The GOP Should Learn From Tory Mistakes
The plight of British Conservatives should be a warning for anti-McCain Republicans considering doing something rash this November, warns Andrew Ian Dodge.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
There is a great deal of talk on both sides of the Atlantic about the plight of the right as the face the almost certain nomination of John McCain for the Republican Party.
The debate rages on about what committed conservatives should do.
Should they suck it up and do what is best for the party and the country? Should they admit that McCain, with all his ideological and policy faults, is better than either of the two likely nominees from the Democratic side of the fence? He might not be the most conservative Republican to run for that office but he is indisputably more conservative than Hillary and most especially Obama.
Or should they, as some are suggesting, take their toys and go home after Huckabee drops out? Not, of course, that Huckabee is that conservative either; he is merely more so than McCain in the social policy sense.
Does the toy analogy sound a bit harsh? Not if you read what some are saying on the social right. It isn’t difficult to understand how they feel. We have all been marginalized politically by better organized and more convincing forces. It comes with the territory of being a political activist.
One can look to the UK and the plight of the Conservative Party to see what happens when the latter strategy is adopted by a large number of those on the right.
Obviously the systems are rather different — unlike Britain, it is possible in the US to have a party control Congress and not the Presidency.
But that does not mean that the behavior of the various stripes of the right within the British Conservative Party is not food for thought and might be a note of caution for those truly considering doing something rash this November.
The trouble with “sitting a cycle out” or even sniping from the sidelines is that one can find that it is impossible to ever come in from the cold. Over the past decade of Labour rule in the UK, the Tory right has been ever so gradually marginalized in their own party to such an certain extent that many no longer find any place in the party at all.
The authoritarian right of the Tory Party, who go under the banner of the Monday Club, found themselves unceremoniously removed from the party and banned after the election of David Cameron.
Libertarian Conservatives and those who would consider themselves Thatcherite were harshly culled from the list of potential parliamentary candidates.
It used to be that it was possible to be selected to run for Parliament and not be on the approved list; but it was rare. Now it is not possible at all. These hard working party members were told they were not longer needed on the list and because of the change in the nature of the party there was no one there to make the case against the cull.
The rot set in when many on the right decided that the various leaders before David Cameron, whether it be William Hague or Iain Duncan Smith, were not what they would have liked.
This is, of course, after the crushing defeat in 1997 when many Tory voters voted “for change” (sound familiar) and drove their party out of power. Many of these voters and activists who did not help now regret the fact that they were an integral part of ensuring the Conservatives were kept out of office for over a decade.
There is no sign that the British right’s sojourn outside of running the country will end any time soon either. Despite the fact the country is sinking into recession, rising crime, sky high taxes and a complete malaise, the Conservatives are hard-pressed to find themselves more than five points ahead in the polls. In order to take power they need a far higher poll rating.
This lack of ability to return to power comes despite the fact that David Cameron has taken the party by force to the center of British politics, far preferring slight variations on the underlying centrist consensus on the environment, tax and other policy to that of true Conservative values of his predecessors.
And for those on the right in the US please note that David Cameron’s centrism makes McCain look like a solid right-of-center type.
Some of his cabinet ministers are expressing openly their admiration for both Obama and Clinton.
The reason the various ilks of the right lost their foothold in the Conservative Party is that they didn’t stick around enough to fight their corner and keep their ideas in the mix. They allowed their frustration and angst to get the better of them. They flirted with the various minor fringe parties of the right like the Referendum Party and UKIP; in some case losing the Conservatives seats that were held by similar minded Members of Parliament.
I was among those on the right who got fed up and frustrated enough to go home and not bother.
Before they make the same mistake, the social and fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party should ask themselves if they really want to relinquish their party apparatus to RINOS/centrists for the foreseeable future? Do they really think it would be a good idea to have Clinton or worse, the socialist Obama in power for four or maybe even eight years? Losing is never fun but there are times, like this one, that one has to look at the whole picture.
And for a conservative, the picture clearly shows that McCain on his worst day is far better than Obama or Clinton.
Andrew Ian Dodge blogs at Dodgeblogium.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
29 Comments
dougf:Good analysis but you might as well find the nearest available wall and have a pleasant in-depth conversation with it.
The ‘purists’ are like all true believers. Un-amenable to what commonly passes for ‘reason’ amongst the ‘heretics’. In fact, ‘losing’ is seemingly a badge of courage for them. They are just too darn ‘good’ to win. So they will lose and wait expectantly for a desperate Nation to come knocking at their holy doors.
As you point out —- It’s always a VERY VERY VERY long wait.
Maybe they can shout out a big HI to Vladimir and Estragon on the road. I assume that they are still waiting patiently as well.
Mar 4, 2008 - 7:21 am alan143:Plenty of true points here, B U T, here’s a clearer vision of the Tory timeline:
1) In 1989, the Tory party’s left wing knifed our most popular and successful Prime Minister since the war, Margaret Thatcher.
2) The party elite drifted sleasily leftwards until it became unelectable in 1997.
3) Several sane Tory leaders tried to cope with the party’s left-wing and the consequent massive loss of conservative votes. All failed and resigned.
4) The party’s left-wing then installed the current “maverick” media whore as “their” leader and so, in spite of daily catastrophes announced by the Labour government, the Tories are still unelectable.
As the writer says of our current media-trophy-wife of a leader, “Thatcherite[s] were harshly culled from the list of potential parliamentary candidates” in 2007. Those empty-headed conservatives!, the writer moans, “they didn’t stick around enough to fight their corner and keep their ideas in the mix.”
Well, you’re completely wrong there. They did “stick around”, for 18 long years, and this is their reward: nothing whatever and then the knife. I’m sure that left-wing Beltway Republicans want a similar timeline, as evidenced by the Presidential candidate.
Mar 4, 2008 - 7:47 am Curly Smith:So the theory is… to ensure that the RINOS/Centrists don’t control the party apparatus I must support the RINOS/Centrists in their efforts to control the party apparatus?
Would Obama or Clinton clearly be worse than McCain if one is a Conservative? Consider 4 or 8 more years of a Big Government Liberal Republican Spendocracy and you might decide differently. Will the Republican candidate in 2012 or 2016 be more or less Conservative after another 4-8 year porkfest that was facilitated by the Conservative Vote? The answer is “less Conservative” because there’s no reason to run Conservative candidates if the Conservatives will vote for RINOS/Centrists.
If I believe, and I do, that the intent is to forever diminish the impact of Conservative Voters in the Republican Party then why would I just blithely play along? Because the alternative is worse? What’s worse than having both major parties permanently move away from the Conservative Principles that have led to the greatest country in recorded history?
Mar 4, 2008 - 7:58 am Wolf Pangloss:Curly Smith, I doubt you remember first-hand when FDR succeeded Herbert Hoover, but you will remember what followed. Dubya is just about as unpopular among the masses as Herbert Hoover (or LBJ, for that matter). Do you want conservatives to be out of power for 52 years and republicans for 20? That’s what happens when the party implodes and gives up instead of continuing to hang together and reinvigorating itself.
Mar 4, 2008 - 8:21 am Fred Beloit:Don’t know as you have made a good point there, Mr Pangloss. The election of either of the two Dem candidates will expose the essential weaknesses of liberalism, causing, not ending, severe economic, diplomatic and social problems. Obama’s staff already has our northern neighbors doing a dance on a wet revolving log.
One term of Jimmy Carter did wonders for our country when it ended.
Mar 4, 2008 - 9:14 am Curly Smith:Wolf, no need to visit ancient history.
Recall the 1992 Election wherein the Fiscal Conservatives said “Read Our Ballots, No New Term” to George H. W. “Voodoo Economics” Bush. What happened after Bush lost? Conservative candidates realized that the Reagan Revolution wasn’t dead and that the elitist Blue-blooded Big Government Liberal Republicans really didn’t control the Conservative voters. Grass-root Fiscal Conservatives won the House for the Republicans in 1994. And, BTW, the last I checked the world didn’t end when Clinton was elected.
The 1994 election was the free market at work. Conservative candidates saw a demand for Conservative Principles and they sought to satisfy that demand. Conservative voters saw the supply of Conservative Principles enter the market and they bought all of the available supply. What we’re seeing play out now is an effort by the Republican Party, and their surrogates, to maintain monopolistic control over Conservative Voters. From your study of economics you should have learned that monopolies only serve the interests of the monopoly and that they are highly detrimental to the consumer. If that’s too difficult to follow, consider how Blacks have fared since the Democratic Party has had the monopoly on the Black Voting Bloc. Why would any rational individual want to follow that path?
The Republican Party, and their surrogates, can demand my vote all day long but they won’t get it because only losers fall for fear-mongering. The Republicans can, however, earn my vote by adhering to the Conservative Principles that brought them to power in the first place.
Mar 4, 2008 - 9:20 am Derek S:When a party controls the government’s purse strings for enough time, those purse strings become the politician’s reason for existing. If a segment of that party has ideology which is against using those purse strings for personal gain, then that segment will be removed from the controls of that party. They will still desire the votes from that segment, but cannot bear to have them involved in governance. If members of that segment still vote for them, they can pander to that segment, claiming to be working for them, without actually doing anything. Many segments of the Democrat Party have long fallen for this, though many were pulled over to the Republican Party by Reagan during the 80’s.
If you refuse to vote for them, they will become a long-term minority party, but usually, the opposition will see this and reward the politicians of minor party with their share of graft. At least if we don’t vote for them, a third party may be strengthened, and has happened (rarely), become a prominent party to support the original ideals of the people.
Mar 4, 2008 - 9:27 am Gene Owens:It may be that this has already happened. Many Republicans have felt marginalized for years by the extreme right. It appears time for the moderates, at least within the GOP to set the course for the future.
Mar 4, 2008 - 9:55 am Gene Owens:It may be that this has already happened. Many Republicans have felt marginalized for years by the extreme right. It appears time for the moderates, at least within the GOP to set the course for the future.
Mar 4, 2008 - 9:58 am mishu:Curly,
You bet like the Contract for America II will be a given event. Based on the time before that, it was a once in a lifetime thing.
Mar 4, 2008 - 10:29 am Bill Muckley:The glaring flaw in Andrew’s column is: this is not England. Although we are allies, and our cultures are often compared, we are a very different political system.
We will continue to have a Republican party whether or not a Republican is in office next year or not. Our dilemma is that we continue to be force-fed an incorrect belief that the party must “move to the center” (meaning turn more liberal) in order to win elections. And, a win for McCain will be incorrectly touted as proof that they were right, which will of course result in the party shifting even more to the left (if that’s now possible). And, at that point what’s the sense of having a Republican party if it’s indestinguishable from the socialist democrats.
While I’d rather have a democrat in office taking credit for screwing up our country than a RINO Republican (since they all want to dissolve our borders, pass massive social programs, force feed us phony “global warming” nonsense anyway), the only pressing consideration in your decision making process should be Supreme Court nominees that will arise during the next 4-8 years, and who would better fill them…not anything that happened in England.
Mar 4, 2008 - 10:33 am Larry J:the only pressing consideration in your decision making process should be Supreme Court nominees that will arise during the next 4-8 years, and who would better fill them
Given McCain’s treatment of the First Amendment with McCain-Feingold, how am I supposed to believe that he’ll appoint justices that respect the Constitution as written?
Go ahead - pull the other finger.
Mar 4, 2008 - 10:41 am Curly Smith:mishu, why were the Republicans wandering in the wilderness for 50 years? Was it because they offered a clear, stark and striking contrast to the Democratics that the public didn’t want, or was it because they offered everything the Democratics offered but slightly less? It was the latter.
Democratics won control of the government following the stock market crash because the public blamed the President, and his party, for the failure. The public kept voting for Democratics because there was no point in voting for a Republican challenger who agreed with the Democratic agenda.
If we were having this argument in 1936, you would have me abandon my principles and vote for a Republican who advocated a philosophy that would greatly prolong the Great Depression. That would certainly be beneficial to the party but it’s disastrous for me and the country. It’s no real surprise that Republicans took power when they finally offered something different from the Democratics. What is surprising is the number of people who are so eager to abandon a winning strategy for both the party and the country.
Mar 4, 2008 - 11:03 am Eric E. Coe:Andrew: part of the problem for the Tories is that Britain uses that Parliamentary/Party List system. That enables the party apparatus to maintain strong control over the elected party membership. It’s not like that here - national political parties are weaker, they can affect but can’t control the outcomes of primaries and this tendency has been increased by the effects of the McCain-Finegold campaign law, which tends to push issue-oriented advertising out to independent single-issue organizations.
I think these differences allow critical extra flexability in our political choices.
The commenter upthread that mentioned the 1994 has a real point: That mid-term congressional election was a huge repudiation of both President Clinton’s policies *and* the moderate Republican establishment of the time, who were mostly content to get tossed bones from the prior Democrat (congressional) majority. It shows that a large enough bloc of organized and determined voters can push a party in a desired direction even against the will of the people nominally in charge. Another example of this on the opposite side is the successful efforts of the nutroots in pushing the dems way further left - to the point of being way too extreme in the general election (i.e. the Liberman debacle).
So, I don’t think the situation is necessarily the same.
P.S. I prefer it our way too.
Mar 4, 2008 - 11:12 am progressoverpeace:Drawing political parallels between a party-oriented system without an independent executive and no permanent government, and a individual-oriented system with an independent executive and a permanent government is fraught with problems. They are totally different political cultures and bear very little relation to one another.
In the US, the individual is the fundamental political entity (parties do not even exist in our Constitution), while in the European parliamentary systems, the party is the fundamental political entity. We think, politically, very differently because of this and it is the basis of the great difference between the US and the rest of the world. You brush this aside and make party arguments for a system in which individuals are primary, not parties. This is a cultural difference that many Europeans just don’t understand - along with US leftists, who think we have a Euro-style party-oriented parliamentary system, as evidenced by their inane “no confidence” votes, which have no meaning in our system.
As to what’s best for our country, McCain is looking to give our country away, so that argument doesn’t go very far.
Mar 4, 2008 - 11:19 am OmegaPaladin:I really think there are people who would die rather than vote McCain. Honestly, if McCain used his campaign bus to throw illegals out and burned a copy of his Campaign Finace Reform on national TV it wouldn’t be enough.
Mar 4, 2008 - 11:59 am progressoverpeace:Sorry Eric,
I didn’t mean to copy your line - though I obviously agree with it. Your post went up while I was still working on mine.
Mar 4, 2008 - 12:04 pm Increase Mather:Just don’t understand the argument that if one is a conservative, one should vote for the least liberal, liberal.
I will not vote for John McCain; he’s stuck his thumb in my eye too many times.
Mar 4, 2008 - 1:47 pm retro:As was stated by Bill Muckley above, this is not England. Republicans have not (yet anyway) been neutered like the ’subjects’ of England have.
The only reason the Republicans can hoist up a liberal like McCain as a viable candidate (?) is because conervatives have been suckered into voting for “the lesser evils” for far too long already.
To continue to do so would only serve to reinforce the continued dillution of conservative principals within the Repeublican Party.
Nice try, but no score. Get over yourself, Dodge.
Mar 4, 2008 - 3:16 pm Cawdor:I am a delegate for the last conservative running .. Ron Paul.
This weekend in Nevada, I and my other RP supporters will fight until we are voted out
McCain is a Clinton-wannabe and I will not vote for him and will continue to discourage other Republicans to vote for him as well.
I will write in Ron Paul if he is not on the ballot ..
McCain’s nomination is a betrayal and I will not be known as a traitor.
Mar 4, 2008 - 7:56 pm Andrew Ian Dodge:One term of Jimmy Carter did wonders for our country when it ended.
It did not do wonders for certain parts of the world like the Middle East however. Does the Iranian revolution and their support for terrorism until this very day ring a bell?
Despite my misgivings about McCain (McCain/Feingold etc) and I have quite a few…come the next foreign crisis I would far rather have him in there than either Clinton or clueless Obama.
Mar 5, 2008 - 1:28 am buddy:Hillary Clinton is in the process of crushing the “hopes” of those who strayed from her in her own party. Watch what happens to these people who thought they would align themselves away from the nation’s foremost power politician.
Mar 5, 2008 - 6:05 am Fred Beloit:Those thinking they’ll stay home and dance with giddy glee over McCain’s loss need to understand the changes Hillary would bring to the country would be PERMANENT. The restraints on the free market, massive growth in government power and control over individual liberty would take decades to reverse, if the nation ever has the desire to do so. Think what 30 years of rulings by Supreme Court Justice Bill Clinton could bring us before you decide to sit this election out.
“One term of Jimmy Carter did wonders for our country when it ended.
It did not do wonders for certain parts of the world like the Middle East however. Does the Iranian revolution and their support for terrorism until this very day ring a bell?”
But the Soviet Union came apart not by accident. A somewhat positive result would you say? One can’t fix all the world’s problems at once can one? (Well Clinton and Obama could of course.) I may also ask why you folks didn’t take on more of the Iranian “…support for terrorism…”? You used to spend some time round there and don’t need to wait for us all the time you know.
Mar 5, 2008 - 8:50 am Andrew Ian Dodge:Fred: You are claiming Carter had something to do with the fall of Soviet Union to Carter?
Mar 5, 2008 - 10:29 am Mark:I understand the reluctance of some about voting for McCain. However, I honestly do not understand how giving control of our Nation to far-left liberals during perilous times such as these is going to help our country. We on the right have damned the liberals for putting their politics before the concerns of the nation, and rightly so. I do believe that the anti-McCain crowd truly believe they have the nation’s best interest at heart but they are still putting their politics before the nations interest. The risks are too great to abandon the nations interest at this time in our history, imho.
Mar 5, 2008 - 10:36 am Fred Beloit:Huh? A failure to communicate. Must be on my side, Andrew.
No. Carter’s bad presidency helped make Reagan president. Reagan helped the fall of the USSR. Maybe a bad Clinton or Obama presidency will bring about a new successful Republican presidency.
Mar 5, 2008 - 11:58 am scott palter:As there is no way for a central party organization to keep people from running in the US the analogy is worthless. The details DO count. And I know no one on the right proposing to sit out the entire election as opposed to the Presidential race.
Mar 5, 2008 - 4:38 pm Andrew Ian Dodge:Scott you over-estimate the power of CCHQ here in the UK. There are constituencies who continue to select people not on the “approved” list. They tend to be out in the hinterlands; but CCHQ is not as all powerful as you might think.
Mar 6, 2008 - 2:23 am Curly Smith:Mark, when you say “I do believe that the anti-McCain crowd truly believe they have the nation’s best interest at heart but they are still putting their politics before the nations interest. The risks are too great to abandon the nations interest at this time in our history, imho.” you’re drawing the exact opposite conclusion from the one you should draw.
What you’re saying is that one can hold to their principles when times are good but when things get tough then one must do whatever is expedient. Again, that is exactly the wrong conclusion. Your principles to tell you how to react when things get tough, they keep you from grasping at straws and prevent the “do something, even if it’s wrong” mentality.
When do you form contingency plans? During an emergency or during calm times when nothing is on the line? You form then when the results don’t matter, when you can think clearly and aren’t affected by the emotion of the situation. Then, when disaster strikes you know what to do.
The GOP is in a mess because they’ve abandoned their principles. It makes zero sense to “double-down” on the strategy that led us to the abyss. You’re scared, a lot of people are scared but all isn’t lost because your principles will guide you through the tough times. All it takes is the courage to do what’s you know is right rather than what’s easy and expedient.
IMO, much of the discussion is from people who are trying to convince themselves to do something that they know isn’t right. They’re not trying to convince me to vote for McCain so much as they’re trying to justify their decision to themselves.
Mar 6, 2008 - 7:14 am