The rightwing pundits and blogs have gone apoplectic over the possibility that John McCain could be the Republican candidate for president in 2008. Their complaint? He’s not a conservative (see here, here, here, and here for starters). Yet, as I’ve pointed out, McCain has earned a respectable lifetime score of 82 from the American Conservative Union.
The problem, of course, isn’t that McCain isn’t a conservative; he’s not the right kind of conservative. It doesn’t matter how McCain votes on education, welfare, the military, abortion, or a host of other usually considered conservative topics. What matters to the “purity” crowd is a handful of issues, and those issues only:
1. Illegal immigration–boot everybody back over the border!
2. Campaign finance reform–we’re agin it!
3. President Bush’s tax cuts–can’t ever be against tax cuts!
Essentially, all other issues are unimportant, if you listen to enough talk radio. But I have to wonder, would Ronald Reagan qualify as a conservative to these folks? They say he would, but look at his record.
1. Amnesty–real amnesty, not the you-gotta-pay-a-fine, follow these rules, etc. type proposed by President Bush. Ronald Reagan signed an actual amnesty bill during his presidency which allowed 5.6 million illegals to gain citizenship.
2. Smaller government–everybody knows that conservatives tout smaller government, right? That’s one of those core conservative values Laura Ingraham talks about, isn’t it? Well, somebody needs to break it to Laura that Ronald Reagan, who promised to abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, actually created a new federal department: the Department of Veterans Affairs. Not only that, but the federal payroll grew by 61,000 employees under Reagan. That’s not smaller government, even for this math-challenged liberal arts major. Reagan also agreed to a massive bailout of Social Security, after declaring that he would like to allow citizens to opt out of it.
3. Tax cuts and tax increases–Reagan signed into law the biggest restructuring of the tax system since John F. Kennedy in 1981. Yet only a year later, Reagan also signed various tax hikes into law. I guess being for tax cuts but also for tax hikes makes one a “true” conservative? It’s a hard argument to make.
As Joshua Green said in his fine opinion piece,
The real Reagan, on the other hand, would bring discord to the current conservative agenda. If you believe, as conservatives now do, that raising taxes is always wrong, then it’s hard to admit that Reagan himself did so repeatedly. If you argue that the relative tax burden on low-income workers is too light, as the Bush administration does, then it does not pay to dwell on the fact that Reagan himself helped lighten that burden. If you insist, as many hardliners now do, that America is dangerously soft on communist China, then it is best to ignore Reagan’s own softening toward the Soviet Union.
The fact is, even Ronald Reagan, the god of the “purity” conservatives, wouldn’t be conservative under their definition of conservatism. Talk radio pundits and others cannot bring themselves to admit the truth about Reagan: he succeeded in bringing together disparate groups into a coalition which worked for various common goals. To do so would mean they would have to stop bashing John McCain as “not a conservative” because he doesn’t tow their ideological line on their pet issues.
“Purity” conservatives need to reread the history of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Reagan won landslide victories in 1980 and 1984 not only because he had weak opponents (that didn’t hurt) but because his rhetoric and philosophies allowed people without much in common to find common cause in the Republican big tent. Instead of sneering at moderates and condemning immigration reform advocates, “purity” conservatives need to ask themselves if they really want to be the Whig Party of the 21st Century.
Cross-posted at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.
Excellent, Sharon.
I agree. I’m getting sick of the “soreheads” out there (some radio hosts, and many of their callers) who are parroting the anti-McCain line. Some are even threatening to just stay home rather than vote for “The Traitor”. Great, guys, I hope you like hearing the phrase “President Hillary Clinton” for the next 4, possibly 8, years …
No Republican president within my lifetime has had an ideological majority in Congress. This there has been an inability to make all of the changes that conservatives would like.
Reagan had a priority of eliminating the threat from the Evil Empire and concluded the ‘containment’ that started with Harry Truman. There was a costly military buildup and he could not have gotten it without giving up on dumping HUD and the Department of Education. So the boondoggles grew.
The change in Congressional control did little more than allow some Republicans to behave like Democrats when it came to earmarked pork.
George Bush behaved far better than could have been expected from either of his two general election opponents. He is well-meaning but can be a bit too compassionate at times. We need to do better and a sellout senator would be a step in the wrong direction.
Well, we’re not going to do better than a “sellout Senator”, unless Romney pulls out some sort of a miracle. You go with what you got. Is the alternative to just stay home? McCain, whatever his faults, is still infinitely preferable to Hillary.
What Romney does between now and Tuesday could have damaging effects on the general election. If he goes full throttle with the negative ads (and parrots the rhetoric of Limbaugh and Savage who are blasting McCain daily), AND only ends up weakening McCain while still losing, the “Purity Repubs” (damn, I like this Sharon) may have to gag on truckloads of crow if it allows Hillary or Obama to win the Presidency.
You know the President you are talking about did good things when the other side starts trying to own them.
1. Amnesty
This was the first big push to cleanup the illegal immigration issue. The deal – amnesty for those who are here along with border controls and a stop to the illegal flood. Well, Teddy K and his bunch took that bet since they got their new illegal Democrat voters and welfare recipients and then made sure that any real attempts to stop the flow were voted down.
That’s why today’s conservatives know that amnesty is a sucker bet today – its always going to be presented as “compassion for today’s law breakers and hardworking mommies who just want to take care of their families” with zero follow through on doing anything about tomorrow’s hardworking mommies doing jobs Americans won’t do.
Do you think that if Reagan were in the Senate today knowing the history of what has happened on this issue in the past he would be proposing a Reagan/Kennedy amnesty bill? (And I wish I had said that before Rush did on his show).
2. Tax increases/tax decreases. In the end, did the tax rate come from 70% to 28%? With lots of bobbles in between? And what has happened since then? Reagan got the messaqe out and got the ultimate in results – the lowering of the tax burden overall. Again, he had to work with the legislature he had. He gave the Democrats their Social Security fix because the system needed the attention. Along with the promise that the 20+ years ahead would allow for individual accounts and such. Did the Democrats follow through on their promises? I still await the opportunity for my personal account to begin. What about yours?
And subsequent history? The first President Bush gives us “read my lips” but caves in to the Democrats and we haven’t seen a 28% top tax rate since. Bill Clinton gets elected promising a middle-class tax cut and then immediately decides what he has to do is RAISE the top tax rate and the rate for everyone.
So today’s conservatives are to ignore all this history and believe in tax increases? Would today’s President Reagan believe that any tax increases would be offset by reduced spending (as promised) or personal Social Security accounts? its all projection, but again it would be hard to think so.
“Purity Republicans” – not a bad thing to be in working in the primary and trying to get your ideas advanced. Condemning those who remember 30 years of Republican and Democrat betrayal of the principles of conservatism seem rather like trying to rewrite history.
And electing a Republican who denigrates conservatives and has a Democrat base certainly doesn’t seem like Republicanism either.
ColoradoRight:
1. Amnesty – I don’t like amnesty. I live in Texas, where I see illegal aliens every day of my life. I’m a huge fan of the border fence, but guess what? That’s not enough. Ronald Reagan agreed to amnesty because he didn’t know what else to do with 5.6 million illegals in our country. He also relied on the theory that laws would actually be upheld in this country.
The truth is, Mitt Romney has stated that all the Republican presidential candidates agree on immigration: they all agree on a border fence and they all agree that we have to fix the path to legalization. That’s a hard pill for purity Repubs to accept, but Romney’s right (I have more theories about fixing immigration, but that’s the subject for another post).
2. Taxes – the top tax margin is much lower, but Reagan backpedalled substantially on taxes after his initial success. He made the choice to sign into law virtually every tax increase Tip O’Neill and Robert Byrd sent his way. It’s disingenuous to give Reagan a pass for increasing Social Security and raising taxes just because it fits your philosophy. The fact is, Reagan couldn’t pass the purity Republican test.
So today’s conservatives are to ignore all this history and believe in tax increases?
John McCain has never–not once–voted for a tax increase. Unlike his opponents. If you want to argue about someone not being conservative enough because they support tax increases, you need to look at the other Republican candidates. John McCain hasn’t done it. Nor, btw, has he ever put an earmark in legislation because he doesn’t believe in those, either.
“Purity Republicans†– not a bad thing to be in working in the primary and trying to get your ideas advanced. Condemning those who remember 30 years of Republican and Democrat betrayal of the principles of conservatism seem rather like trying to rewrite history.
Again, which principles are those and why are you willing to dismiss Ronald Reagan’s un-conservative behavior? The truth is, bending on some issues is the way legislation gets passed. It’s not “betraying the principles of conservatism.” It’s recognizing which of your goals were most important to advance and which you were willing to let slide. That’s what Ronald Reagan knew and modern purity Repubs have forgotten.
And electing a Republican who denigrates conservatives and has a Democrat base certainly doesn’t seem like Republicanism either.
Yeah, we wouldn’t want to elect someone who agrees with us on any issues, would we? Better to let Hillary Clinton lose the war and nominate the next 3 Supreme Court justices. That’ll show ‘em!
All good points Colorado, especially the one above. My problem is the final two choices are far from the conservatism you, (and I) embrace. Do we flip a coin? Do I have issues with both remaining candidates? You bet. But I’d gladly use up Dana’s bandwidth argueing that Romney is more liberal across the board than McCain. And the big difference is McCain can beat either Hillary or Obama in the general. Romney can’t say that.
ColoradoRight wrote:
Well, even though I’m not a supporter of Senator McCain, his positions on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts can at least be explained by his years in the Senate — maybe he just plain knew that there was not going to be any restraint, any restraint at all, on spending.
The thing about “purity Republicans” is that, in continuing to compromise to win, you have the danger of becoming the “me too, just less!” go-along-to-get-along Republicans of the 1970s. The Republican Party of Bob Michel, Hugh Scott, Everett Dirksen and, yes, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon, was really little more than a “Democrats Lite” organization, one which would have taken us along the same path as the Democrats, but just moved at a slightly slower speed.
I think that is a legitimate concern, Dana, and the sort of “scorched earth” approach prevalent from the 1990s on has managed to change a lot of the terms of the debate. Without it, we wouldn’t have gotten welfare reform, for instance.
The problem is that none of the Republican candidates are strong enough in their own right to carry off the “I’m the most conservative” moniker well. McCain certainly has a track record of negotiation, but does anyone honestly think Mitt Romney had a conservative epiphany over the last 4 years? Or that Rudy Giuliani was a “real” conservative (whatever that means) even though on virtually every issue other than security he’s moderate or even liberal? My problem was that, in many ways, Giuliani was given a pass for his pro-choice, pro-gun control stands simply because he told purity Repubs what they wanted to hear about certain issues. John McCain, on the other hand, follows his own council and gets blasted for it, even as he agrees with these same Repubs on loads of other issues.
[...] If you are wondering how important Tuesday is, check out Delaware Watch for the definitive guide. Oh, and Kavips has a great story; “Two conservatives walk into a bar.” And Hube covers the Clinton camp’s attempt to make Florida and Michigan count. Over at Liberal Delight, Ryan has some complaints with the MSM’s coverage of this primary. Over at CSPT, they make the case that McCain is conservative enough to be the candidate of the crazy-ass Republicans. At JttR, Gary talks about the dumbest Presidential campaign EVAR! [...]