As the Republican hopefuls pitched themselves last weekend to the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Daily Beast’s Ana Marie Cox was incredulous that attendees seemed to think Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, might make a strong national candidate.
Cox rejected as “utter bulls—t” the idea that a conservative politician like Walker can expand beyond his base. She also dismissed the argument that he had to do just that to win three consecutive elections in the not-very-conservative state of Wisconsin.
“‘Scott Walker survived a recall election’ is, in the mind of CPAC watchers, proof of both his conservatism and a claim to middle ground,” she wrote. Yet, she added, “the only part of the middle that Walker occupies is geographic, and even then, only from a national [perspective].”
This analysis raises an important point about the 2016 field. It also reflects a deep misunderstanding of American politics. Unstated is the false assumption that “middle ground” is the best or only ground from which to appeal beyond one’s political base.
Walker’s merits as a candidate aside, his election victories — and also President Obama’s — demonstrate that independent or persuadable voters are not always or primarily looking for centrism. Above specific policy considerations, persuadable voters want leaders who are serious, seem to understand their problems, and seem willing to tackle big issues without fear of upsetting the status quo. This is something Ronald Reagan and Obama — two big winners with vastly different ideas — shared in common in their respective times.
In Walker’s case, he generated immense controversy with his collective bargaining reforms. But when it became clear those reforms were working, he won Wisconsinites over — not just his political base. Not only did he increase his 2010 vote total by 200,000, but one in six Walker voters in 2012 told exit pollsters they intended to vote for Obama later that year. This is what having a broad appeal looks like.
And Walker is not the only Republican contender in 2016 who seems to get this. The other top candidates either know how or at least have a strategy to broaden their appeal beyond the base. For example, Rand Paul is courting young people and constituencies that are not traditionally Republican.
Without compromising his conservative bona fides, he hopes to broaden his appeal by mainstreaming unorthodox libertarian ideas. In some cases (criminal justice reform, for example) he has helped strengthen his party just by pushing it toward new, pressing issues and beyond talking points that originate in the Reagan era.
Likewise, and long before anyone was questioning his conservative credentials, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush won a blowout re-election victory in a deeply divided state in 2002. He got 700,000 more votes than he had won four years earlier, and in fact carried Miami-Dade County in what was expected to be a very close race.
This was after he had already outraged teachers’ unions with accountability reforms and abolished Affirmative Action in state contracting and college admissions. There is no way Florida had 2.9 million staunch ideologically conservative residents that year, but it had that many voters who liked what they saw in their conservative governor.
All of the Republican candidates this year would do well to remember this, and to look at what really made Reagan stand out. It was not just the particular set of positions or issues he confronted in a bygone era. Rather, it was his ability to connect with landslide majorities and persuade them that his conservative solutions were exactly what America needed.
