Buyer's Remorse

Jonah argues - convincingly, I think - that at least some of the anti-McCain animus on the Right is related to anti-Bush animus that dare not speak its name. I'm not sure I agree with his conclusion, though:

McCain is presented with a dilemma. How can he rally the conservatives to his flag without alienating the moderates and independents the GOP needs to win in November? As nothing in politics needs to be clear-cut, he will probably try to do both as best he can, much as he did in his speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. At CPAC and elsewhere, McCain insists he's an unchanging conservative. But he might do better with his right flank if he can make the case that with him, we might get a conservative in the White House, for a change.

But how would he go about making that case? The trouble is that while there are many right-wingers who admit to being disappointed in Bush's record as a conservative, there are many, many more - particularly once you leave the pundit class behind for the world of rank-and-file activists and actual voters - for whom Bush is still a hero, a conservative icon, the only politician capable of conjuring up an "ecstactic thrill" among CPAC attendees. Which means that when it comes to shoring up the conservative base, McCain needs Bush's imprimatur too much to risk directly contrasting his record with the President's. Instead, all he can do is what he's already been doing, which is to distance himself from Bush by proxy - by drawing contrasts with "Rumsfeld" on the war, and with the GOP-led Congress on spending and earmarks. As much as the McCain campaign might like it if Bush-loving, Mac-loathing right-wingers could wake up and realize that their anti-McCain ire has at least something do with displaced disappointment about Dubya, that doesn't seem like an argument their candidate can plausibly go about making in public. Psychoanalyzing the conservative electorate seems like an unlikely way to win their hearts.

Comments

If George W Bush is the majority of my party's hero, I'm thinking it's time to switch parties.

Posted by Bill | February 12, 2008 10:44 AM

The people still enthralled with Dumbya must be the biggest collection of nitwits, sadists, and perpetual deviant greedheads on the planet. A campaign that needs to suck up to such worthless trash is doomed before it begins.

And your little dog Cheney, too!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 10:54 AM

That's a useful point, Ross; voters seem to be disappointing the conservative pundit class this year. The candidates who have done well, Huckabee and McCain, have been the ones who have infuriated the Hannitys and the Limbaughs the most.

That isn't to pile on to those figures; the results have already socked it to them. But it is to say that talk radio and other forms of echo-chambering on the right have not been a reliable guide to the GOP primary season in 2008.

Posted by Tom O'Gorman | February 12, 2008 10:57 AM

The anger at McCain over amnesty is beyond me. How can any conservative really expect the Republicans to ever take aggressive action against illegal immigration? Do conservatives never read the WSJ? Do they not realize that the corporate donors and lobbyists that sponsor most Republican politicians will never stand for any serious restrictions on illegal immigration? About the only institution in America that could make a serious stand against illegals are unions, but congratulations conservatives, you've pretty much gutted those over the last 30 years. So it's time to stop whining about illegals, and admit that the Republicans are just as responsible for the current situation as the Democrats.

Posted by vanya | February 12, 2008 10:59 AM

vanya writes: "So it's time to stop whining about illegals, and admit that the Republicans are just as responsible for the current situation as the Democrats."

If you're being fair you'd have to say "more responsible for the current situation than the Democrats," since the Republicans have held the White House for 19 of the past 27 years and held all three branches of government from 2001 until January of 2007. Had Dumbya and the Repiglicans really wanted to do something about illegal immigration post-9/11 hysteria would have given them ample opportunity, but they were too busy warmongering in Iraq instead.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 11:09 AM

many, many more - particularly once you leave the pundit class behind for the world of rank-and-file activists and actual voters - for whom Bush is still a hero, a conservative icon, the only politician capable of conjuring up an "ecstactic thrill" among CPAC attendees.

Then conservatism is dead in this country. It's a tribe now, not a philosophy.

I think it was a commenter on John Cole's blog who wrote that conservatism today is defined not by Burke, but by a giant foam "We're #1" finger.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 12, 2008 11:25 AM

19-0 will be sweet.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 14, 2008 11:25 AM

Moe was wrong

Posted by own it | February 12, 2008 11:41 AM

Shocking that the biggest douche that comments here is a member of the most douche-ridden fan base in the country.

Posted by Jim Keane | February 12, 2008 11:50 AM

No way that Boston fans are worse than Philly or New York.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Jim,

Are you claiming Moe is a Yankees fan?

Posted by vanya | February 12, 2008 12:01 PM

"As much as the McCain campaign might like it if Bush-loving, Mac-loathing right-wingers could wake up and realize that their anti-McCain ire has at least something do with displaced disappointment about Dubya"

I don't know too many conservatives anymore that fall into both categories of Bush-loving and Mac-loathing. It seems to me that most of those that are Mac-loathing took their blinders off with regard to Bush quite some time ago, and I would argue that the Bush-loving/Mac-loathing cons are a very small minority at this point.

Posted by thirteen28 | February 12, 2008 12:18 PM

First, conservativism won in '80, '84, '88, '94, '96, '98, '00, '02, and '04...please, don't tell me it's a "tribe". It's stronger than ever IF candidates will use it.

Second, Jonah is wrong. Conservatives disliked McCain all the way back in 2000...before Bush was elected. The complaints are the same.

The difference between McCain and Bush is that Bush took us for granted, while McCain actively despises us.

Good God, Ross. How hard is this for intellectuals like you, Ramesh, Jonah, Kristol, et al to figure out? Usually I love reading y'all, but this is so simple.

Posted by Mark B | February 12, 2008 12:24 PM

Jonahs is a valid & obvious point.

McCains immigration proposal is Bush’s proposal with all the same problems vanya (above) points to.

Prescription Drugs, Bush singing Campaign Finance after he promised he would not, runaway spending.

However… McCain is presented with a dilemma. How can he rally the conservatives to his flag without alienating the moderates and independents the GOP needs to win in November?

This dichotomy of running from the extremes to the center after the primaries is a perennial problem. It seems to me the democrats have the opposite problem, after hillary/obama have promised out-of-Iraq in 30 days….massive spending & programs…. And all the rest of the far left promises, How do they appeal to the center in the general???

Todays David Brooks column in the NYT “When Realty Bites” is exactly on that point
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by Fitz | February 12, 2008 12:33 PM

Mark B-- I don't see any mention of any policies in your post, just emotions.

Presumably we care about the government because there are certain policies that we would like to see implemented. And presumably we adhere to certain philosophies because we believe that they yield sound results.

George Bush is not a conservative by any principled definition. Record-breaking deficits, indifferent management of the government, and half-cocked occupations of foreign countries don't have anything to do with that tradition. But self-identified conservatives and Republicans tend to like George Bush (I think his support among the GOP is around 60-plus percent). This might be because conservatism has become a tribe, an identity label, without any actual content beyond membership in the in-group.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 12, 2008 12:37 PM

Elvis writes: "George Bush is not a conservative by any principled definition. Record-breaking deficits, indifferent management of the government, and half-cocked occupations of foreign countries don't have anything to do with that tradition."

The last three Repiglican presidents have all run up huge deficits and been indifferent/incompetent managers of government, so I would suggest that these are now indelible features of the real conservatism. Those few voices arguing for a more responsible brand of conservatism aren't getting very far. This is probably due to the fact that idiocy is also now an indelible feature of conservatism. Reagan and Bush I broke bread with the Christian right and the nativist nitwits and now their li'l movement is 75% Idiot. It's hard to recover from something like that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 12:59 PM

Fitz writes: "It seems to me the democrats have the opposite problem, after hillary/obama have promised out-of-Iraq in 30 days"

This is, of course, a colossal lie, but then Fitz is a Repiglican and thus a natural born liar.

Fitz, don't you know that every time you tell a lie the Baby Jesus cries and a demon-goat sodomizes an angel? Shame on you.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 1:02 PM

Moe: Did you know that Gisele bites down on Tom Brady hard every time you post on this blog?

Posted by own it | February 12, 2008 1:37 PM

"Did you know that Gisele bites down on Tom Brady hard every time you post on this blog?"

No, I didn't, but that's interesting. Homeless guys have to give your mom an extra cigarette for that kind of service.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 2:13 PM

hee hee

Posted by Bill | February 12, 2008 2:22 PM

Oh, the yo mama joke. Hilarious and so clever! Official NFL genius Bill Belichick must have helped you think of that one! Did he spell it out for you, too?

Posted by own it | February 12, 2008 2:31 PM

The Brooks piece, When Reality Bites, that Fitz cited gets to the heart of the matter. Both Clinton and Obama are committed to precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and various unrealistic spending programs. McCain, the probable Republican candidate, wants to stay the course in Iraq and try to face up to fiscal reality.

Sooner or later the party for the Democrats will be over and bitter reality will demand realistic positions on both Iraq and the economy.

Meanwhile, Bill Belicheck, the best coach in football, and McCain, a courageous and centered man, are facing hard realities and planning for the 2008 season. Place your bets.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | February 12, 2008 3:21 PM

vanya:
Do conservatives never read the WSJ? Do they not realize that the corporate donors and lobbyists that sponsor most Republican politicians will never stand for any serious restrictions on illegal immigration?

Actually, I'd beg to differ. The Republican President of the past 8 years has been an immigration squish, as is the new nominee. But, as a group, Republican politicians in Congress are the only ones who have done anything about it at all (granted it took a highly infuriated base demanding action, and also granted that aforementioned nominee was in Congress pushing amnesty in a big way at the time).

Posted by Deuce | February 12, 2008 3:26 PM

Sorry Own It, but your toast. The right Yo Mama in the right spot is a knock out punch or a walk-off homer.

Posted by cw | February 12, 2008 3:32 PM

This has really nothing to do with anything, but the fact that Peter Leavitt is able to call Bill Belicheck "the best coach in football" really says something about how movement conservatives think these days.

Posted by Brendan | February 12, 2008 3:37 PM

I think it is hard to claim that conservatism is a "tribe" and liberalism is not. Liberalism is more of a tribe than conservatism. Example: Most african-americans' support many, many more conservative policy positions than liberal policy positions. Yet, they vote overwhelmingly for the democrats. Why is this? B/c they have been taught (and I am not here arguing the truth of this) that the republican party is racist and that as an african-american, they must support the dem party.

As to Bush - I think it is fair to say that republicans still have strong support for him - not conservatives.

Conservatives still think he was the better choice in both elections, but are very unhappy with much of what Bush has pursued / enacted.

I think we are seeing this in the current primary - people have forgotten that strong conservatives are merely one part of the republican coalition. there are others in the GOP who are merely slightly right of center (where I'd actually put Bush) in the old Rockefeller / Ford line. As there was no really good conservative candidate, we were left with a bunch of inferior (from the conservative viewpoint) slightly right-of-center candidates.

I think it is important to note that the only truly conservative presidential candidate of the last 60 years has been Ronal Reagan. Dole wasn't, Bush I wasn't, Bush II isn't, Nixon wasn't and Ford wasn't a conservative. They were merely right-of-center republicans. Moreover, the vast majority of GOP Senators and Congressman have not been conservative.

So, we are actually seeing a return to the norm - but with the policial center in america having been moved strongly to the right over the last 30 years.

As to foreign policy, it is not clear to me that foreign policy is ever neatly fit into conservative/liberal analysis. After all, the libs were all about military action and bombing in Kosovo simply b/c that is what the democrat president did - and they felt the need to support it. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and positions have changed.

If you claim that foriegn policy is a lib/cons issue, I have yet to hear what the "liberal" policy is - aside from vague platitudes about making sure other countries have warm tingly feelings about the U.S. After all, foreign interventionism used to be a hallmark of american liberalism - think FDR, JFK, LBJ. It is only a recent phenomenom (and I would argue, simply in response to Bush II), that the left has seemingly become completely pacifist.

Posted by Great Banana | February 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Peter Leavitt,

Yes:having read the Brooks piece this morning & then seeing Ross's take on the Goldberg piece brought it right to mind.

Obviously any fair observer new that "within thirty days" was hyperbolic & designed to get the general gist across curtly.

Its to early to handicap anything… Both Obama & Clinton (as the piece suggests) are going far out to the left in trying to win this primary. Anything can happen at this point but all candidates postures will surely come back to haunt them.

Posted by Fitz | February 12, 2008 4:07 PM

The Limp Banana returns: "I think it is important to note that the only truly conservative presidential candidate of the last 60 years has been Ronal Reagan. Dole wasn't, Bush I wasn't, Bush II isn't, Nixon wasn't and Ford wasn't a conservative. They were merely right-of-center republicans. Moreover, the vast majority of GOP Senators and Congressman have not been conservative.

So, we are actually seeing a return to the norm - but with the policial center in america having been moved strongly to the right over the last 30 years."

Yeesh, what a load of horseshit and gibberish. Only Saint Reagan was a "real" conservative, huh? The rest of them are only vaguely right of center?

You cult members are delusional freaks with no coherent philosophy beyond "conservatism never fails."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 4:10 PM

Fitz again: "Obviously any fair observer new that "within thirty days" was hyperbolic & designed to get the general gist across curtly."

It was meant to be warmongering horseshit, as usual with you.

If no reasonable candidate can express the view that he or she would like to aim at getting most of our troops out of Iraq by mid-2010 without you torture-loving yahoos whining about "precipitous withdrawals" then this country is well and truly fucked and ready for the ashheap of history. That's over two years from now, chuckles - two more years of a war that never should have happened in the clearly-expressed view of the American people. Any candidate who doesn't (at least) express hope and optimism that we can be well on the path to withdrawal by then is a defeatist and a Bush-level incompetent.

Of course you'd be happy to vote for Bush a 3rd time if it were possible, because he's your Great Leader and you're an idiot. But America has moved on and wants assurances that a war it was lied into will end with all deliberate speed.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 4:18 PM

"Both Clinton and Obama are committed to precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and various unrealistic spending programs."

The proof more shows that Republicans have been far less realistic with our money than Democrats the last three decades. But, let's just keep the narrative of Republicans = Fiscal Responsiblity and Democrats = Fiscal Irresponsibility because that's so much easier than thinking.

Posted by JordanT | February 12, 2008 5:41 PM

The proof more shows that Republicans have been far less realistic with our money than Democrats the last three decades. But, let's just keep the narrative of Republicans = Fiscal Responsiblity and Democrats = Fiscal Irresponsibility because that's so much easier than thinking.

Right, because the reason Democrats want to pull troops back is that they're concerned about the deficit, not because they're pandering to their pacifist (when a Republican is in office) base for the primaries. Care to place any bets on 1) How the yearly costs of Iraq vs. nationalized health care would stack up, and 2) Which would end up lasting longer?

Hint: McCain could've said we'd be in Iraq for 200 years, and it would still lose on both counts.

Posted by Deuce | February 12, 2008 5:56 PM

One clear difference is religion. McCain is seen as more or less religiously indifferent. He's kind of Episcopalian then kind of a Baptist when he has the time for it. Although he generally votes Pro-Life, he's not particularly outspoken on the matter. On another social matter he would certainly never even give lip service to a Constitutional Amendment banning Same-Sex-Marriage. Lastly he's been generally said he's critical or uncomfortable with the Religious Right. Even his current embrace of them comes with some caveats.

Whereas Bush presents himself as a Christian conservative who'd float the idea of a Constitutional Amendment against SSM, restrict federal funding on stem-cell research, mention Jesus as his favorite person, and even speak at Bob Jones University. All the liberal things Bush does with immigration or spending can be couched as Christian compassion.

I think many conservative pundits are somewhat less likely to be Religious Right than the average Republican or conservative. When they see a Huckabee they are almost confused to realize the importance of a group that's been significant to the party for over 20 years. I think for them the Religious Right was just a group to pander to. The really smart conservatives who were religious were Jewish, Episcopalian, or academically-inclined Catholics. (I'd fit the last) To realize the Religious Right was not simply a group they could pander to, but a culture with somewhat independent thoughts and perspectives, is maybe a rude awakening. Although it's just weird it came so late in the game.

Granted this isn't the only issue, but the article mentions the other. That being McCain likes being liked by the "liberal press", which brings up a "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" response. Although he started as a "uniter", Bush could never be a friend of the media. The media is intensely secular and largely views Texas with disdain. The only TV series I can name, at present, based in Texas are "Friday Night Lights" and "King of the Hill." So by being their enemy that gave him street-cred with conservatives.

Posted by Thomas R | February 12, 2008 6:44 PM

"1) How the yearly costs of Iraq vs. nationalized health care would stack up, and 2) Which would end up lasting longer?"

I forgot did Clinton or Obama put forth a policy plan for nationalized health care this election? Besides, it's not just Iraq that's breaking the budget, but all the other spending increases the Republicans passed and Bush signed into law. The only time Republicans started to care about spending, is when Democrats controlled Congress.

Posted by JordanT | February 12, 2008 7:04 PM

Douche writes: "Care to place any bets on 1) How the yearly costs of Iraq vs. nationalized health care would stack up, and 2) Which would end up lasting longer?

Hint: McCain could've said we'd be in Iraq for 200 years, and it would still lose on both counts."

Naturally Douche assumes it's not worth more money to give all Americans health insurance than it is to kill Iraqis for no good reason. That's why I call him Douche.

That we're already spending - as a nation - huge and ever increasing amounts of money on health care for the uninsured doesn't seem to occur to his silly little nozzled mind.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 12, 2008 11:42 PM

Ross:

Great post, but I disagree on one thing. Rush and Anne Coulter won't be psychoanalyzing conservative voters. In their minds, these voters aren't supposed to have opinions; they're supposed to listen to orders from the punditry.

There's a huge dissconnect out there between what the punditry care about and what the rank and file care about. Hopefully your book will show a way to bridge that gap... lest we just throw the pundits off the bridge.

Posted by Cyberhillbilly | February 13, 2008 8:52 AM

Actually, I'd beg to differ. The Republican President of the past 8 years has been an immigration squish, as is the new nominee. But, as a group, Republican politicians in Congress are the only ones who have done anything about it at all (granted it took a highly infuriated base demanding action, and also granted that aforementioned nominee was in Congress pushing amnesty in a big way at the time).

Seeing as how the brightest totem of all conservatives is pro-amnesty Saint Ronnie, I think its safe to say that conservatism and illegal immigration dovetail nicely.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | February 13, 2008 2:52 PM

"lest we just throw the pundits off the bridge."

I think this is an idea worth considering. I mean so long as we're being metaphorical. Heck it might be okay even if we're being literal provided the bridge isn't too high and the pundits can swim. (Being a "Culture of Life" type person I couldn't very well support killing pundits)

Posted by Thomas R | February 14, 2008 3:05 AM