Campaign Crawlers
Third Way
Could Doug Hoffman portend a less reflexively Republican conservative future?
A vote for fill-in-the-blank conservative third-party candidate — be it Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or Pat Buchanan — is a vote for the Democrats. This argument has kept many a disgruntled conservative on the Republican reservation, no matter how hard they had to hold their nose in November.
For it wasn’t John McCain, George W. Bush, or his father who rallied the conservative faithful to pull the Republican lever as much as Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Michael Dukakis. In each case, some additional incentive was provided in the form of running mates Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, and Dan Quayle (imagine trying to get out the conservative vote with McCain-Lieberman or Bush-Ridge). But fear of the Democrats has been employed successfully on behalf of Republicans as liberal as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lincoln Chafee, and Arlen Specter — only the first of whom remains in the GOP today — who were sometimes just millimeters to the right of their Democratic opponents.
Whether or not Doug Hoffman wins next Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district, that argument may sound a lot less persuasive to conservatives because of his candidacy. Sarah Palin, the GOP’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee, has endorsed Hoffman over the liberal Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava. So have Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Republican ex-senators turned presidential prospects Fred Thompson and Rick Santorum.
Sitting members of Congress have also crossed party lines to support the Conservative Party nominee over the Republican: Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Reps. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Todd Tihart of Kansas, and Dana Rohrabacher of California. Cole, a former political consultant, chaired the House Republicans’ national campaign committee during the 2008 election cycle.
In 2012, Republican presidential contenders who stuck with the GOP nominee — or stayed neutral like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee — may find their party loyalty as popular among primary voters as Gerald Ford’s support for the Panama Canal Treaty was in his 1976 fight with Ronald Reagan. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has already faced nearly as much criticism for his persistence in backing Scozzafava as Hillary Clinton got from Democratic primary voters for her refusal to repent of her Iraq war vote.
Conservatives are deserting Scozzafava in droves, ignoring warnings that their independence could swing the seat to the Democrats. This is true not just national activist groups like the Club for Growth and Eagle Forum, but also — if the polls are any indication — grassroots voters in the 23rd district. “NY-23” has emerged as a conservative rallying cry.
The situation is unusual. Scozzafava is not just pro-choice and liberal on other social issues, but also economically liberal and in favor of increasing union power through card check. New York allows candidates to appear on multiple party ballot lines and thus has a viable state Conservative Party. Unlike most conservative third-party nominees, Hoffman is not a protest candidate or sure loser. The closest analogy is when Jim Buckley ran successfully for U.S. Senate in New York on the Conservative Party ballot line against liberal Democrat Richard Ottinger and liberal Republican Charles Goodell — with the tacit support of Republican President Richard Nixon.
Having bolted the Republican Party once, some disenchanted conservatives might find it a hard habit to break. Faced with an unprincipled GOP on the one hand and ineffectual third parties of the right on the other, Hoffman might show a third way: a conservative party that works in tandem with the Republicans when they nominate conservatives but runs its own candidates when the party of Reagan more closely resembles the party of Rockefeller. This could make conservatives the swing vote Republicans must pursue.
Doug Hoffman’s way isn’t the easy way, however. How conservative must a Republican be to win this hypothetical third party’s support? The Empire State Conservatives have been criticized for being too quick to give their ballot lines to Republicans. The national Constitution Party could nominate few Republicans not named Ron Paul. And what would such an arrangement do to Republicans like Rudy Giuliani who really are the only GOPers who could win in their home areas? (Though George Marlin’s Conservative Party candidacy didn’t keep Giuliani from being elected mayor in 1993, despite the former’s insistence that the only difference between Giuliani and David Dinkins was the way they parted their hair.) Canada’s experiment with two major parties of the right — the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform Party turned Canadian Alliance — ended in a merger.
New York is unique in allowing candidates to run on multiple party ballot lines. Most other states make it difficult to impossible for minor parties to compete, forcing them to spend all their time and energy navigating byzantine ballot-access requirements. By the time their nominees make the ballot, the campaign is already broke.
Yet Hoffman’s rebellion may reveal that the country’s conservative plurality is tuning out Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and instead heeding the Democratic icon John F. Kennedy. Kennedy, after all, once said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/29/third-way
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
The American Guardian | 10.29.09 @ 6:57AM
N.Y. is a big liberal state, a Hoffman victory is a big victory.
Ryan| 10.29.09 @ 8:35AM
Not totally. It's quite a conservative district, as is much of the state outside of NYC (where the average resident has moved there within the last few years).
Pingback| 10.29.09 @ 6:59AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Third Way [spectator.org] on Topsy.c links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
S.L. Toddard| 10.29.09 @ 7:50AM
I'm not sure if "Third Way" is appropriate. It seems more like a Second Way to me. The choice for conservatives is to either vote for one of the wings of the welfare-warfare party (D or R) or vote for a conservative.
I deny any candidate (for Congress or President) my vote who does not seem to me to be sincere in his or her desire to rollback the three great and anti-constitutional expansions of federal power in the last century - the New Deal, the Great Society and the Bush National Security State.
Adam Smith| 10.29.09 @ 11:23AM
The most sensible, readble post I have seen from you Toddy.
And true. The Republicrats like Newt won in spite of hare brained marketing props like Contract with America or the joint gift of Midnight Basketball.
They won because they were supposed to be the "opposition party", then claimed to be geniuses (particularly the bloviating Newt) and proceeded to act like the fellow Kleptocrats they are (with rare noteable exception).
There is no difference between the Dems & Reps any more. The left wing of the unaparty is just more ruthless and boundryless with the marketing schtick & strategy.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:20PM
"The most sensible, readable post I have seen from you Toddy."
Todd has got what it takes. He's just naive, and there is no paxil or effexor to take for naivite'.
Why is he naive? We will never no any sort of genuine justice or even dignity, integrity, in foreign OR domestic policy. Almost all men are wired as predators and many are wired as reprobates. In fact, as more are empowered, the level of dignity will fall as the depravity at the middle and lower reahes of 'society' percolates upwards-- the great flaw of democracy.
Without integrity, dignity and virtue, there is no justice, nor will I warrant there will ever be.
You must all know in the backs of your minds that politics is a game, a serious game like chess, but a game all the same.
W. James Antle III | 10.29.09 @ 11:24AM
It would be a third way in this sense: right now conservatives have the options of a major party that can sometimes win elections but rarely delivers anything for them, or they can vote for minor parties with authentically conservative platforms that can't win elections. This would be an attempt to balance the principles of a third party with the practicality of using a major party as a vehicle when possible.
S.L. Toddard| 10.29.09 @ 1:52PM
Ah - okay. Thanks for the clarification.
Al Adab| 10.29.09 @ 4:38PM
Mr. Antle:
Do I remember correctly that it was the Conservative movement which brought the GOP success in 1980 and again in 1994? How then is it that the GOP seems so often to fall into its accomodationist mode, become tepid and continue to compromise with the left allowing them to achieve their purpose incrementally. It should be clear by now that incrementalism is what has brought us to this pass. It seems unlikely that things could be unwound the same way.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:32PM
I deny any candidate (for Congress or President) my vote who does not seem to me to be sincere in his or her desire to rollback the three great and anti-constitutional expansions of federal power in the last century - the New Deal, the Great Society and the Bush National Security State. "
" 'seem' to me"?
and what about Gramps and Gran? gonna roll their dough and med benefits back, too? In an aging population? Sure. yeah yeah yeah.
Ryan| 10.29.09 @ 8:34AM
The "stealing votes" argument won't fly as well in the next election cycle. Conservatives are emboldened with a real chance of making a difference, and one wonders if the grassroots is going to buy the line, at least in the near term.
Particularly if Hoffman wins. Yes, it's a unique situation, but there is something to be garnered from it.
Pingback| 10.29.09 @ 8:37AM
First Contact – Dawn of Aquarius | Contact Cases | Discount Contact Lens Cases links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Melvin| 10.29.09 @ 9:34AM
There's a difference between politicians and us. Politicians think the people of this country exist to provide them with position. The people think politicians position exists to provide the people with freedom. And some of us are going to make sure that the people have it.
Tonytitan| 10.29.09 @ 9:51AM
Well said, William Wallace! (a.k.a. Braveheart)
Melvin| 10.29.09 @ 10:46AM
Quite benefiting for the 21st Century, don't you think?
It is quite amazing that during the age of William Wallace, they fought for the very same thing, that many now take for granted, and now we must fight again, to retain that freedom.
Hopefully we will be more disciplined than William.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:27PM
yes, and provide funds to those who don't even need it. Like, so grampa can take an extra trip to Bermuda this winter.
Do you really take for-public-consumption at face value anymore? Absolutely hard to believe if you do.
even my Down-Syndrome friend says,
"you caint trust nobodee"
Joe| 10.29.09 @ 11:53AM
How conservative must a Republican be to win this hypothetical third party's support?
To answer your question Mr. Antle and Michael Medved, more then Ms. Snow or Collins or Spector or Chaffee. They should be at least more then 50% conservative. Otherwise we get very little if anything from them. And Dede is not a moderate but a ultra Liberal (NO!!!) way.
Gene Berkman | 10.30.09 @ 9:47PM
The Conservative Party backed Gov. Pataki three times, even after he busted New York's budget with record spending (even for New York) and used government contracts and subsidies to buy the support of Lenora Fulani.
The Conservatives also back Rep. Peter King who in various years has been rated c- to d- by the National Taxpayers Union.
GERARD| 10.29.09 @ 1:09PM
This talk about parties is kinda pointless...
Individuals, in general, mean next to nothing.
Want proof?
This National Healthcare steamroller is being rammed thru in SPITE of the fact that most small businesses, and the majority of US citizens are on record and no interest in it being passed.
It is ALL ABOUT Big Money, Special Interest Groups.
Big Pharma was bought out.
The Doc's are being bribed to go along..
Ditto for Hospitals..
The Unions have long been bought and paid for...
The way it stands, INDIVIDUAL Americans (aka:taxpayer rubes who will have to pay for this mess) have been rendered irrelevant.
So... it matters little if you are Right/Center ir Left/Center..You DO NOT MATTER.
Big Lobbyists/Donors/Interest Groups get the politicians to dance and vice versa..
fundamentalist| 10.29.09 @ 1:12PM
Republicans have fooled conservatives long enough. We may be slow learners, but when we learn a lesson it's for life. Republicans have conned us for decades by preaching conservativism and then ruling like socialists. At least Democrats aren't hypocrites: they claim to be socialists and act like socialists. Republicans claim to be conservative but act like socialists.
Republican always respond with "a vote for a third party, or abstaining from voting, is a vote for the Democrat candidate." But conservatives have finally realized that a vote for the Republican candidate is a vote for a hypocrite who will rule like a Democrat. So any vote other one for a third party is a vote for socialist policies, regardless of the party.
Robert| 10.29.09 @ 1:35PM
It's amazing that the only republican that understands that Sarah Palin is a disaster for the GOP is John McCain. I mean get real people...a loser is a loser. How many more contests will you allow Palin to ruin for you? It's a certainty that the Democrat will win in NY. Thanks again Palin!
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 2:06PM
i made the call, your whaa-bulance is on the way...
Brad| 10.29.09 @ 2:08PM
Robert
Please cite examples of campaigns ruined by Sarah Palin. I'd be interested to know when this occurred.
And don't say McCain's. McCain's campaign was destroyed by McCain.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:09PM
"(imagine trying to get out the conservative vote with McCain-Lieberman[...]"
Blacks can be elected now to the very highest offices, but Jews have to stay home on plantations and pick cotton. A woman can't even run for veep unless she has mob connections (1984) or is a very attractive, strong, woman from Alaska (2008). And they just run, obviously, they don't win.
Hush this cry of equality 'til a thousand years have past.
Charles Martel| 10.30.09 @ 2:09AM
Lieberman was not used in the example because he is Jewish: his name was invoked thus because he is liberal.
I said it often during the 2000 campaign and many times since: that Lieberman was (and is) an observant Jew was the only thing that that ticket had going for it.
I meant (and mean) it sincerely, and would cheerfully vote for Jewish conservatives for high office -- including the highest office. Got any?
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:21PM
"The most sensible, readable post I have seen from you Toddy."
This is reposted to correct the typos.
Todd has got what it takes. He's just naive, and there is no paxil or effexor to take for naivite'.
Why is he naive? We will never know any sort of genuine justice or even dignity, integrity, in foreign OR domestic policy. Almost all men are wired as predators and many are wired as reprobates. In fact, as more are empowered, the level of dignity will fall as the depravity at the middle and lower reaches of 'society' percolates upwards-- the great flaw of democracy.
Without integrity, dignity and virtue, there is no justice, nor will I warrant there will ever be.
You must all know in the backs of your minds that politics is a game, a serious game like chess, but a game all the same.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 2:34PM
"In fact, as more are empowered, the level of dignity will fall as the depravity at the middle and lower reaches of 'society' percolates upwards"
yes, those stupid, wicked plebs are always making life difficult for us patricans, if they could just learn their place and SHUT UP, everything would be just great (for us, anyway)
could someone point me to the Aventine Hill, please?
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:35PM
So let's have it clear, I share your general conservative values--
but not any of your optimism.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 2:40PM
"yes, those stupid, wicked plebs are always making life difficult for us patricans, if they could just learn their place and SHUT UP, everything would be just great (for us, anyway) "
When did I ever write that patricians are morally superior to plebs? but that only makes it worse. Look, I don't deny we can exist, it's just what sort of genuine living-- in such a tawdry world-- are "we" going to do?
Simple questions with no answers.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 2:46PM
"When did I ever write that patricians are morally superior to plebs?"
actually saying it would be social suicide, so they don't, they just think it and act on that thought.
(i.e. Rockafeller Republicans(globalists) and Progressive Democrats (marxists))
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 2:55PM
this country before the Civil War was a hard, tough, but wonderful place to live.
What made it that way?
true freedom
at this point i'd rather be owned by a robber baron than the target of the Ruling class's benvolent (sarc), suffocating, inescapable embrace.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 3:01PM
"actually saying it would be social suicide, so they don't, they just think it and act on that thought.
(i.e. Rockafeller Republicans(globalists) and Progressive Democrats (marxists)) "
Somehow you miss the point. That plebs and patricians are equally depraved-- though in different ways-- IS the point.
For the 2nd time, what don't you get about this?
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 3:01PM
"actually saying it would be social suicide, so they don't, they just think it and act on that thought.
(i.e. Rockafeller Republicans(globalists) and Progressive Democrats (marxists)) "
Somehow you miss the point. That plebs and patricians are equally depraved-- though in different ways-- IS the point.
For the 2nd time, what don't you get about this?
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 3:21PM
it's not that i don't get it, i just don't buy it.
If i buy it, i live in the muck with no hope of ever getting out.
i reject it.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 3:19PM
"this country before the Civil War was a hard, tough, but wonderful place to live.
What made it that way?
true freedom
at this point i'd rather be owned by a robber baron than the target of the Ruling class's benvolent (sarc), suffocating, inescapable embrace. "
Of course you are correct in the context of AS-- for why would anyone, aside from Daffy Kenward, blog here if they didn't have SOME romantic notions?
But though you are aware that life is no better now than during the antebellum era, you must sense that life (or existence, i.e., families stumbling through) is no worse? Six of one... well, you know.
You want to be a little romantic, but not overly romantic.
JeffW| 10.29.09 @ 3:20PM
Ahhh, Robert. Your hate shines through. Even if what you say is true and Sarah cost us the last race. Losers are not always losers or have you no grasp of political history? Ronald Regan lost a few and he came back and became a icon.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 3:24PM
my romantic visions are for myself alone.
let others have their own vision
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 3:50PM
" my romantic visions are for myself alone.
let others have their own vision"
And what if their visions are aggressive Commie-visions? Do you turn the other cheek and forgive them in the name of Daddy Robert E. Lee?
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 3:56PM
What if their visions are hurly-burly libertarian free trade visions not in harmony with confederate leave-us-be romantic living?
or existing.
You may well find the future to be more... pluralistic... than you or your loved ones might like the future to be. Only one way to find out-- the hard way.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 4:05PM
again, the Constitution as it is written is the baseline any ideaology that can fit itself within that is accecptable, anything outside it is not
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 5:20PM
Pride before a fall.
And if you don't fall, I absolutely guarantee that someone you care about will fall in the ill winds to blow in the next couple decades.
After that, I don't know what will happen; but many will fall 2010- 2030...
some HARD.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 7:49PM
everyone, everything falls.
the government can't "fix" that, when they try they just make things worse.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 8:02PM
and until i "fall" i want to live and be free to dream my dream and try to make them reality, i may fail, i may fail miserably, but that's not what's important what is important is the dreaming and the trying.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 4:02PM
the framework is the Constitution.
collectivism of any type is contrary to the Founding documents.
that doesn't make it illegal, but the Constitution should make it impossible to implement as collectivism by it's very nature violates the liberty of the individual.
if the Constitution were enforced correctly even Social Security would be impossible.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 5:16PM
You are a very confident young man, shoey, but whether your confidence is justified remains to be seen.
Like, in Dec of 1860, SC was VERY confident.
But only a few years later, in April of 1865, SC was less so.
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 5:28PM
it's not confidence in myself(although i have a healthy amount of that), but confidence in the principles laid down by the Founders.
they knew that government was a monster that consumes and destroys everything in it's path and that the only way to keep it under control is to kept it small and to strictly limit it's power.
Alan Brooks| 10.29.09 @ 9:05PM
yeah?
Well the Cosa Nostra, just for one, is not statist. Goodfellas the world over are syndicalists
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 10:16PM
now you're just being silly.
are you suggesting is that unless we allow the government to make the whole world a prison, only the criminals are free?
Al Adab| 10.29.09 @ 3:31PM
What are the latest numbers? Have the Conservatives endorsing Hoffman begun to show up in NY-23 to speak and campaign? I do understand a lot of money has flowed in. Is it enough?
What else can Conservatives do in the time remaining? This one is winnable.
Oldefarte| 10.29.09 @ 4:49PM
As a lifelong Republican voter, it is now imperative for conservatives to vote for the CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE, not for the PARTY CANDIDATE. Our country is being destroyed, and the only solution is to elect truly conservatives of either party!!!!
shoey| 10.29.09 @ 6:05PM
Gloabalists to the right of me,
Marxists to the left of me.
let us not deapair, let us rejoice a target-rich environment!
Len| 10.29.09 @ 6:12PM
As the author of this article shows himself to be a reader of the comments, perhaps he can explain this line.."The national Constitution Party could nominate few Republicans not named Ron Paul."...Does he have something against the only Republican candidate who actually espouses true federalism and abiding by the limits of the US constitution?
W. James Antle III | 11.2.09 @ 1:51PM
No.
Pingback| 10.29.09 @ 7:15PM
Tea pot ready to boil in upstate New York | Conservative Heritage Times links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DaveS| 10.29.09 @ 7:24PM
The Republicans ask us, partly through stupid crossover primaries, to support increasingly leftist candidates. You can only hold your nose just so tightly when pulling the lever. In NY-23, it was too high a burden to ask. Ergo, Hoffman - with no regrets.
DaveS| 10.29.09 @ 7:40PM
Newt, is there any guarantee that Dede will be a Republican for any period of time after the swearing-in?
DaveS| 11.1.09 @ 5:05PM
Its 5 PM Sunday afternoon and I see that Dede has endorsed the Democrat! I guess she didn't wait even for the swearing-in. How did I miss that?
rodney| 10.29.09 @ 7:59PM
i dont understand how the repubs are blaming the conservatives on giving this to the dems...last time i looked they were getting their butts kicked. if anything they should STAND DOWN. it appears if anyone has a chance to win is DOUG not dede. This is so great!!!!! Go Doug GO!!!!
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 10:52PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com