His [Brooks’] position doesn’t stray much from the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern. ~Mark Levin
As opposed to all the great constitutionalist champions who fill the movement to overflowing these days, for whom limited government is a top priority and foreign policy is an afterthought? This criticism would be much more telling against Brooks if it weren’t also applicable to a huge number of conservative columnists. If mainstream conservatives want to complain about the rise of McCain, they probably ought to consider how they have empowered or acquiesced to ”the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern” over the past ten years and more. If you allow your movement and your party to be made over in the image of Bush, don’t be terribly surprised when his natural ideological heirs receive a lot of votes from those who call themselves conservative.
Now no one can possibly confuse me with a David Brooks fan or with someone friendly to the policy agenda of neoconservatives or their preferred candidates, and obviously I don’t endorse Brooks’ meliorism or “reform” agenda, but there is something distinctly odd about the degree of hostility shown to these two candidates relative to that shown to Giuliani or Romney. Besides their capacity to send talk radio hosts into seizures, Huckabee and McCain have something else in common: they come from those parts of the country where the core constituencies of the party actually live and work, while Romney and Giuliani come from places where conservative Republicans are something of a rare, exotic species and Republicans of any kind are a dying breed. I can’t help but think that this has something to do with the antipathy towards the former and the leniency shown to the latter.
If anyone represents the tradition of the “Nixon-Ford domestic agenda — i.e., a muck of compromises and government expansion that surrenders the ideological playing field to the Left or, if you will, an incremental socialism which Brooks sets forth as a new way,” it would probably have to be the man who gave you MassCare, just promised a boatload of subsidies to the auto industry and has been pro-life for less time than I have been in graduate school. Romney grew up in a Rockefeller Republican family and belonged to that tradition until it became convenient for him to discover the virtues of Reaganism. By the standards that these people condemn McCain, they would have to throw Romney overboard as well, but they simply don’t spend the time or energy doing this. Their general indifference to the obvious frauds Romney perpetrates against the public in his campaign shows the hollowness of their complaints against the other two. McCain is, of course, well to the left of me, he is deeply, amazingly wrong on immigration and foreign policy, and I will oppose his candidacy as much as I possibly can, but he has actually been to the right of Giuliani and Romney (which isn’t saying that much, but there it is) for decades. The mind that can accept the turnaround artist who has turned himself 180 degrees on virtually everything as acceptable, but regards flawed but consistent candidates as beyond the pale, is a very confused one. There was simply nothing like the intense attacks against McCain when Giuliani was the putative frontrunner, and by comparison Romney has been given a very easy time of it from conservative media, all of which points to the cynicism of at least some of those who protest against McCain and Huckabee’s deviations.
P.S. Just on an empirical point, Brooks’ claim that conservative voters have not followed conservative leaders is basically accurate. In total votes, Huckabee/McCain have received 849,956 votes (per TownHall’s count, which apparently doesn’t include Wyoming) and Romney/Thompson have received 633,715 votes. If you add in Ron Paul’s numbers to the total of voters not following conservative leaders, the margin obviously grows. Even when you acknowledge that McCain has led among conservative voters only once this year (South Carolina) and independents have been an important source of support for McCain, Huckabee and Paul, it remains the case that most conservatives chose candidates other than Romney and Thompson in every contested race. Given the choice between the vilified deviants and the approved candidates, most people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses opted for the former. That is significant, and these results are also generally in line with national surveys that ask Republicans which candidate “shares their values.”
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
bsebse
His [Brooks’] position doesn’t stray much from the neo-conservative position, in which foreign policy rules supreme, and limited government is of little concern.
Let’s face it, that is the Israel factor.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Derek Copold
The mind that can accept the turnaround artist who has turned himself 180 degrees on virtually everything as acceptable, but regards flawed but consistent candidates as beyond the pale, is a very confused one.
Romney’s insincere conversion flatters conservatism. It pays tribute to the principles, if only in form. McCain’s treasons have always been at critical moments, and usually accompanied with all sorts of insults. Huckabee’s case isn’t nearly as bad, but I think people dislike him because he sounds like another Bush.
In practice, Romney will be less damaging than McCain. Romney isn’t likely to push for Amnesty every other month. McCain will. McCain can command bipartisan support for interventions. It’ll be a struggle for Romney.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Daniel Larison
Granted, Romney’s chameleon performance is like the tribute vice pays to virtue, and I can understand why a conservative could rationalise supporting him ahead of McCain. I have said before that, if presented with the choice between the two of them, I would sooner support Romney, but for me this is like saying I would prefer to be flogged to death rather than hung. For me, McCain is so fantastically wrong on the two most crucial issues, and he is identified with these two principal errors of the modern GOP leadership, that I would rather have Romney, which is a measure of how much I do *not* want McCain. What I don’t quite understand is how McCain can be considered so terrible by the people who think that he is absolutely right on Iraq.
I could definitely understand an argument that says, “Yes, Romney is a phony, but he’s our phony now and we can assume that he will cynically and opportunistically work on behalf of our interests because he has nowhere else to go.” But that isn’t the argument most Romney backers make. In my view, Romney can’t be trusted, and McCain can be trusted to be a madman bent on war, which means that I would rather have neither one but will take the fraud if necessary.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Derek Copold
On paper, I can see your point, but in the 3d world, with McCain, it’s intensely personal. His opposition hasn’t been some polite but firm disagreement in principle, but a nasty name-calling one, complete all sorts of underhanded maneuvers in conjunction with the other side. That’s lost him all sorts of friends and made him a number of life-long enemies.
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
OldNewEngland
Oh, McCain’s fine enough as the Republicans go. He’s proved his patriotism with blood, at least, which is more than can be said for the majority of other candidates.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 am
bsebse
Goldberg’s book seems more likely to gain fascism credibility, rather than taint modern liberalism.
Your going to get statements like ” if you look at Goldberg’s analysis, the only problem with German fascism was the territorial expansionist aspect. Other than that, they did a pretty good job.”
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 am
OldNewEngland
Well, there was also the small matter of mass extermination, but . . .