them their proverbial asses in November, and most likely the following mid-term as well, and no one can argue it isn’t deserved, nor that the Democrats haven’t fought hard and earned the victory.
But for the good of a two party system which maintains the cyclical checks and balance of shared power (something we’ve lacked in Utah for far too long now) and a healthy democracy, the GOP would be better served taking a long hard look at what it means to be a conservative in the traditional sense of the word, and what it means today to be a Republican. The two don’t mess as well as they once did, and it has stolen the wind from the party’s sails.
Comment by jasonthe — February 11, 2008 @ 5:23 am
And along the same lines, I gotta keep asking; Where are the Utah Republicans on the FISA battle? Why is telecom immunity, intrusive warrantless wire-tapping, and blanket warrants which can be written to last indefinitely and respect no precedented rights to privacy and property not something that has traditional Republicans enraged? Why are they letting Orrin slide in shilling for the administration on this one?
Why are the Democrats fighting this one in the Senate right now, and not the Libertarians and limited-government Republicans?
I ask only because it’s another example of party ideology not matching party behavior.
Comment by jasonthe — February 11, 2008 @ 5:29 am