Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong
Commentary by Aslan, 11.9.2006
Rush Limbaugh has it wrong. He stated Wednesday that "[c]onservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night." (here) This statement – a statement echoed by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other conservative pundits to whom a nation of shell-shocked conservatives turned for cathartic analysis – fails a simple test. If the electorate was demanding conservatism, then why did strong, principled conservatives lose? Incumbent conservatives such as Rick Santorum, George Allen, J.D. Hayworth and Curt Weldon to name a few. Superb conservative newcomers such as Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele.
The actions of the electorate last Tuesday was an indiscriminate firing of Republicans, not a thoughtful weeding out of RINOs. It is true that Republicanism lost on Tuesday, but it lost in all its forms – and that included the exact form of strong, clear conservatism that the movement desperately needs. In fact, those conservatives who remained strong during the recent horrific leftward slide of the Republican Party should have been lionized and then quickly added to a short list of potential future leaders. Any surviving principled conservative in the last session of congress demonstrated, in Zell Miller’s immortal words, "a spine of tempered steel," and should have prospered in an election that was about endorsing conservative principles. This did not happen.
The failure of conservatives to stand on principle laid the foundation for the rejection of Republicans on Election Day, but Election Day was all about a lack of faith in Republicans, good or bad, conservative or liberal and not about conservatism vs. liberalism. If it were the latter, the fate of George Allen and J.D. Hayworth would have been different.
So a paradox emerges: Republicans lose the trust of the voters by abandoning conservative principles, but principled conservatives also get punished on Election Day. Clearly, a tipping point was reached whereby any Republican became damaged goods.
How then did the baby get tossed along with the bathwater? Why the shift from a routine critique of Republican policy-making, always an ongoing process in Washington, to the immolation of the Republican Party? Enter the Betrayed Conservative, a vocal, passionate and utterly naïve segment of the conservative base that became gasoline poured on the smoldering problem of Republican faithlessness.
Very simply, when this portion of the conservative base freaked out at bad Republican policy decisions, the image of the GOP as a competent governing party vanished in a haze of Democrat and media propaganda. These Betrayed Conservatives clearly wanted to communicate a message to Republicans in power: stop governing to the left. One imagines their objective was to achieve the implementation of more conservative policy in Washington, not less. How then have they arrived today at the exact opposite of their desires?
The answer lies in the middle twenty percent, in that portion of the electorate that Logic Times and others unwisely ignored in pre-election analysis. In 2004, conservatives enticed the squishy middle to join them in electing President Bush and maintaining a strong hold on Congress based upon certain universal conservative principles: lower taxes, smaller government, national security, originalist judges. Apparently three out of four wasn’t good enough for this bipolar collection of Betrayed Conservatives, and they flipped out (with no little help, of course, from the emerging issues of Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports and illegal immigration).
Let’s be clear about the nature of this conservative revolt over the last eighteen months before these political novices begin to rewrite history. Hold a conversation with a Betrayed Conservative today and you’ll draw the conclusion that they tried to impart sage advice in gentle tones, a friendly arm draped around the shoulder of their wayward President. Nothing was further from the truth. The vitriol poured out against the President in particular was savage, hate-filled and often profane.
What emerged from this paroxysm of rage was hardly a coherent message, and the critical political middle, guided along by helpful analysis from the media that the Republican party was falling apart, absorbed the only conclusion possible with their primitive political senses: Republicans couldn’t govern. The left then exploited the chaos with relentless fabricated themes designed to highlight a party in shambles: culture of corruption, enough is enough, sex scandals, etc. The net effect is that the demise of the Republican Party in this election cycle began with bad policy decisions, took hold in the spectacle of Betrayed Conservatives throwing a temper tantrum, and was finished off by helpful liberals everywhere, particularly in the media.
Liberal Republicans are nothing new, irritants to be managed and media darlings; the flying spittle, f-bombs and flailing arms of Betrayed Conservatives was the chum that drew the school of liberal sharks in for the kill.
What is most exasperating to more rational conservatives is that the revolt dispensed with the successful strategy of incrementalism and ignored the importance of Bush’s principled stand in the most important issue of the day, the War on Terror. This "take my ball and go home" strategy seemed to prefer Tuesday’s election disaster to a more measured approach: maintaining control, applying pressure conventionally on elected representatives, seizing upon primaries as a means to nominate more conservative candidates, and, most importantly of all, always opposing liberals. On Election Day, Betrayed Conservatives for the most part ended up pulling the lever for Republicans, but the damage was done. The moderate in the next booth had already heard the noise, listed to the media analysis of a party in ruins, and decided it was "time for a change."
In the end, the Republicans have only themselves to blame. If they had slammed the border shut, killed the prescription drug entitlement, and otherwise controlled government spending, they would have won handily. The disinterested middle 20% of the electorate always follows a strong lead, and in between lattes and soccer matches, they really do think conservative thoughts.
But there were two distinct approaches for dealing with the liberal infection spreading throughout the GOP: one was to fight the good fight from within while always remaining aware of the real enemy. The other was to blow the whole thing up. The former strategy may have prevented Nancy Pelosi from being third in line for the Presidency. The latter may have just put liberals in power for the next six years and made President Hillary Clinton a distinct possibility.
Copyright © 2006 Dan Hallagan. All Rights Reserved.