Republicans like to compare modern conservatism (ignoring the inherent oxymoron) to a stool.
As do I.
They, however, are talking about a famed three legged stool of social conservatism, economic conservatism, and foreign policy conservatism. The problem is there are not only problems with one or two of the legs, but all three. So much so that the eventual nominee (and yes, sadly, one of these clowns does have to win) is going to find himself sitting chest deep in the more scatological version.
Social Conservatism: On social policy conservatism, the problems are fairly manifest, though oddly if the party doesn’t nominate Rudy Giuliani it may be the one leg that holds up. Three of the four top candidates have significant apostasy on the defining issue of social conservatism. Rudy Giuliani is avowedly pro-choice, and even supported federal funding of abortion. Fred Thompson lobbied for Planned Parenthood. Mitt Romney’s flip-flops and thin cover-ups of said are well known. For nearly thirty years Republican candidates have been able to soothe both the activists who believe that abortion should be criminalized and the larger public with an elaborate system of winks, nods and dog whistles.
That may come to an end if Giuliani is the nominee, with social conservative leaders threatening to bolt. Even with Romney or Thompson, it seems unlikely the wink-nod-whistle is going to result in anything like the turn out George W Bush was able smoke out in the last two elections.
Economic Conservatism: The Republican debate on October 9th was supposed to be about economic issues. But, even conservative columnists were left awed by the vacuousness of the Republican candidates platforms in this area. From Steven Pealstein, via Kevin Drum:
For two hours yesterday, the nine white men who would be president were each peddling the Big Lie that the only way to ensure economic growth is by cutting all the taxes ever created — and when you’re finished with that, cutting them some more.
Two hours, nine candidates, each one vowing to slash federal spending, but only one (Mitt Romney) able to mention a program whose funding he would cut (some advanced technology program).
….Romney, for example, issued a 23-point economic plan yesterday that, if you didn’t know better, you might think was a parody written by Jon Stewart for "The Daily Show." In addition to proposing additional cuts in every major revenue source (income, inheritance and corporate taxes), he would effectively eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains; make all health-care spending tax-deductible; give additional tax breaks to make America "energy independent"; and provide a rebate to businesses for tax payments that might be "embedded" in the cost of anything they export. He opposes raising the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax.
In the New York Times David Brooks bemoaned the lack of attention to actual middle class voter’s concerns:
Sometimes the candidates seemed more concerned with massaging the pleasure buttons of the Club for Growth than addressing the real concerns of the middle class. They talked far more about cutting corporate taxes, for example, than about a child tax credit for struggling families.
At other times, they sounded as if they were running for a ceremonial post. The person who is elected president will need concrete proposals, but the G.O.P. contenders scarcely have them. Mike Huckabee has some sketchy plans. John McCain answered one element of middle-class anxiety yesterday with his new health care plan. Others seem to have decided concrete proposals are for geeks.
In this way, the Republican Party has abandoned the Hamiltonian ground. It has lost intimate contact with the working-class dreamer who longs to make good.
The Republicans are trapped by their ideology, budget reality and their interest groups. They can’t propose any real spending cuts because they know that would be unpopular with voters outside of their loyal 28%, they can’t propose real tax cuts with dollar figures on it because Bush’s already given away the money, and the can’t propose any programs to help middle class voters because they cower before Grover Norquist.
Foreign Policy Conservatism: The post 9/11 foreign policy conservatism boils down to panicked hysteria hidden behind blind war-mongering. Rudy Giuliani has adopted a whiny victomology around the slogan "The Terrorists War On Us," while his neo-con advisers could be known as War R’ Us.
Not to be out done in the overcompensating for something department, Mitt Romney’s adopted much the same position, in a rambling ad that manages to conflate every not nice group from Morocco to Indonesia into one S.P.E.C.T.E.R. like organization on the verge of establishing a Caliphate with the help of their trusty flying bowler hats.
Of course, the problem is five years into the Iraq War with our overstretched military and newly skeptical public the Iran War is proving to be a tougher sell. So much so that they can only obliquely hint at their intention to "guarantee" that Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons and we will "encourage" regime change.
At this point each piece of the Republican’s stool still has a loyal die-hard with a vengeance following in the Republican party, but larger opposition outside of that group and basically insurmountable obstacles to actual implementation. Armed with only vague generalities to make their case the Republicans will be forced to run what may be the dirtiest campaign in modern history. Get ready for the stool to fly.
Cross Posted at Mass Eyes and Ears
