BackThe end of an American race
Bible-thumping social conservatives lured Romney into a corner from which he didn't know how to get away
Premium
While endorsing Barack Obama in the presidential race, Colin Powell, who was George W. Bush’s secretary of state, said: “I think I’m a Republican of a more moderate mould. That’s something of a dying breed, I’m sorry to say." That’s a fair assessment, but it is not good for the Republicans, nor is it for the US.
What went wrong? How did the party of Abraham Lincoln, who fought a civil war to keep the union together and who emancipated slaves, lose its way and became a hostage of the Tea Party? How could the party of Dwight Eisenhower, who could foresee the danger that the military-industry complex posed, begin to believe that the defence budget could only go up, even during hard times? And how could the party that considered individual rights to be sacrosanct allow the state to intrude in people’s lives, interfering with deeply personal choices, such as who to marry, and whether a woman should carry on with her pregnancy?
America needs a party that reminds the country of its limits, that restrains the state from trying to do more, which believes that its people, left to their own devices, will act sensibly. But at some point in the late 1970s, the Republican Party moved beyond economic conservatism—pro-business, pro-free trade, preferring low taxes and fewer regulations—to embrace social conservatism—against abortion, for school prayer, against gay marriage, and for an increased role for the church in public life. In embracing ideas that have glaringly been shown to be at odds with a growing number of younger, more diverse Americans, the Republicans had taken a big gamble: that the heartland between the two coasts would help create a permanent majority. Middle America supposedly was different from the elitism of the preppy Ivy League culture in the east and the bohemian Hollywood lifestyle of the West. It sought moral certainties from churches unifying communities, where fathers went to work and mothers stayed at home.
It worked: I was a student in the US during the Reagan presidency, on a campus where many loved his sunny optimism. But there were deeper undercurrents behind his pro-business message. The power of social conservatives rose, with Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum and George Gilder presenting anachronistic ideas about the place of a woman in society, and televangelists like Jerry Falwell beginning to influence policies.
The moderate nature of the Republican Party that Powell misses today had begun to wane then. The east coast patricians had begun to lose control when Barry Goldwater won the nomination (and lost the election) in 1964, offering “a choice, not an echo." The decline of moderates made the Republicans appear more united, cohesive and firm, unlike the Democrats who always bickered and made the likes of senators Lowell Weicker of Connecticut and Howard Baker of Tennessee, and governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York sound like wooly-headed liberals, by the standards of today’s Republicans. George H.W. Bush was perhaps the last standard bearer of that wing. Geoffrey Kabaservice, author of Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party, wrote earlier this year: “The current relationship between the Republican establishment and the party’s base is not so much a clash of moderates against conservatives as it is a difference in perspectives between realistic professionals and passionate amateurs."
Look at the sort of politicians the “amateurs" have anointed to represent the party in Washington: men like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, senate hopefuls from Missouri and Indiana, who won primaries against moderate candidates, and confusing that partisan support for mass following, made outrageously insensitive remarks about rape defying logic, science and good taste, with the zeal of fundamentalists. Those remarks alienated many voters, who liked the rather sensible American idea of separating the church from the state. Unsurprisingly, they lost last night. And one-time presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann might still lose her Congressional seat.
Political parties often attract radical mavericks, who are extremely useful during the campaign to rouse partisans. But the time comes when adults have to supervise. Elections are won at the centre, not in the extremes. Mitt Romney, at the head of the ticket, tried to return to the centre; few believed him. The social conservatism that the insurgents represent turns off precisely the voters the Republicans need, and who are now more numerous than they had realized. The late conservative thinker William F. Buckley Jr. used to champion right-leaning viable candidates. That word—viability—is the key. Romney may well be moderate—you can’t rule Massachusetts otherwise. But Bible-thumping social conservatives lured him into a corner and he chose to wear a straitjacket from which he didn’t know how to get off.
Those radicals helped secure Congressional victories for the Republicans, which helped them stall Obama’s policies. But if in 2016 Republicans unite behind a candidate who looks and talks like Paul Ryan, and not Chris Christie, the White House will remain cast in a blue light for four more years.
Salil Tripathi is a writer based in London.
To read Salil Tripathi’s previous columns, go to www.livemint.com/saliltripathi
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
