Romney was right (no, his dad).
In the wake of his son's retirement, what can we glean from George Romney's warnings on extremism?
George Romney never doubted Barry Goldwater’s personal commitment to the belief that all men–regardless of skin color–were created equal. That much was evident from his letter to Goldwater, dated December 21st, 1964, in which he details his reasoning for not endorsing the Republican candidate for President in the election just six weeks prior.
”You cited your personal dedication and action to eliminate discrimination and human injustice as you did many times before and during the campaign–a personal attitude I do not question now and did not question then or at any time,” Romney wrote. “However, I did my best to point out the inconsistency between your personal record and public record…”
In 1964, it was a relatively big deal for a name as important as Romney’s to be left off the endorsement list of his party’s Presidential nominee. The divide between the two, though probably known today by many with political science degrees, has generally faded from the public’s knowledge bank. In part, this is because Goldwater won. No, not the 1964 election, but the battle of the soul of the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
By the time Ronald Reagan ascended to the Presidency in 1980, Romney was already outside the public’s periphery, but in many ways, the red flags he raised became integral parts of the Republican Party’s rebuild and rebrand. Goldwater, on the other hand, was not only still serving in the United States’ Senate, but was (and still is) credited for planting the seeds that would later bear fruit with Reagan’s ascendance to the Presidency..
George Romney was right, the Republican Party needed to cast aside the appearance of appealing to racists, bigots, and conspiracy theorists in order to appeal to the nation’s middle. Quiet appeasement (or quiet disagreement) was no longer acceptable. If Republicans–conservatives–were to win nationwide, they would need to be abundantly clear that those with retrograde views were not welcome.
Romney was certainly not the only person to understand this at the time, nor should he be necessarily credited with inspiring the party’s shift towards the mainstream, but at the end of the day, he was right.
William F. Buckley, founder of National Review, seemed to understand this as well. Though Buckley and Romney shared very different views of how the Republican Party should move forward (unapologetic conservatism vs broader tent moderation), Buckley seemed to understand the failures of Goldwater’s campaign as the 1960s moved on. Famously, Buckley and National Review took on the John Birch Society, and not in discrete fashion. Blistering public statements and editorials quickly escalated the battle into a full-fledged war for the soul of conservatism.
Buckley won, and it wouldn’t be the last time he would fight to expel fringe elements that he believed cast a bad light upon a movement he helped guide.
It seems to me that Richard Nixon’s Presidency was little more than a bridge between Goldwater and Reagan. Nixon was more moderate than Goldwater was, but he supported the Senator’s candidacy for the Presidency in 1964. He was a “best of both worlds” type of candidate for the GOP at the time. Moderate appeal to the middle with an unquestionable record as a team player. But, as successful (or, perhaps I should say popular) as Nixon may have been until Watergate, the rumbling underneath still continued as to which path the Republican Party would take moving forward.
That decision was formalized with Reagan’s victory. Conservatism won. Moderation was no longer necessary to win elections nationwide. As exciting as that sounds to conservatives, it probably wouldn’t have been possible if not for the previous efforts to purge extremism from the movement in years prior. George Romney knew it, William F. Buckley knew it, and Ronald Reagan knew it too.
That pathway to victory had been the GOP playbook for over thirty years. But today, the conservative movement is dormant, replaced with an intense fervor of nationalism and populism. Its leaders believe that while traditional conservatism may have won some elections, it lost the culture.
In many ways, CONSERVATISM INCORPORATED™ failed. One of the best examples I can point to is the years of rhetoric surrounding the national debt, yet the debt continued to grow (sometimes at even higher rates than under Democrats) when Republicans held Congress, the Presidency, etc. Republicans became really good at parroting conservative talking points, but really bad at governing as conservatives.
Ironically, even though those failures pushed people into the arms of candidates like Donald Trump, he did no better. In fact, Trump spent nearly as much in his four years than Barack Obama did in eight. But that’s a discussion for another piece.
With Mitt Romney announcing his departure from the Senate at the end of his term, I wanted to reflect on these parallels. You can disagree with Romney on many things–perhaps he was part of that “conservative establishment” that failed to deliver–but when it comes to the GOP embracing the most fringe elements of the right, I think he’s got a point.
Unfortunately, much like with his father, it may be years until we collectively recognize it.
During one of my latest appearances on Colorado Inside Out, I discussed why the retirement of Mitt Romney (R-Utah) was disappointing to me. It’s a short video (0:46), so give it a quick watch and share if you’re willing. Or, you can scorch me in the comments. I can take it.
If you enjoy my writing, would you consider giving me just $5 $2.50 of your hard-earned dollars a month? Such an investment is guaranteed to go towards either a) an elaborate plot to overthrow the government of a South American regime, b) a bid for majority ownership of the faltering Colorado Rockies, or c) caffeine.