Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Effective Conservatism vs. Tea Party Conservatism

What would you say if there existed a Republican governor, let's say in a very liberal state in which Obama beat Romney by 18 points, that managed to sign into a law a budget in 2013 that called for less government spending than in 2008? And who also managed to veto a tax on millionaires three times?

You would probably think that this guy is really unpopular and is about to get kicked out of office. What would you say if that I told you that that governor has an approval of over 70%, in a time when the Republican brand is toxic to a majority of Americans (much more the liberals that comprise his state)?

We have such a governor in Chris Christie. Now, my purpose of writing all of this is not because I am picking a horse to root for in the 2016 election. I think that Republicans have a number of good possibilities (Rubio, Jindal, among others). I just want to point out that it is possible for conservatives to win over Americans.

But I want to pose the question: Are "moderate Republicans" more effective than Tea Party conservatives? In my opinion, generally they are. Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and any other Tea Party icons may be popular among the base, but they aren't influential. They don't alter American opinion. They don't get results. They aren't leaders.

I will support whichever candidate I think can bring back effective conservatism to the Republican Party (and I see some exciting possibilities). That is going to take publicly confronting some of the Tea Partish elements of the GOP. It's going to take guts and commitment and a willingness to disappoint some in the base.

But it's our only chance of winning and instituting responsible changes in our public policy.

Keep this all in mind as you debate Republican politics in the upcoming years.


If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook here.
Please follow us on Twitter here.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Pablo, I agree with you.

As for Christie, he's not someone I would be happy to support in 2016, but I'm glad he's governor in NJ.

Jindal hasn't impressed me much either, except on paper. He doesn't seem to be very smart about what to say and what not to say at any given moment.

It's going to be interesting, with Rand Paul possibly making things very complicated if he jumps in.

Ryan would be my top choice at this point. Or maybe McDonnell.

But the best thing that can happen is for the tea party to get real about expectations.

-Martha

CRUZ COUNTRY said...

Pablo, apparently you missed the results of the 2010 midterms, when the Tea Party was almost single-handily responsible for the biggest GOP landslide of the last 100 years.

Tea Party leaders like Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann and Nikki Haley played a VERY BIG ROLE in that election.

The Tea Party had some losing candidates in 2010 & 2012, but the RINOs had a lot, lot, lot more.

CRUZ COUNTRY said...

As for Paul Ryan, his support of Marco Rubio's amnesty bill is a deal-breaker.

I'm sure even Mitt Romney is shocked by Ryan's flip-flop on this issue.

If Rubio's bill ever gets through Congress, the GOP can kiss future presidential elections goodbye with 10-20 million pro-Democrat Hispanic voters added to the national electorate.

Fortunately, it looks like Rubio's bill is dead on arrival in Congress, and as a result, so are his and Ryan's 2016 presidential prospects.

Slick-Willy said...

I couldn't agree more Pablo.

Newark Hawk: 2010 was not about the zealotry Pablo referred to. It was about a momentum shift that always happens after a major electorate shift that is followed by a major recession. 2008 was a massive momentum shift toward the Democrats and people had huge buyer's remorse when the recession turned out to be much worse than expected. The zealotry of the Tea Party squandered a long-term shift that was possible at that time.

Yes, people you call RINOs lost in droves in 2010. But that is because the Republican Party generally took a holier than thou stance and failed to go after a long-term approach that had a chance of success.

In 2010 we lost several seats to Democrats due to this zealotry--voting out a viable candidate in the primary in favor of a zealot or fool that got crushed in the general.

The American people generally believe Republicans are unreasonable zealots with a racist edge. Continuing to tell yourself otherwise may make you feel better, but it won't change the perspective of outsiders. We can't win when that's such a common perspective. It's up to us to change that perspective.

Ohio JOE said...

Since when has the RINO wing of the party been effective????