The Problem with Moderate Republicans

Many republicans and bloggers ponder the rift between Conservative Republicans and Moderate Republicans - and are trying to find a way to breach that schism in an effort to ensure victory in 2010.

Most people (Ace, Allah, etal) that I read focus on the idea differences between the two.

Conservatives want the whole boat (social conservatism and economic conservatism)

Moderates want part of it (economic conservatism only or maybe only social conservatism)

But is it even more simple than that? This post about Crist and the Porkulus got me thinking.

Let's distill the issues down to a set core of values, first off. Let's say a "pure" republican is:

1. Pro-Life
2. Pro Traditional Marriage
3. Limited Government
4. Low Taxes
5. Against Illegal Immigration
6. Pro Gun

Your "ideal republican" maybe 1-6, but would you vote for a guy who is 3-6? i.e. He's pro-choice and pro gay marriage. I'd say yes. A minority might say no, but overall that's a pretty good candidate. But would you vote for a guy who is 1-2, but not 3-6. I'd say no. 3-6 are non-negotiable. Right? That's the foundation. Small government, low taxes, pro gun. I don't think many republicans would disagree with this notion.

So, what's the problem with Moderates. They fit that. They are, essentially 3-6'ers. They aren't social warriors, right? They profess to be economic conservatives, but leave the bandwagon on social issues.

But the problem is they aren't even rock hard on those issues. They are squishy. Olympia Snowe says she is an economic conservative, but might vote for Obamacare. And she's certainly not a social conservative, right? So what is she?

If her "core" beliefs are that flexible and she can vote for big government and higher taxes, then what good is she? The converse is true as well. John McCain. He's pro-life and pro-gun. And pretends to be an economic conservative (I'd disagree, but that's another issue). But, as we see so many times, he doesn't hold to his guns on what he believes. He'll negotiate his core away at a moment's notice, if the opportunity is there.

So, really, that's the problem isn't it? It's not an all or nothing party. 1-6 or die. It's a stick to your beliefs or you are useless. If you don't want to be a social warrior - fine. Don't be. But then you must be an economic warrior. You can't go in and say "Well, maybe a tax increase here is okay." or "Obamacare is just dandy. Maybe I'll vote for it." and expect people to continue to support you. This is the problem with moderates - their beliefs in anything aren't firm enough.

I'd have absolutely no problem with Snowe as a social liberal, as long as she's an economic conservative - and sticks to her guns in that sense. If she won't support a pro-life judge or whatever. Cool. I don't care. But you can't turn around and stab Republicans in the back where you are supposed to be a reliable vote.

Arlen Specter was the same way. You aren't a social con. Wonderful. Who cares. But don't turn around and argue for big government spending and tax increases, too. You can't go left on all issues and expect people to support you.

And I think that's where the root of the problem is. (And yeah, I'm poor at explaining it). It's not -really- about social cons vs social moderates. It's about sticking to what you believe. Be steadfast in your core values.

If you are a Republican, who isn't a reliable vote on social issues, don't go in front of cameras and hedge on big government spending then wonder why the party hates you. And it's not the party's fault if you can't stand up for a single thing the party believes in. That's your problem, not ours.

A smaller example would be Ace or Allahpundit. They aren't pure conservatives. No one would argue with this. But you know where they'll come down on the things that matter to them.  They are going to be reliable on economic issues (Except TARP, damn you both), war on terror, taxes, guns and government spending. Not so much on social warrior issues.

In an even smaller sense, this - I think - is the conservative problem with Little Green Footballs of late. It got popular because of the War on Terror and Islamic extremism. Since the WoT is being neglected by Obama, and the site has become more apologetic to Islamic Extremism - there is little reason to expect conservatives to love this site any longer.

Back to the original example of Charlie Crist. He wants to be a Republican candidate for Senate. He's not a social warrior, but he says he's a fiscal conservative. But he turned around and hugged Obama and supported Porkulus. Before he came out against it later. And even more recently, he pulled a Charlie Gibson (Porkulus? Never heard of it.). Which would go back to the original point - what is he? If he's not steadfast in his fiscal conservatism -and- he's not a social conservative ... what good is he?

It's not about party purity as so many suggest, he's simply not reliable in any way. And that's the real issue, isn't it?