Another conservative Democrat...

The big kids are gone, and it was just Liz, Jake and I last night. Once Jake went to bed, Liz and I decided to watch a movie and I made a run to Subway for a couple of sandwiches. This is our version of "going out" on a Saturday night, I guess...

Anyway, the radio show that plays here on Saturday nights is one I do not typically listen to, and I really don't think I'm missing much, either... but last night he has a really surprising guest speaker on. A registered Democrat that hasn't been able to vote for his party's candidate in more than 10 years, and one of my favorite authors of all time... Orson Scott Card.

Card made some very good points while he was on the radio, let me tell you. The one I wanted to touch on, though, was why Obamacare isn't the case that is going to get GOP candidates elected in 2010-2012... and why the "Tea Party" movement is potentially devastating for conservative hopes in 2012.

His first point was that anger over what the various House Democrats voted for is NOT a point that the GOP is going to make any ground on. It is true that many Representatives ignored concerns of their constituents and voted YAY in spite of loud protests or previous NAY votes, but that isn't something conservatives can point to and say "THIS IS BAD." It is too easy to write off as someone following their conscience, or taking the lesser of two evils, or (quite simply) doing their job of voting as they see best since that is what they are elected to do. Card does not think Obamacare is good (in fact, he made a case that it is the worst legislation signed by a President into law... ever), but whining and crying about how the bill is tantamount to ending the Constitution and everyone that voted for it is a communist-at-heart is counter-productive to the long-term goal that the GOP needs to keep in focus... getting back majority control.

This point made me think... didn't Jambo once make the claim that "anger doesn't win elections"? I don't remember who said it (but I do think it was Jambo), but the jist is: Anger doesn't win elections... fear does. Well, Card said something very, very similar. Conservatives in this country can get as angry as they want, but it won't get anyone elected. Anger tells a voter who NOT to vote for, but fear will tell them who TO vote for.

History backs this up, I think. Was the country angry at the Hoover Administration's lack of success? Or were they afraid of the effects of the Great Depression and voted for someone that promised solutions? The former may be true, but FDR got elected because he offered solutions. Were people angry at the state of the Nation in 1980? Hell, yes. Did they vote for Reagan because he WASN'T Carter... no, they didn't, they voted for him because his promises offered HOPE and CHANGE, for the better. They voted for Reagan because they were afraid of the direction the country was going in.

Card's second point is also very important. History shows us that movements like the Tea Party pop up throughout history, but almost never win an election simply on an opposition-platform. This isn't a new idea for us here at the Bund, but it is a good one to make again. The average American voter in this country doesn't give a rat's buttocks for what the President's (or Presidential candidate's) ideology is based on. There is no question in my mind that Obama's personal ideology is rooted in radical, fundamental socialist ideology, and his success in recent years stems from his ability to say what everyone wants to hear more than everyone's agreement with what his ideology says. Card goes so far as to say that Obama is the most dangerous President to be elected to the office... ever. That's a lot to say from even a conservative Democrat, huh?

Movements like the Tea Party can be as grass-root as they come, but the prospects is always there that they will split the vote. I won't touch on the obvious examples (Perot in '92), but instead I'll use the example that Card used last night... Buchanan in '96.

Now, I'm going to be charitable and NOT share the scene from the radio show where the host (whom I won't name) made an ASS of himself by completely misunderstanding Card's point about Buchanan and assuming that he really meant Perot in '92, but Card was talking about Buchanan in '96. So, I went back and looked at the numbers again.

1996 was Buchanan's best run for the White House. In the primary election cycle, he won 21% of the GOP vote... enough to keep him relevant, I think. Now, if we look at that slice of the vote, but from the point of view of the "independent" conservative voter, can we assume a similar percentage of interest? How many independents went to the polls and remembered Buchanan's slogan of "the peasants are coming with pitchforks"? Bob Dole was not the most memorable candidate the GOP ever threw up, but I'm very sure that much of what Buchanan said during the primary season was seen as "the GOP position" by moderates and independents. Buchanan ran a campaign of "anger" at the direction of the Clinton Administration, and we can all recall his comments... but how many people can recall his solutions? What was he promising to do that would fix what Clinton was doing?

I'll say this about Buchanan... he's a man of principles, and he sticks to them. He hasn't changed his song for decades, and because of this, we can look back and see that his very vocal, very well-covered primary campaign did more harm to the GOP in '96 than anything Clinton said or did at all. He routinely voiced his disdain for NAFTA (making it a household phrase in '96 almost single-handedly) by claiming it was a Clinton effort to subvert American pre-dominance in the global economy... and forgetting that it was the economic love-child of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man that the GOP was modeling itself after. He routinely called for a reduction in our armed forces and a non-interventionist position in our foreign policy, again, forgetting that it was exactly the opposite position that was advocated by Reagan ("peace through security") and almost every other mainstream conservative out there. He was the most out-spoken critic of the Clinton Administration's efforts to enforce the "no-fly" zones and to maintain the security effort in a post-'91 Iraq... and I can't help but think that is 180 degrees opposite from the "mainstream" conservative position that would lead to the 2003 invasion (although, that is outside the scope of this particular discussion).

I am utterly convinced, now more than ever, that Buchanan is far more responsible for the failures of the pre-Bush GOP (and I am including the failures of the public's perception of the Contract with America in this, too) because of his very vocal, very angry rhetoric that constantly criticized but never offered viable, memorable solutions to the problems that the "average voter" could embrace. His anger and resentment at how things were bring run carried through to the public, loudly and clearly, though...

Now, back to the point. Perot's Reform ticket took more than 8% of the conservative vote from Dole, but that wasn't enough to tip the scales against Clinton. However, I can't help but think that Card is RIGHT when he says that a significant proportion of conservative independent and moderate Democrats might have felt more comfortable voting opposite ticket, had A) Perot not run as a third party and B) Buchanan had kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the race altogether. '96 was a closer race than any Democrat is likely to admit today... and none of them are going to make the case that, had these two factors (Perot and Buchanan) learned the lessons of '92 just a little sooner, Clinton would have been a one-term President, and the Conservative Majority would have been complete four years sooner than it was.

For conservatives to win in 2010 and 2012, we are going to have to show that what is being done is counter-productive and how it is going to be fixed. We are NOT going to win by saying over and over again that it is the "wrong path to take"... because even the most uninformed American voter understands that simply bitching about which path to take only really means you are left standing in the middle of an intersection, waiting to be run over by someone who knows what direction they want to go in.