Politics

Why The GOP Prefers Establishment Losers To Tea Party Losers

Matt K. Lewis Senior Contributor
Font Size:

I’m starting to hear rumblings that, if he wins his Colorado senate race, Rep. Cory Gardner will be the model candidate used by the Republicans as an example for how to win. In some respects, this makes sense. Having backed away from the controversial personhood amendment — and now advocating over-the-counter birth control — he has blunted the “war on women” attacks, and seems poised for victory in a tough state.

A few years ago, such a shift might have been difficult to maneuver. But instead of being labeled a sellout by conservatives, Gardner is being praised by National Review as a candidate who is “pitching a perfect game.” (There’s nothing like losing multiple election cycles to make a party or a movement reevaluate the merits of pragmatism.)

There’s no doubt Gardner has proven a good candidate, but would it make sense to apply the lessons of his race more broadly? After all, Joni Ernst is running a good race based largely on her ability to castrate hogs. Should we try to replicate that?

Likewise, Scott Brown, who was thought of as a moderate, is running an aggressive populist campaign in New Hampshire, warning that ISIS could cross the southern border. New Hampshire is no longer a Republican state, so if Brown wins, why not replicate his messaging nationwide?

The answer, of course, is that the Republican establishment is biased toward certain kinds of candidates and campaigns. This bias isn’t just about ideology, it’s about winning. Let me explain.

First, we should concede that the notion tea party candidates are more likely to lose seats doesn’t jibe with history. No need to bore you with tales about how former Rep. Rick Berg didn’t fare any better than, say, Christine O’Donnell, let’s just stick to this year.

In Kansas, incumbent U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts defeated his tea party challenger, but now could very well lose to an independent candidate. In South Dakota, incumbent Gov. Mike Rounds is being dogged by scandal, and is in danger of losing his race for the U.S. Senate. And in Georgia, David Perdue, an establishment Republican businessman who also happens to be the cousin of former Gov. Sonny Perdue, is in danger of losing to Michelle Nunn (due to a gaffe about outsourcing American jobs). And let’s throw in Virginia, where Republican Ed Gillespie, a conservative who is also about as establishment as one can get, has run a safe, tepid campaign against incumbent Sen. Mark Warner.

So when you consider that these boring, content-free establishment Republicans like Roberts, Rounds, and Perdue are poised to lose “safe” seats, all the handwringing about those not-ready-for-prime-time tea party candidates “costing the GOP seats” seems utterly unfair.

And it was. But here’s my theory: While the boring establishment candidates might lose, they will likely lose quietly. At that’s sort of a big deal. When Richard Mourdock or Todd Akin* made gaffes regarding hot-button social issues, those gaffes resonated nationwide, providing cable news with endless loops and sound bites. But when David Perdue says something stupid about outsourcing, it might cost him a seat, but it probably won’t show up on Saturday Night Live … and it probably won’t show up in an ad attacking Joni Ernst.

This, my friends, is called risk aversion. And, for now, it seems to be working.

* UPDATE: As several prominent readers (and commenters) have noted, Todd Akin wasn’t a “tea party” candidate, per se. Coming out of a multi-candidate field, he should be more accurately described as the Christian conservative candidate:

Matt K. Lewis