The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Complacent Conservatism

Text Size

Complacent Conservatism

By W. James Antle, III on 1.4.12 @ 3:30PM

Leon Wolf reminds us that Republicans have regularly nominated presidential candidates who have done less to ingratiate themselves to conservatives than Mitt Romney, arguing that this should temper or at least contextualize anti-Romney sentiment. Wolf concludes that "we should recognize that we as conservatives have successfully moved the party to the right over the past two decades" and not succumb to the "infantile madness" of opposing Romney.

It seems to me that if the best we can do is either Romney or fairly obscure conservatives (like ex-CEOs of mid-sized pizza companies), that should tell us to the limits of how far "we as conservatives" have "moved the party to the right." Look, I'm a Massachusetts native. I voted for Romney in the 1994 Republican primary for Senate, the general election against Ted Kennedy, and for governor against Shannon O'Brien in 2002 -- races where he positioned himself to the left of where he is now. I would have voted for him in a gubernatorial primary against Jane Swift had she been foolish enough to run and I would have supported Romney's reelection in 2006. I did support Kerry Healey, the lieutenant governor who was to Romney's left even then, for governor that year.

So I know something about settling and political reality. I also know that over that period Romney went from being someone who emphasized he was an independent during the Reagan years to trying to be a full-spectrum Reagan conservative, someone who described himself as a "progressive" in this decade to a "four-legged stool" movement guy, someone who with equal conviction defended both sides of the abortion debate, did not just flip-flop on abortion once but zig-zagged for over nearly two decades, and has generally acted as if none of this ever happened.

These are all very good reasons to wonder if conservatives are going to get much different results from someone who is telling them what they want to hear than the nominees in the past who didn't even flatter them. (And remember that John McCain did flatter us.) Conservatives have had great success in pushing the Bushes and the Romneys to the right, at least rhetorically. They have also had some success in increasing the importance of candidate platforms and principles in primaries. But the fact that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan are the only two movement conservatives who have been in a position to win the nomination since 1964 -- both men who predated the conservative movement -- and that only Reagan has actually been elected should tell us that maybe we have been doing something wrong.

View all comments (12) | Leave a comment

Chuck| 1.4.12 @ 9:10PM

You have to remember 1973 is the momentous year for the Republican Party. Not only Watergate but the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade given to us by 7 justices five of whom were GOP appointees. The party split between social conservatives and liberal establishment types a split that remains today. It quickly manifested itself in a match between Ford and Reagan in '76. Now the most important element of any GOP nominee is that he or she be pro-abortion as Romney has demonstrated in the past no matter what he says in the present. Utmost in GOP liberal circles is the preservation of Roe v. Wade hence the ascension of Romney. Did you notice the two most pro-life candidates participating in yesterday's caucus finished dead last? The GOP establishment is mostly wealthy and barely touched by the bad economy hence their main concern-abortion. Continued financial support of Planned Parenthood is coming from both private funds (Romney’s wife for example) and taxpayers. If Romney wins the nomination it’s time for social conservatives to abandon the Republican Party.

WL| 1.4.12 @ 10:49PM

Mr. Antle,

Your columns of late have been pretty enjoyable, however, this one is wrong on so many levels it literally makes my brain hurt.

1. The parsing of whether it takes "flattering" us is one of the most insulting things ever uttered from a so-called conservative. As if we need to be flattered. What part of we are not siding and being represented by PHONIES and SQUISHES do you people not understand?
2. This clown's calling our resistance to Romney as "infantile madness" sure doesn't get much of a rebuttal from you, which is surprising, considering you must be able to understand how we "conservatives" feel by constantly getting verbally insulted by our Masters when we won't get in line with the crap sandwiches they serve up.
3. You really should read Buckley's take on the Goldwater campaign. He really didn't support it fully because he felt the Movement wasn't far enough along to put a candidate forward. He was right. It was by the time we got Reagan, and we know how that turned out. We haven't had the opportunity since. Instead our party has nearly self-destructed and constantly finds itself on the LOSING side with McCains, Doles, and Romneys who cannot find an ounce of inner Patton. When the Bushes have won, they have set us back and served up hanging curveballs to the likes of Clinton and Obama....

We won't settle for that anymore...
For the first time in my life, I am sincerely questioning whether it is worth trying to survive another Obama term...in order for us to pull the plug on the Republican phonies...and throw off the yoke of their being our only avenue to victory...because Bush, McCain...and the rest of that lot GOT US IN THIS MESS WITH OBAMA...

The next one who Follows Romney...may be worse.

We can't afford that Mr. Antle and Mr. Wolf.

Sorry, but we just cant.

W. James Antle III| 1.4.12 @ 11:52PM

WL,

You do realize that I am *disagreeing* with Leon Wolf in this post? My point is that it isn't really all that much better to have moderate candidates who pretend to be conservatives -- that is, "flatter" cosnervatives -- than it was to have moderates who openly disdained the label. The results are more or less the same.

The fact that we don't have qualified candidates of our own who are willing to run, rather than canddiates without the record who are willing to market themselves to conservatives, ought to make us wonder how complete the conservative takeover of the GOP is.

Kitty| 1.5.12 @ 10:07AM

And the reason we voters don't have "qualified candidates of our own who are willing to run" is because the GOP elites go after them like attack dogs. Are the GOP elites stupid or just evil?

PatriotGal2257| 1.5.12 @ 11:06AM

The main reason GOP elites rip conservative candidates to shreds is because they see those candidates as threats to their power, plain and simple. Everything they do or say can be understood through that lens. Goldwater talked about it in his book "Conscience of a Conservative," and it was as true in his day as it is now. If there's anything different about it now, it is that the GOP elites don't bother hiding it.

WL| 1.5.12 @ 12:30PM

My sincere apologies....I obviously misunderstood your column completely... Please disregard the post as directed toward your post.

WL| 1.5.12 @ 12:36PM

Our lack of progress may be telling us that we will never get our own qualified candidates until we break away from the GOP. I know that sounds drastic and will cause us great pains...but it may very well be the only way...if there is a way.

Edward| 1.6.12 @ 12:52PM

The answer is not to leave the Republican party, third parties have no real chance in US politics. The answer is to take over the Republican Party. Become a precinct committee member, start from the ground up in taking over the party apparatus. That is the only rational answer, though it will take time. The 3d party option is a dead end which just hands elections to one of the two Liberals running - either the Republicrat or the Demopub.

rk| 1.5.12 @ 1:11AM

Actually it is very sad. Conservatives have generally understood the problems of liberal state-run solutions for decades, and have been ignored. W was quite proud of the home ownership levels, ignoring the fairly obvious flaws in the last 20 years of 'housing policy'

Conservative generally like competition...but somehow we get crony capitalism...W loved corn subsidies...and CFLs. No, we've actually haven't had much of an impact. The old chestnut about slowing down the galloping pace of socialism is maybe all we've done...on a good day

18-1| 1.5.12 @ 10:13AM

I find it interesting that I keep hearing liberals I know say something like, "I'm going to vote for Obama, but I can live with that Romney guy since he isn't a nut like the rest of them."

If we choose Romney as our nominee what is the point in voting? We'll let a more competent and pragmatic Obama when we need someone with the guts to at *least* rollback everything Obama has done, if not Bush's leftwing domestic policies.

Lugo| 1.5.12 @ 4:28PM

It is worse than that. We will get an Obama whom the Democrats are free to hate. We will get an Obama whom the Republicans are forced to love, support, and apologize for. We will get a Obama who will allow the Democrats to blame all the failures of liberalism on Republicans. We will get an Obama whom the Democrats will characterize as "conservative" and they will blame all the failures of liberalism on this supposed conservatism.

Lugo| 1.5.12 @ 4:31PM

McCain flattered us -- but with gritted teeth and so much eye-rolling you could tell he hated every minute of it. You can bet he was telling his liberal buddies in the Senate gym how much he hated having to truckle to all the bitter, gun and Bible-clinging rubes in Red State flyoverland.