- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Self-Servatism Isn't Going to Win
I don't know why RSM is so insistant on bringing up Ross Douthat's Harvard credentials, since they don't speak to anything anymore than my lower-tier ivy credentials might. They're irrelevant to his argument, which is summarized as follows: Senator McCain's loss should not necessarily be construed as a failure of moderate Republicanism (though Rush is saying it is). Instead, it's a failure of strategy, given its substance-free approach.
Ross's assessment omits this point. The substance-free approach of McCain and Co. is absolutely tied to moderate Republicanism and the campaign's strategic failure. McCain's lackluster response to the economic crisis is a perfect example of this. His aversion to addressing issues was rooted in lacking a coherent philosophy as the thread to weave through it. What was it the press and conservatives have been howling about for months? The lack of a message. Wouldn't that message have been solidified if McCain ran on simply more than "I was for the surge before anyone else was?"
Yet that's what moderate Republicanism offers. It offers a few issues where their expertise might be attractive to independents. In this game, however, a Democrat always wins. Why? Because a Democrat can argue about the need for moderation as a way to shortcircuit concern about going too far with spending. No one in the party will call the candidate on his ambition. A moderate Republican, however, has to contend with a party base that's a little more discerning.
Rush's point was that true conservatism -- a belief in the right to life, a strong national defense, and limited government, resonates in a way that does not happen with watered-down self-servatism, because the latter is too difficult to effectively communicate in a way that resonates with independents and core conservatives. The point is that you can reach independents using a conservative message. When you try to simply cater your message to independents, though, it makes little sense -- because independents themselves have a philosophy that doesn't quite make sense (otherwise, more people would be attracted to it, right?).
Ran Hay, a commenter on Stacy's earlier post, puts it fantastically well: "Even 'moderates' and 'undecideds' pine for clear choices."
Comments
Leave a Comment
Robert Stacy McCain| 10.27.08 @ 10:12AM
J.P., political rhetoric serves an educational function. One of the mistakes that "cradle conservatives" make is to assume that ordinary Americans are already familiar with the basic arguments for limited government, free enterprise, etc. Assuming that people have already heard these arguments, which seem so self-evident to conservatives, Republican officials don't ever bother to outline the case for limited government in speeches and debates.
Think about it. When was the last time you heard a GOP official name-check Hayek or invoke the Federalist Papers?
Ronald Reagan -- and Newt Gingrich, in his heyday -- did not make that mistake. They constantly reiterated the case for constitutional government and economic liberty. In Reagan was very good at making that case in terms that anyone could understand, as in his famous 1964 speech: "We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one." Or, as he said on many occasions, "No poor man ever gave me a job."
Rush Limbaugh has been making those arguments, day in, day out, for 20 years. When people who call themselves "conservatives" start engaging in contradictory rhetoric -- as when John McCain slams "Wall Street greed" -- it muddies the message and inflicts brand damage, and that makes Rush angry. It's like my conservative Catholic friends who become enraged at the rhetoric of oxymoronic "pro-choice Catholics."
Ross Douthat wants a "conservatism" that is similar in function and content to liberalism, an activist-government agenda that offers programs and policies designed to secure the votes of specific voter blocs. In other words, Republicans engaging in an electoral bidding war with Democrats, an auction they are sure to lose. This is exactly the "me-too" Republicanism that Goldwater and Reagan and Gingrich rejected. The task of conservatives is to advocate an alternative worldview, a conception of independent citizenship and limited government. To the extent that John McCain has failed to articulate that message, or indeed articulated an opposite message, his electoral shortcomings cannot be attributed to a failure of conservatism.