The Rise of GOP Moderates?

. . . or the exhibition of GOP conservativism?

Many folks have made the observation that the RNC Convention in New York was evidence of a rising tide of moderates emerging within the Republican Party. Is it true?

Not in the slightest. National Review editors make a rather astute observation with regards to the convention, illustrating the remarkable divergence in the moderates, and what really binds them together – conservative issues and the overwhelming influence of conservatives within the GOP:

This collection of views is not evidence of a rift within the Republican party. It is evidence that the party is a coalition all of whose members do not agree on all issues – which is what one would expect given that America has two major parties and 300 million people. Republicans must appeal to people who want tax cuts and a war against terrorism but favor legal abortion. They must also appeal to people who are pro-life but favor national health care.

There is a broad Republican consensus on the social issues, and it was not disguised at the convention. Everyone who alluded to abortion was pro-life, and everyone who alluded to same-sex marriage was against it. There is, of course, dissent on these issues. But the pro-choice wing of the party is much weaker than it was only eight years ago. In 1996, Governors Pete Wilson, William Weld, and Christine Todd Whitman sought to change the party’s pro-life platform. No such attempt was made this year. Weld and Whitman supported partial-birth abortion and saw their careers limited by it. Most of today’s major pro-choice Republican politicians would ban partial-birth abortion. None of them, judging from the convention speeches, thinks it wise to build a career on attempts to change the party’s position. They may care about ‘abortion rights,’ but they appear to care about other issues, such as the war on terrorism, more. Otherwise they would be Democrats.

George Will has suggested that we are witnessing a revival of “Goldwater Republicanism,” combining the government-cutting of his 1964 campaign with the social liberalism of his later days. Alas, no Republican politician since 1964 has been as consistently anti-statist as Goldwater was, and this crop of moderates is slightly to the left of the party’s center on the role of government. Schwarzenegger is an environmentalist. Giuliani left the high taxes and bureaucracy of New York City largely alone. McCain crusades against pork — a small portion of the federal budget — but is often a proponent of sweeping federal regulations.

In short, what we have here is the definition of “moderate” becoming politicians who agree with the vast majority of conservative issues save one or two. That the moderates find a home in the GOP is testament to the strength of the conservative movement within the Republican Party, for without it the moderates would find little to agree upon.

For that reason alone, the advent of any moderate bloc within the GOP is a preposterous one. I disagree that we are not witnessing an eventual revival of “Goldwater Republicanism,” because the anti-statist principles are indeed coming to the fore. Furthermore, the moderates within the GOP certainly are not holding the banner of Barry Goldwater – that is something that conservatives are rediscovering for themselves.