The Republican candidate for president of the United States could probably be easily selected if he were presented to the public in a format similar to the old, long-running TV game show “To Tell the Truth.”
With John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee barnstorming across the primary states, each claiming to be an authentic, rock-ribbed political conservative, Republican voters are divided and frustrated with the choices that are before them.
The demonstrably real conservatives, of course, have all dropped out of the race for lack of money, widespread recognition and the ability to “catch fire”: Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, and Tom Tancredo.
Ron Paul is really a libertarian, and suffers the fate of all libertarian candidates — marginalization and unelectability. Passionate and feisty in debates, Paul raises important issues, but they are philosophical in nature, an attribute that primarily appeals to thoughtful intellectuals who ponder the role of government rather than to the general public.
Rudy Giuliani, an early favorite, was part-conservative (as he has been his whole political life), but flamed out from a combination of personal scandals, liberal social views and above all, a poor and misguided political campaign strategy.
Who remains, then, are three candidates who may each have a piece of the conservative sobriquet, but not the entire title. John McCain’s voting record on fiscal policy and social issues seems more Democratic and anti-Republican. While governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee raised taxes, expanded government, and was involved in many irregularities surrounding his personal finances.
In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s political positions seemed to shift depending on what group he was addressing, and how government could clearly help them if only he were in charge.
The popular conception of conservatives, as advanced by some in the media like Rush Limbaugh, is that of a three-legged stool, with three areas of interest: fiscal matters, social issues and national defense policy. In this view, one might be “conservative” in as many as two areas, but not in the third, as was Giuliani’s problem.
According to this, the fundamental problem is that none of the candidates consistently maintain all three positions to be considered a true conservative, as did, for example, Ronald Reagan, Thus, Republican voters have no single candidate to rally behind and are hopelessly divided among the “pretenders” who are currently in the lead, depending upon those issues that are most important to them.
Unlike the leading Democrats, who are both running on the mantra of “change,” an authentic conservative should be pointing out the danger of the kinds of change that this entails: bigger government, more taxes, avoidance of personal responsibility, and less freedom.
The late Russell Kirk warned that “in the modern world, the love of change has been gaining at the expense of the love of things established, with a consequent weakening of conservative interests.” The real conservative candidate is going to have to spell out the implications of this statement, and why he believes it, to the voting public in a way people can understand.
There is a mountain of literature on the nature and meaning of conservatism throughout history. Suffice it to say that the American conservative impulse is a way of looking at society and political institutions with an instinctive set of established principles, among which are a distrust of political centralization, a defense of private property, a resentment of increased taxation and the redistribution of wealth inherent in the welfare state, revulsion at the decay of private and public morality, and a strong belief in a strict interpretation of the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
Based on what is displayed on their Web sites, trying to nail down where candidates stand on issues and what they will do in the future, is an exercise in fecklessness.
Both Republicans and Democrats paint a broad brush of generalities, make unproven assumptions, and in many cases, propose legislation and policies that are untested and highly questionable — sort of like throwing a handful of stuff at a wall and standing back to see what sticks. Caveat emptor.
The “To Tell the Truth” analogy is most apt.
If Republicans and the Republican Party are to stand for conservative principles, candidates’ feet should be held to the fire. They should be grilled on their past performance, their understanding of all the relevant issues facing the country, and what they intend to do, specifically, to address them and how they expect to achieve success.
Based on what they are saying at present, if asked the question, Will the real conservative please stand up? all of the candidates should remain seated.
* * *
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
