The Right Republican

[g5000]

Optimists will point out that the Republicans, no less than the Democrats, tend to flirt with extremes in the primaries, then select an electable moderate (with Mr Romney being the likely winner this time). America is a conservative place; every Republican nominee, including those The Economist has backed in the past, has signed up to pretty uncompromising views on God, gays and guns. But even allowing for that, the party has been dragged further and further to the right. Gone are the days when a smiling Reagan could be forgiven for raising taxes and ignoring abortion once in office. As the Republican base has become ever more detached from the mainstream, its list of unconditional demands has become ever more stringent.

Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished.

These fatwas explain the rum list of candidates: you either have to be an unelectable extremist who genuinely believes all this, or a dissembler prepared to tie yourself in ever more elaborate knots (the flexible Mr Romney). Several promisingly pragmatic governors, including Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, never even sought the nomination. Jon Huntsman, the closest thing to a moderate in the race (who supports gay marriage and action to combat climate change), is polling in low single figures.

The Economist.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head and explains my personal disaffection with the GOP. Like the article says, "We didn’t leave you; you left us".

Every time one of these pretenders claims Regan's mantle, my stomach curdles.

It is a sad commentary that this late in the day “the right Republican” does not even seem to be running yet.

 

[occupied]

The conservative purity test is now impossible to pass for anyone who has had a past political career, it also fails anyone who seems to have a mind of their own rather than simply a list of impossible demands.

 

[imbalance]

Such is the faustian bargain the GOP made with the religious right.

I think Ron Paul has the best answer for these social conservative issues: deal with them on the state level.

 

[konradv]

Such is the faustian bargain the GOP made with the religious right.

I think Ron Paul has the best answer for these social conservative issues: deal with them on the state level.

What of the concept of "equal protection"? Economic and legal issues could be handled by the states, but social issues need to be handled nationwide. I honestly don't trust some locales with regard to granting basic human rights to people who are different. Jury nullification comes to mind.

 

[g5000]

The conservative purity test is now impossible to pass for anyone who has had a past political career

This is exactly right. And it is true for both parties. With the incredibly bizarre result that the less experienced you are, the better your chances of winning. We are putting more and more incompetents at the helm.

 

[Zander]

The article is a total crock of shit. The GOP is going to nominate Mitt Romney -in case you live in a cave- he's a fiscal conservative and a socially moderate candidate. IOW - a real conservative.

You people are either willfully ignorant or on drugs.

 

[Avatar4321]

The article is a total crock of shit. The GOP is going to nominate Mitt Romney -in case you live in a cave- he's a fiscal conservative and a socially moderate candidate. IOW - a real conservative.

You people are either willfully ignorant or on drugs.

Im not convinced he's socially moderate at all.

 

[g5000]

The article is a total crock of shit. The GOP is going to nominate Mitt Romney -in case you live in a cave- he's a fiscal conservative and a socially moderate candidate. IOW - a real conservative.

You people are either willfully ignorant or on drugs.

Mitt Romney is whatever the polls say you want him to be.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The article is a total crock of shit. The GOP is going to nominate Mitt Romney -in case you live in a cave- he's a fiscal conservative and a socially moderate candidate. IOW - a real conservative.

You people are either willfully ignorant or on drugs.

Mitt Romney is whatever the polls say you want him to be.

And if you don't like him, wait til tomorrow -- he'll change.

BUT, when its all said and done, he is anything BUT a "fiscal conservative and a socially moderate candidate".

RWs see what they want to see. They're told they have to vote for "anyone but President Obama" so they'll cram these yahoos into whatever pigeonhole they need.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The conservative purity test is now impossible to pass for anyone who has had a past political career, it also fails anyone who seems to have a mind of their own rather than simply a list of impossible demands.

Exactly, well-said.

I think Ron Paul has the best answer for these social conservative issues: deal with them on the state level.

Sorry, no – whether or not one has his civil liberties isn’t dependent upon his state of residence. This is anathema to the principle of the rule of law, the doctrine of fundamental rights and substantive due process as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.