More Vote-Disclosure, Coming Home Edition

Matt Welch | October 20, 2004

The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine, has come up with the conservative cases for Kerry, Badnarik, Nader, Peroutka (twice!), and not voting. There is one endorsement for the sitting president, and that comes from none other than serial Bush antagonist Patrick J. Buchanan. Why? Sure, it's because he "cannot endorse the candidate of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand," but the longer reason is more interesting: Basically, paleo-cons have a reason to believe they are gaining traction in the intra-conservative tug-of-war:

[I]nside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism.

There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats. The celebrants of outsourcing in the White House have gone into cloister. The Bush amnesty for illegal aliens has been rejected. Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing. But if we wish to be involved in the struggle for the soul of the GOP -- and we intend to be there -- we cannot be AWOL from the battle where the fate of that party is decided.

Comments

|10.20.04 @ 12:52PM|#

"While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right."

And since they're having such a huge impact on the administration's thinking and actions towards Iraq right now, their influence would surely grow if Bush won reelection despite their complaints.

"There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats." There is? I must have missed that.

|10.20.04 @ 12:56PM|#

Here's a quote from the "Don't Vote!" column:

"On Nov. 2, millions of Americans will troop to the polls to re-enact the quadrennial pageant. But nearly as many will opt out. They will be accused of sloth, though indifference is more apt�and remains the appropriate response to irrelevance."

Does that columnist ever post here? She should!

|10.20.04 @ 1:17PM|#

"There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats."

I'd like to see what evidence Pat Buchanan has to show that the Bush Administration is in bed with free-trade fanatics. I wish it were true.

Buchanan is right about the rebellion in the Republican Party, but the rebellion isn't about immigration; it's coming from his old enemies, the free-trade, Laffer Curve, budget-busting, pragmatic foreign policy Republicans of yesteryear. You know, the same Democrats and Republicans who brought us the Reagan Revolution.

As far as demographic group that made up the Reagan Democrats, not all of them were union members, and there are very few left of those that were. Much of the demographic who made up the Reagan Democrats are now culture war Republicans. They're the same people who base their support of the neoconservatives on the belief that foreign policy should be a function of prophecy.

Doug Allen|10.20.04 @ 3:19PM|#

What's really missing in politics is a "Libertarian Lite" party (so to speak). While I don't claim to know any numbers, I'd be willing to bet there are very many people who prefer low taxes, restrained spending, free trade, social tolerances, personal responsibility, gay rights, and a largely non-intervention foreign policy. But by the same token, these same people aren't going to flip out over a publicly-funded city fire department, a background check on the sale of an AK-47, a building safety code, or the requirement to carry a drivers' license. If a budding party formed in 1971 containing a more mainstreamed small-government approach (in everything from your wallet to your bedroom) featuring these ideals in a workable manner, I wouldn't be surprised if that party was a major player in this election. When I say "major player", I'm talking a double-digit percentage of the popular vote. But as it currently stands today, the LP platform is too 'all-or-nothing' and extreme for many people.

|10.20.04 @ 3:57PM|#

Dear Doug,
RE: If a budding party formed in 1971 containing a more mainstreamed small-government approach (in everything from your wallet to your bedroom) featuring these ideals in a workable manner, I wouldn't be surprised if that party was a major player in this election.

There was a party in 1971 that spouted that party line, the Republican party. Small l libertarians continue to this day to ignore the actions of elected Republicans, but eat up the rhetoric.

A libertarian lite party would be as satisfying as lite beer.

|10.20.04 @ 4:08PM|#

Stop gleaning fields already harvested!
The bounteous, unharvested fields are "unlikely voters."
All we need is the help of pollsters to help us harvest it efficiently.

|10.20.04 @ 4:09PM|#

"There was a party in 1971 that spouted that party line, the Republican party."

Perhaps, but the Republican candidate wasn't much of a small government guy in practice, was he? Nixon proclaimed himself a Keynesian in '71, and I've read that Nixon's embrace of price controls was the spark that brought about the Libertarian Party.

The Lonewacko Blog|10.20.04 @ 4:43PM|#

"There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats."

That rumbling is furiously suppressed by Bush/Rove. Links start here.