Can a Republican Win in ’08?
2 April 2007I was reading a short piece about Fred Thompson on Slate.com today with the interesting title, The GOP’s Therapy Candidate: The Trouble With Fred Thompson. Starting with the claim that Thompson’s chief qualification is that he makes Republicans feel good, author John Dickerson makes the same mistakes Republicans in Congress have been making for some time.
Thompson’s chief appeal is emotional. Until now, many conservative Republicans have had to wince when they thought of their plausible presidential choices. Giuliani is too liberal, McCain is too unpredictable and too well-liked by the media, and Romney seems like a flip-flopper on the issues they care about. The possibility of a Thompson candidacy excites the Republicans I talk to. He’s an “outsider”-having left Washington for Law and Order before the Beltway rot set in. He’s a good communicator, which means he can sell conservative policies and has the star power to battle Hillary or Obama. Though he hasn’t been through the press-vetting process, his voting record and talk-radio performances suggest he holds conservative enough positions. Oh, and he can raise Hollywood cash.
The first mistake the author makes is equating conservatives and Republicans. While most conservatives are Republicans, if only because there is nowhere else to go, many Republicans are not conservative. One need only look at George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress that lost so spectacularly last November to demonstrate this.
The second mistake the author makes is equating conservative policies with Republican policies and assuming the American people don’t like either.
The myth behind the Thompson quasi-candidacy is a dangerous one that bedevils both parties: If we just get a better communicator, people will love our policies. But once Thompson enters the race, he will have to either embrace or distance himself from GOP policies, which will either ruin his chances in the general election or hurt him with his conservative supporters. In short, he’ll become just like any other candidate-something he might not like after such a big buildup. Thompson also has a reputation for not enjoying the grind of campaigning.
The author assumes that the moment Thompson, or any other Republican candidate for that matter, begins espousing conservative principles and policies, their popularity will decline and they will be defeated. Nothing could be further from the truth!
The biggest problem Republicans faced in the mid-term elections was not Iraq. It certainly was not conservative policies. In fact, the few conservative policies enacted in the last Congress and during President Bush’s time in office have been rousing successes. The problems come in where Republicans have abandoned conservative principles.
Just look at what Democrats had to do to win last November. Essentially they out ‘conservatived’ the Republican Party. They recruited candidates all across the country who ran on conservative principles. They ran against the liberal policies the Republican Party had governed on as opposed to what Republicans had actually run on.
Of course now that Democrats are in control of Congress they have moved precipitously back to the left. The conservatism they ran on is out the door and it’s liberal business as usual.
Every time a Republican runs on conservative principles, backed by a conservative track record, victory is the result if that Republican has the ability to actually communicate their conservative vision. Reagan was but one example.
One problem we face is the active attempt to redefine conservative. Under the new definition both George W. Bush and John McCain are conservative. Any true conservative rejects that notion. Both favor more government. Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ. I would hardly call that conservatism. True conservatism calls for smaller, limited government, less government intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, less interference in the marketplace and strong national defense. The only items on that list that apply to George Bush are lower taxes and national defense. On all other issues Bush has been decidedly to the left of conservatives.
Fred Thompson is a conservative. While he does not have the administrative experience I might prefer, he has the right world view, the right ideas, the right track record and the ability to communicate his vision. That is what is needed. There may be other candidates that are better qualified in one sense or another but I have yet to see any candidate who is the total package. Thompson comes very close and if he enters the race, it could get very interesting.
Print This Post
Tags: Conservatives, Elections, Leadership, PoliticsRelated Posts
- Katherine Harris Wins
- Another RINO Holds On
- Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment
- For the Good of the Party
- Why Did the GOP Lose?
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
What about foreign policy experience? Does he have any? Obviously, if not, you believe his other characteristics make up for that lacking. How could he convice voters that he can handle the war in Iraq and whatever outcomes it could have, including military action with Iran or other countries?
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Reagan certainly didn’t have any foreign policy experience and look what he accomplished! Sometimes I think foreign policy experience is a net negative. If you don’t understand that sometimes diplomacy isn’t enough, you are in trouble in this world. Diplomacy didn’t end the cold war, Reagans determination and the arms race did. Diplmacy isn’t going to solve our current problems with Islamic fascism.
Fred Thompson has a unique ability to communicate that has been missing in the oval office. He has the ability to cast a vision. If he does that, he’s a shoe in.