Safe to say that McCain and Huckabee have gotten a pounding from much of mainstream conservative sources of information. One would think that conservatism was a church and that both the leading candidates (McCain and Huckabee at the time of this post) amongst Republican voters in national polls were apostates and heretics.
This from the same class that was not nearly so uniform in worrying about Rudy, parsing his every statement, or publicizing his numerous personal failings.
(There are exceptions. Great praise to The Weekly Standard, and Bill Kristol especially, who have been refreshingly unpredictable and fair. Here is a post light years ahead of most of what we have been reading from conservative mainstream.)
We are about to measure the power of that class in South Carolina.
If Mike Huckabee wins, or even comes close, it will have been through his appeal to young conservatives. If Ron Paul finishes over five percent, amazing considering his merits as commander-in-chief, it will have been through his appeal to younger voters.
Whatever happens in this particular election, change is coming. Young voters in South Carolina may give over half their votes to the anti-establishment candidates.
More and more evidence shows that many younger voters, the generation that did not know Buckley and does not listen to Rush, are voting for Huckabee or Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. Here is one poll. Up to now pundits have bristled at the notion that they are out of touch with the people who actually vote in Republican primaries, especially future party members and workers.
Mike Huckabee spends almost no money, but he has many willing hands. Ron Paul has an amazing army of Internet activists and young people. Both are social conservatives. Much of Paul’s strength can be tied to opposition to the War (he is the only major candidate), but many of his workers in the field are Evangelicals and traditional Christians fed up with “mainstream” politicians.
Ron Paul has serious support in the home school community.
Without agreeing with all their ideas, as a Reagan/Romney Republican I want to know how to reach out to those voters.
The conservative establishment refuses to admit that old tricks, old methods, and accusations that “he is not a true conservative” are meaningless to a group of people whose entire political memory is dominated by Bush and Clinton. Even as an old guy, I have never voted in my life for president without a Bush or a Clinton being on the ballot. What is a “conservative?”
We have to admit that the residue of all our communication, whether this is fair or not, has been that we are a group out of touch on some key issues. Notice it is not social conservatism, especially the right to life, that is the problem. That is an “old pundit” perception that must change. This is the most pro-life generation of Republican voters ever. If Ron Paul were not very pro-life, his support (I suspect) would be radically less in the primaries than it is.
There is a Republican establishment and it has a great deal of power. This is not a bad thing and every movement will naturally form establishments. They should not be ignored and anti-establishment rhetoric should be tempered by the knowledge that, if victorious, the new group will become the next establishment.
I personally benefit from much of what this establishment does. It is not evil or worthless, but much of what it produces (but by no means all) has been useless (in my experience) in talking to younger voters or reaching beyond a very narrow base. The establishment, if it ever reads this quick post, is likely to point to books and articles where they address broader social issues, but such books and talks often feel forced and are not the focus of daily conversation.
Many of the people in power now are my age or older and were Reagan Revolutionaries when they were young. It must be difficult to become the “insiders” to a new generation. I think South Carolina will pretty much tell us (after three different states have voted in hotly contested races) if the establishment is communicating to young conservative voters.
What makes for an insider culture?
The establishment is less determined by where people live or went to school than by where they draw their pay check.
After all, conservatives do have a group of people who get paid to be conservative and a group of people who do not. Not surprisingly the much smaller world of those who get paid to say conservative things, even if it is not very much, wish to continue to get paid to say conservative things.
People with money to give to conservatives tend to be my age or older. We are moved by a different range of issues than move a younger audience. When I speak my passion for “social justice” issues is lights up a room of young voters, but leaves Reagan era voters cold. They are glad to hear it and do not disagree with the small-government proposals, but they are not passionate about it.
Even when the policies are conservative, there is a generational passion gap that communicates to younger voters.
Whatever the age of the pundit, if they join a think-tank or paid-for-talk, institution, they begin to sound alike. They get catch phrases (”living constitution”) that they all instantly understand (given their history in the movement) and which they begin to take seriously. It is easy to forget that these catch phrases may communicate nothing or something else to a rising pool of voters.
Suppose you think, like I do, that limited government is good, a culture of life is good, and economic liberty is the best way to bring economic justice. I think we have to admit that we have done a horrible job educating folk in these values. Our problem with young voters is three fold:
1. the war which they view as failed
2. race and poverty where conservatives “ideas” sound like a rehash.
3. the environment
I do not need to be told that the War is not a failure. Hopefully, this is one area where if we continue to make our case and the situation continues to improve young voters will come around to a different point of view. There are good defenses of the War out there and I am hopeful (given the size of the Paul vote) that this is still a winnable issue.
There are also good books out there presenting fresh solutions to race, poverty, and the environment from a small government perspective. However, these good ideas are not being communicated and one reason is that our main communicators almost never talk about them. They don’t motivate the people now consuming conservative products as much as other “safer” conservative topics and so the amount of air time they get is limited.
The present audience for mainstream conservative products is my age and we are not motivated as much to “buy” based on a discussion of those issues. This can blind groups that need money to survive, which will come from boomers and older groups, to the problem.
We say the poor matter, but are failing to communicate a passion for really helping. Huckabee communicates that passion and talks about solutions. They may be wrong headed, but he makes it a part of every talk he gives. Too often other candidates or the conservative punditry or paid establishment bring up poverty or the environment in a way that sounds like they feel they have to say something about them.
The passion is missing and that communicates to an audience.
There are three bad short-fixes for people worried about this problem.
First, it is to quickly hire a bunch of young people and make them pundits with a pay check. Of course, these young people will generally be hired because they were the type of young person who did listen to Rush, is already very political, and knows the jargon.
Second would be to blame the voters. There is nothing so unattractive as a pundit blaming the voters for not understanding his infinite wisdom. It is true that the voice of the people is not the voice of God. The majority is often wrong, but in a republican form of government losing a vote is a call to education and persuasion not self-righteousness and withdrawal.
Third, would be to abandon the big ideas of the conservative movement and just “listen to the kids.”
Conservatives care about history. We care about ideas and we want truth . . . not just victory. However, times change and the topics of interest change. It may be time for a Theodore Roosevelt to bring a bit of Bull Moose to the party of Reagan.
If South Carolina shows that amongst young voters, the “establishment” conservative candidates were shelled, after all the effort to prop them up, then there needs to be some reality about a long term change of strategy and topics in the movement.
(Bias Alert: My preferred candidate is Mitt Romney.)