True Conservatism

The really noteworthy thing about the presidential election so far is the failure of a plain-vanilla conservative Republican to emerge. Bob Novak's column on this, however, also provides a hilarious window in the wingnutty worldview as he explains that "based on his actions as speaker of the House, Gingrich's conservative record is far from flawless." I'm sure there's some crazyville definition of conservative where this comes out to be true, but Gingrich is, I think, clearly the most conservative politician likely to get anywhere near nationwide political power.

3/1/07 9:44AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

You have to understand, they have very high standards on the right. You know, standards, values. Gingrich hasn't invaded Poland yet, for example.

Posted by: John Haber on March 1, 2007 10:46 AM

The really noteworthy thing about the presidential election so far is the failure of a plain-vanilla conservative Republican to emerge.

I'm skeptical this will change, short of Cheney or Jeb getting in (not going to happen). The only thing that is likely to vault a fresh contender to the front of the line in the GOP is huge amounts of fundraising. While social conservatives seem mis-served by the three major candidates, they don't really have enough grassroots fundraising clout to make a big difference early in primary season (when they get to the polls is another matter). A huge majority of Republican money is from the business community, who are all quite satisfied with McCain (getting the "perceived front-runner money"), Giuliani and Romney (both extremely business-friendly).

Posted by: right on March 1, 2007 11:37 AM

I disagree...You have Bush, Cheney, and Tom Delay, all of whom were more powerful, and more doctrinaire right wing.

Also, remember that Gingrich started out as a Reckefeller Repub, so there is a concern that he's a poseur.

Posted by: Matthew Saroff on March 1, 2007 11:41 AM

George Allen was supposed to be the guy representing the Republican wing (i.e. so married to both the corporate and religious right that it can't be considered whoring) of the Republican Party, before his political macacalypse last fall.

I really expected someone to move into the resulting vacuum. I figured either the GOP PTB would persuade the TV preachers to sell McCain to their flocks, or a Brownback or Huckabee would emerge to speak for that constituency.

It's the wierdest year ever on the GOP side. They'd normally know by now who the nominee was supposed to be. They don't.

Posted by: RT on March 1, 2007 12:35 PM

Matt, I just don't think this is right. Gingrich is a libertarian-leaning technocrat. Although he's certainly conservative, he doesn't have the conservative bona fides of a Sam Brownback or a Dick Cheney.

I think the perception that Gingrich is a wild-eyed libertarian radical is due to a combination of the fact that he led the most conservative Congress in decades, and because he had such dismal PR skills that he allowed Clinton to caricature him as a conservative radical. This Reason article from 1997 gives a pretty good run-down on how and why ideological Republicans consider him a lightweight. And I can't think of anything he's done in the last decade that changes that would change that verdict.

In this respect, he's Hillary Clinton's alter ego: just as Hillary is deeply unpopular among Republicans in part because she's perceived as being more liberal than she really is, so Gingrich is hated on the left in part because he's perceived as the standard-bearer for ideological conservatism, a mantle he's never actively sought.

Posted by: Tim Lee on March 1, 2007 12:41 PM

Agree with M. Saroff

While Gingrich was a Machiavellian master of the dark arts, I don't think he was ever at heart a culture warrior...or trusted by those who are. He's more a Kristol conservative than a Dobson conservative.

Posted by: Bart Acocella on March 1, 2007 12:42 PM

Isn't Huckabee trying to fill that gap?

Posted by: Wrongshore on March 1, 2007 01:07 PM

Isn't Huckabee trying to fill that gap?

OZZZ YEAAAH! BOW chicka BOW WOW!

Posted by: Gregorio on March 1, 2007 01:46 PM

Might it be the case that the reason that a "plain-vanilla conservative Republican" hasn't emerged is that the GOP as currently construed, in this particular political climate,

a) doesn't really contain all that many "plain-vanilla conservative Republican[s]"
b) isn't the sort of place that a "plain-vanilla conservative Republican" could actually get a nomination

Having one-party control over the federal government for six years, as many have observed, mitigates seriously against allowing the "plain-vanilla conservative Republican" wing of the party to have any access to power, and very much for the most radical elements of the party having access to power and policy-making. Hence, the people with the juice out of such an arrangement are...radicals. Only problem is, they're also proven failures - so nobody coming out of the Bush administration could get the nod. But that notwithstanding, the radical policy ideas have been normalized among the party faithful, making it hard for a return to a "plain-vanilla conservative Republican."

And, as Digby notes, these people really have no principles, anyhow.

Posted by: jkd on March 1, 2007 04:16 PM

Isn't Huckabee trying to fill that gap? - Wrongshore

I'm not so sure. Even though Huckabee is more Jerry Fallwell than Jimmy Carter, he has, from the point of view of the religious reich, backpedeled on his statements about "reclaiming the country for Christ", i.e., he's indicated (albeit in a manner that can be excused away as "trying to snooker NPR listening liberals") that his idea of reclaiming the country for Christ might actually have something to do with following the teachings of Jesus rather than being merely about hating gays, outlawing abortion and placing those idolatrous 10 commandments monuments everywhere.

OTOH, we liberals shouldn't write off Huckabee because he can sound amazingly reasonable and might snooker some moderates into voting for him ...

As to the original question: it depends on what you mean by a plain, vanilla conservative, don't it?

Posted by: DAS on March 1, 2007 04:36 PM

I totally read the Novak article as a stalking horse for Jeb

Posted by: Ethel-to-Tilly on March 1, 2007 05:03 PM

I think the perception that Gingrich is a wild-eyed libertarian radical is due to a combination of the fact that he led the most conservative Congress in decades, and because he had such dismal PR skills that he allowed Clinton to caricature him as a conservative radical.

It might also have something to do with proposed policies like replacing food stamps with laptop stamps.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow on March 1, 2007 06:09 PM

Arabam Güzel Sözler porno sex Oyun Oyun sextube 89 mobilya sohbet sohbet sohbet Site ekle Site Ekle arkadaş Mirc türkce mirc Sohbet Sohbet amerikan kapı tosya ahsap Pimapen Oyunlar Oyunlar Oyunlar forum
Resimleri redtube Sohbet Odaları Bol Sohbet
thank you grup.