A lot of our readers feel that I’m being a tad harsh on presidential contenders like Haley Barbour and Jon Huntsman for their deviations from GOP orthodoxy on environmental issues. I would retort that I know a thing or two about being accused of heterodoxy. As longtime readers know, I support some mechanism that would allow gay Americans to form legally-recognized unions. I have no desire to ship 10 million illegal immigrants back from whence they came. And I think that conservatsm has to be about small-government solutions to public problems (e.g., DanielsCare in Indiana) as opposed to just being the Party of No. So I’m no stranger to apostasy. But I think that the conventional wisdom among the Beltway crowd is that environmental issues are sort of the “safe” issues on which to be a squish for Republicans, and that being green will help to soften the image of Republican candidates for the presidency as we head into 2012. I submit to you that this couldn’t be farther from the truth, and that those proposing a green GOP just in time for 2012 are misreading both the mood of the GOP base, as well as the sentiments of average Americans.
First, as we learned in 2010, the Republican base is more energized than ever. This is going to make it awfully hard for a John McCain to win the nomination this time around. In 2008, McCain won, so said the exits, by uniting moderate voters with “somewhat conservative” voters, leaving “very conservative” voters casting ballots for either Romney or Huckabee in any given state. That probably won’t happen this time around. Secondly, not only is the base motivated, but it is organized around principles of individual freedom and limited government, which makes squishiness on environmental issues especially toxic. That’s because “going green” almost always involves individual freedom being limited, and government getting bigger, spending greater amounts of money, and generally exercising more control over our lives.
But people like Mark Levin are going to screech about any failure to “check the boxes,” so why not use these swing-voter-friendly environmental issues as sort of a “Sister Souljah” moment, in order to prove to independents that all Republicans aren’t one and the same? There may be a need to kill some sacred cows down the line, but going green isn’t the way for the presidential nominee to do it. That’s because green issues aren’t exactly “swing-voter-friendly” during an election cycle like this one, with an economy in the gutter, anemic job growth, real wages that haven’t risen in years, widespread underemployment for skilled professionals, and chronic unemployment for unskilled laborers. In an environment like this, the last thing that swing voters want to hear is that job growth must be put on hold in order to prevent global warming.
A few years ago, this wasn’t the case at all. Just a decade ago, of course, we had reached the End of History, that magical moment during which the U.S. would exist as the global hegemon, sitting atop the world, getting fat and happy. At that point, suburban independents, motivated by a sort of “green guilt,” actually did support candidates whose focus included the environment and considered the rest of us to be knuckle draggers. But history decided not to end after all, but instead to move ever onward, serving as a reality check to white collar, educated professionals whenever the SUV’s fuel tank has to be filled to the brim.
As I said before, this is probably the first election in a long time where the GOP base and the swing voters in the middle are united against the green movement. Which is why it makes no sense at all to use this issue as a way to differentiate oneself from the caricature of Republicans painted by the MSM. If a Sister Souljah moment is truly needed, it should be over military spending, an issue where the Right is presently divided, due to dueling concerns over military prowess and tumbling over the fiscal precipice. This is a sacred cow that is begging to be slaughtered, especially when the strongest arguments against military budget cuts seem to be scenarios that are a tad difficult to swallow, such as the suggestion that a revived Soviet Union and a China that apparently wants to blow up its best customers are going to somehow employ Islamic terrorists to take out the United States. These notions don’t pass the laugh test and are clearly designed to create an issue for the voters who become visibly aroused by military issues and by learning that the U.S. is being threatened by a sort of real-life Legion of Doom. And the cartoonish quality of this argument would allow a prospective GOP nominee to run against certain elements of the base on this issue, citing our fiscal mess as our real enemy, something that would resonate well among swing voters without turning off too much of the base. But to attempt to use environmental issues as evidence of authenticity or seriousness or maturity this time around is just silly. And doing so will likely unite base and center against any candidate who attempts this strategy, ending any such candidacy before it even gets off the ground.
March 27th, 2011 at 9:24 am
An excellent post, Dave. Remember, national debt weakens the US position in the world, so cutting it could be seen as increasing national security by decreasing dependence on other countries.
March 27th, 2011 at 10:21 am
The Republican party needs fewer “Sister Souljah moments”, not more. When a Democrat does it, they’re usually just turning on some kook fringe activist who doesn’t speak for anyone except a handful of followers. When Republicans do it, they’re usually attacking their own voters so that they can get some temporary good press. We saw a ton of that in the Bush administration and media darlings like McCain. Look at where that got us.
BTW, I wish people would stop saying “Sister Souljah moments”. The term frankly annoys the crap out of me.
March 27th, 2011 at 10:33 am
….this is probably the first election in a long time where the GOP base and the swing voters in the middle are united against the green movement.
Well, perhaps. This is likely to be contextual. It may depend on the particular character of independent swing voter in question. As we have discussed before, the key to the 2012 election is going to be the educated whites in the suburbs/exurbs of approximately 8 states. Barbour’s two or three sentences about global warming the other day in Iowa is not likely to be a problem among that demographic. It could, in theory, be a problem amongst independents in West Virginia, but WVA is not going to decide the nomination or the general election vice Obama.
So-called “green policies” and “green politics” lose their appeal when they begin to create inconveniences or begin to crowd in on one’s “personal space” in some way, and as you suggest, especially so in times of economic difficulty. But, this tends to vary among demographic groups. In any case, I don’t believe we will hear much about global warming or green issues this time around—even from Obama and the Democrats. As for the Republicans, Barbour is too smart (I think) to let himself be perceived as in the green or global warming camp, and in any case, he is not of the persona to be so easily labeled. As for Huntsman, I don’t know enough about him to say. Yet, as I commented on your previous piece about Barbour in Iowa, the more rabid talk show and blogger types are likely to go after Barbour or anyone else, not so much because of any specific issue, but because they are considered “Establishment Insiders” as opposed to populists like Bachmann or Palin or Cain or maybe Santorum.
March 27th, 2011 at 10:52 am
Barbour is too smart (I think) to let himself be perceived as in the green or global warming camp,
I think Barbour may be one of those politicians who doesn’t yet understand the notion of playing politics in the world of “the Internets.” He’s an awfully savvy guy who keeps getting caught saying things that don’t make any political sense, such as his comments that he and his friends only went to an MLK speech to troll for girls. I think Barbour is still operating under the assumption that he can still say things like this and the local crowd will titter, and that will be that. He doesn’t understand that every utterance of every politician is subject to global publication nowadays.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Oh and heads up, Newt Gingrich is in within the month
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/27/gingrich-running-president-month/
March 27th, 2011 at 11:34 am
#4 – DaveG—
Yes, that could be the case.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:41 am
There is one candidate that owns the energy issue and has come out the strongest against Obama’s ‘green jobs’ plans. Might just be a winning issue in 2012.
http://iowans4palin.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-governor-palin-must-be-gop-nominee.html
March 27th, 2011 at 11:59 am
If there is going to be a Sister Souljah moment for the GOP, it needs to be a traditional Republican staring down the fanatics in the Tea Party Movement. Someone needs to stand up and tell them “enough is enough” with the shouting and their craziness. People like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck should have the influence of 1 vote and no more when it comes to picking our nominee. Someone needs to say it.
March 27th, 2011 at 11:59 am
The biggest indictment of Barbour’s political judgment is his entry into the race, apparently believing he is electable.
I keep thinking he is doing it not to win but to shape the outcome somehow. But do people really run a serious campaign, raising big money, to do that?
March 27th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
The difference re green issues in the past and present is that most of us have a certain deference toward science — we have assumed that scientists know what they’re talking about and that we should accept their opinions.
Now, many of us doubt that what we have been told is the truth, and we have good reason to suspect that some scientists have been taking advantage of their positions in order to advance their political views (and perhaps to profit from grants).
I think the best way to approach green issues now is to treat them as most politicians have treated deficits in the past — give it lip service. Present a few platitudes about the need to be good stewards, tell folks you’re in favor of clean air and water, and then move on to other issues.
March 27th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
8. Oh how I hope the candidate that does that is Mitt Romney!
LOL
Yes, it would solidify the squish vote. You would probably wet your pants, and Governor Plain would win in a landslide.
C’mon Mitt. Tell us to sit down and shut up!
I am amazed at the level of cluelessness on this forum…
March 27th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
tele,
I finally agree with you. I hope Mitt does that as well. Anything that pisses off the Tea Party coming from Mitt helps TPAW in NH.
March 27th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Herman Cain Wins TIR Straw Poll at Conservative Principles Conference
Sunday, March 27, 2011, 8:48
Here are the results:
1.Herman Cain- 42 votes (Spoke at conference)
2.Newt Gingrich-16 (Spoke at Conference)
3.Tim Pawlenty-13
4.Michelle Bachmann-12 (Spoke at Conference)
5.Sarah Palin-9
6.Chris Christie-7
7.Mike Huckabee-5
7.Mitt Romney-5
8.Ron Paul-3
9.Marco Rubio-3
10.Rick Santorum-3
11.Donald Trump-3
12.Haley Barbour-2 (Spoke at Conference)
13.Jim Demint-2
14.Steve King-1
I know this Straw Poll does not mean much, but again I’m always a little suprised how well TPAW is doing at these cattle calls. I know this was in the NW part of IOWA, TPAW country, but this is still a good showing for a guy who wasn’t at the conference, in fact he finished first among those who did not go. Barbor’s speech did not go over well and it seems like he is taking the Daniels approach on SOC issues in this campaign.
TPAW has gotten some traction among the evangelical activist, and will continue to do so as long as Huckster sleeps at the wheel.
But this cattle call was in TPAW country in Iowa so I need to hold down my euthusiam a little bit.
Congrats Cain!!
Pawlenty/Blackburn 2012!
March 27th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
#11..teledude…speaking of clueless……I guess you haven’t noticed that Jonathan is not a Rombot…
March 27th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
I don’t care who he supports, I was just stating my preference as to who I’d like to see make such a tone deaf gaffe.
As Smack indicated, anyone who would do what Jonathan advocates would be committing political suicide. – so yes, he is still clueless.
Thanks for your concern though.
March 27th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
In Arizona in FEB this was the result of a straw poll out of 1600 voters
Results:
Herman Cain 22%
Tim Pawlenty 16%
Ron Paul 15%
Sarah Palin 10%
Mitt Romney 6.5%
Michele Bachmann 5.6%
You all have to be geting nervous about TPAW..
heehheee
March 28th, 2011 at 8:31 am
I disagree with your analysis David. While the middle (“swing voters”) is probably off the Al Gore band wagon, they are not anti-Green as you seem to suggest. While I’m not a fan of wasting ANY money on stopping global warming (it won’t work), I think a majority of Americans are interested in that. Barbour’s position lines up pretty well with those swing voters.
As for the energized base, I agree that they are energized, but if they are going to impose a Mark Levin style litmus test, the Republicans are doomed in 2012. The Republicans have always been a “big tent” party. That is the only way they have won elections. With the exception of Reagan (who wasn’t as much of a ideologue as some like to make him out to be), when has the Republican party ever managed to get a candidate elected to national office who agreed with the most conservative branch of the party on everything? It hasn’t happened.
Mark Levin isn’t interested in winning the election 2012. I have heard him say as much. He is interested in purifying the party, which will relegate it to being irrelevant. The Republican Party, like it or not, is one of coalitions. You alienate one or two and it loses its grasp on anything.
This is also why a divisive candidate like Mike Huckabee will NEVER win the Presidency. His supporters seem to think he can campaign by railing against his competitors, making false accusations and calling into questions things like their religion. They think he can get away with covering up his less conservative record on taxes and clemency. He may get the nomination, but he will not win the Presidency. The idea that Republicans will just line up behind anyone to beat Obama is false.
March 28th, 2011 at 9:30 am
Jason, be prepared to eat crow on election day 2012. Huckabee may very well win both the nomination and the Presidency if he chooses to run. I would not say NEVER to anything. Case in point Obama is President. Anything is possible. It is probable that Huckabee will run and can win the nomination and possibly the Presidency.
March 28th, 2011 at 9:44 am
Not to change the topic – but we do have a presidential address tonight, so its probably a decent idea to throw an open thread out there.
The site doesn’t seem to focus quite as much on current events as it used to, but this could deffinitely have implications for 2012.
March 28th, 2011 at 9:54 am
I was wondering April start Friday COULD WE still go through another whole month since every body says the announcements will start later then 2008 with out any ” big named ” announcements i am starting to worry because obama is now in FULL campaign mode ?
March 28th, 2011 at 9:56 am
I agree with Matthew. A new thread for tonights upcoming presidential address is a good idea.
March 28th, 2011 at 10:06 am
#19:
Sounds like a good idea to me. This could be bigger in the Democratic Party than the GOP; if Obama is too hawkish, he might draw an anti-war left challenger ala Eugene McCarthy.
Is Russ Feingold doing anything nowadays…
March 28th, 2011 at 10:21 am
i still think Hillary leaves early and challenges obama at the dnc convention.
March 28th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Greg,
No way. Hillary and Obama are in tune regarding Libya etc….
They are praying that Gaddafi goes or they’re both toast, imo.
March 28th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Benjamin, I will eat crow if Huckabee wins the Presidency. I will probably move to Canada too.