What does the term "Conservative Republican" mean anymore? Can we all get along? SOON?

I love this cartoon because it cuts both ways. Conservatives would say it shows McCain is too liberal. But many moderate Republicans would say that some conservatives are so far right that they've left the Republican party, and now need to be "reached out" to. Me, I'm hoping John can reach BOTH ways.

Ronald Reagan did. He's now lauded as a "great conservative", but I remember when he was president, there were conservatives who complained he was too liberal. Reagan thought it was great if he got 80 percent of what he pushed for. Yet some on the far right continued to badger him to push for 100 percent.

Any politician who always gets 100 percent of what he wants has usually got a name like Mussolini or Hitler. 80 percent is pretty darn good. When you live in a democratic republic, you have to compromise, even when you hold a powerful position. And to even reach that powerful position, there has to be compromise and cooperation even within ones own party.

Reagan achieved his position by reaching out to conservatives. But not just Republican conservatives, but Democrat ones too, as well as moderates and independents. It was a true coalition, and it worked.

But that was 30 years ago. Times change, as do people. I'm hoping John McCain can also reach out to a wide range of voters and form a contemporary Republican Coalition, because we are going to need a big tent to win this one.

But this also begs a question: who ARE Republicans nowadays? What IS the definition of a conservative? Depending on who you talk to, you might get a very broad -or very narrow- answer.

I find this latest article from Gallup.com somewhat disturbing, but perhaps at the same time revealing:

Republicans Split on Whether Huckabee Should Drop Out

[...] The results show that there is no strong majority sentiment on the part of Republicans that Huckabee should leave the race. Forty-six percent say he should drop out, while 49% say he should continue.

According to media reports and many political observers, one of McCain's biggest challenges at this point is to woo the conservative wing of the Republican Party. It is not surprising, therefore, to find some differences by ideology in views of Huckabee's staying in the race.

Conservative Republicans say Huckabee should stay in the race, by a 54% to 42% margin. Moderate Republicans, on the other hand, say by a 57% to 38% margin that Huckabee should quit.

Gallup Poll Daily election tracking data show that about a quarter of Republicans nationwide continue to support Huckabee. Another 5% support Ron Paul or Alan Keyes, and 9% volunteer the name of another candidate (such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Mitt Romney) or don't have a choice. That currently leaves McCain with the support of about 6 in 10 Republicans nationwide.

In general, McCain's nomination support is lower among conservative Republicans, and higher among moderate Republicans. But the differences are perhaps not as large as might be expected given all of the attention to McCain's presumed problems with the conservative wing of his party. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The poll also goes on to give graphs and figures giving a breakdown of people's church attendance, how often they attend, and who they support in the Republican primaries. It's interesting.

But the thing that keeps jumping out at me, if the Gallup poll data is to be trusted, is that 1/4 of Republicans are Huckabee supporters. Now to me, the only thing I see conservative about Huckabee supporters is their anti-abortion and anti-gay positions. In most other ways they seem like Big Government Nanny-State Democrats to me. If they are now 1/4 of the party, and the Republicans are supposed to be the "conservative" party, then what does that say about the present state of conservatism in America?

I've also been hearing it said that McCain wouldn't dare choose Huckabee as Veep, because "conservatives" wouldn't like it. Yet is seems that at least 1/4 of Republicans nationally would like it. And 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans want Huckabee to continue running?

This just begs the question; if John McCain is going to form a coalition and pull the party together, what kind of coalition is it going to be? How will the 1/4 of Huckabee Republicans be accommodated? And what about other Republicans who don't like Huckabee but consider themselves to be conservatives of various kinds? What would this coalition look like, and how would it work?

To tell you the truth, I hope we find out... soon. I know a lot of folks are waiting to see who McCain picks as Veep before they will consider offering their support. Yet no matter who he picks, there are bound to be folks who will be dissatisfied. An effective coalition will need more than just a good Veep choice. Different segments of the coalition will want their particular concerns addressed, and that will have to be negotiated. Compromises will have to be made. Yet I believe it IS doable. I just hope it all starts to gel sooner rather than later. If conservatives only start to offer their support at the last minute like they did for Mitt Romney, it could end the same; too little, too late.

In a coalition, nobody gets 100 percent of what they want. But hopefully, we can all get what we NEED. If that happens, I'll be very happy.
     

Back to reality... where to from here?

The Editors of National Review Online have published an editorial, I'm going to repeat the whole thing here, because it's short:

The Comeback . . . Adult

Mitt Romney is a smart and talented man who has run a vigorous campaign based mostly on conservative issues. He vows to keep fighting all the way to the convention. But he took third place in several Southern states on Super Tuesday, a dismal showing for someone attempting to rally conservatives. He has our support. But it is now up to him to identify a plausible path to the nomination.

Sen. John McCain’s amazing comeback is a testament to the power of perseverance, conviction, and luck. It has been good to see his strength on Iraq rewarded. For the Republican nomination to be worth his having, however, he needs to consolidate his support on the Right — ideally, before the fall.

Doing that will require ignoring some of the spin coming from his allies on immigration. They say that McCain’s victories prove that opposition to amnesty is a losing issue. Actually, the anti-amnesty candidates — including Mike Huckabee, who has been running as a deportationist — have gotten majorities in most states. Even in Florida, where strong Hispanic support gave McCain a decisive win, the anti-amnesty candidates got nearly half the vote. McCain’s success proves that Republican politicians can survive supporting amnesty if they have compensating strengths. It does not prove that the issue helped him. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in the upcoming issue of National Review, conservatives cannot reasonably ask McCain to abandon his convictions on immigration. But they can ask him to say that he will defer any action on amnesty, or guest workers, until a few years after enforcement has been put into effect.

Immigration reform is the policy issue that gives conservatives the most concern about McCain. But they worry as much about his priorities as his policies, so he will not be able to win their support merely by listing all of the topics on which he agrees with them. Aside from his opposition to pork-barrel spending, there is no domestic conservative cause that McCain has taken up. We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain’s membership in the Gang of 14.

He has not always taken the lead even on national-security issues. Republicans in Washington want to extend and reform an intelligence-collection law, but Democrats are balking, threatening an interruption in operations. McCain’s voice would be helpful here, if he chose to use it.

McCain can win over most conservatives, but their support is not his by right. They will rally to him if he demonstrates that he believes that a broad range of conservative policies are among the things that are, to quote the title of one of his books, worth the fighting for.

The calm voice of the editors of NRO, helping us keep our eye on ball and focused on where it is in the bigger picture. Thank You NRO.


From Jim Geraghty at NRO's The Campaign Spot:
Hugh: Put Humpty Dumpty Together Before St. Paul

[...] Hugh is a party man, and a conservative, and a guy who keeps his eye on the long term. (Like him, I never buy into arguments that you win later by losing now.) [...]

Whatever our disappointments presently, let's keep our eye on the long term. That means using with whatever we have now, and making it work.


I think it's safe now to say the Reagan Coalition is dead. If you MUST have a post-mortem, try this one:
Religion and the death rattle of the GOP?

[...] So the South thinks it voted for a real conservative by voting for the Huckster? As I've said many times before, scratch a southern Republican, and you'll find a big-government Dixiecrat which is what Huckabee is. The Goldwater/Reagan conversion of Dixiecrats to Republican was skin deep.

What has amazed me is the depth of anti-Mormonism in evangelicals (not all - I know many who are practical and sensible when it comes to politics.) I find this completely illogical given that all religion is personal and subjective but then I'm not a domineering, authoritarian, dogmatic control freak as some religionists seem to be.

As for California: this is the first time that they have had a say in the primaries. In the 25 years that I lived there, it was all over by the time we voted in May and many people didn't even bother to vote. So far it looks like McCain is ahead with 44% (still not the magical 51%) but we won't know till tomorrow for sure. If I were Mitt, I'd concede now and not spend another dime of my own money on ungrateful and self-centered Republicans.

I've said before I'll settle for McCain. He could win against the Clintons but maybe not against the feel-good Obamania sweeping the country. Maybe the blundits are right and Americans are sick of Republicans and their endless pontificating and moralizing. [...]

The Reagan Coalition may have worked in it's time, but that was then, this is now. Now we have to form a new Coalition if we can. That coalition will consist of the willing. I'm willing, are you?
     

Is the Romney Surge the Last Chance for Evangelicals and the "Reagan Coalition"?

Dee at Conservatism with Heart has a good post at her blog about why she if voting for Romney today:

Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday

[...] I will be honest and admit (as most of you are aware) that Romney was not my first choice. Yet, as I look at what is at stake in this November's election I think it is crucial that we pick the most conservative candidate for our nominee. I am a pretty loyal Republican and I like, probably 80% of our guys. Why we are somehow stuck with several candidates that are a part of the 20% is very frustrating, to say the least.

Anyone who has read my blog for any length of time knows that I have had HUGE issues with McCain for many years. The fact that he is now the possible nominee for our party is just beyond dis-heartening. It is like driving a stake through the heart of Reagan Conservatism. I cannot sit by silently while what so many of us have worked for is dismantled by someone as liberal as McCain. Therefore, it is expedient to support the one conservative left in this race, Mitt Romney. [...]

Dee is a conservative Christian, and I'm seeing more and more evangelicals rallying around Romney to oppose McCain. But will there be enough, and will it be in time? The polls keep showing McCain as far ahead. But the polls can be wrong; remember when the polls predicted that Hillery would lose New Hampshire? So I think it's more important to just vote, and see what the polls say later.

One of the links on Dee's post was about Huckabee as a spoiler. On that blog (Article VI Blog), I found an article by John Schroeder that was quite interesting, about the evangelical vote, conservatism and the Republican party, and how the evangelicals are about to lose their political voice, if they don't rally around Mitt Romney NOW. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis mine):

What Is At Stake

[...] When I was first introduced the the idea via Hugh Hewitt and Robert Novak that Evangelicals would not vote for Romney because of his faith, one thought ran through my mind: “political suicide.” Only one thing could result from such a bias and that was the Evangelical political voice being cast to the side. I wanted to protect that voice. Thus my half of this blog was born.

As is almost always true in politics, the journey has been quite different than I expected, but I truly believe that the Evangelical political voice is now at stake. If Mitt Romney loses - far from a foregone conclusion - his religion will be but one of many factors in that event, and while important, I do not think it will have been determinative.

However, as the race has narrowed down to two and the spoiler, the conservative voice in the Republican party is at stake - everybody agrees on that, and Evangelicals are the energy, motivator, and banner carrier for that voice. Conservatives lose and Evangelicals are on the bench, if they are in the stadium at all. In other words, we stand on the precipice I feared from the beginning. The current electoral calculus is such that a vote for Mitt Romney is the only way to preserve that voice.

[...]

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

[...]

As things have turned out, Evangelicals have not refused, so much, to vote for Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, they have instead chosen to vote for Mike Huckabee because he is “one of us.” How much a role suspicion and bias against Mormonism has played in that somewhat more positive-appearing choice is a determination that will ultimately be up to pollsters and psychologists in the years after the election to determine. And while it may not be “bigotry” it is identity politics, and they are as suicidal as pure bigotry.

No identity group is sufficiently large to carry a presidential election. A coalition is required. What Mike Huckabee has done is peel off one section of the traditional conservative coalition, Evangelicals, and claimed it for himself. With the coalition split, neither Evangelicals or the greater conservative coalition can win.

The presidential candidate for a party leads that party. That leader is going to pay attention to and drive the agenda of the coalition that got him there. Not only are Evangelicals not part of the coalition that has gotten John McCain this far, McCain has in the past loudly and actively found Evangelicals distasteful. [...]

He goes on to describe the consequences of evangelicals leaving the coalition, the consequences for both evangelicals and the conservative movement as a whole, and Huckabee's terrible role in bringing this about. Huck is promising evangelicals something he can't deliver, and following him will lead to political suicide.

It's a well thought out article, and worth reading the whole thing, I think there is a lot of wisdom in it.

I'm not an evangelical, nor are all their concerns my own. But I do acknowledge that they have been vital in the past for holding the "Reagan Coalition" together. If enough of them pull out of that coalition now, it will collapse, and a new coalition will form without them. John McCain's candidacy is just the first sign of things to come. If you are unhappy about it, you can thank Mike Huckabee and his followers for that. If it's going to be turned around, it needs to be done soon.
     

John McCain: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

If you try to look at McCain as the presidential candidate, from an objective viewpoint, what might you see? Pat's done that from two different articles he's taken excerpts from, to give us a peek at the Good, the Bad and the Ugly we might see from a McCain Presidency:

More lemonade out of lemons

[...] Reading this made me realize what my basic problem with McCain is: he's a neoconservative not a traditional conservative. He believes that citizens are subservient to the state; that we are all duty-bound to toil in the cause of "National Greatness." In other words: he believes that government is the solution not the problem and has not understood the anti-statist, individualistic core principles of the American Revolution. If McCain were omnipotent, he would soon have us all in uniforms marching to his ideas of "National Greatness."

Fortunately that can't happen in the US and the worst that can happen under President McCain is that he will compromise too much with the left because of his belief in government-led social engineering.

I will continue to fight for Mitt (who, unlike McCain, has grasped the core principles of American individualism and does not see us citizens as potential drones in a "National Greatness" beehive.) But whoever the nominee is, I will back the winner. [...]

Read the whole thing for the Good, Bad and Ugly excerpts which he is commenting on, and more.

It's too early in the primaries to say if John McCain is the new face of the Republican party. We have to hear from more states, which we will on Super Tuesday.

The Reagan Coalition, in whatever form it still exists, may have been splintered between the many candidates. Now that the field has narrowed, they may rally around Romney to appose McCain. But that's not a sure thing.

What about states southern states like South Carolina, where some people say more liberal north-easterners have been moving in and dominating the local GOP chapters, outnumbering the more conservative local Republicans? Are there enough Reagan conservatives left to carry these states for the Coalition, or will they support John McCain?

We shall see on Super Tuesday, which way the wind is blowing.
     

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today

I've done two other posts, linking to articles that question whether the Reagan Coalition is as influential as it once was, or if it's even still the Republican base.

I think the questions are important. But to be clear, I'm not saying the Reagan Coalition is DEAD. But if we end up with McCain as our candidate, then clearly something has changed or gone terribly wrong. The situation we find ourselves in could possibly be explained thus:

1.) The coalition may be smaller; it's eldest members have certainly passed on, as has President Reagan himself. Have many new members of like mind replaced them? If not, then the coalition would be smaller, and therefor less influential.

2.) A coalition needs a leader to unite them as one political force. The coalition has not rallied around any of the candidates. It has, in fact, been split.

A segment of evangelicals has gone for Huckabee. These folks were once Democrats, and like big government. They are reverting back to their roots, and Huckabee has split them away from the coalition.

Giuliani and McCain may have split away many of the National Security member's of the coalition. The Fiscal conservatives drafted Fred Thompson into the race, but he entered so late that many potential supporters had already committed themselves elsewhere; his campaign staff was too small and couldn't cope quickly enough to build the support he needed.

The coalition has been fractured and scattered; now we find ourselves looking at John McCain as the potential front runner. I say "potential" because the primaries are hardly over yet; the MSM may be pushing him as having already won, but that's typical of them, trying to create the news instead of reporting it.

The coalition, however fractured and reduced it may be, it's members, however scattered about they have been, still have a chance to regroup. I see that they have two choices left:

1.) Rally around and support Mitt Romney on Super Tuesday February 5th. He is really the only alternative to McCain right now. He may not be your ideal candidate, but in politics we often don't get our ideal; we get reality. We vote for the best person AVAILABLE, and we work to make the most of it.

2.) Vote for McCain, and take the consequences. You might get a few things you want... if he can even win. The MSM wants him to be nominated, because they know he's unpopular with the base. Once he gets the nomination, I have no doubt the MSM will turn on him, play up the aspects about him that Republican's hate, play that tape of him ranting like a lunatic about lettuce and lazy Americans... you get the idea?

If Mitt gets the Nomination, he will also be given a very hard time. Either way, it's going to be a tough battle. But I believe that Mitt Romney is the best candidate, not necessarily the perfect one, but the best one available. He has many fine qualities, and should be given serious consideration. The left absolutely despises him, for reasons that conservatives would love. Even conservative Democrats. Yes, remember, conservative Democrats were always a part of the Reagan coalition too.

Now that the many candidates that have distracted and splintered the coalition have been narrowed down, we have an opportunity to unite again. The coalition may have changed; times change, the players change, but certain conservative truths don't change, and that is what unites the coalition. So let's not sweat the details too much, and unite and pick the BEST candidate on Super Tuesday.

I feel that candidate is Mitt. If it turns out to be McCain, I'll deal with it if and when I must. But I live in Oregon; our primary won't be until April. Those of you who get to vote in Super Tuesday have a chance to reunite the coalition, in whatever shape it might be today. I hope you will. It's up to you.


Related Links:

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

The early primaries are the problem
     

Is Romney appealing to a conservative coalition that no longer controls the GOP?

Michael Scherer asks that very question:

Is Romney Fighting the Last War?

From the start, Mitt Romney had a clear strategy for winning the White House. He would run as the candidate of the ideological establishment, the Republican old-guard, the coalition of Ronald Reagan, with that three-legged stool of social, fiscal and national security conservatism. He would become the inside man in a presidential field filled with outsiders.

[...]

And yet, his candidacy sputtered. His narrow loss Tuesday to John McCain in Florida was just the latest in a series of disappointments that began in Iowa and New Hampshire, two states where he had outspent his rivals and once led in the polls. His failures have many causes, which will be raked over by historians. But they also suggest a broader shift: Romney may be running to lead a Republican Party that no longer exists.

As has become increasingly clear, the ideological coalition Romney so eagerly courted no longer controls the fate of the GOP, at least in the early voting states - which have favored Mike Huckabee, a populist who trumpets the occasional role of larger government, and John McCain, a legislative maverick who does not always play by the Republican rulebook. Romney tried to run as the establishment candidate, only to find that the establishment no longer held the power. [...]

The article goes on to talk about some of the new strategies the Romney camp plans to move forward from here.

I think it is quite possible he's been appealing to a coalition that either no longer exists, or is smaller, weaker or otherwise changed from what it once was. The Reagan Coalition was formed almost 30 years ago. Many of it's members, like president Reagan himself, have passed on. Times have changed.

The best winning strategy that Mitt can use right now is, IMO, to just be himself, and not try to fit into a conservative straight jacket. He won't be conservative enough for the extreme right, but how likely is he to get their votes anyway? He has potential appeal to a lot of more moderate conservatives, including conservative Democrats. He should use this to his advantage, rather than play it down.


UPDATE 01-31-08
I just want to state that I'm not saying the coalition is dead, but I am trying to understand what has happened to bring us where we are now, so we can understand what needs to be done next. I elaborate more on that here:

The state of the Reagan Coalition, as it is today


Related Links:

Is the Reagan Coalition Gone? What's next?

Hope!!