I read an article on Townhall.com arguing that the current GOP frontrunners have "questionable conservative credentials." While that is true to a substantial degree, something in the article made me wonder whether the author was really talking about social conservatism rather than fiscal conservatism, so the following is my note to the article's author. You can read the article at:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KenConnor/2007/03/11/conservatives_should_produce_candidates,_not_choose_them

Mr Connor,

I'm curious about something in your article: For most of it, you discuss "conservatives". Yet at the end of the first paragraph you at least imply that the people you're talking about in particular are social conservatives.

I'm wondering whether your article is about not having a good enough "conservative" candidate, or not having a candidate who is conservative enough on social issues, even if conservative on other issues.

In my view there's a very big difference.

The Republicans lost big in the last election only in part because of Iraq. I believe they would certainly still have the Senate, and possibly the House, had they not abandoned fiscal conservativism and support for a lean and limited government.

Instead, they pandered to social conservatives on gay marriage and stem cells and got annihilated.

Most social conservatives are fiscal conservatives, but far from all social conservatives believe that it is the role of government to enforce their views on America.

In other words, it was a huge mistake in Republican strategy to pin their hopes for victory on social conservatives. It is fiscal conservativism that will really determine success or failure for the GOP.

So, I'd like to repeat my question: Are you saying that the current "big three" are questionably conservative as a generaly statement or questionably socially conservative? There's a very big and important difference.

If they're not actually conservative on a wide enough range of issues, they are probably not very good candidates. If they're just not socially conservative, that might make their primary campaigns slightly more difficult but is probably a substantial positive for the general election.

And although I'm not a social conservative, I presume that a social conservative would rather see a fiscal conservative who is a social moderate be elected instead of any of the current Democratic front-runners.

You must remember that Independent or non-affiliated voters are an increasingly important voting block, and that they have tended to vote Republican until the Republicans abandoned fiscal responsibility. Yes, the war is going badly, but that is not enough to explain the extent of the public's 2006 disgust with Republican candidates. And I note that a few very conservative legislators lost, making my point that social conservatism is not enough to win an election in most places, and is probably becoming even less of a net positive for GOP candidates in Senate and Presidential races.

Given the fact that a social moderate or someone who is slightly conservative socially is more electable (in a general election, not necessarily a primary) than someone who is best known for intense social conservatism, I would suggest that conservatives and Republicans should focus on getting the candidate who is a true fiscal conservative, a solid leader, and someone who believes in Federalism. If voters want to enact socially conservative policies, let them do it on a state level (and if that includes appointing judges who are likely to overturn Roe v Wade, I can live with that.)

Someone who is a social conservative but with the Democrats on economic issues is certainly the worst of all possible worlds for a libertarian-leaning voter like me. I want the government out of all aspects of my life except where it is clearly delegated responsibility by the Constitution. Social conservatives are the part of the GOP which makes those of us who care about liberty hesitant to vote Republican even if we can not even imagine voting for a Democrat.

So, if you're saying that the current candidates have questionable credentials on a wide range of issues, I'd say you have a real point with McCain, somewhat less of a point with Romney, and much less of a point with Giuliani. If you're saying that they're questionable on social issues, you're probably closer to right about that, but it's not at all clear that that's a bad thing, either for the country or for the GOP's chances of winning in 2008.

Best regards,
Rossputin