Cautions for Conservatives
Elections Have Consequences, Sometimes Unintended
By Mark I Posted in 1986 | 2008 | Abortion | Bork | Roe v. Wade | senate — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Jeffrey Lord has a very important piece at The American Spectator online today. He recounts the often overlooked story of the 1986 Senate elections, in which the GOP lost control of the Senate, their impact on the defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and the consequences for Roe v. Wade six years later.
Mr. Lord recalls that the GOP lost seven of the twelve freshman Senators who had been elected on Ronald Reagan’s coattails in the Republican Senate takeover of 1980. Six of those Senators were defeated by less than four percentage points in their 1986 bids for reelection. All seven were the victims of apathy and hostility from relatively small handfuls of conservative voters in their home states.
Read on…
Several members of the 1980 freshman GOP class had managed to antagonize or simply fail to impress the conservative base in their respective states. Sometimes the reasons were different, sometimes the same. Charges of arrogance and being out of touch surfaced with North Dakota's Mark Andrews, something I discovered in person when speaking at a GOP state-party gathering in Bismarck. Allegations that she was a weak lightweight was a cross for Paula Hawkins of Florida. Washington's Slade Gorton was suspect as a closet-liberal. Alabama's war-hero Jeremiah Denton, a Vietnam POW and former Navy admiral, just hadn't clicked as a politician, coming across as out-of-touch with his constituents. There were gripes about Mack Mattingly of Georgia and the newly appointed James Broyhill of North Carolina, a congressman and reliable if colorless conservative who had been appointed to the Senate upon the death of 1980 winner John East. South Dakota's James Abdnor, who had famously ended the career of no less than liberal icon George McGovern was being portrayed as a mumbling bumbler, nothing like the younger and more articulate Democrat Congressman Tom Daschle, a favorite of lots of South Dakotans of all stripes. […]
The unhappiness with Mack Mattingly in Georgia meant a 50.9%-49.1% loss to liberal Congressman Wyche Fowler. The heroic but un-political Jeremiah Denton sailed to a 50.9%-49.1% loss to Democratic Congressman (and later GOP Senator) Richard Shelby. In North Carolina, James Broyhill lost 48.1% to 51.9 to liberal ex-governor Terry Sanford. The decision to punish North Dakota's Mark Andrews resulted in Andrews losing 49.8% to 49.0% to liberal Kent Conrad. In South Dakota, the well-liked Tom Daschle was launched on a career that would take him to the post of a very liberal Senate Majority leader, defeating Jim Abdnor 51.7% to 48.3%. And in Washington, Slade Gorton went under 51.2% to 48.8% to liberal ex-Carter cabinet member Brock Adams. Only in Florida was there a significant margin of defeat, with Paula Hawkins losing to the popular Bob Graham 55% to 45%.
In other words, six of these seven lost Senate seats were close races, in some cases heartbreakingly so.
Lord goes on to link the losses of 1986 to the Bork confirmation battle of the summer of 1987. The GOP loss of the Senate in 1986 handed the Chairman’s gavel of the Senate Judiciary Committee to Sen. Joe Biden, relegating Sen. Strom Thurmond to ranking member and guaranteeing the confirmation hearing circus that ensued. Lord points out that every single freshman Democratic replacement for a lost Republican Senator voted against Judge Bork’s confirmation. Eventually, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, who in 1992 would famously switch his allegiance from an opinion gutting Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to one affirming it. There has not been a serious Supreme Court Challenge to Roe since.
Lord draws lessons from the midterm elections of 1986 for conservatives surveying the 2008 GOP presidential candidates. That lesson is this: sometimes expediency trumps ideology. This is a harder lesson for conservatives than for liberals and Democrats. Liberals and Democrats are more likely to be animated by the results of elections. They seek power first, and tend to decide upon the principles afterwards. Conservatives, on the other hand, are organized around a set of principles. They are animated by a desire to see those principled debated, enacted, and defended. It is this fidelity to principle that causes conservatives to sometimes take the short run view of political questions and demand perfect loyalty to ideology in all instances.
As the 1986 midterm election demonstrates, elections have consequences, sometimes unintended. In 1986, no one could know that Justice Lewis Powell, an affirmative vote in Roe, would retire at the end of the Court term. Certainly no one could imagine that a reversal of Roe would be so tantalizingly close six years later. But it is undeniable that that election is directly responsible for the very existence of Roe today. None of this is to say that there are not issues that are so important as to demand some level of deference on the part of candidates for a party’s nomination. Abortion would certainly qualify as one of those. However, none of the seven lost GOP Senators of 1986 was chased from office because of his or her stance on abortion. They were disciplined for more minor sins; with the result being that abortion, the greatest sin of all, would become more firmly entrenched in America.
It is a point for conservatives to consider as the Republican Party selects its nominee. None of the leading candidates are perfectly acceptable to the broad base of conservatives that vote in Republican primaries. The candidates should do everything they can to address these concerns. Conservatives, in turn, should accept the candidates as they are and pledge to support the nominee of the party, whoever it is. The Republican Party is still the best venue for advancing the conservative cause. Any of the Republican candidates for president will be a far better advocates for conservative causes than minor party candidates. In 2008, conservatives may have to swallow hard, take the long view, and take one for the team on some issue or another in order to advance the overall cause. For inspiration, they can look to the lessons of 1986.
« Questioning the map-changing Democratic wave — Comments (26)
Cautions for Conservatives 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
lesson: Don't p**s off the base!
I'm tired of the politicos telling us SoCons that we need to roll over because "we've gotten everything we asked for" when the reality is that we gotten less than what they have, or they will take their ball and go home. Of course when we say the same things, that is being divisive. I've said before that Newt should have stayed and Lott should have resigned that year. Newt delivered for the FiCons, and Lott lost the Senate because he played the moderate peacemaking nice guy. I will grant Newt tried to deliver for the SoCons, but that died in the Senate. And no, I'm not sure Bork would have been approved if we had just rolled over and voted for lackluster crowd that lost.
Go ahead and continue to preach that we need to compromise so we can have access to power. As for me and mine, we like the prophet before us, will follow God.
objectives. I do, I probably just define them a little differently. I don't regard the balanced budget amendment or the PAYGO rule as fiscal conservatism. I define fiscal conservatism as reducing the size of government and putting that money back in the hands of the people (I will accept reducing the rate of increase as a good faith effort). Neither of those rules require a reduction in government spending, and can just as easily be met by increasing taxes as the socialist Democrat party advocates.
Over time, I've found that you can't be a SoCon without supporting FiCon objectives, no matter what the so-called grapenuts conservatives claim.
how can you be "saving lives" by helping out those with whom you are most diametrically opposed? Isn't that a "blood on your hands" mindset?
Also, other than listening to some preacher who flies around in a lear jet, how do you know that sitting out and helping the worst possible alternative is something the Almighty approves of? Kinda presumptuous to say you can speak for the Almighty, isn't it?
Senators are different from Presidents, and the consequences of elections for Senators are VERY different from those of President. I voted for Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2006. I would probably vote for her again for US Senator over most Democrats out there, but I would hesitate to vote for her as a President and would certainly not vote for her as a governor or state legislator.
To lump all the different offices together by party without regard to the individuals is an incredibly dumb thing to do.
But, then, that should be expected.
IMO, the threats coming from SoCons ... and I am one .... amounts to the old childhood game of "Taking my ball & going home" if things don't go my way.
SoCons are important to Republican success in national elections. We are not, however, "a majority" in & of ourselves; if we're going to see our goals advanced, we have to make common cause with folks who agree with us more than they disagree, but nevertheless disagree with us on some things.
TO THE EXTENT we've not gotten things we'd like we have to ask whether there's a majority for that particular item. Where there is, we have right to be upset; where there isn't, our task is to persuade others until there is.
Elect a Dem in 2008 & we're going to see Roe set in stone, the ban on partial birth abortion repealed, gay marriage advance, surrender in Islamofascist War, squashing of the new media through the "fairness" doctrine, higher taxes, etc. Our only line of defense will be a successful filibuster (do you want to depend on the Republican Senate caucus knowing the press will be uniformly hostile?) and/or favorable court decisions.
IMO, we'd have about as much chance of having those things happen as we'd have surviving a game of Russian Roulette with a loaded .45 semiautomatic.
Dr. Dobson needs to understand that politics belongs to Caesar & "lesser of two evils" is part of the rendering. Any Republican who pledges at least to do no harm on my issues is preferable to a Democrat who will do violence to them.
I don't think it's fair to say that Broyhill lost in '86 because he didn't appeal to conservative Republicans. If you look at the political demographics in North Carolina in 1986, the eastern third of the state was essentially "yellow-dog" Democrat, the western third trended Republican, and the middle third was up for grabs. This lead to close and polarizing elections, such as Helms-Hunt in 1984 (well, OK, Helms vs. just about anyone any year would be a polarizing election). One thing that kept Helms in office was his ability to attract conservative Democrats with his focus on social conservatism and a touch of economic populism. By comparison, Broyhill (of the furniture Broyhills) was seen more as a big business, country-club Republican and couldn't bring as many conservative Democrats "to the light", especially in a race against the very popular Terry Sanford.
I think the lesson to take home from the Broyhill-Sanford race is that fiscal conservatism needs to be ameliorated when running for office. Too many potential swing voters see Republicans as the party of the "haves", not representing the common man. A corollary to this would be the Casey-Santorum race in '06, where a hint of social conservatism + a dollup of economic populism beat a stout across-the-board conservative.
This is the problem that our current President tried to address with the phrase "compassionate conservatism". Unfortunately, enough Republicans have joined the MSM in deriding the concept of a "compassionate conservative" that the meme has lost its effectiveness.
Also unfortunately, Republicans against "compassionate conservatism" tend to be the same Republicans who say they'll stay home if Mike Huckabee wins the nomination. They don't seem to realize that, for example, it wasn't a choice between a Republican-designed Medicare drug plan and no plan, it was a choice between our current plan and an vastly worse plan that would have sailed through our current Congress. Opting for Hillary, Barack, or John over Mike would really be cutting off your nose to spite your face if you are a fiscal conservative.
Disclaimer: Mike Huckabee is not my first choice for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008, but I could see supporting him.
don't let the "sit out to teach a lesson" crowd hear this.
They are getting so stupid that they now are attacking Mike Huckabee*, a SOUTHERN Baptist Preacher, as not acceptable enough! I bet at this point, they would find Jesus H Christ himself unacceptable if her were to run for office.
*I do not endorse Huckabee. I am just pointing out the stupidity of the I Want To Lose Crowd.