The Tea Party, Palin and The Republican Nomination

Some interesting commentary from Mark Mardell on the Tea Party successes in Republican primaries:

Both the polls and senior Republicans suggest that Tea Party favourite Christine O'Donnell hasn't a hope of winning the seat. But the Republican voters wanted her as their candidate nonetheless.

So when people tell you that Sarah Palin will not win the nomination in 2012 because she cannot beat President Obama, remember it is grassroots Republicans who make that decision, not party strategists or commentators.

There's a curious tension between the Tea Party and the Republicans; there is a sense in which each wants to co-opt the other, despite the fact that they are not actually compatible. I reckon this struggle will continue right up to the 2012 election; however, I don't doubt that the Republican party will end up absorbing the Tea Party movement. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way these things go.

Mardell's right, of course - if the Republican grass-roots want an unelectable candidate, then they can nominate one. And this may well be the way in which Palin wins the nomination in 2012. Yet the more I think about, the more I would sound a note of caution about assuming Palin will be the 2012 Republican nominee. While it is true that both parties in the US have nominated inept candidates (Goldwater and McGovern spring to mind), they have noted the result of this - landslide defeat. And you can see recent examples of how even the party faithful have ultimately decided to choose the credible candidate over the unelectable. That's why the likes of Howard Dean and Mike Huckabee - despite being the favourite for a substantial minority of their respective parties - were ultimately passed over in favour of more mainstream (and perhaps less inspiring) candidates. Despite the lack of a credible alternative at the moment, I suspect that this is what will happen with Palin; in the end, the party will almost certainly choose a more credible candidate than Palin because, ultimately, they want to beat Obama - not hand him a landslide re-election.

On Barry Goldwater

Goldwater is one of those curious political figures. Despite the fact that he was, at least in terms of his bid for President, an abject failure, he is fondly remembered by many - including lots of Libertarians. In fact, you often see a picture of him on Libertarian websites - often between pictures of Ayn Rand and F. A. Hayek. In some respects, he's like an American equivalent of Michael Foot. Obviously, their political views were completely different, but they both are painted as passionate ideologues and noble losers.

I have to be honest here - I think that Goldwater's 1964 campaign for President was an unmitigated disaster. He was so bad in it that he handed a landslide victory to LBJ - who then went forward to dramatically increase the size of the US state. Don't believe me when I say he fucked it up? Take a look at this:

I think the correct term is a landslide - and it wasn't in Goldwater's favour. I guess that's one of the reasons why he is still viewed with rose-tinted glasses: he never had to make any of the compromises that all Presidents have to make. It is far easier to be ideologically consistent when you don't have to actually exercise political power.

Of course, that campaign gave us the oft-quoted slogan that is perhaps best defines Barry Goldwater:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Like many famous pieces of rhetoric, it is a striking, memorable and, unfortunately, largely bollocks. Extremism is always a vice - it involves turning your mind off to alternative viewpoints, shutting down debates and believing zealously in the "truth" of your own position. In fact, I'd argue that extremism leads to the defacement of liberty. Likewise, moderation is the way justice works - the entire justice system is designed to limit emotion and extremism. Moderation is arguably vital to justice.

But it is a political slogan, and designed to provoke emotions rather than stand up to detailed analysis. Unfortunately, it also fails as an effective political slogan. Think about the context - it was the height of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis and the murder of a US President were all recent history. Many voters would also have lived through the results of the extremists of the 1930's - in other words, World War Two. It was naive at best to make a statement like that - and it created a big stick with which LBJ could beat Goldwater. In fact, the notorious Daisy commercial can be traced back to that statement:

As a Presidential candidate, Goldwater failed. And in doing so, I don't think that he really revealed himself to be a champion of freedom.

But despite all this, I still think that Goldwater was, in his own way, a champion of liberty if only because he was so consistent about his views. Look at his later career - he stood against the increasing Christian domination of the Republican party. He believed abortion was a personal choice, not something that the government should legislate for or against. Likewise, he didn't care about homosexuals serving in the military - and he certainly didn't back the often homophonic stance of many Republicans. And this statement is still pertinent today:

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.

Read those words, and think about Bush Junior. Or the moronic Sarah Palin. People who mistake being a Christian fundamentalist with being a champion of liberty. Goldwater understood that religion and politics need to be kept separate, and that some matters truly are about personal responsibility and personal choice. Forget his wibblings about extremism and liberty, and focus instead on his coherent and necessary resistance against the religious right in the US. His stance and his words are essential if you want to understand why the zealots who seem to be running the Republican party at the moment are not friends of liberty, but rather the exact opposite.