The “shocked, shocked” school of conservative punditry

Carol Iannone writes:

Rush Limbaugh went on today about how the Huckabee victory indicates that Republicans seem to have lost their desire to elect conservative candidates. (He sees Huckabee as more of a populist than a conservative.) He says this puzzles him because through the last seven years he had so many callers disagreeing with him, sometimes angrily, over his support for Bush, which continued even when the president egregiously violated conservative principles. So where were these determined conservative Republicans when it came to voting in Iowa, Rush wondered.

He doesn’t seem to realize how much he diminished the conservative edge himself through these years by staying on board with Bush through everything, carrying the water for him, muting his criticism of him, and even saying directly sometimes that he, Rush, is a Republican and does not want to criticize his own side. So he himself abandoned conservative principles during the Bush administration and thus contributed to the retreat from conservatism he now thinks he sees.

Similarly National Review Online recently ran a symposium on whether Reagan conservatism is dead. The NRO people too don’t seem to realize that all the months during which Giuliani was touted as the top choice for nominee and so many conservatives either said nothing or openly supported him, may well have contributed to the loss of momentum in the conservative movement. NR righted itself by endorsing Romney, but many onlookers must have felt, gosh, if all these conservative journalists and commentators have no problem with a liberal, pro-choice candidate with a disgraceful personal history that completely obviates the family issue for Republicans, or can even openly support him, I guess conservative values are not that important anymore, or they sure aren’t what they used to be.

During this time conservative opinion makers just sat around checking polls and marveling that the conservative base didn’t seem to mind Giuliani, when the base may well have been taking their cue from them, either from their lack of opposition to Giuliani, or their open support for him.

LA replies:

This is a great point. These conservative pundits get down in the field, helping the liberal Republicans like Bush and Giuliani move the ball forward, then they go back up to the stands, look down at the field, and proclaim with surprise, “What happened to conservatism?”

David B. writes (January 3):

El Rushbo finally attacked Huckabee, “He’s for open borders and amnesty,” Rush said, among other things. Why didn’t he say this several months ago? Today Limbaugh wailed that there “was no Reagan, and no conservative in the race.” Around and around, he went. At VFR, we have discussed this for years, but Rush never really does. Here is the thread, in which Rush answers a feeble-minded Huckabee supporter:

Steven Warshawsky writes:

The debate over what constitutes “conservatism” is interesting and never-ending.

I suggest that Huckabee represents precisely the kind of conservatism that Miss Iannone apparently thinks is missing: family values conservatism—which is 100 percent compatible with Huckabee’s brand of pro-life liberalism. Underneath all of Huckabee’s talk of religion and family values lies a big government do-gooder who is quite prepared to use the power of the state to control how the rest of us live. When abortion becomes the overriding litmus test for conservatives in this country—you end up with Huckabee.

Why does Miss Iannone criticize Giuliani? For being a “liberal, pro-choice candidate with a disgraceful personal history that completely obviates the family issue for Republicans.” This is lame. [LA replies: Lame? It’s a simple statement of fact.] She completely ignores Giuliani’s very successful administration in New York City, which in fact pursued more conservative policies (limiting the growth of government, reducing taxes, promoting business, fighting crime, pushing sexual depravity and drug use out of the public square, making New York City livable for ordinary people, standing up to the race hustlers, etc.) than any of the other candidates in the race can tout.

Furthermore, there is no question that, of the current crop of Republican candidates, Giuliani will be the best for dealing sternly with our enemies. Yes, he apparently will continue President Bush’s muddled strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t support this approach. But none of the other candidates has offered a better alternative. At least Giuliani is a fighter. The only other fighter in the bunch—John McCain—I predict will try to use his “moral authority” to seek a rapprochement of some type with Muslim world. After Huckabee—who will completely wimp out—McCain might be the candidate who is most likely to cause us to lose ground in our fight with Islam. I have little trust in McCain’s determination to fight. Giuliani will fight.

Instead of harping on Giuliani’s personal life, Miss Iannone should be bemoaning the ever-shrinking support in this country for free enterprise and limited government—the true heart of any meaningful conservative movement. This was both Ronald Reagan’s and Newt Gingrich’s rallying cry. Giuliani is far from perfect, but he stands for these values far more than Huckabee, or even Romney.

That Miss Iannone believes National Review “righted itself by endorsing Romney” is ridiculous. What, pray tell, is so “conservative” about Romney, other than his position on “life” issues? There is no doubt in my mind that a President Romney would be rolled by the Democrats in Congress into supporting a further move towards socialized medicine in this country. That would be a disaster. And Romney won’t be any tougher on immigration than Giuliani or anyone else in the race. I think Romney would be even worse than Bush on social issues, but not as tough as Bush on foreign policy issues. Hardly a stellar “conservative” candidate. [I think Mr. W. is swinging wild, ignoring basic facts, such as that Romney has taken positions on immigration that, while not satisfactory, are decidedly better than Giuliani’s positions, and also Romney has never exhibited the aggressive passion for immigration that Rudy has worn on his sleeve for many years. Also Mr. W. reduces all the cultural issues to just abortion. This shows a lack of understanding of what social conservatism is all about. As president Romney will appeal to religious and moral principles as foundational to our society. Rudy will do nothing of the kind. The differences go on and on.]

Let’s not forget that most of the nations in western Europe are far more socialistic than us and also have stricter abortion laws and limitations on free speech. Europe is rotting away, not because of abortion or pornography, but because of the welfare state. Is this what people like Miss Iannone want for our country? For me, I support the pro-life position, but not at the price of socialism.

The only candidate in the race who offers any hope of limiting the growth of the welfare state is Giuliani. He also will be toughest on Islamic extremists. And he won’t be any worse than the others on immigration. They all stink on immigration. But Iannone would rather have a “pro-life” candidate who is not superior in any of these vital areas. western Europe, here we come.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 04, 2008 03:23 PM | Send