 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
It's tough when conservatives can't identify each otherDecember 31, 2007 |
The Republican
nominating process was once simpler.
For years choices were pretty much monochromatic. Geography counted more than philosophy, and the word conservative was hardly used and was even more ill-defined than it is today. After the crushing defeat of Kansas Gov. Alf Landon in 1936, the question wasn’t whether to oppose FDR’s New Deal big government policies but how they could be mitigated. Republicans generally ran on efficiency and “we can do it better.” Later, the only major stated difference between the two parties was the GOP’s claim to be tougher on Communism. Mush-mouthing was rampant. Conservatism barely showed a pulse and were kept alive politically by some heartland senators led by Robert Taft of Ohio and intellectually by a handful of publications, like the Freeman and Human Events. With the 1956 addition of the young Bill Buckley’s National Review, liberalism was presented as a fait accompli. The 1960s are looked upon fondly by the left. The right should feel the same because it saw the political re-birth of conservatism and its re-emergence as a national force. The nomination of Barry Goldwater was a seminal moment in American history. It brought together the many strains of modern conservative and libertarian thought in a grand coalition, which is still reasonably intact. The left talks about diversity. Real diversity is on the right and is nowhere more evident than among the current crop of GOP presidential candidates. Unlike the last century when the GOP had many genuine liberal Republicans, the furthest left of the seven major figures on Arizona’s Feb. 5 primary are way to the right of what was formerly nominated by Republicans. The biggest argument now is who’s the real conservative and when did he become one. Issues change. Abortion and illegal immigration were hardly on the table 50 years ago. Could today’s bickering rightwing purists see fit to support someone like a former governor who raised taxes, expanded government, liberalized abortion and supported stricter gun control? His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. The current flap over Gov. Mike Huckabee’s credentials is typical of those attempting to define “genuine” conservatism. While all grant his social conservatism, most opposition arises from those in the “economics” camp. But Huckabee is the only GOP contender wanting to abolish the IRS — generally a hard-right stance. A friend noticed that Huckabee’s populist campaign is reminiscent of George Wallace, minus the racism. I suspect that his style concerns many of the more established conservatives, who always looked down upon the populists sharing their tent. Too many Republicans have always sneered at the Bubbas who’ve been giving them their majorities for years. I personally attribute Huckabee’s surge — which I believe will continue — to Chuck Norris. The mainstream media may slobber over Oprah and Obama, but Bubba and his old lady are moved by other values. Arizonans will get their say Feb. 5. Most GOP campaigns backed away so far and let John McCain have at it. One exception: the Ron Paul folks, who seem to be the only ones actually trying. Paul’s views are as much a part of that grand center-right coalition that now inhabits the GOP as any. I’m just not sure he knows that. Nor do they.
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
