The moralistic handicap in the GOP

I’ve long thought that the social conservatives are the Republican Party’s biggest handicap. Although they make up a powerful and energetic element of the party’s base, their views are rejected by so many general-election voters that their dominance in the party is ultimately self-defeating. This interpretation was supported by the 2004 presidential election and the 2006 congressional elections. After 2004 went so strongly in favor of Bush, many pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, claimed that the strength of support for Bush was due to the appeal of “morals” issues like gay marriage and whatnot. I strongly disagreed—the 2004 election was a referendum on Iraq, and Kerry was trounced for that reason. In 2006, by contrast, I think most voters had domestic policy in mind, and Republicans, who had spent the ensuing two years focusing on “morals” issues, were trounced. Once again, I think most pundits misinterpreted the results—they saw it as a reaction against the Iraq War. But that theory cannot make sense of the consistently low approval ratings for Congress (even lower than Bush’s) or of Bush’s success two years earlier. I think most voters—including a silent majority of registered Republicans—are hawks on the war, but very unenthusiastic about the moral authoritarian wing of the party. At the same time, however, they lack the wherewithal to challenge that wing. They’re intimidated by the moral posturing of the “values” crowd.

And I think that’s what accounts for the John McCain/Mitt Romney calamity. The silent majority of hawk/non-social conservatives are given a choice they don’t much like, but of the two, they’ll pick McCain. The only alternative they have, after all, is a guy who not only hugs the cross himself, but who is very enthusiastically backed by the religious right. If the party would come to its senses on the authoritarianism angle, and stop trying to police bedrooms, it would not only do better in general elections, but it would have far better nominees.