Horns of a Dilemma

The snub of popular New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in not being invited to this year’s CPAC conference, and the predictable outcry, demonstrate the fact that Republicans are caught on the horns of a dilemma of their own making. Much is made of the civil war developing within the party. On the one side are the establishment Republicans, who purportedly espouse the philosophy of William F. Buckley, to nominate the most conservative candidates who are electable. In reality, electability to them is key, and conservatism tends to be an afterthought, or merely a component of their electability. For them, principled conservatism is a pitfall that can lose you votes with independents, and risk losing elections. After all, what good are conservative principles if you lose elections? On the other side are all the factions that are tired of what that political philosophy has achieved, with losing candidates like Romney and McCain, or winners that do little to forward the conservative agenda. This side would include Libertarians, Tea Party types, and old fashioned Conservatives. Their contention is that there is little advantage in winning elections against Democrats with candidates who will govern like Democrats. Increasingly Chris Christie fits that mold. Establishment Republicans salivate over his popularity in blue New Jersey, while conservatives, still stinging from his over the top validation of the President in the last election cycle, see him basically as Mitt Romney with a personality.

I never liked the term “lesser of two evils” when applied to political candidates, particularly when referring to two starkly different choices as in 2012. That no candidate will be considered perfect is a given, and so you’re always voting for the lesser of two evils. However, the GOP establishment have come to depend on their base to vote for unpalatable candidates because they are less objectionable than the alternative Democrat. With all the noise about changing demographics and independent voters, Republicans were defeated in 2012 because their base didn’t vote. If voting for the opponent of Barack Obama was not enough to energize the conservative base, then we have seen something foreboding for the future, a constituency that would rather lose than compromise their principles. The solution is not as simple as nominating candidates that will appeal to the conservative voters; there is some validity in remaining in the good graces of the rest of the electorate. And there you have the dilemma; abandon conservative principles and lose your base, embrace them and lose the independents… either way, you lose.

The word “dilemma” comes from the greek word for “two premises”. It was originally a form of argument where one is given the choice between equally unfavorable alternatives, no matter which choice you make, you lose. Of course in real life, there’s seldom only two choices. The premise that Tea Party conservatives are unelectable is no more valid than the premise that the only factor for nominating candidates should be their conservative or libertarian credentials.

We find ourselves caught on the horns of the dilemma only because we buy into the idea of a generally static electorate. We of course assume that left leaning voters will always vote for left leaning candidates; and right leaning voters for right leaning candidates. Then we look at the independents and assume them to be “moderates”, people who want something in the middle. And so the political dance ensues, candidates who try to engage their base without seeming extreme and losing “the middle”, resulting in bland and shallow nominees. Instead of dancing, Republicans would be wise to understand the true nature of most independents, not moderates, but undecided… undecided, unconvinced, and uninformed. These voters are easily swayed because they are not sold out to either party, and will lean toward whichever candidate is most compelling. Certainly, it is wisdom not to accentuate strong principles that somebody somewhere might find offensive, but in the end it is better all around to stand for something and convince the voters, rather than abandoning core principles to appeal to a group of voters who largely have none yet of their own.

IMHO: Choosing between electable or principled candidates is a losing proposition. Candidates like Christine O’Donnell, Richard Mourdock, or Todd Akin might have seemed like a good idea to the conservative base, but in the end they were too incompetent to be elected. Politics, like any other career choice involves a certain skill set. I want my doctor to be a good and honorable man, but it is also important to me that he be a good doctor! On the other hand, candidates like Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, or Michael Bloomberg might have the skill set or name recognition required to get votes, but of what value are they once elected? Increasingly, RINOS fail to energize the base, or switch parties when it’s to their own benefit. I want my mechanic to be a good mechanic, but it is also important to me that he be a good and honorable man!

The republican civil war is a battle neither side can win, because neither side is a winning position. Only candidates that can sway independents, energize the base, and govern in a principled fashion to move the nation forward are worth the time it takes to vote for them. Successful candidates for the GOP going forward will not be compromise candidates, but encompassing ones; skilled politicians with a soul. That may seem like a tall order, but we expect it of our doctor, our mechanic, our kid’s teachers… should we look for less in those who run the country?