“Politics have taken an orientation not favourable to Papa.” So wrote Clementine Churchill to her son Randolph in 1930. That’s a sentiment some of us who are conservatives today understand.
The Churchill example is apposite to our time. As Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert points out, in 1928 Churchill was at the height of his career. But a year later, Conservatives were defeated — and when a National Government was formed in 1931, Churchill was not asked to join it. The years 1930-1931 “marked the lowest point of Churchill’s personal and political fortunes,” according to Gilbert. The man who would later become prime minister referred to that period in Britain as “anxious and dubious times.” The tide was running strongly against his ideas — on India, on trade, and on the rearmament of Germany. He even confided to his wife that if Neville Chamberlain were made leader of the Conservative Party, he would “clear out of politics.”
If the premiership was out of his reach, as he believed it was, “I should quit the dreary field for pastures new.”
But of course Churchill couldn’t do such a thing, because there were too many causes in which be believed. As Gilbert puts it:
As long as he was fighting a cause, … [Churchill] was not afraid of anything, ‘nor’, he added, ‘do I weary as the struggle proceeds’. The Party machine, [Stanley] Baldwin, public office: all these, he said, were ‘mere irrelevancies’. Policy alone was what counted: ‘win there, win everywhere’.
Fast forward to the here and now. Based on my conversations, e-mails, and some public commentary, many conservatives are despondent. “The shock of this [Romney] loss is overwhelming,” one person e-mailed to me last night.
It would be silly to deny that in some important respects, the tide is running against our ideas. And I’m all for using this period to reassess where the nation stands and what it means for conservatism. Some adjustments and refinements are clearly needed; the questions are which ones and how can they be made in a way that remains true to conservative principles.
The impulse for most of us is to argue after the election for exactly what we were arguing prior to the election. Perhaps a better way to approach things is to step back a bit and consider the challenges America faces today, which in some respects are quite different than what we faced in, say, 1980. What do conservatives have to say about wage stagnation, income inequality, poverty and social mobility, crony capitalism, educational mediocrity, family breakdown, and reforming our entitlement system and tax code? Has conservatism become adamantine on certain issues (Bill Kristol suggests conservatives should agree to increasing taxes on the wealthy, for example)? How much of our problem is tone v. substance?
I for one believe we should use this moment to encourage fresh thinking and not vilify those who engage in it. At the same time, it seems to me that trying to fully understand the consequences of this election and what it means for conservatism 72 hours or so after the vote is probably unwise. We have plenty of time to sort through the exit polling data and think things through in a prudent manner. And because politics has taken an orientation not favorable to us now doesn’t mean that is a permanent condition. As Gilbert reminds us, “Central to Churchill’s belief was the conviction that the public would respond fairly to a good case, well presented.” Nor should we grow weary as the struggle proceeds. Because there are still things worth fighting for.
It is frustrating that you are not addressing where you went wrong in your pre-election analysis. It seems clear in retrospect that you thought Obama was far weaker than he was, and that just a little push would tip him over. That is all Romney ever gave–a little push in one single debate. Did your pre-election analysis influence your advice to Romney? Can you admit that you analyzed the situation incorrectly, and tell us what you learned? It is hard to learn from someone who will not admit his mistakes.
The fact that Romney didn't attack Obama and tried to be nice blew up in his face.
Welcome Back Mr. Wehner! It's good to have you on these pages again. I would say "don't ever leave," but the struggle ahead may require your talents elsewhere and hence another absence from Contentions. n nAt this time, conservatives need to take a break, at least those of us not in positions to act today. It's time to reflect on what we did well, what we did not do well, and come to understand how the electorate views conservative ideas and philosophy. n nIt would be wise to refrain from any decisions because those decisions, taken prematurely, may be hard to undo later. Rather, we need to reflect on what we want for our great nation, and why our ideas are superior and more relevant and necessary, than the ideas of others. n nYes, we were stung by defeat, but stung is not down and out. Time for more thinking. n nLet's get started.
How do we conservatives feel and how should we react? Presently I'm of two minds and Peter's Churchill references remind me of one. From Churchill: "In defeat, defiance." From Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce tribe: "I will fight no more forever."
The interesting point in the Churchill example is that the point is not throw out all of the conservative politicians and turn the movement over entirely to the young bloods — but that is the message I keep hearing from 2012 conservative pundits (the very same ones who hate on Palin and Gingrich, to name two, and insisted either of them would lose and their chosen candidate, Romney, would not). Wrong. Now, please note, I believe that what Romney would have brought to the Presidency and especially the bully pulpit seemed right on (and even may have been the best this country could have offered in 2012 of all of our citizens to solve the problems of Obamanomics); however, the result wasn't any better than what Mr. Wehner, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and many other highly and deservingly respected pundits insisted was doomed to happen if their chosen candidate wasn't selected to run. So, what this history lesson suggests to me is that the Churchill's of the party should stick with it, that maybe the case wasn't very well made and that they may yet overcome the Chamberlains of the party and make the case to the American people … and win!
Keith, I couldn't agree with you more. A couple of things. In 2008 as GWB was leaving office and Dems were cheering scornfully, I said, "I really fear this country will pay for what is being done to a good (albeit imperfect like everyone else) man. After 2010, when the GOPe decided to leave Ms Palin off to the wolves (and engage in self-cannibalization), I had 0 doubts that their anointed candidate was going to lose – very badly but very deserved. Funny that this is an article by Wehner himself. Wonder if it passes him that their favorite, non-offensive, moderate, innocous candidate fits so much the Baldwin and Chamberlain description. nI remember thinking in 2011, after the GOP machine made it clear they would do anything to anyone who got in their way, Churchill's quote to Chamberlain, "you had the choice of war over shame. you picked shame, now you'll have war." After 2010, GOP had chance to set a new clear, path forward. We chose to muddle, bc we wanted the 'independent' vote (as if true independents really value flakiness and all-over-the-place positions). We chose to stay away from making distinctions b/c we "wanted to win." Well, whether we were successful in avoiding a fight or not, we definitely got defeat served alongside it. nAs the above reader, I'm far from morose or even despondent. I'm fully confident we'll come back roaring in 4 years. In 2016, we'll look upon this lost election as the providentially-inspired setback necessary for greater victory (a la 1856, 1858, 1860)
We need to be honest. When Republicans were in power, the debt was also dramatically increased. That is, under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Especially under Bush 2, when there could be no excuse that we had a Democrat congress to deal with. Is it so hard to conclude that we were not believed when we said that we would usher in a new era of fiscal sanity? So, yes, I believe that it is time to turn the movement over entirely to the young bloods. Preferably,with a more balanced approach to culture war issues by offering reasonable compromises the vast majority of Americans can live with. n nI am of the opinion that, like Bush 2's second term, Obama will emerge with approval ratings well below 40%. The Democrats have already run out of ideas and the Republican young turks are full of them. Absent social issues, I cannot see how their ideas do not attract strong support from the generation(s) facing the financial abyss brought about by the Democrats' spending and promising far more than can be delivered.
Firstly, Conservatism needs to be clearly defined, not just for those loyalists, but for the general public. And it should be more inclusive and centrist by far than what it appears to be now. The primary elective sequence is disastrous for both parties. The candidates move further and further to the left and to the right. They can't seem to win the primary without moving to an extreme position. My definition for conservatism would be more central and appealing to all. Of course, less so to the extremes. I would obliterate the 'social' agenda entirely. That is a must. Concentrate on fiscal policy and foreign policy ONLY. That can be winning and only that can be winning. Unless, of course, the opposition policies are a disaster. But that is not the way to reliably win, when the opposition is a disaster.
Lets define Conservatism clearly. Conservative is based on the Truth, not what is politically expedient to obtain a "win". Conservative values then by necessity must include the "social" agenda as you call it. I would call it the moral agenda in the alternative. The truth is that abortion is the killing of an unborn human. The truth is that euthanasia is the killing of a person who is deemed or deems himself unworthy or unable to face living. We need to state stronger and longer that these are truths that cannot be compromised or obliterated for many of us in the conservative party. I chose Republican as an 18 year old voting for President Reagan because he was the pro-life candidate and in the majority of elections the Republican candidates have been the only ones that held the pro-life position that I and most Catholics like myself back then believed. Since then it has been watered down mostly in states like my own (example in point, Scott Brown, who suggested he was a Republican in his initial election but turned out to be more of a "fiscal conservative" i.e. Libertarian in the latest. Well, he may have been that from the beginning, but that is not someone I want to vote for as a "moral" and "fiscal" conservative. Interesting that he is exactly the type of candidate you suggest "we" need, yet he lost by a landslide as well, much like other RINO candidates in this latest election. Romney was not a perfect candidate, but he is a moral man. A man that has accomplished more by far and was by far the superior candidate and man in this election. He lost because this country has turned secular as evidenced by your post. The truth is the truth and we should never, never, compromise that for any bid to election.
Well Mac, n nSo now it is no longer the Republican Party. It is now the Republican Church. Is it gaining or losing adherents?
I can't tell you how many times "conservatives" have told that they didn't want my vote if I wasn't on board with abortion prohibition and drug prohibition. Well I obliged them this past election. They didn't get it.
The main question is: who are the few individuals who control the "Party/ies" n2nd question: what is their ideology, extreme or conciliatory. The rest is a function of these 2 questions. nEvery important issue will be dealed with in accordance with the 2 questions. nThe rest is BS.
The African-Amercian community, in a perfect impression of the OJ Jury, gave 95% of their votes to the Deomocrats. n71% of the Hispanic vote went to the Deomcrats. n70% of the Jewish vote went Democrat. n nThese three groups constitute 27% of the electorate, and quite frankly, there is precious little evidence that any "fine tuning" of the conservative message or of a conservative strategy will have the slightest effect on these voters going forward. n nObama received less than 39% of the non-Hispanic white vote, less than Michael Dukakis, which was the lowest share in history for a major party. It didn't matter. n nIf anything, it will take a catastrophe to change this. There is every indication that several are on the horizon. n nMr. Wehner is well-meaning, but he is whistling past the graveyard. n n
The African-Amercian community, in a perfect impression of the OJ Jury, gave 95% of their votes to the Deomocrats. n71% of the Hispanic vote went to the Deomcrats. n70% of the Jewish vote went Democrat. n nThese three groups constitute 27% of the electorate, and quite frankly, there is precious little evidence that any "fine tuning" of the conservative message or of a conservative strategy will have the slightest effect on these voters going forward. n nObama received less than 39% of the non-Hispanic white vote, less than Michael Dukakis, which was the lowest share in history for a major party. It didn't matter. n nIf anything, it will take a catastrophe to change this. n nMr. Wehner is well-meaning, but he is whistling past the graveyard. n n
Start by asking why 90 million eligible voters stayed home in 2012. n nAs long as the GOP thinks it has to make abortion a key issue, the GOP will lose. n nand, DEFICITS DO MATTER.
and, NEVER, EVER make ANY comparison of Romney to Winston Churchill.
I would rather lose than to suggest abortion is not the only real issue that matters. Do you really think caving in on the truth will help win elections now that this country has removed God and truth from the discourse. You would actually be better off trying to convince the Democrats to become fiscally conservative then join them.
Yes, the election was a big disappointment, more so given the incompetence of the Obama administration and the sense that while Democrats can commit many major blunders without apparent consequence, Republicans have to run the perfect campaign to have any shot at all. n nSome of the reaction does seem to recommend capitulation on issues such as increasing tax rates for the wealthy or supporting immigration reform that includes amnesty. But if those are the only kind of changes made it suggests that Democrats were right all along and Republicans finally figured it out. It doesn't change the dynamic of how Republicans are perceived which seems more the problem. n nSo it would be great for Republicans to work on changing perceptions. In urban areas, the bastion of Democrats, the every man for himself celebration of rugged individualism doesn't resonate. So vociferously attacking the "you didn't build that" most likely helped Obama. Cheap political theatre that didn't advance or contribute to the conservative message. The importance and value of collective effort we can recognize and appreciate without compromising the message of limited government and advancing the ideals of our founders.
The common refrain that Republicans only care about the corporations and the rich is reinforced when proposals to deal with illegal immigration focus exclusively on scapegoating the illegal immigrant while giving the employer who hires them a pass. Expressing disapproval and proposing penalty for violating employers would do something radical for the image of Republicans. n nRepublicans like to talk about social issues and it would be an improvement if they could limit those efforts to being proactive rather than reactive. The abortion issue seems a never ending quagmire. What would happen if the effort to overturn Roe v Wade through government intervention, a contradiction of the less government is best mantra, were diverted into making the maximum effort to convince woment to make the better choice? Perhaps abortion would actually be rare. n nEnough for now. Most distressing that 75% of Asians and huge majority of Jewish voters went for the Democrats again. If some opinions worth more than others, seems a good place to start.
While it's certainly true and frustrating that Democrats get a pass from the MSM and the MSM snorts and giggles at anything a Republican says (read "claims its a gaffe"), Romney especially didn't double down, didn't fight back (and don't ever underestimate the concept of the silent majority, that silence is approval rather than denial). It's riskier to jostle with the MSM (like, note how it worked for Obama, that no matter what was said that was plainly wrong or highly politically incorrect and insulting by Obama or any of his surrogates, he never apologized or even further acknowledged it and the MSM stopped asking about it, if they did ever ask), but, unlike with Obama, the MSM does ask relentlessly about perceived errors, insults, or gaffes — which, I think, then makes it actually less risky to have an answer.
For instance, the so-called gaffe of Romney criticizing Obama's immediate reaction to Benghazi and Egypt of apologizing for an American You Tube video that might have insulted Muslims. Instead of Romney ignoring the matter, sort of pretending he never said anything (which makes it seem like a gaffe), he could have said his words were not anything the MSM suggested and why weren't they asking the President about his statement, about apologizing to murderers for killing Americans and go on from there (ask if the President does or doesn't understand that he seems to be endorsing the al qaeda position that murdering Americans is justified if they perceive an insult to the prophet). Give the MSM quotes they will greedily and gleefully repeat, which will then be heard.
The point is that the apology coming out of the embassy was way worse than "You didn't build that," and much more easily understood by low interest voters — but how many millions were spent on ads about that … as if that was the worst thing ever said or believed by Obama? n nI also agree that the constant messaging about lower taxes seems to re-enforce the Democrat laid foundation that Republicans are only concerned with the wealthy — since taxes have been lowered to the point that 47% don't pay any already. That is, you can't get people who don't pay taxes excited about lowering taxes further, so the messaging has already failed for 1/2 the voters and manages too to prop up a straw man for Dems to knock down about Republicans only concerned with the wealthy.
Lastly, I very much have a problem with Santorum values voters myself, but I have seen numerous articles since the election which point out that they are a major portion of the coalition of idea/principles that make up the Republican party so that Romney would have lost 2 to 1 if they had stayed home (and maybe many of them did, those who have some problem with Mormons), that Republicans need to be a "bigger tent," perhaps, rather than hate on RINO's, libertarians, economic or social conservatives or whatever, that mostly Democrat billionaires, unions, environmentalists, minorities, and a large majority of the food stamp poor manage to co-exist in the Democrat Party.
Let us all work for the re-election of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin because the Left knows he's the strongest candidate in 2016. So much so that if anyone other than him runs, I simply will sit it out.
The issue is clear. Democrats stick together because they do not have moral integrity. Splitting hairs on the GOP message of lower taxes being for the rich, etc. as not resonating is irrelevant. Democrats do not want individual accountability, do not want any moral lines that cannot be crossed, want abortion on demand so as to not limit their choices (i.e. not about the baby in their mind, just the choice), and want the government to protect them. Any, party, Republican, Tea, Libertarian, etc. that promotes personal responsibility or rights to life, or opposes handouts and welfare state, etc. I am less discouraged with their lack of morals and selfishness than the backstabbing of conservatives and conservatism I see in these comments. The truth shall set you free.
Well Mac, n nLets start with Abortion. Did you know that in some cases for Orthodox Jews abortion is mandatory? Care to tell me how you will handle that?
This talk is 'sitting out" is why we lost this election. We need to get the very best running so we can choose the best of a good field. I feel Romney was the best candidate in this field, and he did decently. But where was the senate races? We let so many go weakly into the dark. They had 23 up for election, we only had 11 – they gained seats!!!. n nI think there are some positive aspect of libertarian, the initial tea party concerns, and conservatism. I think if we can use liberty for each of us to practice our faith with much less intrusion from the government it would be a big win. The same goes with our own businesses, let us be free. n n I think it brings in many different groups at the same time follows the smaller government tenet.
A couple of things. Being the party of abortion prohibition is not working well. Being the party of drug prohibition worse. In fact being the prohibition party may not be the winner it was when Nixon was President.
I'm still trying to find the "small government party" the Republicans proclaim so often. I keep finding the big spending Vagina Police and Drug Police Party. All that policing is expensive.