Real Conservatism in Louisiana

Kim Strassel wrote a wonderful piece in her 'Potomac Watch' column in Friday's Wall Street Journal entitled "A Louisiana Lesson for the GOP."

In her piece, Ms. Strassel contrasted two Republican House candidates in the state. Both ran as 'conservatives,' but Strassel's column explains how misleading this name can be.

The losing candidate, Woody Jenkins, is described as,

"By the lazy standards of the GOP, Mr. Jenkins should've been a cinch to win a Baton Rouge district in Republican hands for 34 years, and that President Bush won with 59% in 2004. Their candidate was a rock-solid social conservative who, in 28 statehouse years, had never voted for a tax increase, and who wanted to erect a U.S.-Mexico wall.

Yet Mr. Jenkins was also a divisive firebrand. He was infamous for carrying around plastic fetuses, to demonstrate his opposition to abortion. He'd previously landed in a weird entanglement with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. This history made even conservatives fidgety, and crowded out anything Mr. Jenkins had to say on issues.

More debilitating to the Jenkins campaign was a strong whiff of the ethical problems that have plagued Republicans. A labor union ran ads noting Mr. Jenkins's had seen 19 tax liens filed against him and his broadcasting company since 1990. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee pointed out that a murky Jenkins charity had paid him consulting fees, paid rent to his company, and paid more than a half-a-million dollars to his wife. He'd been in hot water over campaign contributions, and voted against financial disclosure.

Democrats, meanwhile, have realized it's more important to win than to impose liberal litmus tests on candidates. Mr. Jenkins's opponent, Don Cazayoux, was pro-life and pro-gun. He had nice things to say about John McCain, and rarely mentioned Mr. Obama or Hillary Clinton. A self-styled "John Breaux Democrat," he focused on education and health care."

As more independent than Republican, and more conservative fiscally than socially, I think I'd probably have voted for Cazayoux, too, were I a resident of that district.

Jenkins impresses me as the type of 'conservative' that gives the movement a bad name. Rather than focus on operational issues over which there is now wide disagreement, such as healthcare, what, if anything, the Federal government should do about energy policy, and the economy, Jenkins seems to have clung to old emotional issues like abortion.

In contrast, Ms. Strassel described another Louisiana House candidate for the GOP, Steve Scalise. About him, she wrote,

"The 43-year-old Republican, Steve Scalise, had pinpointed today's GOP vulnerabilities, and ran an anti-status-quo campaign. His focal point was wasteful spending, and he touted his legislation to reform Louisiana's earmark process. Another hallmark was ethics reform and his fight against public corruption. He talked up competitive private health care, lower taxes and school choice.

Republicans looking for an Obama doppelganger would have been better served by his Democratic competitor, Gilda Reed. She campaigned on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and "universal" health care. Trade came in for a bashing, as did secret ballots in union-organizing elections. Ms. Reed explained she was personally pro-life, but felt abortion needed to remain legal. Her cause became that of the liberal left, with the Daily Kos hosting an online fund-raiser on her behalf. Mr. Scalise won 75% of the vote."

This makes a lot of sense to me. Scalise focused on the issues that make a difference in his constituents' everyday lives. To me, that is espousing workable, salable conservatism to voters.

Strassel's column ends with the warning,

"With Democrats actively recruiting conservative candidates, it's no longer good enough for the GOP names to fall back on cultural credentials, to demagogue immigration, or to simply promise lower taxes. Voters care about the size of government, but they are equally worried about the cost of doctor visits and gas prices. The winners will be those who explain the merits of a private health-care reform, who talk about vouchers, who push for energy production. And given its reputation on ethics, it's clear the GOP has to recruit Mr. Cleans, who also make voters believe they are more interested in solving problems than bringing home pork.

Mr. Jenkins's defeat says little about how Republicans will fare in defining Mr. Obama or local competitors this fall. It says plenty about how the GOP continues to define itself, and why it remains in trouble."

I think she's right on target. Conservatism is not, or doesn't have to be, about party or historic affiliations. It's about preferring sensible, less-government solutions to pressing social and economic challenges.

For what it's worth, this article sparked in me the hope that now, with some real choices on the table this year, and upcoming ones, about economics, defense, foreign policy and healthcare, the conservatism of Ronald Reagan can make a comeback.

I don't personally fault George Bush for failing as a President. I don't think he has. But the time hasn't been ripe for the idiots running the GOP to realize that people want solutions more than postures on single issues like abortion.

Now that the White House is up for grabs in a way that it hasn't been since 1952, perhaps conservatives and their typical partisan affiliation, the Republican party, can gain seats in Congress based upon their approach to problem solving, rather than grandstanding on issues that are more theoretical and less-impacting on a daily basis in most voters' lives.

In the end, perhaps more crisis, not less, is going to open the door to a resurgence of conservative values and legislators at the national level.