Frank’s Case Book

Some people are bred to be Conservatives, with Conservatism in their mother’s milk. They are raised with Conservative sensibilities by Conservatives parents and friends. However, these are few in number. Given the fact that there has been a right-ward political shift in the latter half of the twentieth century, most contemporary Conservatives where not born Conservative, but had Conservatism intrude on them. Thus, most Conservatives have story about how they became Conservatives.

I would like to claim that my Conservatism came upon me as a bolt from heaven on the road to Damascus, but my intellectual journey was a little more prosaic. It was the consequence of two books read back-to-back during my junior year in high school: The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith, and Up From Liberalism by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Galbraith painted a picture of the world dominated by economic elites who controlled the majority of us who could not think clearly for ourselves and bought into the consumerism that kept the elites wealthy. My goodness Americans were foolish enough to by cars with aerodynamically useless tail fins. Americans were helpless or worse  a little dull unless properly supervised by a caring Liberal government, people like Galbraith, whom we could entrust to make decisions on our behalf.

By contrast, Buckley painted a picture of individual autonomy that presumed a self-capacity for decision that Galbraith did not admit. Moreover, Buckley passed along an essential Conservative intuition. In our daily lives, it is by use of the money that we earn that determines the breath of our choices. The more resources we individually control, the freer, in an important sense, we are. Hence, when we are taxed by the government, a that freedom is diminished. This is not to say that taxes are never justified, it is just that when they are applied, the benefit of the taxes must be measured against the constriction of freedom they entail.

Although Buckley’s work was infused with the ideas of Edmund Burke, our Founding Fathers, Alexis De Tocqueville, Frederick Hayek, and Milton Friedman, he himself was not a first-rank theoretician. He was, rather, the clever, erudite, iconoclastic proselytizer of Conservative ideas. In this role, he excelled, founding the National Review, hosting television’s Firing Line, and even running for Mayor of New York to exploit it as a forum for his Conservative ideas and to critique contemporary Liberalism.

On the occasion of Buckley’s death much will be written about his accomplishments and to this I can add little original. However, it is likely that my small experience with Buckley’s prose was duplicated by many in different circumstances with a different set of Buckley’s writings (He was enormously prolific) but ended in the same result: another Conservative. It is a measure of the power of his mind that he could, through the use of words, influence the thoughts of many he would never meet, but who would nonetheless become his intellectual and political progeny.

Democrats have recently been much more aggressive in punishing apostasy on the part of its adherents. Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was not permitted to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he planned to deliver a pro-life message. In 2000, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was sufficiently main stream among Democrats that he was their nominee for vice-president. However, because of his continued support of American efforts in Iraq, the MoveOn.org wing of the party made sure he was not re-nominated as a Democratic Senator of Connecticut. Lieberman was returned to the Senate on the strength of his popularity among independents and Republicans. Lieberman is not now permitted to be Democratic superdelegate because of his endorsement of  Senator John McCain for president.

On the Republican side of the aisle, Republicans are on the verge of nominating Senator John McCain who has angered many Republicans for his apostasy on immigration issues, campaign finance restrictions, and lack of support for Bush tax cuts. McCain has moved towards back towards conventional Republican virtues on these issues, save perhaps campaign finance. On the war, McCain support of the war and his critique on strategy now seem prescient. Why is there residual anger among some Conservative Republicans?

The problem is that the same stubbornness that led McCain to say he would rather lose an election than a war and to stay in the race last summer when his candidacy seemed doomed, aggravated fellow Conservatives when they disagreed with McCain. McCain seemed to bask a little too comfortably in the glow of a fawning press who are always happy to devote attention to a Republican in conflict with his party. It is one thing to reluctantly disagree with other Conservatives on the basis of your best judgment and quite another to revel in and nurture a reputation as a maverick at the expense of other Conservatives.

McCain just gave a talk of reconciliation at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference trying to mend differences and he  seems to be slowly gaining more Conservative support. McCain, however, needs more than acquiescence, he needs political energy to win in November. In realty, McCain has for a long time remained true to Conservative principles while in the Senate. When Conservatives compare McCain to the ideal Conservative candidate they may see two lights that are far separated. However, as one moves further to the Left away from these lights toward the darkness occupied by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, the difference between the two lights disappears and we can perceive only one guiding light in the distance.

One the Democratic side, at this point it seems that both Clinton and Obama have about an equal chance of securing a nomination, though political futures at this point slightly favor Obama. This poses an interesting question about how Republicans should review the race. As the National Review has opined, “say a prayer for Hillary if you want a Republican in the White House, that is.” Her very presence would energize Republicans in opposition. Indeed, it would be tactically best for Republicans if Clinton and Obama competed all the way the the convention. It would be a Republican political wet dream if Obama entered the convention with a majority of elected delegates and if Clinton managed to garner the nomination by using superdelegates, the elected Democratic establishment. This would send a wounded Clinton to the election with half the party angered at what would appear as anti-democratic means used to secure the nomination.

As pleasant as this vision is, for the good of the Republic, even if Obama would be a more formidable candidate, we should pray for his nomination. The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are narrow, but Obama would at least enter office with the good will of most Americans. Clinton would prove to be divisive from the beginning and the country would likely become partisan. This partisanship would not be of the principled kind, but grow out of avid struggle for raw political power.

By the time President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the whole country and Democrats, in particular, were exhausted and not just a little relieved. On one hand, President Clinton had managed to win two terms as President, something that no Democrat had achieved since President Franklin Roosevelt had managed it. On the other hand, President’s personal behavior and loose political ethics left many Democrats curled up in the showered trying to wash away the stench of the previous Administration.

Moreover, eight years of President Clinton triangulating between himself and Democrats and Republicans in Congress ushered in the first Republican Congress in a generation. In addition, Clinton tacked hard right passing the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform with help of a Republican Congress over the objections of Democrats. It was President Clinton who conceded that the“era of big government is over.”

With peace and prosperity, President Clinton’s Democratic successor, Vice-President Al Gore, should have sailed in the presidency. Instead, anchored with Clintonian embarrassments, Gore lost to then Governor George W. Bush in a squeaker. President Clinton had secured his political success partially at the cost of his party.

Freed from the necessity of schilling for the Clintons after his term ended, many were liberated from internal partisan shackles to speak out against Clinton. On February 26, 2001, Bob Herbert, a Liberal pundit for the New York Times, wrote:

“Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing… You can’t lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they have betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them.”

It has now been eight years since a Democratic president, and Democrats are hungry for another victory. With Republican weakness born of the Iraq War, Democrats smell victory. This explains the Faustian bargain entered by Democrats who are willing to settle for Senator Hillary Clinton because the Clintons have proven themselves winners in the past and wield an aura of invincibility. Many have made this choice despite the fact that even Democrats recognize her flaws. She has all the ambition of her husband, with little of the charm. Moreover, if elected she is likely to prove a divisive leader.

However, the entrance of Senator Barrak Obama in the race has offered a third choice. Although Obama is relatively inexperienced on the national scene, he has a charismatic appeal with a compelling life story. With Senator Obama, some Democrats have decided that there is someone else that can bring them to electoral victory; someone that Democrats do not have to be embarrassed about.

The choice for Democratic nominee in 2008 has not yet been made and Senator Clinton, backed by the Clinton political machine, remains the probable nominee. Nonetheless, Senator Obama’s popularity, particularly among young people, reveals a distaste for the Clintons usually concealed out of political necessity.

The National Review has adopted a unassailably reasonable criterion for deciding whom to endorse for President each election cycle. They select the most Conservative candidate that has a reasonable prospect of election. Even within criterion, there remains considerable room for disagreement. The National Review decided to endorse Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.

At this point there are four Republican candidates with reasonable prospect of receiving the Republican nomination: Governor Mike Huckabee, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, and Governor Mitt Romney.

Governor Huckabee can be dismissed as populist whose message is a distortion of Conservatism. He may be pro-Life and pro-Second Amendment Huckabee, but he employs the same class warfare rhetoric as Democrats and has a feel good foreign policy that is eerily reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter’s. Huckabee has managed to use an avuncular personality and genuine concern about others to win the Iowa caucus and improve in national poll results. However, his strategy is very unlikely to prevail against Democrats in the fall. They and their friends in the press will effectively ridicule Huckabee’s religious beliefs. Moreover, Huckabee does not represent a clear choice against Democrats. To corrupt a phrase from President Truman, when given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the people will always choose the Democrat.

At one point last year, Mayor Giuliani was leading in national polls and it even looked possible that he might defeat prominent Democratic candidates. He is socially Liberal, but had agreed to appoint judges to the Federal Judiciary who adhere to an Originalist interpretation of the law and Constitution. Given this ability to actually win, Conservatives could reasonably overlook some of Giuliani’s positions, and support him for President. However, it presently appears that Giuliani has not caught on with the public. There is no longer the tradeoff between likelihood of winning and being less Conservative that works in Giuliani his favor. Moreover, if he runs against Senator Hillary Clinton, the two New Yorkers will go after each other with a venom that will rightfully sour the general public.

This leaves Romney and McCain to choose from. Romney has the advantage of being a Washington outsider and the aura of competence. He is a policy wonk of the first order and has the ability to explain his policies clearly and succinctly. Whatever, his more Liberal positions were in the past, he seems to have come to the correct Conservative ones now. It is likely that between Romney and McCain, Romney’s executive experience would make a more effective manager than McCain.

However, Romney does not seem to have connected emotionally with the public. His very smoothness and impeccable grooming and the fact that he never gets ruffled separates him from voters. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg compared Romney to a BMW salesman. If Romney runs against Clinton, they would both have an “authenticity” problem. If he runs Senator Barack Obama, he will be at a significant disadvantage. In a choice between candidates of competence or excitement, the exciting candidate usually wins.

McCain has frustrated Conservatives more than once and he is likely to so if elected President. He sponsored “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance “reform” which many Conservatives and Libertarians consider an affront to the First Amendment. McCain opposed George Bush’s tax cuts which accounted for much of the recovery over the last four years. McCain, along with President Bush, supported “amnesty” for illegal aliens before there was any meaningful success in stemming the flow of such people to the US.

However, on the seminal issue of our time, the War on Terror, McCain has struck a perfect tone. He supported the liberation of Iraq. Before most others including President Bush, he recognized that the US needed a more aggressive strategy against Al Qaeda insurgents. He supported Bush’s surge policy when few others would. McCain’s popularity with independents atrophied as a consequence. In response, McCain said that “I would rather lose a campaign than a war.” Now that the surge has proved successful, McCain looks both wise and principled. McCain is now re-gaining much of his support among independents.

It is interesting to contemplate a McCain-Lieberman ticket. McCain could then seize the mantel of bi-partisanship and rise above conventional politics. The move would anger some Republicans which would put Democrat Lieberman one step away from the Presidency with an elderly president in office. In equal measure, it would frighten partisan Democrats who would find it difficult to attack their own previous vice-presidential candidate. This ticket will not happen, but it does make for interesting speculation.

Finally, McCain has moral seriousness that no other candidate can manage. He suffered as a POW without loosing his dignity. It is impossible to tell whether his POW experience developed or simply revealed McCain’s courage, but he certainly has it.

McCain is not the perfect candidate. Indeed, the much loved Reagan did not seem to be a perfect candidate when running in 1980, but at this point, McCain is the best bet for both Republicans and the country.

Perhaps the most definitive and amusing conclusion we can draw from the recent caucus results from Iowa is that Chuck Norris and Oprah Winfrey are the king makers in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Norris endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination, Winfrey endorsed Senator Barak Obama, and both endorsed candidates won their party Iowa caucuses.

Humor aside, Republicans are far too sanguine about the results from Iowa. The guilty pleasure of watching Hillary Clinton come in not second but third in Iowa masked the fact that results probably reduced the chances of the Republicans winning the presidency in November.

(1) Despite Republicans being constantly beaten by Bill Clinton’s machine in elections, Hillary Clinton carries much of the Clinton baggage without Bill’s consummate political skills. Bill knew how to work a crowd and pulled energy from retail politics. For Hillary, such politics is an enervating grind. Bill had a musical temperament and could modulate his voice and hit the proper note. Hillary oscillates between pedantic is shrill. Hillary Clinton would be formidable candidate in a general election, but may be the least difficult candidate for Republicans to beat. Given the Republican glee at the loss in Iowa, she would certainly energize Republicans.

(2) Mike Huckabee does not come from the heart of the Republican party. Although he has hit many traditional Conservative themes, he speaks with populist tone and appeals to and actually encourages class resentment. His foreign policy is animated by the same feel good rhetoric that propelled President Jimmy Carter into the most humiliating foreign policy in memory. Moreover, Huckabee’s religious beliefs particularly his belief in Creationism will be easily ridiculed by the popular press in the general election. Ridicule is the most destructive political force.

The only positive item that came out of the Iowa for Republicans is that the rise of Obama will likely bring out the Clinton nastiness. Clinton may be able inflict more damage on Obama than Republicans could.