Here is what I think about Senator Saxby Chambliss being re-elected to a second Senate term after facing a runoff with Jim Martin in Georgia: good. What!?!
Look, I know that Chambliss is still the same slimeball that smeared a true American hero when he ran against Max Cleland in 2002. He is still a slimeball.
My point is that this result provides affirmation to the wrong-headed wing of the Republican Party on what direction they should take. Read this:
In his victory speech, Chambliss said his re-election was a triumph of conservative principles.
“This race has been nationalized and people all around the world had their eyes on Georgia. And you delivered tonight a strong message to the world that conservative Georgia values matter,” he said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, who stood by Chambliss as he gave his victory speech, echoed those remarks.
“As we head into the 2010 cycle, tonight’s result sends a strong and confident message to those committed to electing candidates who stand by the core principles upon which our Party was founded,” he said in a statement.
Their argument throughout the post-election period, and in some cases before, is that the Republican Party needs to stop compromising it's "core" beliefs. Amongst those "core" beliefs, according to them, are opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage. Yes, these are "core" beliefs according to them.
There is a great battle forming: the social conservatives vs. the rest of the Republican party. The social conservatives think they can win this and, in the short term, they very well might.
Here is a statement from a prominent conservative Ohio blog, NaugBlog, by Matt Naugle, referring to Ohio Republican Party Chairman Kevin DeWine (inline link included):
Joe Hallett is right- Kevin DeWine was not taken out of context when he argued that the Republican party would be wise to move away from social conservatism. In fact, it sounds much like national talking points I’ve heard from Tim Pawlenty and other more moderate Republican reformers who think the era of Reagan conservatism is over.
That statement represents the thinking of the vast majority of the "social conservative" wing of the Republican Party at the moment. My problem with that statement is that while Reagan reached out to Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition as well as various other parts of the "social conservative" movement, he never delivered on anything much as far as the "social conservatives" were concerned. Why?
Reagan Democrats.
Ronald Reagan was a lot of things but stupid does not make that list. He was a brilliant politician. You do not bring a polarizing issue to the forefront if you expect to win, especially nationally. Reagan understood this. He made nice nice with the Jerry Falwell's, made them think they had a voice in the corridors of power, and then did nothing with it.
Reagan was a conservative more on the mold of Barry Goldwater. Did he have sympathies toward the social conservatives? Almost certainly. But he was, in true conservative, small government, libertarian style not going to make that a priority. Cutting taxes, cutting spending, national security, smaller government, letting people get on without the government interfering. That was Reagan conservatism.
Karl Rove understood this as well. That is where "compassionate" conservatism came from. You have to make conservatism, especially social conservatism, palatable to the "Reagan Democrat." Whether that term applies to the moderate/conservative Democrats or Independent voters. Either way, conservatism can sometimes seem like a heartless ideology to those not inculcated into it. Reagan and Bush made it palatable with sheer force of personality and knowing just how far they had to go with the social conservatives to make them happy without alienating the middle.
John McCain had a twofer! He, in and of himself, alienated social conservatives a long, long time ago. To rectify this situation he picked a staff that, obviously, did not learn well enough at knee of Karl Rove when attending the Atwater-Rove school of winning elections. Then he picked a running mate who energized the "base" (apparently meaning the social conservatives) while simultaneously alienating the very middle he used to own. I would have considered voting for McCain eight years ago. I would have voted for Bush/Cheney before McCain/Palin though. I am not the target audience but that should give some idea to the level of alienation some moderate Dems and Indys felt with the Palin pick. Thus, he did what Reagan and Bush never did and alienated the middle in order to appease the right. (Dole, on the other hand, said screw you, I'll win anyway to the right whilst failing to attract the middle. Arguably this was worse electorally.)
So Saxby Chambliss' win affirms the social conservative idea that embracing the "core" values, which, remember, are what Reagan stood for plus an activist pro-life agenda/litmus test and keeping gay marriage from ever happening, is what the Republicans need to do in order to return to power.
2010 will be an interesting year. I have no doubt that this philosophy may improve things in the south. In every other part of the country, including the mountain west, I see this becoming a big problem for them. Heck, in the mountain west Democrats can just go on about how "If the Republicans can interfere with homosexual relationships what's gonna stop them from interfering in a heterosexual relationship?" That line of thought will play well against the Republicans in what is essentially a libertarian area of the country. They care too much about their freedom to do what is essentially giving the government license to interfere in yet more stuff.
So we shall see where this will lead. I predict that it will get worse for the Republicans before it gets better.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Despite what Alan Keyes would have you believe and despite what Senator Richard Shelby (R-formerly D-AL) might have you infer, President Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
