Lessons Learned

Jon Chait is right, the conservative theory that the GOP lost power due to insufficiently dogmatic adherence to "small government" dogma is bizarre. It's true that deviationism earned the Republicans a lot of criticism from conservatives, but there's almost no evidence of conservative abandonment and a wealth of evidence suggesting moderate voters turned -- hard -- against the GOP, which they would have done earlier if not for the deviations. But the madness seems to grow more entrenched as I read in the NY Times that "Republicans close to the White House say Mr. Rove has been arguing that the White House needs to shore up its standing with conservatives, whose support will be crucial to rebuild Mr. Bush's popularity and ultimately give him some leverage."

Bush's standing with conservatives, however, remains plenty high. It's his standing with everyone else that's in the toilet.

Comments

This is the main reason I am hopeful that the Democrats will sustain a lasting majority. The Republican caucus, which was already insanely conservative, has been pushed to the right by the defeat of many of its most moderate members. If this interpretation of the election prevails, this even-further-right Republican caucus is going to stop pursuing theoretically-popular-but-indifferently-implemented policies like prescription drugs for seniors in favor of not-even-theoretically-popular policies like gutting the discretionary budget. The only thing that can save them from a nosedive into irrelevance is a couple of years of incompetent and corrupt Democratic rule (fingers crossed, that won't happen).

Posted by Chris Conway | November 20, 2006 9:35 AM

part of this could have to do with conservative intellectuals (not a big demographic), who are beginning to turn on Bush. I suspect they're deathly afraid of having their movement associated with a failed presidency.

breaking up is hard to do.

Posted by Chris G | November 20, 2006 9:43 AM

If you imagine "small government" to be concomitant with "lack of corruption", I think the case that insufficient adherence to principle did seal the GOPs fate.

Obviously small government and absence of corruption needn't go hand-in-hand, but I think that for many if not of the folks who are who are preaching that the GOP "lost their way" believe that big government leads inexorably to corruption.

It's actually a clever dodge, in some ways--allowing the GOP to blame their rampant corruption on the temptation of "big government," rather than simple greed and powerlust.

Posted by TW Andrews | November 20, 2006 9:50 AM

there's almost no evidence of conservative abandonment and a wealth of evidence suggesting moderate voters turned -- hard -- against the GOP, which they would have done earlier if not for the deviations.

And look at what (aside from the war) proved to be the GOP's big political losers: Katrina (sure could've used a strong central gov't there), Social Security privatization (nobody wanted to give it up), and Schiavo (admittedly, the public's anger here WAS generally in favor of a less intrusive gov't, but the "conservative" line of the times was that this was one of those cases where gov't had to be MORE intrusive).

Posted by dj moonbat | November 20, 2006 9:51 AM

Mock the conservatives who want to distance themselves from George W. If his popularity were even a teeny bit higher, his "non-conservative" policies would be the new orthodoxy. They're hoors and opportunists.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 20, 2006 10:36 AM

Matt, you can't discuss this question sensibly without distinguishing libertarians from social conservatives. Bush is not popular among libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives. I know quite a lot of libertarians, and I would bet money that more of them voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2006.

Now, you would doubtless retort that inside-the-beltway libertarians are a tiny constituency. Which is true. But a non-trivial fraction of the conservative base takes their cue from them. Those outside-the-beltway conservatives who are conservative because they hate taxes and red tape are pretty disgusted with the GOP right now.

Also, keep in mind that politicians care about more than voters. There may not be an enormous number of libertarian voters, but there are a substantial number of libertarians who are rich and/or influential in the Republican party. I know several of them, and they are not happy with what the GOP has been doing lately. Those folks might not swing elections, but they can create quite a bit of dissent within the Republican party, which is the last thing the president needs as he tries to marshal his now-diminished caucus into an effective opposition to Democratic policies and find an successor for 2008.

Posted by Tim Lee | November 20, 2006 10:51 AM

I know quite a lot of libertarians, and I would bet money that more of them voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2006

What, like Insty or the Galt? Spare us.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2006 11:15 AM

I know several of them, and they are not happy with what the GOP has been doing lately.

A libertarian who wasn't unhappy is like a square circle. Being a libertarian means never having to say you're happy.

The problem is that libertarians are simply Republicans with beards.

Even their women.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 20, 2006 11:22 AM

Matt is all wet here. Among my conservative acquaintances, I'd say half have gone rabidly anti-Bush over the past couple of years. Yeah, he's less popular among moderates and liberals, but at this point I don't know a single conservative who's a strong Bush supporter.

Posted by too many steves | November 20, 2006 11:28 AM

"libertarians are simply Republicans with beards"

Line of the day.

Posted by CJColucci | November 20, 2006 11:29 AM

It's not that many libertarian voters aren't sincerely anti-Republican at this point, but that I don't think these are the voters Karl Rove is talking about reaching out to.

Posted by Steve | November 20, 2006 12:23 PM

Rove works with fear and hate. It's the language of conservatism, to protect one's taken-for-granted ways against radical or foreign ways. And since it worked so well for 3 years, 2001-2004, Rove is convinced America is conservative. It doesn't mean we have values or ideals that can relate to true conservatism, it means we're susceptable to hate language and fear-tactics.

When he says we need to ramp up support with conservatives, he's talking about controlling the narrative.

Posted by Matt | November 20, 2006 1:12 PM

Rove isn't playing to Conservatives to shore up support for Bush and his policies. He knows everyone hates him, he's grasping for a few remaining friends so when he's old and decrepit he isn't alone.

Posted by Fred F. | November 20, 2006 1:34 PM

Matt is all wet here. Among my conservative acquaintances, I'd say half have gone rabidly anti-Bush over the past couple of years. Yeah, he's less popular among moderates and liberals, but at this point I don't know a single conservative who's a strong Bush supporter.

Posted by: too many steves on November 20, 2006 11:28 AM

I think "strong Bush supporter" is an imprecise term, but still accurate. (Er, or something like that.) I realize that my own experiences are very, very weak evidence, but to me it seems not so much like the remaining right-wingers Bush, but that they really fucking hate liberals. And I don't know anything about your friends personally, of course, just the "average" right-winger.

They disagree with him on one or two issues — immigration would be a good bet — and they agree with him on a couple more issues like terrorism but think he hasn't been extreme enough or something. But, they seem to honestly believe most Democrats are two heartbeats away from Marxism and would like to give Osama bin Laden a country of his own so we can surrender to it and object to the practice of Christianity in the privacy of home and... and so on.

They may only express lukewarm support for Bush and Congressional Republicans in general, but when it comes to voting or giving money, there are still plenty of people who vote just like they would if they were actual Bush supporters.

Posted by Cyrus | November 20, 2006 2:59 PM

To the extent Bush has pissed off rank-and-file conservatives, it is over immigration, not public spending.

Posted by Pithlord | November 20, 2006 4:36 PM

What, like Insty or the Galt?

Considering Glen Reynolds to be representative of libertarians is like considering someone who can't get enough chicken to be representative of animal rights activists. He's a republican that likes porn.

Posted by b-psycho | November 20, 2006 9:51 PM

I think we can all count off conservative friends who are pissed off at Bush. But the numbers seem to indicate that conservatives weren't alone in that, and that conservatives aren't especially more pissed off at Bush (henceforth POAB) than everyone else. If someone claims that conservatives were POAB, that's true. But when they say that that's the sole reason that the Republicans lost the election, it's just wishful thinking.

Matt says "Moderates swung hard" against Bush. Did they swing harder than everyone else? From people I've talked to, I'd say so. But I haven't seen exit polls or other numbers back it up.

Posted by Tom | November 22, 2006 9:28 AM