Politics

Can The GOP Only Win The Presidency With A Conservative?

Matt K. Lewis Senior Contributor
Font Size:

Over at the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein makes the interesting case that the GOP can only win the presidency by nominating a real conservative.

Regarding the failed presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney, Klein notes,

“His clumsy statements, such as declaring that he was ‘severely conservative’ and that his preferred immigration policy would lead to ‘self deportation,’ were rooted in the fact that he was just regurgitating what he thought conservatives wanted to hear rather than explaining views with which he was comfortable. This was also at the heart of his butchering the conservative critique of the culture of dependency with his ’47 percent’ comments.”

Klein continues,

“It would be overly simplistic to state that candidates such as Romney, Bob Dole, and Sen. John McCain lose because their candidacies discourage conservatives.

“The deeper issue is that when the Republican nominee is somebody who conservatives are suspicious of, the nominee has to spend the whole primary trying to convince conservatives that he or she agrees with them, and then the general election constantly reassuring them that he or she isn’t going to abandon the right just because the nomination has been sewn up. This leads to incoherent campaign messaging.”

I think this is pretty spot on. But I wanted to drill down on two points that, I think, Klein only implicitly acknowledges. First, he doesn’t note it here, but among the many implications associated with having to keep the base happy is picking a running mate to placate them.  As Klein hints, it is ironic that a moderate candidate has to continue to act conservative while a genuine conservative candidate can “move to the center” after winning the nomination. And the selection of a running mate is no exception. Reagan, having earned his conservative bona fides, got to pick a squish named Bush to be his veep, for example. Now, maybe he should have chosen Kemp or Laxalt — maybe that would have created an heir apparent for the Reagan Revolution. We will never know what might have happened, but what we do know is that Reagan-Bush won the election.

Second, the unspoken problem is that voters can sense authenticity — and that we despise phonies. As such, Klein is operating under the assumption that moderate-leaning Republican candidate (these are all subjective labels) feel compelled to keep the base happy, even after having won the nomination, in order to drive turnout.

There is some recent history to back up this assertion. This, presumably was the calculus behind McCain’s decision to pick Sarah Palin instead of Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman — and (as Klein notes) probably helps explain some of Romney’s gaffes.

But it’s worth asking whether or not the assumption that this is some sort of immutable law is correct. In the wake of the Bush presidency, and because of John McCain’s long and troubled history with the conservative base, McCain couldn’t afford the luxury of “moving to the center” after winning the nomination. And this probably hurt his image. It’s hard to be a contrarian maverick and suck up to the base at the same time.

But think of the timing. Having won two previous presidential elections (2000 and 2004), and having soured on George W. Bush’s “big government” conservatism, Republican base voters were in no mood for apostasy. But times have changed. Having endured two losses to Barack Obama, and staring at the very real prospect of eight more years of Hillary, one wonders whether or not conservative voters might be a bit more chastened come 2016.

Likewise, Mitt Romney — because of RomneyCare, etc. — probably felt compelled to pander even after having won the nomination. What is more (and arguably more important), there was something about Romney’s personality that made him feel inauthentic.

What I’m getting at here is that there were unique reasons why McCain and Romney both had to continue wooing the base — and why both were especially bad at it.

So is it fair to assume the same fate will befall the next guy? I think it depends who the next guy is. For example, I could see Jeb Bush falling victim to this Catch-22. But I don’t think every so-called moderate or “establishment” Republican is inexorably destined to be the next McCain or Romney because a). those candidates had unique base problems, and b). the base wasn’t so desperate for a win in 2008 or 2012.

Say what you will about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, but one gets the sense that he is authentic, and not prone to suffer fools gladly. (Note: I’m assuming that Klein wouldn’t call Christie a “conservative” Republican, but again, these are subjective designations.) Now, this might end up being a curse for entirely different reasons. Christie might, for example, blow up and yell at some conservative activist in Des Moines, or something. At least conservatives can rest assured the New Jersey governor won’t stab them in the back, he’ll stab them in the front.

But one does not get the sense that he would feel compelled to pander to anyone — especially were he the nominee. Christie probably wouldn’t seem phony because he isn’t. What is more, I suspect voters would find themselves rooting for him — as he gave Hillary hell in the debates and on the trail (and you know he could). Would conservatives really sit a Christie vs. Hillary battle royale out? I doubt it.