The Interocitor

Hewitt's Principled Pragmatism

What to say about Hugh Hewitt's new book If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat? Patterico has badgered me into giving my take on this, so here it is. (You can find Patterico's review here).

I find I've come to a strange conclusion. Hugh's basic point (Vote the Republican party line or be damned) has much to say for it, but his understanding of the Republican coalition, his claim that 3rd parties are irrelevant and his distaste for intraparty dissent all cause me problems. Yet, after all this, I may well have come to his happy medium by an altogether different route. I am, for the moment, more willing to consider social conservative candidates than I was yesterday, despite violent disagreement with their statist ways.

First, Hugh's view of the Republican Party ignores substantial parts of it. He divides the Republicans into 3 camps: Faith, Wealth and Military. But from his discussion, his view of the Wealth Party is that of Wall Street investors and "the Rich" -- the Rockefeller wing -- when economic libertarians and small business owners are also primarily concerned with economic issues yet have no general alliance with Wall Street.

Similarly, Hugh lumps all neocons into the Military wing, when to many neocons Military is subordinate to other things, like free trade, democracy and personal liberty (crossing over into libertarian territory once again). Military is merely a tool to use when the real weapons (free trade, democracy ...) have been ignored for too long to be immediately useful. In short, there is a Liberty wing that Hugh completely misses.

Only the Faith wing does Hugh seem to get right -- perhaps because this is the wing he inhabits. Or perhaps I'm just sensitive here because while I see Faith as a personal strength and reservoir of integrity, I have no wish to see Faith-driven law, and am therefore often at odds with this camp.

Secondly, Hugh has no patience for third parties. His view is that there are two Established Parties, and if you don't vote for one of them you might as well not vote. While this is often the case, it is not always the case.

In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, largely from Republicans and all from people who considered the mounting deficit that had exploded under Bush 41 to be enough of a threat that they'd throw over their own party's candidate to make that point. Bush was defeated in an election he would have won mano y mano. Was this a mistake on the Perot voter's part? No. Clinton and Congress got the message loud and clear. Perot's 19% got their balanced budget. They got other things, too, which they might not have wanted, but they agreed to that with their vote.

So, here I have to strongly disagree with Hewitt: Choice is more important than Party. If there's not a "dime's worth of difference" between parties on an issue you find critical and there is a third choice available, you are literally voting against your interests to vote for either major party. How are the politicians going to know what you want if you keep voting the other way? In the last election people who utterly opposed US involvement in Iraq were irresponsible if they settled for Kerry. There was at least one clear anti-war candidate on every state's ballot, and often two. If anything, we need more 3rd party voting, not less, or political lines will continue to ossify. In some states, on state issues, the initiative process takes the place of this 3rd party need, allowing things that both parties oppose (e.g. medical marijuana, property tax rollbacks) to become law. Properly instituted in most states, the initiative and referendum might obviate the 3rd party need entirely.

The main point of Hugh's book, though is to advocate partisanship and to argue for a pragmatic backing of the Party's candidates -- whoever they are -- rather than a focus on issues and candidates. Macropolitics versus micropolitics. There is no "i" in "Team." The Arlen Specter case, occurring after the book's publication, is a perfect example of this: Arlen may be a loose cannon, but he's our loose cannon. As Hugh points out over and over, "Majorities Matter" and one can't have a majority if one is constantly purging voting members. Fine.

Hewitt breaks partisan voters down into one of 5 groups: Regulars, Occasionals, Principled Pragmatists, Movement Activists and Fanatics. Regulars are the bread and butter voters -- they show up, pull your lever, and go home. They neither know or care what's in the platform or what any candidate favors. Occasionals show up when it suits them. Occasionals elected Jesse Ventura. I have a friend who votes only for pro-marijuana candidates, but mostly he's not motivated. Occasionals are unpredictable. Movement activists are the ones at the party meeting who are only interested in a candidate's views on their issue (e.g. the anti-abortion crowd). Fanatics are the activists who will roundly damn, in public, any of their own candidates who fail to support the extreme edge of their given issue.

Then there is the Pragmatic Partisan, who fights within the party for his own ideals, but cheerfully votes the party line in the end. He's a regular who does read and care about the platform -- a leader more than a follower, but a follower in the sense that he never strays from the Party itself. Hugh then suggests there is a variant of this: the Principled Pragmatic Partisan. It seems an oxymoron in the context, but it's not, exactly. It is, in fact, the group to which the book speaks.

The problem with People of Principle is that they often stomp off into the night when they're asked to accept the unPrincipled or Pragmatic candidate (e.g. Specter). Oh, they won't vote for the other Party, they might vote 3rd party or leave it blank, they might even vote for the Party, but they won't do any of it cheerfully. They care about their politics and are forever uncomfortable in a large party. Maybe they are social conservatives who can barely tolerate free-trading neo-cons who know "the value of everything and the worth of nothing". Or libertarians who roll their eyes every time the Abortion or Immigration topics come up. Or War on Terror types who get upset with everyone who doesn't understand What Comes First.

Hewitt tries to make the case, primarily to the Movement Activists, but also to the broader camps, that Party Must Come First. Only with Unity can we have Majority. You can't have that luxury of voting Libertarian or Constitution just because your local candidate is too mainstream. The problem is that I don't think he makes it.

To have party unity in the face of division, there must be a place where it is fair to fight it out. Only through conflict of some sort can consensus be wrought. In the current system this can happen one of two places: in a back room, caucus or convention; or in a primary. The first has the advantage of being private, where disagreements don't play as well into the opposition's hands, and the disadvantage of excluding many party players from participation, lessening acceptance. The second has the opposite problem, but by and large is to be preferred. And one of the things you have to be willing to accept is that, in a primary, movements and principles may well combine to select a weaker candidate than pure pragmatism would choose. You may lose some elections you might otherwise have won. On the other hand you may keep some voters that moderate candidate would have lost, possibly forever: Movement voters, if ignored long enough, become occasionals. Paul Weyrich, a social conservative icon, questioned the wisdom of participating in voting, or even American society, after the 1998 acquittal of President Clinton. George W Bush, however, changed his mind. A John McCain might have done far better in the center in 2000, and might even have won handily, but it would have been at the cost of the Weyrich-Dobson axis. Hewitt argues that this attitude is destructive, and Movement Activists need to become more Pragmatic. This is wishful thinking. We simply need to accept the conflict, resolve it however, and move on. The other side gains little as they have the same problem. Wishing won't help. Unity only comes after a fair fight.

You also need to accept that people need an outlet. There will be candidates that suck, standing on issues that appeal to few. Demanding party unity here is damaging to the coalition. See Duke, David.

There will also be candidates who seem unappealing to the middle but make the rank-and-file swoon. You win a majority by winning overall, and that means you keep the coalition happy, even if you have to lose some races a moderate might have won to do it. Specter, Shays, or Jeffords (oops, kept him) might be a better loss than a win if it keeps the coalition happy or builds the party for next time. Let your base have their try, they might just win. See Reagan, Ronald.

In 2002, everyone, but everyone, said that Bill Simon couldn't possibly beat Grey Davis and the Republicans blew it when they didn't nominate Riordan. Yet after the party gave up, without much money or support, Davis beat Simon by only 5 points, 47-42, with 10% going 3rd party. Self-fulfilling prophesy. Simon might have won, even in blue-state California, if the oh-no-he's-too-conservative faction had rolled up its collective sleeves and worked for it. And even if he'd lost, the people who backed him wouldn't feel like sitting on their hands next time a moderate runs. Not every strong conservative is Alan Keyes, just like not every moderate is Bill Jones.

In short, Hugh hasn't sold me, and I remain a principled partisan with pragmatic tendencies: a free-market, pro-immigration, small government, pro-war, libertarian non-social conservative. I believe strongly in a God, but am a member of no Church. I have enough of a time agreeing with myself to agree with someone else. And yes, I voted the Republican ticket in 2004, except where it didn't matter.

See also Clark Smith and The Yell for other takes on Hugh's book.

UPDATE: Welcome Weekly Standard readers. I hope you stay and check out the rest of the Interocitor. I'm a charter subscriber to the Standard, FWIW.