The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Powerline's John Hinderaker has a short article (pdf) making the contrarian argument that Nelson Rockefeller's brand of politics carried the day. The piece appears, appropriately enough, in the newsletter of Nelson A. Rockefeller Center for Public Policy. I'm afraid Hinderaker's thesis depends on a definition of Rockefeller Republicanism that is both dumbed down and divorced from the history of American politics over the last four decades.

Hinderaker's argument is basically this: Rockefeller was an internationalist and so are most members of both political parties. Rockefeller was a pro-business liberal; there are now Democrats who are pro-business liberals. Rockfeller was a Republican who accepted big government; there are now lots of Republicans who accept big government. He writes, "Republicans no longer are trying to undo the New Deal, and Democrats no longer dream of a socialist future."

Most of the above is true, but a lot of context is missing. The 1964 fight between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller was about a lot of things but America being "fully engaged abroad" wasn't one of them. Goldwater wasn't an "isolationist," nor would that label apply to most Republican leaders since Dwight Eisenhower beat Robert Taft for the nomination in 1952 (Taft wasn't an "isolationist" either, exactly). Rockefeller's welfare policies in New York were exactly the kind Republicans and moderate Democrats wanted to reform and reverse in the 1990s.

Rockefeller's "willingness to spend money and, if necessary, raise taxes" was rejected by Ronald Reagan's heirs in the Republican Party to such an extent that Reagan's tax increases as governor of California might have derailed his nomination today. If you don't believe me, ask Mike Huckabee. Rockefeller Republicans held a far more expansive view of government than even such Northeastern moderates of today as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Christine Todd Whitman ran for governor of New Jersey in 1993 on a platform of slashing tax rates 30 percent across the board, which isn't very Rockefellerite.

There were some conservatives in the 1960s who wanted to see the right align with the Rockfeller Republicans. There are some who would like to see conservatism become some combination of Rockefeller Republicanism and Tory socialism today. But a more careful examination shows that the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s weren't kind to the people who considered themselves Rockefeller Republicans.

topics:
Taxes, Business, Socialism, Conservatism

Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Blog Posts

More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III

http://spectator.org/blog/2008/04/01/no-were-not-all-rockefeller-re

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky | 8:34AM

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 5.28.12

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 5.28.12

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 5.27.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

Terror by Any Other Name

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.29.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

ADVERTISEMENT