I’m playing a lot of catch-up due to my wife having the flu and my familial duties close to doubling over the last week. A week ago yesterday Republican Kevin Burns abruptly dropped out of the 14th Congressional Republican Primary. The reasons on the surface made sense - lack of fundraising success/money, not particularly ready for prime time and the Hail Mary effort for outgoing congressman Dennis Hastert’s endorsement failed. Burns only acknowledged the lack of endorsement.
But it seems likely to me that there’s another reason why Republican Candidate Kevin Burns, Geneva’s Mayor and a perceived moderate, couldn’t make it. In today’s Republican Party moderation is no virtue. Now that line echoes a famous line in Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech that referred to being unyielding in a principled stand. But today, with Republican politics falling apart nationally under President George W. Bush, principled or not, the problem with Republican moderation takes a different meaning. For one thing, nationally, Republican moderates are an endangered species (both in office and among voters). In Illinois, Republicans are not doing any better. Illinois State Representative Paul Froehlich’s experience is instructive (as is State Senator Kirk Dillard’s). And you can take a look at all of the Illinois Republican congressional veterans retiring this term and all the Republican state assembly veterans who retired in 2006 or are retiring this cycle.
Who then is left among Illinois Republican voters? I’d guess it’s disproportionately the far right - especially in primary voting where the bias already exists - because even those moderates who haven’t abandoned the party are likely too disgusted or too dispirited to act forcefully on its behalf. That probably reflected itself in Kevin Burns’ ability to raise money. It probably hurt him for volunteers too. I’d guess Kevin Burns is a pretty dramatic example of where things are at because, as the only relative moderate Republican (and a political officeholder) in the 14th District race, you would think he stood to gain a lot in a field that has two far right social conservatives splitting their vote. In fact, in this political environment Burns probably never stood a chance - there just aren’t enough active Republican moderates. For Illinois Republican candidates, primary moderation is vice.
Comments 6
Intersting post.
While it does a great job of pointing out “conventional wisdom,” it is also full implied premises that are open to question.
First, just what defines a “moderate” in your eyes. Pro-Choice? Pro Gay Marriage? These are issues that many in the Democrat base don’t necessarily support. To argue that social conservatives are in the extreme on those issues is to ignore referendum results in CA and OR.
The voters who actually show up at the polls are far less doctrinnaire than us blue and red bloggers.
How about tax and spending issues. Is being anti-tax an “extreme position,” or is supporting a bloated bureaucracy (schools, CTA, Cook County) while underfunding actual education and infrastructure the more questionable position?
But today, with Republican politics falling apart nationally under President George W. Bush
Really? For a guy with a 30 something approval rating, he seems to be holding up rather well. The idea that 2006 was the Democrats 1994 is highly questionable, but even if it was, other than a slight upward blip in 2004, 1994 was the Republican high water mark, and 2006 is likely the Dems.
Who then is left among Illinois Republican voters? I’d guess it’s disproportionately the far right - especially in primary voting where the bias already exists - because even those moderates who haven’t abandoned the party are likely too disgusted or too dispirited to act forcefully on its behalf.
I consider myself a reasonable, but fairly conservative voter. I’m “abandoning” the party because it is intellectally and morally bankrupt, not because they are “moderate.”
Again, the conventional wisdom is all about left/right and conservative/moderate. The real story is that the party leadership has absolutely no interest in really improving Illinois or fixing any problems. They are merely biding their time to return to the trough. (they are going to wait a long time)
Re: Burns and the 14th, your conventional wisdom holds up, but only on the surface. It is the systemic “corruption” and inside baseball that is hurting Burns, not those horrilbe “right wing nut jobs.”
The Lauzens, Rauschenbergers and Roskams of the state see that they are going nowhere in a party run by incompetents, and are moving to Federal seats where they can. The Burns’ of the state are effectively unfundable because the people who might like to see them succeed are so powerless and bankrupt that they can’t even assist them.
They aren’t bankrupt because they are “moderate.” They are bankrupt because they have squandered all their good will and credibility fighting with their own base.
Intelligent Republican voters across the state know that they will have to compromise on candidates here and there. It is leadership of the party (as well as some intransigent leaders on what you Dems call the “far right”) that are making compromise impossible.
In fact, in this political environment Burns probably never stood a chance - there just aren’t enough active Republican moderates. For Illinois Republican candidates, primary moderation is vice.
You may be right here, but it may also be a function of the lay of the land in the 14th. Burns up against only Lauzen or only Oberweis, might yield the same outcome (the conservative wins).
OTOH, Lauzen’s base and Oberweis money, combined with it being Hastert retiring, seems to have sucked up so much oxygen that a Burns candidacy could never get off the ground.
This idea that there are no moderates left in the party (or that they refuse to come out an vote) is overstated. It is closer to the truth that it is the “moderates” (many of them are downright liberal) have spent so much energy trying to purge the party of conservatives that the conservatives are simply deciding to go there own way. (out of the state, and up to the feds)
Regardless, good post. To the extent that you are correct about the extremes controlling the agenda and causing trouble, look to your own left flank.
I’ll trade a Lieberman for a Froelich anyday of the week. (and I actually like Paul)
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 9:29 am ¶WHY DON’T YOU LIKE SEN. LIEBERMAN? HE IS CORRECT. WE HAVE TO PUT THE COUNTRY FIRST. WE HAVE SERIOUS ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED EITHER. HE HAS THE GUTS TO SAY THAT!
–ROBERT JONES
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 7:05 pm ¶BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT MEMBER
I LIKE SEN. MC’CAIN BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. I WILL VOTE FOR HIM AS A DEMOCRAT ALSO.
-ROBERT JONES
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 8:14 pm ¶………….Over the big three anyway.
Robert Jones
Posted 23 Dec 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶As someone who voted for Dems from McGovern through Gore/Lieberman, I’d say its Dems who given up moderation. When they ditch a solid liberal like Lieberman and slander him on kos, then I’m heading for McCain too.
Regarding the 14th, the big issues are development, spending, and immigration with Oberweis around. Lauzen will be slow on development e.g. the parkway, stronger against earmarks, and less strident and anti immigrant sounding… he may well be the more moderate guy.
Posted 29 Dec 2007 at 3:45 am ¶Dear Readers-
I agree with Bill. As a Moderate Democrat, I will not let the liberals win by leaving. I say to Mr. Baar and other Blue Dogs, to continue the good fight in our party! Go to the Blue Dog Democrats by clicking on my name above.
Happy new Year!
-Robert Jones
Posted 31 Dec 2007 at 12:09 am ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 1
[…] Wurf (Dupage Democrat Organizer) posted an interesting analysis of the 14th District Race and the fate of Kevin […]
Post a Comment