Email This to a Friend
Impeachment and War Redirected the Conservative Revolution
Conservatism is a stool with three legs: fiscal, social, and defense. Andrew Walden argues that Clinton's impeachment and 9/11 threw those legs out of balance -- leading to the conservative angst of Election '08.
For almost two decades, first President Ronald Reagan and then the congressional “Class of 1994″ slashed at the socialist bureaucracy of the New Deal and Great Society. Taxes were cut and welfare was reformed. The culture of malaise was turned back by “Morning in America.”
But thirteen years after the “Contract with America,” many ask where have all the leaders gone?
They didn’t disappear magically. It was a gradual process. Some were removed physically by the Clinton impeachment trial. Others were sidetracked psychologically by the war.
The 1998 Clinton impeachment trial also claimed two Republican speakers of the House: Newt Gingrich and then (before taking office) his chosen successor Bob Livingston. Gingrich stepped aside after GOP congressional seats slipped in the 1998 elections. Both he and Livingston had extramarital affairs. No matter how loudly one protested that Clinton’s impeachment was about perjury and not sex, in the political environment of the time an affair was enough to run them both out of office.
Others from the Party of Ideas departed Congress for careers in broadcast media — jobs where new ideas are more easily welcomed, but less meaningful when expressed.
Conservatives little noted the ways their movement was being transformed by the impeachment process. It was more than blowback on wayward congressmen. GOP presidential candidate Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is in some ways the creation of or reaction to Bill Clinton. The most direct example would be the ascent of Lt. Governor Huckabee to the Governor’s mansion after Clinton protégé Governor Jim Guy Tucker headed off to prison on corruption charges.
Huckabee’s religiosity is an electoral reaction to Clinton’s flagrancy. But in a Republican primary season marked by constant criticism of candidates’ conservative credentials, one of Huck’s toughest campaign hits was also Clinton-related. In 1999 Huckabee chose to release rapist Wayne Dumond from an Arkansas prison. The release came after a ten-year campaign by Huckabee’s close friend, Fayetteville Baptist minister and talk show host Jay Cole.
Dumond’s victim was a distant cousin of Bill Clinton and her parents were Clinton Arkansas insiders. Among the wilder conspiracy theories of the Clinton years was the claim, in June 1996, that Dumond was both framed and castrated by Clinton cronies. After hearing stories like that, one might want to see a minister — or elect one. After years of Clinton perversion and corruption, many of Huckabee’s 1000-plus pardons came on the recommendation of Arkansas ministers.
The Dumond story was repeated in the New York Post in March 2000. The Village Voice ran with the story in March 2001. But Dumond was not framed. In 2000, the newly freed Dumond raped and murdered 23-year-old Parkville, MO, resident Carol Sue Shields.
Six months after the Village Voice article came the 9/11 attacks. America launched the global war on terror. American troops were taking the fight to the Islamist head-choppers in Afghanistan, and then later Iraq. It was hard to resist calls for massive spending on homeland security — much of which was pork for local first responders. Even as the federal dollars flowed, border security continued to suffer. It became difficult to marshal the attention of the body politic for the unfinished business of school vouchers, social security reform, heath care savings accounts, or establishing a color-blind society.
Iraq and Afghanistan are the first wars in which expensive — but accurate — smart bombs are the norm. Al-Qaeda’s constant violations of international law — and Iran and Syria’s steady supply of ever more sophisticated IEDs — forced a re-think of tactics. Humvees were armor plated, body armor was upgraded, and new vehicles were introduced.
As war costs soared, it became easier to slip in a million here or a million there for the home district. President Bush slipped in a lot more than that when he added “Part D” prescription benefits for Medicare. It didn’t do Republicans a bit of good on election day.
The Reagan coalition stands on three legs: fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and national defense. Ronald Reagan and then the Class of 1994 kept them evenly balanced. Impeachment shifted the stool in favor of social conservatism. The war on terror — or more accurately, the Democrats’ treachery — has shifted the stool in favor of national defense. Fiscal conservatism has suffered.
By 2004 conservatives knew John “Winter Soldier” Kerry had to be stopped by any means necessary. The “fiscal” side of the conservative coalition continued to fade as if part of some master plan. After Osama bin Laden effectively endorsed Kerry on election eve, it was difficult to think of anything else. As America approaches the 2008 elections, bin Laden, joined by Castro, has already voiced his enthusiasm for Clinton and Obama.
John McCain’s strength lies in national defense. In many ways his candidacy is as much a reaction to the Democrats surrender-mongering as Huckabee’s was to Clinton’s peccadilloes.
Thanks to the success of the “surge,” and the national security weakness of the two remaining Democratic presidential contenders, there can be a Republican presidential victory this fall. If conservatives were having this conversation a year ago instead of finding fault and pointing fingers, there could also have been the possibility of GOP gains in the House and Senate.
Criticism has been conservative voters’ reaction to the entire GOP presidential field. But criticism is not leadership. Neither is defense against criticism. Reagan had his shortcomings, as did Gingrich — but Reagan made America proud again after the Democrats gave us defeat in Vietnam and they both turned America away from the socialist course Democrats had charted since 1932.
Republicans pay a price for failure to attend to the entire coalition. In the absence of balanced, three-legged conservative leadership, immigration issues were carefully manipulated by Democrats to exploit the imbalance. To be successful, conservatives must stay on the full message and define their own movement rather than allowing their reaction to Democrats to define it.
That job is not finished. Every election presents an opportunity for conservative candidates to refocus the conservative movement on the vision of America’s exceptional greatness — past, present, and future. It is time for Republican candidates — presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial — to once again find that voice.
Andrew Walden is Editor of the Hawai`i Free Press in Hilo, HI and may be reached at andrewwalden@email.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
5 Comments
1. RE:I disagree. It is not two distinct events. It is two other phenomenon.
The first is an increasingly militant, activist, and hostile media that is sympathetic to the European nanny-state model and Democrat control of government. The second reason is an abject failure of GOP to provide any loyalty to conservative values. They sold out.
Conservatives worked hard for the GOP to win the House, Senate, and Executive branches only to discover they had new enemies in big-spending Republicans, open borders advocates, casual attitudes toward the supreme court (Harriet Meyers nomination), capitulation in international affairs (Iran, Korea, HAMAS, John Bolton and UN reform), No consequences in the UN oil for food scandal, corruption scandals, and the list goes on. Is it any wonder that conservatives identify themselves as conservatives and not Republicans? They are clearly not the same thing.
Leadership is everything and the GOP has none. The RNC is lame and Bush has a bunker mentality, leaving the leftist leaning media a free pass to define the debate. It would be even worse were it not for the conservative grassroots revolts on Judicial nominations and illegal immigration. Talk radio and a handful of bloggers are not quite enough to compensate for the failure of the GOP to deliver.
Lindsey Graham’s “We’re just gonna tell the bigots to shut up!’ is the shot heard ’round the conservative world. It won’t be forgotten any time soon.
Feb 8, 2008 - 5:13 am 2. Curly Smith:Huckabee’s religiosity is an electoral reaction to Clinton’s flagrancy.
Huh? Silly me, I thought his “religiosity” stemmed from being a Baptist Preacher. I didn’t know the electorate forced religion upon him.
The real problem for Republicans is a lack of leadership and a lack of clear principles. Take a look at California… the GOP tossed Tom McLintock, a politician with a long record of conservatism, under the bus in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger because Arnold was “electable”. Arnold has now forsworn conservatism in favor of big government, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, liberal Republicanism. Not to worry, though, John McCain is equally “electable” and there’s nothing in his record to indicate that he’s anything but a stalwart conservative with a clear record of conservative leadership.
Feb 8, 2008 - 7:21 am 3. mishu:Immigration suddenly became an issue in 2006. Why? It wasn’t an issue in elections ‘94 through 2004 with the exception of ‘96. Guess what? No conservatives were worrying about selling out their principles then. They were enjoying electoral victories. In 2006, some Republican insiders were worried about Iraq being a loser issue and tried raising immigration as rallying cry and it didn’t work.
P.S. Where’s Pete Wilson? Answer: Nowhere!
Feb 8, 2008 - 7:45 am 4. Brad:I agree with the very well written first comment above.
Feb 8, 2008 - 11:36 am 5. Mark Stewart:A few things:
“Iraq and Afghanistan are the first wars in which expensive – but accurate – smart bombs are the norm. Al-Qaeda’s constant violations of international law – and Iran and Syria’s steady supply of ever more sophisticated IEDs – forced a re-think of tactics. Humvees were armor plated, body armor was upgraded, and new vehicles were introduced.”
– Uparmoring of humvees was not in response to more sophisticated explosives. The HMMWV was never intended to be a armored vehicle. The vast majority of HMMWVs never had anything one could consider armor anywhere in their construction. The addition of armor was a reaction to the use of explosives to conduct harrassment of military movement on the ground. Also, the devices coming out of Iran are not IEDs, they are factory-produced EFPs. An IED similar to the EFP is the platter charge, which does not require Iranian assistance to make. (EFPs aren’t all that sophisticated either, as they used in many antitank mines with an average cost of less than $3.00 a copy).
“As war costs soared, it became easier to slip in a million here or a million there for the home district. President Bush slipped in a lot more than that when he added “Part D” prescription benefits for Medicare. It didn’t do Republicans a bit of good on election day.”
– What does “war costs” have to do with anything? Defense spending in the United States is tiny in comparison to social spending (social spending which is in violation of the 10th Amendment). The Part D Medicare ripoff of current and future generations of Americans was a disgusting vote-buying scheme executed by Republicans for the benefit of baby-boomers and incumbent politicians. However, this is unrelated to war spending. The amounts don’t even begin to compare. (Medicare part D is a massive financial whole the depth of which can only be GUESSED at right now.)
“The war on terror – or more accurately, the Democrats’ treachery – has shifted the stool in favor of national defense. Fiscal conservatism has suffered.”
– This is not logical. There is no reason why the need to be strong and proactive in defense should require additional social spending to buy votes. Your statement implies that it is. You are comparing apples and bricks.
“John McCain’s strength lies in national defense. In many ways his candidacy is as much a reaction to the Democrats surrender-mongering as Huckabee’s was to Clinton’s peccadilloes.”
– John McCain’s strength lies in manipulating good-hearted, but politically, civically, and economically unaware Americans. McCain is an expert at waving flags and delivering soundbytes. He is a puppeteer. There are plenty of other Americans who could and would continue the fight against AQ. We are not forced to rely on McCain for this.
“Criticism has been conservative voters’ reaction to the entire GOP presidential field. But criticism is not leadership.”
– Give me a few million and some political connections to run for office and I’ll fight this damn war. I don’t need some vote-buying slickster to execute the duties of the office of president. I criticize the GOP and the sheep-like voters for betraying the idea that was America. I value individualism and liberty. I value property rights. I value individual responsibility. I know that you cannot have any freedom without also having a corresponding responsibility. I reject ‘moderates’ and ‘liberals’ as socialists who should live in Europe, where the nanny-states reign. America is not for spineless parasites awaiting handouts from government. I encourage those who fit that description to leave for other shores. I seek to deny them respresentation in government and shut out their voices from expression in our nation’s laws. This is accomplished when individualists in America elect men and women who will represent a responsible, individualist platform. None of the major candidates in this election fit that bill.
“To be successful, conservatives must stay on the full message and define their own movement rather than allowing their reaction to Democrats to define it.”
– Immaterial that they react to Democrats. What matters is how they react. Instead of calling socialism the use of dependency to enslave an ignorant public, the GOP has been competing with the Democrats to see who can be more socialist than the other. Everytime conservatives call the GOP on this tactic, the GOP falls back on the tired excuse that ‘at least we’re not as bad as Hillary’. What? Go play in the traffic.
“It is time for Republican candidates – presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial – to once again find that voice.”
I agree with this statement if Republican is switched to the name of a new, third party of rational, competent individualist Americans that may replace the current GOP. If you haven’t noticed, the GOP of 2008 is now the Democrat party of 1988. I have no further use for it.
Feb 8, 2008 - 2:09 pm