Conservative Blogger and McCain Consultant: Movement doesn't 'give a s--t about ordinary people'
by Ryan Sager
Wed, 15 Aug 2007 at 6:09 PM
updated Wed, 15 Aug 2007 at 6:13 PM
A consultant to John McCain's presidential campaign in charge of online outreach, Patrick Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits, has just penned a screed, titled "Identity Group Conservatism," decrying the current state of the Republican Party and the conservative movement. In it, he calls the modern conservative movement a "chauvinistic identity group" and says it no longer "give a s--t about ordinary people."
While Mr. Hynes makes clear that he is writing as a conservative activist and not as part of the McCain campaign, such arguments have failed in the past to deflect criticism of the private blogging of political writers and activists involved in campaigns.
Jumping off of a recent article in The Economist and a strategy memo (PDF) from Democracy Corps, Mr. Hynes argues that, "American conservatism has devolved from a movement into an identity group." In particular, he compares the conservative movement to the NAACP:
After my client Sen. John McCain decided not to attend this year Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) a great many of my friends demanded to know why. Now, these were my friends and I knew which of them did and did not support Sen. McCain (or were ever even likely to support Sen. McCain), so I countered their demands with a simple question: But you don't like Sen. McCain and you have said you would never vote for him under any circumstances; why would you even want him here? Without exception the reply came back as some variation of the following: Because he needs us and if he expects us to support him he needs to come to us, we're not going to go to him.
This is the language of an identity group, not a movement. This is the identical sentiment expressed by the NAACP when Bob Dole decided not to speak at their conference in 1996.
Some more sections worth noting:
* On conservatives who dissent: "Identity-group conservatives have shown a shocking lack of respect for fellow conservatives who stray on a particular issue or two. ... A healthy movement can withstand the occasional division on key issues; a chauvinistic identity group cannot."
* On abortion and Rudy Giuliani: "Respect for human life has been relegated to a checkbox far down the list of cohesive issues. Rudy Giuliani supports (or supported, it's not entirely clear where he stands today) partial birth abortion and taxpayer funding for abortion, yet he leads the GOP pack by wide margins."
* On abortion and Mitt Romney: "Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's position on abortion is more tortured than a Gitmo detainee (he has recently argued alternately that he both used to be and yet never was pro-choice; he has also argued both that he supports the federalist position on Roe and the Human Life Amendment) yet he has the support of Jim Bopp, a prominent pro-life activist, and other "movement" officials. A threshold this low indicates the 'movement' is satisfied with having its talking points read back to it, and nothing more."
* On whether national security can keep carrying the GOP: "I am a national security voter ... But any conservative who wishes to engage in serious introspection would have to agree that this family of issues has just about outlived its political usefulness. ... We ain't living in 2002 anymore, folks."
* On the recent Iowa Straw Poll: "Let's not kid ourselves, straw polls are essentially meaningless acts of political masturbation."
* On the death of compassionate conservatism:
Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson—"compassionate conservatisms" last surviving advocate, perhaps—is ridiculed pretty regularly by conservative bloggers when he chimes in with his usual theme that we ought to be at least as concerned with easing human suffering as we are about corporate tax rates.
And so the upshot is that we have reverted back to type: A Republican Party and a conservative movement that really doesn't give a s--t about ordinary people. Accordingly, some of those ordinary people—the ones who care about human suffering and do the funny hand singles at prayer—have stopped giving a s--t about the Republican Party.
* On the GOP's signature issues: "I have to be the bearer of bad news to my rightwing friends: The party of torture and immigration restriction is not a majority party and doesn't have much of a future."
* In conclusion: "Maybe identity group conservatism will reach its apparent goal of reducing its membership to one guy; but that guy—whoever he is—ain't going to be president. He's not even going to be a member of Congress."
Now, I like Patrick Hynes a lot. I've, of course, dealt with him regularly during the campaign. He gave my book a nice review in the New York Post a while ago. But I can't imagine this piece is likely to go down well with the conservative movement and Republican Party his client is trying to court. I agree with maybe 90% of what he says — but I'm not working for one of the Republican presidential campaigns.
Reached for comment, Mr. Hynes makes clear that this blog post represents his own personal views, and he emphasizes that he is a consultant to, not employee of, the campaign. He also says of the post, "I'm more optimistic about McCain's chances in the early states than in a long time. ... This is no reflection on bitterness about the campaign or anything like that." In particular, he points to a recent visit to New Hampshire, which he calls "a categorical success."
Related Topics: GOP Primary
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
