On Being More Conservative

In the wake of Mitt Romney's defeat in November, there has been a large debate on the right as to whether or not he should have run as a "more conservative" candidate than he did.  It is a topic worth broaching, if only because it seems to have flared up somewhat in the wake of CPAC.

The first element to answer: Was Mitt Romney a conservative candidate?

That question feels a bit hard to answer.  Does Mitt Romney share (basically) the same conceptualization as the average conservative of fiscal responsibility?  More than likely.  Does he share a similar view regard small, limited government?  This is less clear, though "no" is likely closer to the truth, if his history is any indication.  Regardless of what he believes, the Romney campaign was weakened by the fact that neither of those questions can be answered clearly. This has led many to criticize him and his campaign for “not being conservative enough” (a sentiment I happen to agree with). Of course, this point of view is not without its detractors.

Critics of that idea often cite two reasons against a more clearly conservative candidate. First, the electorate was not looking for a very conservative candidate.  Second, they believe that those who think the candidate should have been more conservative also believe that “more conservatism” automatically equals “victory.”

The former belief may not be inaccurate.  After decades of the modern public school system and a corrupt media, many people are inherently inclined to agree with the assumptions of the progressive worldview.  Tricked into believing that government programs and intervention are not just compassionate, but necessary, has left many people in the United States clamoring for it, regardless of the results.

Of course, this does not mean there are not people who cannot be persuaded otherwise.  The primary flaw of this argument is that it implicitly assumes people will not be swayed by strong conservative arguments.  Keep in mind, the critics likely do not believe this either, but in criticizing the idea that a strong conservative would be better, they accidentally assume this.

The second belief is both condescending and wrong.  First, it assumes that the people who agree with the idea that Mitt Romney should have run more to the right are simpletons who actually believe "more conservatism" = "automatic victories."  This is a false way to frame it.  No one of consequence actually says that.  And I otherwise find it hard to believe that large amounts of people think being more conservative will automatically result in victory.

The point of running conservatively is that it can draw a clear distinction between us and progressives.  It allows the right to make a more effective case for liberty and small government.  Romney was completely unable to do this.  From Romneycare to his tendency to agree with President Obama in the latter two debates, he rarely came across as a clear conservative, no matter how often he mentioned that he was.  More often than not, he unintentionally made himself appear to be a less progressive version of the president, blurring the differences between the two.

Tying the two beliefs together, this sounds like the common idea that the Republicans need to run more moderate candidates to win (despite evidence to the contrary).  By making the first assumption, they conclude that conservatism will not work as an election theme, even when presented clearly to the voting populace.  Then they assume that conservative ideals have been clearly presented to the voters in the time since Ronald Reagan.  Between President Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (which likewise contains the inherent assumption that we are not compassionate otherwise) to the constant media distortions, this has not been the case.  While there are certainly areas of the country where a more moderate candidate would work better, it is not universal either.

To assume that running with stronger conservative bona fides would be detrimental, while not necessarily a point to automatically shun, is likewise not universally applicable.  It shows a lack of understanding of conservatism to treat it so dismissively.  It is the ideological driver of the right and should be treated as such, both by the politicians and the voters.