GOP Can Only Win Presidency By Nominating a Real Conservative
By Philip Klein
WashingtonExaminer.com
As the jockeying for the 2016 Republican
presidential nomination begins, a familiar debate
will be playing out: Should the party pick somebody
ideologically pure, or go with somebody more
centrist to win independents?
This analysis of the choice confronting voters is
misguided, however. The two possibilities are not
mutually exclusive. The reality is that the only way
Republicans can win the White House and make a play
for independents is if they nominate somebody who is
a real conservative.
No, this isn’t about assuming a fantasy world in
which independents overwhelmingly support every
major conservative policy goal. Nor is it about
crafting a strategy geared toward firing up the base
of the party.
It’s true that typically, when this argument is
made, it’s based on the idea that in any election,
the most important element of a winning campaign is
to be able to energize supporters around a message.
Those are the people who will be donating, knocking
on doors, putting up signs, posting on social media,
persuading their friends and relatives, and making
phone calls on Election Day.
Though this is one strong reason in favor of
Republicans running a real conservative, it is not
the central reason. Because ultimately, while
necessary, generating enthusiasm among the base is
not sufficient to win a general election in which
turnout is large and the winning candidate needs to
gain electoral votes from a geographically diverse
cross-section of states.
Before going further, it’s worth clarifying what I
mean by “real” conservative, as this is an overly
generalized term that can often be deployed to write
anybody out of the movement.
What I mean is that the nominee has to be somebody
who genuinely shares a conservative view of the
world at a philosophical level – one that he or she
can clearly articulate to those who aren’t
conservatives, defend when under attack, and use as
the intellectual framework to respond to any
unexpected events that occur during a campaign.
Memorizing an answer to a given question does not
help you answer the next question. To do that, you
need to understand and appreciate the underlying
theory that led to the original answer.
In recent presidential election cycles, a common
criticism has been that the Republican nomination
process has devolved into a “purity contest.” What
this misses is that the only reason this spectacle
has taken place is that the candidates who were
running did not have the inherent trust of
conservatives. And when this is the case, candidates
make fools of themselves in trying to reassure the
right.
For instance, conservatives never trusted Mitt
Romney, because, among other reasons, he was a
liberal governor who was pro-choice, in favor of gun
control, and a champion of government-subsidized
universal health coverage.
Because conservatives didn’t trust him, Romney spent
his first bid for president, in 2008, eroding his
credibility by flip-flopping on a litany of major
issues in a failed bid to win over the right.
In 2012, he was able to win the nomination, but
because he lacked an actually conservative
philosophical mindset, he didn’t know how to make
conservative arguments in an appealing manner and as
a result he ended up looking foolish.
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.
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.
The popular myth is that a winning candidate has to
play to the base in the primaries and then move to
the center in the general election. But the reality
is that winning candidates in both parties have
tended to maintain a relatively consistent theme
throughout their campaigns.
Over the next 18 months or so, there will be plenty
of time to explore which GOP candidate or candidates
meet the threshold of being genuinely conservative,
but one thing is for sure.
When base voters implicitly trust a candidate,
they’re more likely to give that candidate the
benefit of the doubt when he or she tries to
communicate a message to appeal to the broader
electorate, because they assume that deep down that
candidate “gets it” and is “one of us.” A candidate
who is constantly having to prove something to the
base — from the declaration of candidacy to the
waning hours of Election Day — is guaranteed to
lose.