Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Begging the Question

Miscellaneous

: Begging the Question

Sebastian and Milbarge Discuss the GOP Race

By "Milbarge" and "Fitz-Hume"

Sebastian and I have been engaging in a mini-debate over the race for the Republican nomination, and I thought I would share it with BTQ readers. Feel free to chime in. Posting around here should be a little light over the next several days, so I hope everyone enjoys whatever holiday they decide to celebrate. I hope to post round two of our little discussion soon.

Milbarge writes:

I'm absolutely fascinated by this year's Republican race. It's one of the starkest contrasts I can recall between the elite, establishment, fiscal conservative business-side GOP (Romney) and the evangelical, culturally conservative wing (Hucakbee),with what seems to be little overlap. Add to that the strong defense wing (McCain and allegedly Giuliani), and it's just amazing to see those three legs to the GOP stool fighting it out. Usually there are candidates who have some backing or background in one of those areas, and might be weaker on others, but usually are not so totally lacking those other qualities.

I'm sure the perfect GOP candidate, to many, would be a hybrid of Romney's business experience and free market credentials, Huckabee's conservatism, and McCain's national security bona fides. I think a lot of people thought Fred Thompson could be that person (along with having Rudy's charisma and tough talk), but he turned out to not make any headway, for whatever reason. (It kind of reminds me of that great line from Full Metal Jacket when the drill sergeant reports on that day's sermon: "Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines!" That's all your ingredients right there!)

So whoever does end up winning the nomination will say a lot about which wing of the GOP calls the shots, at least for now. I'm sure some Democrats are hoping that it could cause the GOP tent to collapse, and bring a final end to the "Southern Strategy" coalition. Working-class whites have long voted against their economic self-interest in favor of the GOP's cultural conservatism and national security positions, and the establishment types have made their peace with it because of the Republican economic policies, especially tax cuts (especially for the wealthy). But will the Romney vs. Huckabee tilt finally pull those sides apart? Which wing of the party will win out, the heart or the head? Or will someone like Giuliani pull it out? (Would it then be the heart vs. the head vs. the muscles?)

I was thinking of titling this post "Searching for Ronald Reagan," as in Searching for Bobby Fischer, because that's what this is really all about. All these candidates are trying to portray themselves as a Reagan clone. They invoke him continually and even had a debate at his presidential library. I guess the bigger-picture question is, What does Reagan mean for today's GOP, and the Republican Party of the future? Someone who turned 18 the year Reagan left office will be 38 next year, and 46 by the 2016 election. How long will Reagan continue to be the touchstone for the party? Why will he still be the one to invoke, or imitate? I think the answer is probably because he had those three qualities (heart/head/muscles) GOP voters are looking for.

(Of course, I would argue that a lot of that is a misperception. Reagan was personally conservative, but he was no evangelical, and he raised taxes both as California governor and president, and I would argue his tax cuts were bad for the economy in the long run. And the working class white voters who went along with the GOP, going back to Goldwater, misperceived, I think, their own economic interest -- in short, they believed in "trickle-down.") Anyway, assuming Reagan was the perfect amalgam of the current candidates, who will voters choose when they have to decide just what aspect of Reaganism they want most? (It would be amusing if they chose this year's Jimmy Carter, Huckabee.) (I think all bets are off if there's another terrorist attack; in that case, they would want muscle, clearly.)

So here are a few links that got me thinking about all this: Here is a piece from Peggy Noonan, who would know, wondering if Reagan could even get elected in the current GOP climate, especially with the leading candidates trying to out-Jesus each other. And here is a longer piece about Huckabee and Romney from "The Weekly Standard." It's quite long, but it's good. Here's a post from Ross Douthat on elitism versus populism in the GOP race, and Jonah Goldberg's response. And Douthat on his advice for the GOP field. Also, a very good episode of "What's Your Problem?" that covers a lot of this ground.

Maybe I'm reading too much into all this. Maybe it isn't a battle for the soul of the Republican Party, like 1968 was for the Democrats. But it sure is interesting to me, and I think regardless of who wins, we'll hear a bunch of theorizing about what it really means.

Sebastian responds:

As for the GOP primary, it's been fun to watch for me as well. As you know from my post, I'm still in Thompson's camp, but he's not put the effort into the early states. I'm curious to see if there's a shift once some of the southern primaries start going. We'll see.

You're dead on about the other main guys all lacking big portions of the playbook. Part of the problem, as I know others have written about, is that the GOP didn't have anyone who was "next in line". For the longest time they've had a few candidates lined up for any election who for the most part had the bases covered. This election is a weird combination where there was no Next Guy, and none of the candidates who stepped up are palatable to the party as a whole. W takes a little blame here for picking a VP who had no interest in running for the Presidency. Granted, any Veep would've had a tough time winning with the current approval ratings, but at least there would have been an obvious frontrunner to start with, and the marketing folks would've had years to get the ads ready.

Where I might break slightly is in your assumption that the candidate that wins the nomination will determine which wing of the Republican party is pulling the biggest strings these days. I think those different sides will fight tooth and nail through the early primaries, but if an obvious frontrunner emerges, then A. voters will start bandwagoning on the favorite and B. the different wings of the party will start putting aside their differences knowing that they have a fight ahead with the even more evil Democrats. I saw the line on TAPPED the other day that the fiscal wing of the party provides the funds, and the social wing gets the voters to the polls. They'll need both to beat the Dem candidate. There is also the possibility that if Romney or Huck win the nomination, they pick the other for Veep. It would make sense. Together they cover North/South and fiscal/social. I think both would take the Veep spot knowing they'd be in prime position to run again (as opposed to Edwards who's trying to come back into the area after being gone). Now the other possibility is a brokered convention, which I would love to see just for the pure novelty of it. If that happens I have no idea how things would work out.

Reagan as the patron saint of the GOP I think is here to stay for a while, for many reasons. First and foremost, he is credited with winning one of the three major conflicts of the last century. Whatever people's feelings about Iraq or the war on terror, I would bet money that the vast majority of adults in this country consider winning the Cold War a much bigger deal, and the Soviets a much more formidable enemy. Second, he was one of the few GOP leaders who convey the conservative message to the people. Outside of him, William F. Buckley, and Newt Gingrich, who else has been able to to that? And of the three, only one rose to the pinnacle of the profession. Third, he was likeable. How often do we get that in a politician anymore? Hillary gets big poll numbers, but does anyone actually LIKE her?

As for how long he will continue to hold that position, how often do you hear Democrats still today refer back to FDR and JFK? I think Reagan will be the conservative benchmark for decades to come, longer if no one with such striking qualities/achievements comes along. As to which of Reagan's qualities primary voters will chose from when they go to the polls, I honestly don't have a feel for right now. When I look at each candidate individually, I think there's no way they can win. But then I step back and realize one of them has to get it. Just odd.

I do need you to explain something you say below and that I've heard from liberals elsewhere, and that is the whole "And the working class white voters who went along with the GOP, going back to Goldwater, misperceived, I think, their own economic interest..." This has always seemed to be to be 1. very sweeping and 2. a little condescending. Not that I think you mean the latter, by any means, but I know some that have written the phrase have. Working class white voters encompasses people across regions and industries. So while the GOP policies may not have been right for some, they may have been the best choice for many others. Then there is the case, as you say, that voters were voting for the social/military policy they preferred above the economic, and that's their choice. I think there is also likely a big undercurrent there of people voting for the policy of smaller government, wanting their tax money (and the decisions made about it) to stay closer to home. Not trusting fat cats in Washington not to take their hard earned money and buy things like gold leaf playing cards for Air Force One, or fund artists who are openly hostile to their religion of choice.

And the last point I would make on this, before I climb down from my soapbox and pour some more wine, is that economic interest can take the form of more than just liquid cash. My father, who dislikes all politicians, admires Reagan to this day because of what he did to reign in OSHA. Before I was old enough to pay attention, OSHA was passing blanket regulations that applied not only to office buildings, but ranches and farms and mines. There is a famous postcard back home in Montana of a tractor out in the middle of a field towing an outhouse behind it so that the farmer would be in compliance with an OSHA requirement. The regulatory party, which to many people takes the form of the Democrats, can impose restrictions that are just as financially damaging as Fed rate adjustments or tax cut policy.

More to come...

Full post as published by Begging the Question on December 22, 2007 (boomark / email).