In yesterday’s open thread on HillBuzz, the poster made an interesting argument that I’ve been mulling ever since:
We don’t believe Republicans can win the White House with a moderate—they need a conservative, and should not try to court moderate Democrats like us. Paradoxical, we know, but hear us out. We believe Independents don’t know what to do with a moderate Republican like McCain . . . there isn’t a clear line of distinction between Republican and Democrat in that case, so Independents don’t see a good choice to make, and seem to default vote Democrat in that case. But, those Independents had no trouble voting for Bush . . . and Republican turnout for Bush in 2004 was higher than it was for McCain in 2008. Without Palin, a true conservative, that turnout would have been dismal.
As fellow Palinites, those folks are of course offering this in support of the proposition that Sen. McCain did considerably better with Gov. Palin on the ticket than he would have if he’d picked someone else—something which I argued last summer would be the case and am convinced was indeed the case, despite the MSM’s best efforts to bring her down. As someone whose political convictions are fairly described as conservative, I of course believe already that the GOP ought to nominate a conservative for the White House next time rather than a moderate. As such, the perception-of-intelligence problem (our tendency to judge as “intelligent” anyone who comes up with a good argument for what we already believe, or want to believe) is clearly in play here. The fact that I have, and know I have, a predilection for counterintuitive arguments such as this only reinforces that. So as I read this, I have to try to filter all those things out.Having done my best to do so, however, this still makes sense to me—and the evidence, such as we have, does seem to bear it out. When, after all, was the last time a Republican won running as a moderate? Wouldn’t it be Eisenhower in 1956? Broadly speaking, Nixon ran as a conservative in 1968 (talking about the “silent majority”), George H. W. Bush ran as a conservative in 1988 (“Read my lips: No new taxes”)—before losing in 1992 after his time in office proved him nothing of the sort—and George W. Bush ran as a conservative in 2000. Reagan, of course, inarguably was a conservative, if a rather more pragmatic one than many sometimes remember. Meanwhile, even if you don’t blame Gerald Ford for his loss in 1976, the Republican Establishment types didn’t do much in 1996 or 2008.The first read, anyway, does seem to suggest that independents are more likely to vote for a conservative Republican than for a moderate Republican, at least at the national level; this thesis seems to me to support further investigation even if I do find it appealing. Not being a statistician (except for a certain amateur interest when it comes to sports), I have no idea how to investigate this to see if it stands up to more rigorous examination—but I hope someone puts in the work, and if so, I’ll be interested to see their conclusions.
Rob,
I’ve been watching elections since 1952. Everybody tries to figure them out and everybody has a different answer. I have one observation in which I am most confident: voters in the middle aren’t swayed much by policy.
You mention HillBuzz. They were formed to support Hillary Clinton. Everybody there loves Sarah. Policy wise it’s hard to imagine a larger gap between the two. There is something about Sarah, and it isn’t policy.
There is a very good piece today on American Digest by Gerard Vanderleun.
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/heroes_hustlers/a_sharp_man.php
It’s about his father who was an honest and honorable man. I suspect this may explain some part of Sarah’s appeal.
Roy
Good link–I hadn’t seen that one. I do think what he’s talking about explains a lot of Gov. Palin’s appeal. I’m not sure how much I agree with your broader observation, but you can certainly make a case for it.
I wonder if it might be more fair to say that moderates are swayed by policy but not in a consistent fashion–they don’t have fixed policy preferences; they’re swayed, it seems to me, by who makes (in their judgment) the most convincing argument for their policy positions, and who believes most strongly in the positions they hold.
Rob,
I made that observation not about moderates but about the disinterested but civic minded voters who believe that it is their obligation to vote. I remember The League of Women Voters’ advertisements to “vote, doesn’t matter for whom but vote”.
I remember in particular a study I saw a number of years ago, when party identification was stronger, that a person’s party and voting behavior was influenced by, in descending importance, parents, siblings, extended family, coworkers, church members, civic clubs, a couple of others, and issues last of all. I’m sure there have been changes in the relative order but people don’t change that much.
Remember that elections are decided at the margin. And the margin comprises those who make up their minds in the last week. The politically disinterested. McCain had pulled even in the polls when the financial bombshell hit. That “crisis” swayed the undecideds.
Anyway, that’s my take on it. Next post can be ignored.
Roy
Rob
Roy
Sorry. I have been fighting the temptation but I am weak.
🙂 Unfortunately, Roy, my father’s mother’s family owed allegiance to the Campbells–Rob Roy was a McGregor . . . 🙂
As for the politically disinterested who still feel they ought to vote, I wonder how large a bloc that actually is these days; most of the folks I know who are politically disinterested but think they ought to vote aren’t motivated enough to actually vote when the time comes. When the election stirs them up enough that they’re actually interested, then they vote (as with this past election); if not, they feel vaguely guilty for not doing so.
I would also note, as regards “parents, siblings, extended family, coworkers, church members, civic clubs,” etc., that being influenced thusly doesn’t mean that one isn’t influenced by the issues; what it means, rather more, is that one’s thinking on the issues is not original to oneself, or at any rate is not arrived at individually, but rather as part of a community consensus. Which is, I think, a very different thing from saying that people don’t care about the issues or about policy. They do–it’s just issues and policy refracted through Aunt Lois, Uncle George, Grampa Fitzpatrick, the good Reverend Jones, and what the good old boys are saying down at the barbershop. Such, at least, is my experience.
It’s an interesting thing to think about, though, and obviously of major importance to the practical task of winning elections. I tend to agree that if the financial crisis breaks in January ’09 instead of September ’08, we probably have President McCain . . . though given his remarkable ability to shoot his own foot off, I wouldn’t say I’m confident about that conclusion.
Rob,
Agree. I believe that these questions can’t, and never will, be answered.
Mystery is God’s gift to Man. It keeps him on his feet and inspires him to THINK.
I have recently been reading the works of Lee Strobel. He makes a very convincing case for a Creator and a living, breathing real Christ as the Son of God. There is an underlying theme in his writing that God created the universe to pique the curiosity of his creation. It has certainly engaged me for more years than I care to admit.
As to the Rob Roy reference, I am a Swede and thus uninterested in the petty squabbles of you furriners. I was referring to the libation which is a Manhattan cocktail made with Scotch whiskey. I, personally, prefer Irish whiskey. To me John Jameson and Bushmill’s taste about the same but I always order Jameson because an Irish friend of mine insisted upon it. It was political or something.
Roy
“You furriners” . . . Roy, I have to say it, that sort of comment makes you sound more like an Englishman. 🙂 Your story about Jameson’s and Bushmill’s piques my curiosity, though–I may have to look into that.
Agreed about mystery, and its importance.
Rob,
Furriner is a “dialectal variant of foreigner”. Seem to have been first used by Americans.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/furriner
As to the Irish whiskey I think one come from Northern Ireland the other from the South. Not sure which is which.
As for sounding English, I am irked by spell checkers because I have a tendency to use British spelling – sceptic/skeptic, analyse/analyze.
Another quirk is because of my courses in German, which capitalises every noun, I overcapitalize.
Roy
Yes, I know it is–I was more making a snide comment about the British attitude toward those so unfortunate as to have been born elsewhere (not that any proper Brit would ever pronounce it “furriner”). Interesting on the whiskies . . . I didn’t know that.