No, it’s not true that the Establishment (such as it is) is responsible for the sorry state of the non-Romneys in the current Republican field. It’s not the Establishment’s fault that Jeb Bush, John Thune, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie and others stayed out of it, while an ex-pizza salesman, a political crank, a congresswoman who served five years in the House, an eccentric former House speaker whose foibles proved too much for even his caucus, and a shrill and divisive hard-line culture warrior who lost his last race five years ago by a 17-point margin, decided that this was their moment to shine.
It is not the Establishment’s fault that two men with sound resumes and good records in office ran campaigns best described as moronic.
In all cases but one (the former House speaker), the Establishment stayed out of the chaos as one after the other imploded, done in by their own inexperience, extreme views on issues, lack of charisma or lack of political aptitude.
Its not the Establishment’s fault that they failed to gain traction, could not sustain it or otherwise failed to impress.
It’s not true that the Republican Party is against the conservative movement, and wants to attain its demise. The two need each other. With over 40 percent of the voting public defining itself as “conservative” (warning: these self-definers might not all please or align with the movement conservatives), the movement gives the party a strong base to build on.
But with only 40 percent in its corner, the movement needs the party to expand its appeal and build coalitions around it. One who knew this was President Reagan, whose two picks for vice president were George Bush the elder (and Sen. Richard Schweiker, a Pennsylvanian who was a great deal more liberal). Reagan also frequently spoke of his past as a Democrat.
When conservatives get their own numbers over the 50 percent mark, they can afford to dismiss the Republican Party. Until then, they ought to face facts.
It isn’t true, either, that the Establishment’s hit on Gingrich was a RINO-esque coup against the conservative movement, and an effort to kneecap the Right.
For one thing, this Establishment includes Rich Lowry, Ann Coulter, Tom Coburn and others, a collection of squishes if ever there was one, along with useful idiots such as George Will.
For another, it was a welcome attempt to revive the tradition of peer review in selection of nominees to be president, which has been in eclipse since the “reforms” of the McGovern Commission. Those were the reforms that eliminated the process of candidate-vetting by the professionals, and let the candidates in effect vet themselves.
As Robert Merry explains, the system in which pros asked themselves if nominees had scandals, were honest in dealing with others, or had weaknesses that would reveal themselves under the pressure, gave way to one in which “candidates emerge based on their own judgment of their overwhelming talents and virtues, rather than those of their political peers.”
When this system, which nearly gave us Presidents Gary Hart and John Edwards, seemed in danger of producing a nominee, Gingrich, his peers and his cohorts jumped into action, and committed out loud and in public the dimension of vetting once done in private, and behind closed doors.
And third, this was about “competence, not ideology,” as Massachusetts Democrat Michael Dukakis said of the 1988 contest, before he proved himself an incompetent candidate, and went on to lose to the elder Bush. Electability, not ideology, is the concern of an Establishment that dreams of a President Rubio. And, if it includes the Lowrys, Coulters and Coburns, is more to the right than we thought.
Examiner Columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to TheWeekly Standard and author of “Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families.”
