Remember the apologia pro vita McCain? Sure, he is not the most conservative candidate, sure his ‘maverickiness’ scares some on the right as much as some on the left, sure his middle of the road tendency is not what we would pick in an ideal year, but 2008 needed the unusual. What we needed was a candidate who could appeal across the political spectrum. Right. Perhaps the Republican establishment forgot that the left always talks middle of the road too, and that in the debates, a McCain and Obama conversation would be frustratingly similar.
Well, that narrative didn’t work so well for McCain.
Now, attention is beginning to focus upon the upcoming Nevada Republican primary election (June 8). It has been an interesting race. Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian had been the two apart from the herd, until Sharron Angle rocketed up in the polls (endorsed by Tea Party groups, and some big names like Mark Levin). The three way race really is a toss up right now, and proper scrutiny is only now beginning to be given to Sharron Angle. She presents herself as the true conservative, while Tarkanian and Lowden both maintain they are far more electable. All three have ads on the radio around Las Vegas, taking pot shots at each other while (thankfully) also always keeping voters reminded that the ogre at the bottom of the cave is Reid. It has been a fairly civil debate here, though everyone knows that whoever wins the primary will face trial by fire from Reid and the Las Vegas Sun.
Yesterday, Jim Geraghty wrote a piece pointing out the various aspects of Angle’s history that would become key targets if she was to win the nomination (in fact, many of these issues are already getting extensive play in talk shows etc. around our city). Geraghty is, as usual, insightful, but without analyzing his presentation of Angle’s weaknesses, I would like to draw attention to this last part, where Geraghty quotes Robert Uithoven, Sue Lowden’s campaign manager:
Uithoven contends that Angle is unelectable against Harry Reid, even in a good year for Republicans: “We are a Democratic state, and we have 50,000 to 60,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans and, like a lot of states, an enormous amount of independents. Never once has Angle demonstrated an ability to win over independents or conservative Democrats, and you have to be able to do that to beat Harry Reid. She represented one of the most conservative and one of the most Republican assembly districts in the state, and then she went on to lose in the Republican primary in a Republican congressional district, and then in 2008 she lost a Republican primary in a Republican state-senate district.”
These are good points, and well worth considering, especially in a race where both of Angle’s competitors are reasonably conservative as well. To not vote for Angle would not be selling out conservative values. BUT…haven’t we heard this narrative before? Perhaps this point is obtuse, but in fact, it really touches the perennial tension between voting for the candidate with whom you most agree, vs. voting for the candidate with whom you somewhat agree, but has a much better chance of winning.
I am not saying that Angle is the most conservative, or the candidate that I agree with the most, but that Uithoven’s objection is informed by a resounding pragmatism that tends to obviate substantive debate. Electoral politics requires pragmatism–it is a practical science–but that does not mean that policy and philosophy should be based upon “winability.” In my conception, a good political campaign should be run like a good school: there is an obvious and important administrative side that looks after fundraising, recruiting, etc. but that side always answers to the higher good of excellence in academics. You have to be able to win a campaign, but you should not run a campaign solely on considerations of winning.
If Nevada Republicans truly think Angle best represents them in a Senate race, then they should nominate her for the contest. They should do so with their eyes wide open, however, and her record should be thoroughly vetted, as should Sue Lowden’s and Danny Tarkanian’s. We certainly know that the winner will undergo that process in the general election, thanks to Reid’s $25 million war chest.
He’s right, and I would only add that in considering who we Nevadans should vote for, electability might come down more to the ability to enunciate a coherent conservative philosophy and policy approach, than on Uithoven’s and McCain’s nebulous and ever shifting “appeal” to Democrats and Independents. What we need to determine is who the closest approximation to the statesman is, rather than the best politician. If we find a statesman, the election will follow in suit, for Reid will look tired and trite in the debates. If we elect a politician, Reid will win, for he is certainly better at such things than either Lowden, Tarkanian, or Angle.
Update: For those who do not have time to follow this race closely, it is worth pointing out that Lowden, Tarkanian, and Angle are all fairly pro-life, so that does not appear as a major issue in this primary.
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 am
Roland, thanks for this post, very good thoughts, been wanting to comment sooner.
You crystallized a lot of thoughts for me in regards to that tension between principle and pragmatism. This election cycle might become VERY interesting on that account across the board. I’ve begun to notice that political operators and junkies often get so wrapped up in tactics and the “big picture” that they ignore principle, but that a lot of the new recruits to politics (Tea Partiers and such) have the opposite problem of complete idealism, they won’t sacrifice an inch for the sake of purity.
Why do you think it’s so hard to strike a good middle ground? Mind, I could be just complaining about the lack of sophrosune/prudence, which is rather silly.
June 3rd, 2010 at 12:04 am
Oop, forgot to mention something, Sue Lowden just got an endorsement from LIFEPAC, a state pro-life political action committee. SBA has also endorsed her as well.