On Mavericks and Moderates


Is John McCain even running for President at this point? Peeking about recent campaign coverage, it would be easy to forget that he is at the top of his party’s ticket, and not his folksy sidekick.

Unfortunately for McCain, his candidacy has failed on two fronts: not only has it furthered a split in the Republican Party between its socially conservative rightwing base and its center, but McCain has also failed to energize the moderates, independents, and ‘mavericks’ he needed to win what everyone predicted to be a close election. This failure is likely to expose a rift in the Republican Party that has been a long time coming.

Tim Shipman writes:

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party’s future.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.”

At the end of the day, all roads lead to Palin, as Tim points out.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neoconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned “the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama”, while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama’s arrival they should be fighting “in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country.”

It isn’t just pundits and wanna-be pundits like myself that have had problems with the McCain campaign post-Palin; the list of ex-Republican ‘maverick’ congressmen and leaders who have thrown their support behind Obama also happens to be extensive and injurious. Considering that McCain is the kind of candidate these types of Republicans would theoretically salivate at the thought of, it’s astonishing to see how poorly McCain has been in pulling in folks like these.

Contrast this with the recent Zogby poll that has Obama pulling in self described moderates 2 to 1 over McCain. Forget the rest of the electorate; McCain failing to pick up the pool of voters most predisposed to support him is damming to his chances at ever seeing the Oval Office from behind the presidential desk. So what can we take away from this?

First, Palin has been a catastrophe for McCain. Anyone who argues differently at this point is either unwilling or unable to see how little confidence she instills in the electorate that, due to McCain’s age, is forced to consider how capable she would be leading the most powerful nation on earth. She is wrong on the issues as far as I am concerned, and unlike individuals like Ronald Regan, she lacks the charisma and capacity to lead anyone outside of her ever shrinking conservative base.

I think it’s also obvious that the Republican Party is headed for a dark period, regulated to being a weak opposition within government as the various factions within the organization battle for control. In my assessment, its already looking bad for the moderate wing, and the lackluster support individuals like myself have given McCain in recent months is unquestionably going to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the party loyal. The religious base will argue that the Party should have never drifted from a godly focus; the libertarians will say that interventionists and big government supporters are what brought the house down. Buchanan and his ilk will doubtlessly just blame the Jews. Lord knows where the Commentary neoconservative types are going to find themselves in this conflict, as they have surely been apologists for Palin and her many shortcomings as of late.

Sadly, the Democratic Party isn’t looking much cozier. Obama may be able to capture numerous moderates next week, but the segment of the Party that put him in power is not going to be exceedingly conciliatory towards the centrists it believes led the Democrats astray and away from its post 60s agenda. Even if Obama himself wants his Presidency to look more like Clinton’s than Carter’s, he will be faced with resistance within his party; a party looking to avoid embroiling their popular mandate in some military campaign like the Bush administration has. Obama may have to enter Pakistan at this point just to demonstrate that he isn’t all talk on the matter, but you better believe that if a humanitarian crisis develops in Africa that requires military aid, he won’t be sending it. Such an action would be too dangerous for his party’s immediate political interests.

Further Reading

About the Author

Roland Dodds

Born of parents both recently and distantly American, I was once a believer in the Socialist Left. These days, I adhere to classical liberal concepts, and find that I am a left leaning ally of the neoconservative movement. A graduate student and a teacher, I currently live in South Korea, and write for “But, I am a Liberal!” My interests are in UN reform, international security, and radical movements on the left and right.

3 Responses to “On Mavericks and Moderates”

  1. Frankly Scarlett, I think that if the number of Dems and Repubs who said no initially to the buyout bill is any indication, you just may see a strong third party come election time in 2012. I think a lot of people who sit in the House are looking across at each other and realizing they have more in common with those across from them than they do with their own parties, each of which have gone so far to the left of their original mandates. Mind you they will need a strong leader who is young and intelligent. Ross Perot and Ron Paul are too old and too far out there for the mainstream. Bush should be called Busholini. His politics have a lot in common with some of the tenets of yesteryears. The last time I saw a government this big, spending like a drunken sailor in a house of ill repute, was LBJs.

    I had a good laugh at these useless clowns today and their idiotic keystone plot to assassinate Obama. If Obama gets assassinated it will be from within his own party because he reneged on his promises or failed to carry out the wishes of his Chicago backers and masters, or his Muslim cohorts. What sayest thou?

  2. There might be some bleed between the two parties on issues like the bailout, but I have a hard time believing folks like Bernie Sanders are going to be working hand in hand with Bob Barr on any broad economic agenda anytime soon. I don’t believe you will see a third party built from a combination of these two groups.

    I also don’t believe that third parties will be bigger players if they just had a more charismatic leader. It surely helps, not doubt, but once that figure falters or fades away (like Perot did) the whole party falls with them. Real movements are built on their ideas being persuasive to the general populace, and while many Americans talk up their own libertarianism and desire to see government “off their back”, I don’t believe it is as popular an idea as many would have us think.

    Roland Doddss last blog post..On Mavericks and Moderates

  3. I think it all depends on the sort of government sitting on your back….what shape that monkey takes…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.