Today, Michelle Malkin finds herself under fire from some conservatives for writing a critical column about Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s indefensible decision to mandate the Gardasil vaccine for children. Malkin tweets, “I am glad we still have GOP primary battles for 2012 nomination, not coronations. It’s healthy. It’s necessary.” There’s an important broader lesson in this.
Hearing some of the over-the-top criticisms of Perry coming from the left, not to mention the ridiculous accusations of racism, there’s a conservative reflex kicking in to circle the wagons in his defense, even when he doesn’t deserve it. It’s tempting. The leftist freak out over Perry is so predictable and entertaining at times, that it’s hard to resist the urge. But it’s an urge that conservatives must resist nonetheless.
On many occasions, conservatives have made the mistake of thinking that anybody who drives the left crazy must be “one of us.” This mistake was particularly damaging during the Bush era, when conservatives offered only token opposition when it came to big government policies like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug plan.
Back in early 2008, when it was clear the eventual Republican nominee would be objectionable to conservatives, Jim Antle wrote an insightful column titled “Arm’s Length Conservatism.”
As Antle described it at the time:
Under Ronald Reagan and, for most of his presidency, George W. Bush, conservatives actively identified with the president. He was One of Us. That doesn’t mean the right never quarreled with these commanders in chief, as the phrase “Let Reagan Be Reagan” and the name Harriet Miers remind us. But the conservative movement felt more than an affinity for a few Reagan or Bush 43 policies — it felt a stake in the outcome of both administrations. Support for a Republican primary opponent in 1984 or 2004 by any influential conservative would have been almost unthinkable.
He concluded, “A political alliance isn’t a marriage. You don’t have to take a presidential candidate for better or worse. Only when they’re right.”
This advice still holds today. Perry’s appeal is understandable given the long quest for a consensus conservative candidate with executive experience, and the desire to defeat Obama. Perry has attributes that are worth reporting, and when liberals are making unfounded accusations, they should be called out. But Perry is seeking the highest office in the land and needs to be thoroughly vetted. Legitimate criticism – whether coming from the right or left – should be welcomed. Just because MSNBC’s Ed Schultz hates Perry, it doesn’t mean he’ll make a great president.
