John Hawkins addresses the false arguments for a more
"moderate" Republican Party:
After a GOP beating, there is always a debate between the
people who want the party to become more principled and those
who want to turn the GOP into a poll-driven pile of mush that
they believe will be more appealing to centrists. . . .
One of the most surreal aspects of the post-2008 campaign is
listening to moderates pretend that the last eight years never
happened.
You say that the GOP can't win as a small government party.
Well, we've already tried being a big government party for the
last 8 years and it failed. You think running a moderate,
pro-amnesty candidate who eschews social issues is the key to
winning elections? Well, that's who we ran in 2008 and he
received even less votes than George Bush did in 2004.
The big-government approach -- whether you call it "national
greatness" or "compassionate conservatism" -- is not a fighting
creed, because it does not offer a meaningful alternative to
Democratic Party liberalism. Republicans were able to win
elections in 2002 and 2004 on national-security issues, but
ultimately it was failure to pursue a politically effective
domestic agenda that undid Karl Rove's "permanent Republican
majority."
More to the point, as
I've previously noted, independent voters are not "centrist"
or "moderate" in an ideological sense. Independents are actually
"low-information" voters whose political ideas are an
ill-informed hodge-podge that conforms to no ideological
template. There is no coherent middle-of-the-road agenda to which
they subscribe.The moderate argument that Republicans lose
independents because of specific conservative policy stances --
on immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc. -- simply does not fit
the reality of who these voters are. (And there is plenty of
evidence that independents tend to be conservative on social
issues.)
Low-information voters often can't name their representatives or
senators, but they usually know who the president is and which
party he belongs to, and if they don't like the president
(Bush
is at 26% approval), his party will pay the price. The
Republican Party's electoral problems, then, are more simple than
some would have us believe. The simplicity of the problem doesn't
mean the solution will be easy, but "moderation" -- chasing a
centrist will-o'-th'-wisp -- is unlikely to be part of the
solution.
(Cross-posted at The
Other McCain.)
