When reporters miss the story: Rudy and conservatives.

October 18, 2007 – 9:37 am

Alan Fram AP’s story about Rudy Giuliani and conservatives fundamentally misses the point. He says, "Giuliani’s Conservative Vote Tenuous." That would be true, if it turned out that his lead in polls was based on the vote of conservatives who don’t know what he thinks on issues. It seems that the important analysis of his story is:

Yet a close look suggests his support from the GOP’s potent right wing is less than meets the eye, according to recent Associated Press-Ipsos polls.

But the important point is that, Rudy Giuliani holds the lead in-spite of weak support from conservatives. Rudy has found a possibly winning coalition does not involve the most conservative elements of the party.  That, dear reader, is a story. That shows that his path to winning the nomination is less-than-tenuous. But the reporter doesn’t seem to understand that the goal in a primary is to build coalitions within the party.

Let’s look at the facts from the poll:

Conservatives, evangelical and born-again voters, and strongly loyal Republicans who back Giuliani tend to be less conservative, less religiously active and less supportive of President Bush than those favoring Fred Thompson, Giuliani’s chief rival so far, the surveys show.

Is that news? That Rudy’s conservatives are less conservative?

And:

  • Just 37 percent of Giuliani’s conservatives call themselves strongly Republican, compared to 52 percent of Thompson’s.
  • While 22 percent of Giuliani’s evangelical or born-again Christian supporters say they are very conservative, 47 percent of Thompson’s do.
  • Sixty-four percent of Giuliani’s supporters approve of Bush’s performance, compared to 78 percent of Thompson’s.

Isn’t this fantastic news for the Giuliani campaign? Doesn’t this tell us that his lead is based on people who aren’t going to go fleeing when someone (who?) puts up ads saying that he’s a liberal?

Isn’t this a reason for confidence? They know he is pro-choice, gay-friendly, etc. And they still support him. What additional information is going to make Rudy’s numbers fall? Probably not information about abortion, etc.

At least the reporters aren’t alone in their ignorance. The conservative interest groups don’t get it either.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Why the religious right hasn’t found a candidate

October 13, 2007 – 9:54 am

A number of people have asked me why I think that the religious right hasn’t found a candidate. The supposition is that if the religious right came around and supported someone like Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback, they could be the nominee. Here is my attempt to answer that question.

First, the process starts with natural selection. Only very recently has there been a solid case for Huckabee being the obvious candidate of the religious right. In Q1 and Q2 Brownback outraised Huckabee and was about tied in the polls. Until Ames, the argument for preferring Huckabee was hard to ground in solid facts. (Now it is a lot easier)

Second, I think that there is a degree of sectarianism. This has been at its most explicit in the whole absurd media debate about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. But really. Nearly everyone I know who is a strong Huckabee advocate is an evangelical Christian. Nearly everyone I know who is a strong Brownback advocate is a conservative Catholic. It was a great feat of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition to get these people working together. If the leaders were to intervene in this fight, then they might threaten the foundation of their coalition. Furthermore, Brownback could have argued, Catholics are a swing vote, while Baptists are not. Many swing states are also Catholic states. (Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.) Not so far Baptists. (Note that JFK’s campaign viewed their candidate’s Catholicism as an asset in a general election. In a deep sense, being able to win a primary in a Baptist state, the example was West Virginia, was when the deluge broke in the 1960 Democratic primary) In other words, Brownback could have argued that picking him would expand the size of the coalition.

Third, the leaders of the movement have a clear hierarchy of preferences:

  1. Support the candidate who wins the White House. Call this the George W. Bush case. Might be the Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney case.
  2. Support the candidate who wins the primary but loses the general. Call this the Hillary Clinton case or the Mike Huckabee case. It may also be the Thompson or Mitt Romney case also.
  3. Oppose the candidate who wins the primary, but then be forced to support the candidate in the general. (But probably get no love from the White House if the candidate wins) Call this the John McCain case.
  4. Oppose the (GOP) candidate in the primary and the general who wins the White House. Call this the Rudy Giuliani case.

Clearly the last two are unacceptable to any interest group leader. They simply lose access when, eventually, their followers will, to some extent, rally around whoever is in the White House. The leader is marginalized over time.

The other two cases are the interesting parts. I don’t know anyone who thinks that Brownback and Huckabee could really win a general election, although that is shifting for Huckabee to some extent. Huckabee would face his own problems; in some sense, Mike Huckabee is to the Club for Growth what Rudy Giuliani is to James Dobson. So conservative Christian leaders are sitting down and asking themselves:

  1. Can Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney win the nomination?
  2. Can they win the general?

If the answer to (2) is "no", then the right strategy is to back whoever allows them to build the strongest organization. Perhaps you could call this the Bob Dole strategy? But if the answer to (2) is "yes", then they have to figure out which pony to pick, or, at least, which pony not to kill. And, again, there are reasons, in both candidates, for the followers not to follow. In the case of Mitt Romney, it is his religion. (note that I am not defending that, just saying that it is a reality) Increasingly, Fred Thompson has disappointed religious right leaders on gay marriage. And these are echoes of a past that is even more problematic for them.

So you get a hodgepodge. Some people pick the purists. These people seem to be state level family group type of people. Some people make compromises. For example, yesterday Gary Bauer endorsed Fred Thompson. (not the first time that Bauer has done this. He also endorsed McCain in 2000) A friend on the religious left but political center talked to Richard Land the other day about Thompson, and Land was not so happy with his earlier statements of such strong support. Others, like Lou Sheldon, pick Romney. (although, again, the word on the street is that Sheldon is getting some money. To quote a friend of Sheldon, "Lou doesn’t do anything if money isn’t involved.")

So, back to the original question. There are interest-group internal reasons for not picking a candidate. There are also questions of how the interest groups maintain power. These combine to make it very, very hard on interest group leaders. That’s just politics.

Tags: , , , , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Just babies, guns, and taxes? Or more?

October 11, 2007 – 7:32 pm

I’m going to get in big trouble for this.

My friend David Freddoso tried to define conservatism in relation to the Rudy Giuliani phenomenon with:

There is a long philosophical debate to be had over what makes a conservative, but conservatives in Washington have a rule of thumb for awarding the label to actual politicians: It’s the trinity of conservative issues: "Guns, Babies, and Taxes." My own minimum definition of a conservative officeholder or candidate is someone who is "good" on at least two of the three, and one of them has to be "Babies."

Except that JPod says, "it seems to leave out a few things, like, oh, national defense (unless you put that under "guns"). Not to mention crime." Liz Mair points out spending. Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Chris Cannon are liberals because they support a path to citizenship. (and a free market in labor, in addition to goods) So throw in immigration. John McCain’s first real apostasy was campaign finance reform. Most of his other major sins occurred after that. Fred Thompson is a liberal because he extends federalism (a conservative principle) to gay marriage. And Ramesh points out that, on the original 3 principles, Reagan was 0-3 for quite a while.

This is the Democrat-ization (that’s a big "D") of the conservative movement. That is, the transformation from the conservative movement from an organization around core of principles to a bunch of interest groups. This is the critical problem.

Because conservatism lost its coherence, it has also lost its brand.

It is a lot easier to have three litmus tests rather than 10. It is a lot easier to communicate 3 ideas than 10. In politics, less is more.

Erick Erickson says that the base is still focused on these:

We can certainly nuance here and there, and we can nit pick around the edges, but those are the three issues. You go to a Republican meeting in Bibb County, Georgia or East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana or Tipton County, Tennessee or Saline County, Illinois and those are three issues candidates must address.

But the base is not so happy right now. The party is angry because George Bush isn’t conservative enough. What does that mean? Taxes? Um, no. He cut those. A bunch. Babies? PBA. Judges. A huge number of executive orders. Probably not that. Guns? Well, he let the Assault Weapons Ban expire. Probably not the problem there. What are the problems? Spending. Immigration. Campaign finance reform. Etc.

When someone can count the conservative principles on one hand, I will know what it means to be conservative again. We aren’t there. We need new ideas. Some of that is a reorganization of our existing ideas. Some of it is new stuff. Time to start working.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (3)

Evangelical leaders moving towards Romney? Not so much

October 11, 2007 – 1:15 pm

This morning, I got an email from a family group leader. He was incredulous. He said:

Our "leaders" testify to the sincere conversion of a guy who today believes the Boy Scouts are wrong to prohibit homosexual Scoutmasters…

That was in response to Ralph Z Hallow’s article about Romney in today’s Washington Times:

Two social conservatives leaders — in surprise moves yesterday — criticized fellow evangelical and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, while praising another party hopeful, Mitt Romney, a Mormon.

Still, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and American Values President Gary Bauer hope the former Massachusetts governor will passionately express his pro-life views at the Values Voter Summit Oct. 19 and 20 at the Washington Hilton.

Except, it is not so clear. I asked the FRC and was told:

"We are not moving away from Huckabee or toward Romney … 

We just want to reiterate that Giuliani is a disaster … He will destroy the coalition among conservatives. Asking us to accept him as the nominees, is like asking fiscal conservatives to accept a candidate who wants to return to the tax rates of the pre-Reagan era."

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Americans for Prosperity

October 8, 2007 – 1:37 pm

I spent Friday morning at the Americans for Prosperity Conference, Defending the American Dream. (blog here) I was struck by several things about it.

First, there were a lot of people. 1,600, and they said that they turned away more people. A lot of these are Republican activists. Some of them are the standard crowd that you always see at these things. But not always. The core of the huge North Carolina delegation was the rebuilding North Carolina Young Republicans. I saw both more energy and, to a degree, more seriousness than other conservative confabs.

Second, this is for a different set of issues. There has not been, really, a real economic conservative grassroots group in this country for a while. Americans for Tax Reform is a product of Washington with little reach beyond, perhaps, satellite meetings. Club for Growth is important, but donor focused. The meetings are a bunch of rich guys. There have been fusionist movement organizations (Republican Assemblies). There have been real social conservative groups. But, again, nothing like this.

Third, they got attention. All the prez candidates were there. The people came jazzed. They left (at least at noon on Friday, when I left) even more jazzed.

Fourth, the party was not present. The RNC was not there moving swag or signing people up. The Young Republicans and College Republicans didn’t have tables. Neither did the women. The Libertarians were there though, and they don’t really matter.

The upshot is that we may see the beginning of a new movement in American politics. Putting bodies in rooms is a real test. Seeing this level of success is very hopeful. It will be interesting to compare this with Washington Briefing, sponsored by FRC, next week.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Economist on CNP meeting

October 1, 2007 – 4:37 pm

The Economist’s Democracy in America blog gets the Rudy Giuliani versus social conservative politics right:

That last scenario sounds bad for all Republicans, because it would be a help to the dread Hillary Clinton. But at this point it looks like a Democrat, Hillary or otherwise, is going to win this election regardless. If Christian conservatives can argue that by withholding their support they caused the GOP to lose, they will enjoy more leverage in future, more winnable elections. It’ll be hard for moderate Republicans to take their marching orders from Tony Perkins but they have, after all, volunteered for and nurtured the relationship.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Rudy, the conservative movement, their constituents, and power

October 1, 2007 – 9:24 am

Yesterday Salon reported about a meeting that occurred concurrently with the quarterly meeting of the Council on National Policy, a conservative organization that tries to coordinate the actions of various components of the conservative movement. The top-level story that people are taking from this is that the conservative movement organizations will walk away and try to sabotage a Rudy Giuliani campaign.

I had argued in July that the Christian Right and the conservative movement had dated Mitt Romney (really flirted) but married Fred Thompson. At least it seemed like an engagement. Between Schiavo, Thompson’s personal life, his apparent personal secularism, his positions on abortion and gay marriage, etc., the engagement is falling through. I also argued that this relationship felt strange but it had a purpose, to maintain a grip on the party apparatus:

The conclusion that I come to from this is that a Thompson candidacy is getting its support from conservative groups partly to maintain some level of control over the party apparatus. Thompson is not perfect. (who would think that the social conservative groups would rally behind a pro-campaign finance reform, anti-marriage amendment, anti-life amendment candidate?) But he does not flood the party with new activists. And, if you were to believe that the party will not keep the White House in 2008 — a safe bet –, then … he’s a safe bet to keep people in their positions of power.

That fight over the role of conservatives in the party is what we are seeing now. Jonathan Martin has an excellent story on the underlying issues. Consider this statement by Richard Vigurie:

"There is a great deal of anxiety that some in the Christian community have put security and the fight against Islamo-fascism ahead of the pro-life movement."

Note that this is a statement about priorities. Jonah Goldberg at NRO had earlier tried to rationalize exactly this position. The Giuliani campaign responded by wheeling out conservative Rep. Pete Sessions. Sessions talks about elections:

"Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs. Mayor Giuliani will be successful in the primary and the general elections because Republicans want a candidate who is strong on the Terrorists’ War on Us, gets fiscal discipline and can beat the Democratic nominee."

The politician wants his power short-term. The movement activist wants his power long term. One of the great questions will be who voters side with. The politicians purport to offer victory in the war on terror, a 5th judge to overturn Roe, and a couple more things. To a normal person, these could override a greater concern about the candidate’s total vision.

The movement activist offers a strategy for moving the country to the right over the long-term. And over the medium-term, the movement activist actually probably grows his organization and his power with a target like Hillary Clinton to attack. And this is the point. Many, many conservative consultants will say in private that they know that they will make a lot of money attacking Hillary Clinton if she is President. And many suspect that she can’t be beat. The one way for them to lose is to lose influence in the party over the short term. And that’s what Giuliani brings, especially if we manages to win.

Many conservative activists will point to the Goldwater experience of 1964 as an analogy. Then, the party had the luxury of no real chance in the election. The party and the burgeoning conservative movement could reshape itself along conservative principles without any real consequences. Many Republicans today, however, believe that we can beat Hillary Clinton. At least at the level of public perception, there is a fundamental difference between 1964 and 2008.

I would make one further point. As the Elephant in the Mirror poll pointed out, there are now about an equal number of "War on Terror" conservatives as there are social conservatives. This kind of situation is how parties change. There is an underlying reality to a Giuliani candidacy that a lot of pundits have not understood yet. The post-George W. Bush, post-9/11 party is different than it used to be. More socially conservative, but also more conservative on the war on terror. And Rudy is their ticket to a seat at the table.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (4)

The environment among conservatives?

September 25, 2007 – 8:42 am

Last week, I criticized my friend Robert Bluey’s reading of Michael Gerson’s position on immigration. My criticism was, on a broader level, that the conservative movement has very little capacity to understand conservatives who disagree with it on principal. More specifically, when deeply held beliefs begin to come into conflict with the increasingly interest group driven conservative movement agenda, the conservative movement struggles. This is, of course, where constituencies are gained and lost.

So what will happen with the environment? The Catholic Church is taking a strong position on global warming, H/T Andrew Sullivan:

The Pope is expected to use his first address to the United Nations to deliver a powerful warning over climate change in a move to adopt protection of the environment as a "moral" cause for the Catholic Church and its billion-strong following.

Will this have any impact on the conservative movement? Will this have any impact on Catholic voters in the US? (In Rob’s case, almost certainly not. But he didn’t care what his church said about immigration either) Is this growing disconnect going to matter?

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Gingrich candidacy or a movement or a vision?

September 13, 2007 – 10:03 am

Ralph Hallow’s Washington Times article from yesterday talked about the possibility of a Newt Gingrich candidacy.  There was an interesting paragraph:

"If this election is about money and structure, then we already know who our nominee is," said Mr. Evans, alluding to the well-organized and financed Giuliani and Romney campaigns. "If it’s about ideas and a movement, then we may not know who our nominee is for a long time to come, because nobody has yet tapped into the core coalition of Americans who have a vision of where they think America should go."

Amen. I have not heard an answer to that at all. There are a variety of issues that are important, but no cogent worldview.

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Why “Why not a righty Kos?”?

September 8, 2007 – 11:16 am

It seems that every couple of months, there is a discussion about the state of disarray of the righty blogosphere. This time it is mostly a different crowd moving it. Dean Barnett of HughHewitt.com writes, ironically, in the Weekly Standard. But then, in response, we get both Dave Wiegel at Reason and Sh+Sh from Newsbusters. Yesterday, Patrick Ruffini got into the game too.

I am consistently struck by the wrong nature of these questions. Especially in media contexts which are subject to very strong network effects, you can usually find the source of relevance in history. The guys at Newsbusters capture this:

First, both of these articles ignored how Daily Kos got its start virtually at the same time America was discussing going to war with Iraq in 2002. Irrespective of the poll numbers at the time favoring an invasion, the anti-war crowd is always active, vocal, and easily incited.

However, the press, understanding the public sentiment and eager for a sensational high-tech story, used to be far less skeptical of the war than they are now. This left quite a vacuum for anti-war expression in the media. ABC News filled it in the television world — its ratings went up while it was the lone ardent anti-war establishment media voice.

In other words, at an important moment, the Democratic and progressive establishments failed to connect to substantial portions of, at least, their base. Kos spoke to it. Kos organized it. Kos grew because it created a way for a group — namely white, rich, anti-war liberals — to communicate at critical moment. As this has gradually become a dominant force in Democratic politics, you get things like John Kerry and Harry Reid participating. But let’s be clear. This is an effect, not a cause. In some sense, Kos is not interesting because it so no longer growing. The question should be how and why it grew.

Ultimately, the answer is that Kos filled a gap that was experienced by a sizable constituency. It solved a concrete problem for a substantial market. There are certainly lessons to be learned about its open framework, but those are, to a great extent, atmospherics rather than fundamental. In some sense, it has maintained its relevance because it has become the primary way for the Democratic party to communicate with its base.

So let’s ask a similar question for the right? What (probably unorganized) mass constituency is there that the party or the movement is not communicating with or does not have a mechanism to communicate with?  Perhaps this would be organized around a negative principle (anti-Clinton like Free Republic oranti-Bush and anti-war, like Kos did) or, hopefully, something more positive. And then, what form or forum is the appropriate way to harness the energy and power of that constituency to activism? But, even if we don’t answer that now, it will probably be answered with various forms of experimentation when the time comes.

Right now, I don’t have answers to either part. In the meantime, there are important, incremental things that we can do. We can build local and state blog networks to move information around. We can build tools, etc. But we will not be able to achieve anything disruptive online until there is something disruptive to achieve off-line.

So, back to a fundamental question: Where is this party and this movement going?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)