Conservatives shouldn’t bank on a Jeb vs. Mitt bloodbath

The dream scenario, as articulated by the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Quin Hillyer of the National Review, goes something like this: The more candidates there are are fighting for the affection of the Republican elites commonly known as the Establishment, the better chance there is that a conservative candidate could exploit the division and capture the nomination.

In recent election cycles, the opposite scenario has occurred. Conservatives failed to unite around a single candidate, and while they were fighting among themselves, the Establishment was able pick the party’s standard-bearer. As a result, conservatives were stuck holding their noses in the general elections to support Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008.

Though there is a certain subversive beauty in imaging that a Scorsese-esque blood bath among Establishment Republican candidates could work to the benefit of conservatives, there are several reasons to be skeptical. The most obvious is that the more Establishment candidates that run, the more chances elites have to have one of them emerge victorious.

But beyond that, keep in mind that for the dream scenario to play out, the Establishment must remain divided, while conservatives unify around a single candidate. But what’s prevented this from happening in the past is less about the number of candidates seeking Establishment support, and more about the very nature of the differences between the two wings of the Republican Party.

Just think about the most common complaint about the Establishment among conservatives — Republican elites are too willing to compromise and sell out rather than stand up for conservative principles. This propensity of the Establishment, however loathsome to the Right, makes it a lot easier for the elites to unite around a single candidate.

That is, if a Republican candidate that members of the Establishment are supporting falters, they have few qualms about jumping ship and supporting another candidate. They’re much more willing to overlook disagreements they may have on some issues as long as they think a candidate is preferable to the Democrat and has the best chance to win. They don’t have any strict ideological tests for the nominee.

Conservatives, however, are drawn into politics to advance a set of ideas. To be sure, they realize that winning is a necessary precondition to advancing their ideas, but if they truly believe in a candidate, it is harder for them to abandon that candidate for another who they find objectionable on a number of issues. Social conservatives drawn to Mike Huckabee’s candidacy, for instance, are much more likely to stick with him than Establishmentarians are likely to stick with Christie if he fizzles.

The same goes for candidates themselves. Conservative politicians are often willing to launch quixotic quests for the presidency to have a platform to talk about a particular issue, or communicate a message that they feel would be otherwise lacking. Such candidates are much less likely to drop out early, no matter how long the odds seem.

Given this reality, the Right would be mistaken to adopt the view that the more Establishment candidates there are, the merrier.

Though it’s true that several big name Establishment candidates may be competing in 2016 for money, staff and resources, there will also be a flood of candidates seeking conservative support. So, conservatives won’t be able to simply sit back and enjoy the carnage.

The way to defeat the Establishment isn’t to hope that the elites remain divided — it’s to make sure that conservatives remain united. If conservatives can manage to rally around a candidate relatively early in the process, they have the numbers to take the party back.

Philip Klein’s new book, Overcoming Obamacare: Three Approaches to Reversing the Government Takeover of Health Care, is available in print and electronic editions at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Apple iBooks.