| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| "You fight an election with the politicians you have" |
| 2008-01-20 |
| William Kristol, The Weekly Standard . . . It's foolish to wait for another Ronald Reagan. But not just because his political gifts are rare. There's a particular way in which Reagan was exceptional that many of us fail to appreciate: He was the only president of the last century who came to the office as the leader of an ideological movement. Reagan gave "The Speech" in October 1964, inherited the leadership of the conservative movement after Goldwater's loss, defeated a moderate establishment Republican two years later to win the GOP nomination for governor of California, and then defeated the Democratic incumbent. He remained in a sense the leader of conservatives nationally while serving two terms as governor, ran unsuccessfully against Gerald Ford in 1976, and won the presidency in 1980. He was a conservative first and a politician second, a National Review and Human Events reader first and an elected official second. This is exceedingly unusual. The normal American president is a politician, with semicoherent ideological views, who sometimes becomes a vehicle for an ideological movement. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and George W. Bush are typical. They can be good nominees and effective presidents. They can advance the cause of a movement that works with them and through them. But they're not Reagans. This year's GOP field is, in this sense, normal. Conservatives will find things to like and dislike, to trust and distrust, in each of the candidates. All of this is fine. And one could argue that a primary process featuring debate and competition is also fine, that it is healthier than a coronation, and that the party nominee could well emerge stronger from the process. So the conservative commentariat should take a deep breath, be a bit less judgmental about these individuals--and realize that there is not likely to be a second Reagan. They could also learn from liberalism's history. Liberalism was the most successful American political movement of the first two-thirds of the 20th century. Its three iconic presidents were Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy. All advanced the liberal cause while in office. None was a standard-bearer for liberalism before becoming president--though each was inclined in a more or less progressive direction. What it means to be a serious, successful, and mature political movement is to take men like these--one might say to take advantage of men like these--in order to advance one's principles and cause. So conservatives might think of John McCain as our potential TR, Mike Huckabee as our potential FDR, and Mitt Romney as our potential JFK. Support the one you prefer. But don't work yourself into a frenzy against the others. Let the best man emerge from a challenging primary process. And if there is no clear-cut winner, then the delegates at the GOP convention can turn on the fifth ballot to an obvious fallback compromise candidate, one who would be just fine with conservatives--Dick Cheney! The man has a point. It would be nice if the Theoretically Ideal Conservative was running, but Theo's not on the ballot. Support the best available in the primary, but if your guy's not the nominee, don't go off in a third-party/stay-at-home snit. Whatever flaws the nominee has, he will almost assuredly* be better at fighting the GWOT than Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or Kucinich *I'm assuming here that the Trunk nominee will not be Ron Paul. That's probably a safe bet. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #4 Indeed. Politics being the art of the practical, not the perfect. So long as he fights the Long War seriously, I can forgive much else, and look to my Congresspeople to work on the rest. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-01-20 21:08 |
| #3 Rex: agreed w/r/t Huckabee, but Huck seems to be fading in the stretch. |
| Posted by: Mike 2008-01-20 16:00 |
| #2 Agreed. To not voting for Ron Paul, I'd add the Huckster - he as no interest (or idea on) in fighting the GWOT. However, the likes of the candidates that continue to hold the reigns of power only bring us closer to the day of (as so eloquently stated earlier here at RB) .50 cal term limits. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2008-01-20 12:10 |
| #1 Concur Mike. If McCain gets the nod I will hold my nose (and vomit) and vote for him over any of the dem-socialists. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2008-01-20 12:01 |