The 2012 presidential election has officially begun, and the conservative activist class is picking their horses early. Already, we are breaking down into Rombats and Huckanuts, Palinistas and Paulites. And each of these nascent factions has a stark commonality; their candidate is conservatism’s one and only true standard-bearer. Only candidate X is the true heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the right’s great hero. Candidate’s Y and Z are liberal RINO heretics. Only my candidate can save us!!
This takes me back to my first ever RINO-hunt, and it was quite a doozy. The year was 2004, the place was Pennsylvania, and the target was Snarlin’ Arlen himself. The man of the hour was…Pat Toomey? Yes, that cerebral, wonky, newly-minted senator from Pennsylvania was the original tea party RINO-hunter. While Sarah Palin was still on speaking terms with the Murkowski’s, while Romney and Huckabee remained far from national stardom, while Marco Rubio toiled in Florida’s legislative vineyards, Pat Toomey was Mr. Republican, the toast of conservatism.
Only, as a proud former Student for Toomey, I can tell you it was never about Pat as a person, but the vision he represented, and which his opponent, Senator Specter, never did. Toomey lost, heart-breakingly, by one percent. He very well could have taken his ball and gone home, scorned as he was by the entire Republican establishment, from George W. Bush, to “ultra” conservative Rick Santorum, to a vast majority of Pennsylvania’s county committee chairs. Instead, he worked, and worked pretty hard, for the very people who had spent the last several months ensuring that Benedict Arlen beat him in the primary. He did so because the alternative–standing bye while others fought for conservative principals–was not an acceptable option. Ultimately, of course, Pat got the last laugh, and I’m confident he’ll make a terrific senator from Pennsylvania. But it was never about Pat Toomey. And Pat Toomey is, for all his strengths, not the kind of candidate to inspire die-hard personal devotion. His wonky style reminds one of an earlier Paul Ryan or Bobby Jindal. Yet, in 2004, conservatives in PA flocked to his banner, because of what he stood for, not who he was.
I point this out not to single out Toomey as a special character. Quite the opposite. I point it out to hammer home a core truth of conservatism, one which conservatives need to learn, and relearn, and relearn again and again until we finally get it. The lesson is a simple one. Conservatism which functions as a personality cult fails. Conservatism which functions as a set of guiding principals for prudent citizenship succeeds.
Really, it is just that simple. Like any good conservative, I love Ronald Reagan, and kind of liked George W. Bush. I’m neutral to positive on Palin and Romney, neutral to negative on Mike Huckabee (but would support him in a general election), and open to most of the rest of the current 2012 field as well. But let’s keep in mind that none of these politicians actually managed to bring about the enduring triumph of conservatism. This is not meant as a critique of either Reagan or Bush. Both had their strengths and accomplishments. Both have benefited (or soon will) from history. Nor is it intended as a critique of Romney, Huckabee or Palin. Each has had successes and failures. But conservatives–better than members of almost any other political movement–should understand and recognize the fallibility of human nature and government.
There is one major contender I haven’t mentioned, and I will do so now, because I think he illuminates the dichotomy I’m driving at better than anyone else. You can say a lot of things about Newt Gingrich, but a cuddly inspirational speaker he is not, and never has been. A deeply cerebral intellectual, highly skilled political strategist, a man of large brilliance and equally stark flaws, all true. But the object of a personality cult? Not in 1994. All the love which the right had held for Reagan was directed, in 1994, into the contract with America, a list of principles and accomplishments on which Republicans promised to govern. The contract was all about principle and policy, not at all about personality. But something happened to Newt in 1995, and 1996. Gradually, his sense of self expanded, and the principals of 94 were left behind. Bluntly put, Gingrich became so identified with the movement that his personal flaws obscured the message. And gradually, the wheels began to come off. Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996, something which seemed highly unlikely in 1994. And, for Gingrich, things became personal. Does anyone else remember the election of 1998, in which the GOP came dangerously close to losing its majorities, and which set the stage for the Democrat senate of 2000-2002? The Republicans, in the 1998 election, abandoned the contract in favor of anti-Clintonism. In contrast, the Democrats put forward a list of issues and initiatives they would enact. There is a pattern here. And, because of his focus on Clinton, to the exclusion of the original principals of 1994, Gingrich was eventually forced to resign, for failing to live up to the standards he expected from the President. Too late, he realized, or was forced to realize, that the personal conflict between him and Clinton was taking the party away from doing the things it was elected to do.
Similar dynamics seized the Republican Party during George W. Bush’s second term. As the left was caught up in a reverse cult of personality with President Bush, defining themselves almost entirely by their opposition to him, so we became the anti-anti-Bush, willing to defend him even when we knew he was wrong. The left went off the deep-end. Did we let them pull us with them? Did we become so wrapped up in Bush (and Reagan nostalgia) that we forgot who we were? And did we become so protective of our majorities that we forgot why we’d elected them in the first place? I don’t blame the politicians for acting like politicians. Blame rather the conservatives who didn’t constantly and vigilantly hold them to our core principals.
What are these principals? I think they are four-fold: personal responsibility, limited government, traditional moral values and, underlying and tying all these together, a strong sense that something intangible but very real called the American ideal is worth preserving and defending from threats foreign and domestic. I think Ronald Reagan deeply understood and connected with these ideals, but he does not and should not define them. In our search for “Reagan’s heir”, conservatives have been, I fear, guilty of a slightly milder but still pernicious form of the Obamamaniac cult of personality which has slain all before it on the left. There is something inherently unconservative about a cult of personality. Respect for great conservative leaders past and present? Absolutely. Search for a candidate who fits our principals very well? Without question. But even should we find “Reagan’s heir”, is there not a danger in becoming so defined by him (or her perhaps) that we lose sight of Reagan’s goals? Will we become like our friends across the partisan divide, eagerly lapping up empty rhetoric like “we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for”? Time, perhaps, that we stopped waiting for the perfect conservative messiah to come riding in on a white horse, and sleigh the dragons of progressivism for us.
Of course, there is an equal and opposite tendency to that of the cult of personality, and one which, I fear, often mixes with it in a toxic brew in our minds. For, even as many conservatives were too uncritical of our Republican majority, an equal number went the opposite direction. Any slightest deviation from conservative orthodoxy, any slightest hint of political calculation or compromise is taken as a personal betrayal. Politicians calculate and compromise. It’s what they do. To assume that we can hold up a politician, any politician, to the platonic ideal of a conservative statesman, which exists only in our minds but never in reality, is to engage in the very same utopian thinking which has led progressives down the garden path to disaster in the first place. Rather, let us seek, like Aristotle, for the candidate who best combines the virtues we need in our leaders, all the while knowing full well that they will, in the end, disappoint us. Should we call them on it when they fall short? Absolutely. Should we expect and be prepared for it? Yes. In short, as a friend once told me, disillusionment is good, cynicism is bad. We should have no illusions that we will ever see a perfectly conservative government. We should eschew false expectations about an implacably rock-ribbed congress ever rolling back the power and influence of leviathan. But that doesn’t mean we should give up hope, because as conservatives, our hope was never in government in the first place, and because even calculating compromising politicians can accomplish a lot, even if it’s to keep things from getting worse.
We should become disillusioned about politicians; because they are fallible human beings and giving them our total trust, adoration and worship would be both blasphemous and a disservice to ourselves and the politicians in question. In addition, only if we begin with no illusions about our chosen standard-bearer in the first place, can we honestly hold them accountable when necessary. But we must not grow cynical about politics, because we believe our principals are true and the cause is far too important for despairing acquiescence to dangerous ideas. The challenges America faces are very real. Our debt is sky-rocketing, our communities are increasingly broken, our system of government, healthcare, education and even employment is based on an industrial society which is dead and gone. Our country faces a crisis of confidence in itself; half of us seem to think we are no longer capable of assimilating new immigrants, while the other half believes such assimilation to be undesirable.
We are a nation which, at it’s core, wishes only to be left alone, but which has been forced by circumstance into a role as global hegemon for which we will paradoxically only remain truly suited to the degree that we remain reluctant. Such challenges and paradoxes will not be solved through blind adherence to one fallible politician or another. We must be prudent. We must be thoughtful. We must seek leaders based on their ability to bring our nation safely through these crises with her character in tact, not based on how they make us feel. And, all the while, we must be prepared to curb the inevitable excesses of the politicians into whom we have poured our hopes, our dreams and our expectations when the power goes to their heads. In short, we must start acting like conservatives.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Yu also have to remember from history that when reality slams into the cult of personality, the results are never pretty for the person whom the cult of personality is constructed by.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Good post A.J. We do have a problem with the Cult of Personality. Certain supporters of certain candidates seem to love said candidates because of who they are, not what they can do or what they stand for.
March 12th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Thanks, AJ. I have been considering a similar post, which I had tentatively titled ‘Never Fall in Love with a Politician’.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Thanks for the responses, guys. I originally wrote something along these lines a couple of years ago, in the aftermath of Obama’s 2008 win, but it seems really relevant now.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
I suppose it would do well not to get caught up with the candidate so much you can’t see the faults they have. It is a daily exercise those of us who are serious about politics must undergo daily.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
I have to say, I think one of the best things that have occured on this site or RightOSphere was the series of “I support ___ despite…” posts by supporters of various candidates about their favorite for the nomination. I think that is a healthy exercise, one that should probably be done more often.
March 12th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Good post, A.J., and very good thinking, good logic.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Jonathan, I guess admittance is the first step towards recovery from the cult of personality.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
A.J.
Well written article,but many wrong assumptions and conclusions
about conservatism.
You are way too much for compromise.
Sure,I’m all for compromise too,if we’re talking which road to be
built.How long? 85 miles or maybe 110 miles?Or things on that level.
But no compromise with conservative principles.Reagan was great
leader because he never compromised on major conservative principles,
but did on peripheral things,less important things.
Cult of personality?American politicians,GOP contenders?
You must be kidding!
Let’s see:
Huckabee?Cult of personality?Noooooo waaaay!
Poor preacher is permanently broke,where are devotees sending
money?!
Mitt Romney,cult of personality?!That’s a big joke.
Since last spring I was saying that his support is mile wide
and one inch deep.
I was right,his support since then is more less one half of
what it was.
Sarah Palin?Totally different situation.
Extremely strong and passionate support from her fans,but nothing
like cult of personality.
Devotees of cult of personality regard their leader as someone
on pedestal,above and beyond normal.
It’s just opposite with Sarah Palin.She’s extraordinary conservative
leader,but she’s the symbol of honesty,decency and normalcy to
millions of her admirers.
Is there anybody else I should address?
T-Paw?C’mon,”He couldn’t get arrested in Des Moines”.-Teledude
Mitch?Ha,ha,ha…..ha,ha,ha…..LOL
Barbour?”Hog Boss” has many friends,but they are all blood sucking lobbyists parasites on K street.
March 12th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Say Tex, you do realize that your post was an exercise in “cult of personality”.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Stephie,
You sound like you’re still in your mama’s basement.
Why don’t you dress up and face the world as it is.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Unlike you Tex, I do face the world as it is. I know that candidates are just human, and are fallible. I know that my preferred candidate will make mistakes, and cannot do everything that I would like him to. I have no illusions about that.
You on the other hand live in a fantasy world where Sarah Palin can do no wrong, and is the goddess of victory over all evil. You have an unrealistic portrayal of Sarah Palin that does a disservice not only to yourself, but her.
Eventually, you will become dissillusioned, and eventually hold bitterness against Sarah Palin becuase she did not become what you made her out to be. You have only yourself to blame for setting yourself up for a heartbreak, Tex
That is the true tragedy of a victim of the “cult of personality”. Eventually, reality always comes back to haunt you in the worst way possible.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Stephie,
If you get yourself a girlfriend,you might start thinking
much clearer,instead of mouthing off nonsense on this site.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
To blunt Tex, I feel pity for you. I know what is in your future, and it is nothing but sadness and bitterness. Such is the fate of someone who is trapped within the “cult of personality”.
March 13th, 2011 at 12:45 am
Stephie,
Get yourself a girlfriend,or a …,or whatever it takes.
You always sound so bitter,so hateful,so unhappy,so miserable.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:47 am
Tex, your last post is a classic problem of projection. You have been spewing nothing but hatred for everybody else who is not a Palin supporter since your inception here. And when somebody calls you on it, you decide to start spewing ad hominem attacks to impune the character of that person.
When somebody defeats you on substance, you fall back on personal attacks like saying they are in their momma’s basement, or need a girlfriend or etc. because you have nothing substantive to say and you know it.
If your insults are designed to get me angry, that has been a big failure. I feel nothing but pity at you right now since I know what you will go through when Sarah Palin inevitably breaks your heart.
March 13th, 2011 at 1:50 am
I forgot to mention this, but I and A.J. must thank you, Tex. You demonstrated brilliantly why the cult of personality is inherently dangerous to the conservative movement.
From the bottom of my heart, I extend deepest gratitude towards you for the demonstration and I must thank you.
March 13th, 2011 at 2:42 am
AJ,
This was a very well written post. I agree that we need to have a healthy balance between support of the person and the candidates support of the issues or values we are seeking to be represented. I will put substance over style, but in balance, style is what illuminates your views to those who are not actively informed or involved in politics. Reagan’s image is solid because he advocated conservatism so well. Our failures has been compromising on our leadership to represent those conservative values as forcefully as Reagan had demonstrated. One final note, the message starts to get lost or goes in several different direction if you do not have an advocate that all others can look at to hold the consensus of our values together (the different factions that all have a home in the party, but only as far as their views are represented).
March 13th, 2011 at 3:00 am
Stephie,
Don’t squeal like a piglet.
I gave you what you asked for.Man up and be civil,
or I won’t be gentle next time.
March 13th, 2011 at 3:10 am
I do have to agree, you did give me what I wanted. I wanted an example of somebody who was knee deep in the cult of personality, and you fulfilled the role quite beautifully.
Besides, I don’t think it is wise to take the advice to be civil from somebody who’s last three or four posts was an exercise in incivility. We have a name for that, it is called hypocrisy.
March 13th, 2011 at 7:29 am
Isn’t this post akin to ‘it’s okay to like football, but don’t pick a favorite team’ ?
March 13th, 2011 at 7:50 am
btw, I’m a Vikings who’s hoping that Joe Webb is the next Kurt Warner.
March 13th, 2011 at 7:54 am
Vikings *fan* that is. I really want the Vikings to win a superbowl and I really would like Huck to win the nomination and the general and am quite sure I don’t worship either.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
21:
No, not really. To use the Viking’s analogy, it’s more akin to telling you not to be the kind of fan who can’t admit when your boys are playing badly and need to make changes.
However, I do think the analogy breaks down. For the most part, we don’t pick our sports teams on matters of principal, but entirely based on style, geography and so 0on. In fact, I think I would probably suggest picking a politician in exactly the opposite way you pick a football team.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Bemjamin:
I agree, in part at least, that having a unified spokesman who is charismatic can be helpful for a movement. We should be aware, however, that they will disappoint.
Tex:
1. My view of compromise is simple. If it moves the goal posts in the direction I think we should go, I’m for it. If it moves the goal posts in the opposite direction, I’m agin’ it. Compromise is a tactic, not an end in and of itself. Sometimes it’s a good tactic, sometimes it’s bad, but that’s entirely dependent on the situation.
2. I think Romney, Palin and Huckabee all have cultlike followings. Any time you follow a candidate so intently that you can’t admit their flaws and mistakes, you verge dangerously on this cultlike devotion. Ironically, one of the people served worst by this devotion is the politician you support. Criticism from one’s supporters is an important means to keep one on track.
4. You did forget Ron Paul. BTW.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Should have been: 3.