-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today’s column on Joe Scarborough was written before I saw his piece this morning in Politico.
It is stunning to see such muddled cluelessness in print.
Joe begins by comparing the GOP’s current woes to the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850s, then moves on to Herbert Hoover and the “20 years in the wilderness” that followed. Mentioning the Democrats losing five out of six elections after the 1968 “radicalization of their base” he ends his beginning by noting the “GOP lost the popular vote in five of their last six runs for the White House in part because they couldn’t keep pace with the rapid change in demographic realities.”
Huh?
Where to begin?
The Whigs collapsed indeed precisely as Scarborough notes — because they didn’t have the spine to stand against slavery. They were the “moderates” of the day and they deserved to lose and fade away.
Herbert Hoover, inheriting the conservative legacy of Calvin Coolidge immediately moved the GOP left. A Progressive Republican with a capital PR, Hoover was so popular with liberals of the day that Franklin Roosevelt had hoped the Democrats would nominate him in 1920 — with a young FDR as Hoover’s running mate. Hoover instead announced he was a Republican. While FDR did make it onto the Democratic ticket as the vice-presidential candidate, Harding and Coolidge won the day and Hoover went into the GOP Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce.
Where, eight years later, Coolidge noted that Hoover had spent his time giving Coolidge advice — “all of it bad.” Be that as it may, in an election that presaged the Reagan-Bush transfer in 1988, the popular Hoover was chosen as Coolidge’s successor and carrying Coolidge’s conservative flag into the election won in a landslide.
Four years later, having run the country in his Progressive Republican way replete with a tax increase from the mid-20s rate to 63 percent and a host of new regulations, plus signing on to the Smoot-Hawley tariff, he gave us the Great Depression. Hoover lost in a landslide to FDR, the conservative legacy of Coolidge lost. For the next 20 years the GOP turned incessantly to progressive — or as they came to be called “moderate” Republicans. From Hoover they went to Alf Landon to Wendell Willkie to Tom Dewey twice, each and all “moderates” of the Colin Powell variety. They struck gold in 1952 — only because the great hero of World War II, Eisenhower, was a moderate. The Eisenhower victories were personal, embodied in his slogan: everybody “liked Ike.” Trying the same schtick with Nixon in 1960 — Nixon opening the first and most famous of his debates with John F. Kennedy by saying that he and JFK agreed on many things — Nixon lost.
The move to bring the party back to its Lincoln conservative roots was on. In a massive struggle, the moderates lost control of the GOP to Goldwater.
Did Goldwater lose in a landslide? Yes. For all manner of reasons, not the least that the country was still horrified by JFK’s brutal assassination and had no intention of having a fourth president in four years. Moderate Republicans, sulking as moderates do, simply refused to support Goldwater.
But one Republican famously went all out for Goldwater — Ronald Reagan. He understood the message — and he knew how to communicate it. And as was noted by no less than the New York Times at the time of Reagan’s televised October speech, “A Time For Choosing,” it was Reagan who emerged as the best communicator of conservative principles. It might do Morning Joe well to spend some time going back to watch Reagan’s speech again — here’s the link for it.
The rest — the great, the good and the bad is known. But not, apparently, understood by Joe Scarborough. The “dreadful collapse” he mentions in his Politico piece this morning didn’t come about because the GOP was faithful to conservatism. To the contrary. These abysmal defeats came about because conservatism was abandoned. Specifically, first by President George H.W.Bush — a great and wonderful man but a moderate first, last, and always. Like Hoover with Coolidge, Bush ran on the record of his predecessor, won a third GOP landslide in a row — and immediately abandoned conservatism on taking the White House. Like Hoover, Bush raised taxes, infamously breaking his “read my lips” pledge. Like Hoover, he got clobbered as a result.
Ever since the GOP has nominated one moderate Republican after another — Dole, Bush 43 twice, McCain, Romney. In each and every case these nominees ran as the next Hoover, the next Bush 41 — chanting Reagan’s name as if it were some sort of necessary but painful ritual. But conservative policies? Nah. From tax increases (Dole) to “compassionate conservatism” and Medicare Part B (Bush 43) to McCain-Feingold to RomneyCare the resulting fraternity Republicanism has indeed either gotten clobbered or won by the skin of its teeth.
It is precisely this Hoover-Bush school of moderation to which Colin Powell belongs. That was my impression in the day when I introduced General Powell to our White House briefings for Reagan supporters. My former colleague Peter Robinson, a speechwriter for Reagan who wrote the famous “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” Berlin speech, recalls how Powell made it a point to repeatedly oppose keeping that line in Reagan’s speech — overruled finally only by Reagan himself. A typical moderate was — and is — Powell.
In short, what Scarborough and Colin Powell are saying is that if only the GOP would be more like — pick your favorite loser — the GOP would win. Sure.
Ronald Reagan himself never believed that — as I certainly can say. He himself was called an “extremist” by all manner of GOP moderates from the moment he appeared on the political scene. California moderate Republicans couldn’t stand him. Notably then-former President Ford went to the Times with the “Reagan is an extremist” line in 1980. Ford insisted a conservative couldn’t win — this, like all the other moderate nominees, after losing himself. To Jimmy Carter.
The problem, Joe, is that moderates have been running this party for too long — straight into the ground.
Once again, it’s a Time for Choosing.
View all comments (26) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2013/01/15/joe-scarborough-abandon-reagan
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- A President Loses His Power
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
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.15.13 @ 4:03PM
Excellent comments Jeffrey.....
hmm_contrib| 1.15.13 @ 4:10PM
"Like Hoover, Bush raised taxes"
And Reagan didn't?
Jeff| 1.15.13 @ 4:15PM
Reagan lowered income tax rates.....he raised excise taxes and regrettted it. Bush and Hoover raised income tax rates.
Bob Grant| 1.15.13 @ 4:24PM
He raised taxes with the promise from the democratically-controlled congress that for every dollar in tax increases, 3 dollars would be cut in the future.
It never materialized.
Sound vaguely familiar?
mike 3/505| 1.15.13 @ 5:56PM
Mr Lord,
Perfect! Please Sir...more of these short, cogent and straightforward articles...less of the multi-pagers. Tell 'em what your gonna tel 'em, Tell 'em, and Tell 'em what you told 'em.
Regards,
Mike
kingsmill| 1.15.13 @ 7:10PM
Fine article. The only disagreement is with the sentence:"The move to bring the party back to its Lincoln conservative roots was on."
"Father Abraham's" ideology of equality is the driving force of BIG GOVERNMENT. The Progressive Movement, both Repubs and Dems, adored the arch-statist Lincoln. I'd suggest some remedial reading starting with Willmoore Kendall.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.16.13 @ 9:35AM
The Lincoln comment was the best in the article. You need to get your head out of the Die Lorenzo books.
Simon Templar| 1.15.13 @ 11:04PM
When Joe can publicly denounce progressive liberalism as extreme, admit to its destructiveness to this nation, and stop kissing their asses he can then lecture us. Otherwise, he can shut his two faced, dishonest, and hypocritical trap. No one gives a rats ass what he thinks other than his very small liberal and useful idiot audience.
Quartermaster| 1.16.13 @ 7:54AM
Lincolnism, a progressive BigGov philosophy, taken to it's progressive logical conclusion is the problem with the GOP. The GOP has *never* been a conservative party. To return to its roots means you are simply going to back to what it already is, a big government, crony capitalist party. Like it or not, Colon Powell is the mainstream of the GOP. The base is something different, but it's a foreign inclusion.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.16.13 @ 9:37AM
Lincolnism is, of course, the opposite of big government progressivism. Lincoln loved the Declaration and Constitution.
Warrior| 1.16.13 @ 12:46PM
So much that he crapped all over them? Public schools are a real disservice.
Lincoln ordered Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down while arresting editors and owners for disloyalty.
He ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him. He illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested. He sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons. Should I keep going?
Obama is just like Lincoln, when the rule of law doesn't fit the agenda, ignore the rule of law.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.16.13 @ 2:43PM
As I said, put aside the Die Lorenzo books. Lincoln was dealing with an insurrection, and the Constitution allows suspension of HC in that instance. Congress approved of all of Lincoln's actions.
Warrior| 1.16.13 @ 4:59PM
Your not very good at rewriting history. Maybe you should try to actually read a book before speaking about it. Lincoln, without congressional approval, called forth the militia, increased the size of the Army and Navy, expended funds for the purchase of weapons, instituted a blockade--an act of war--and suspended the precious writ of habeas corpus, all without congressional approval.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.16.13 @ 8:44PM
Congress did eventually approve all of Lincoln's actions. I suggest you reread the article you were plagiarizing:
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....in-wartime
Right after the plagiarized quote, the author said:
"Lincoln termed these actions not the declaration of "civil war," but rather the suppression of rebellion.8 We all know that only Congress is constitutionally empowered to declare war, but suppression of rebellion has been recognized as an executive function, for which the prerogative of setting aside civil procedures has been placed in the President's hands."
Occam's Tool| 1.23.13 @ 3:37PM
Warrior: I, for one, am happy that I don't have to get a Visa to visit my Alabama relatives. Considering that many of my in-laws' family members at that time seceded from Alabama when Alabama seceded from the Union (Winston County), what Lincoln did was a good thing. In short---do we have suspension of Habeas Corpus nowadays?
squalis| 1.16.13 @ 9:40AM
One minor correction. Bush 43 gave us Medicare Part D.
Oldefarte| 1.16.13 @ 11:38AM
Joe is apparently/sadly being politically brainwashed by female co-host and her politically radical father!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 1.16.13 @ 11:38AM
Joe is apparently/sadly being politically brainwashed by female co-host and her politically radical father!!!!!!!!!!
Vance P. Frickey| 1.29.13 @ 1:19PM
She's called a "minder." And don't be so hard on Zbigniew... he may be a Maoist, but at least he's consistent. The fact that Carter sent him over to get Beijing rattling sabers at Moscow, back when, gives me a lot of respect for Carter's ability to judge a man that I didn't have before... his national security advisor was preaching to the saved, all along.
RCV| 1.16.13 @ 12:12PM
Jeffrey, conservatives couldn't even secure the nomination for one of their own in the REPUBLICAN party. To believe that someone like Bachmann or Santorum could have won the general election is to be simply delusional.
Oldefarte| 1.16.13 @ 4:28PM
After four more years of ya boy in control, Sheriff Joe Apaio of Arizona could become the next POTUS!!!!!!!!!!
RCV| 1.16.13 @ 4:58PM
That's what you said before the last election, Oldfarte. But get ready for President Hillary.
Vance P. Frickey| 1.29.13 @ 1:38PM
You'd think, huh? But all the hyperbole about (insert unlikely political figure's name here) sure to be elected President after Obama's first four years didn't pan out - we got four more years of the national illness. Part of the problem, unfortunately, is 60 years of politically-massaged news, starting with Frank Wisner's "Mighty Wurlitzer" network of tame, CIA-managed journalists and newspapers/broadcast networks. After guys like CBS's William Paley started retiring, the network remained; the news was just co-opted by a different set of politicians. So we could have someone in the White House who was in wide-open, full Richard M. Nixon emulation mode... survive what could have been his Watergate... because he was a leftist (I nearly called him a "liberal" and the ghost of Edmund Burke screamed at me until I backspaced over the word).
Occam's Tool| 1.23.13 @ 3:33PM
Joe is a scumbag who plays around with Nazi bitches.
I wish I could be more polite, but he is vermin.
Occam's Tool| 1.23.13 @ 3:34PM
RCV: Nope, gonna be President Biden. And you would vote for him over, say, a Paul Ryan.
Vance P. Frickey| 1.29.13 @ 1:11PM
It's obvious old Mornin' Joe abandoned his principles for a paycheck...