The Keating Files: Goldwater

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

How Bad Could This Presidential Election Get for Republicans?

by Ray Keating

Just how bad could it get for the Republican Party in November if Donald Trump winds up being the GOP nominee, as is the most likely outcome currently?

This is not an idle question. After all, Trump has astoundingly bad numbers in terms of his favorable-unfavorable ratings. Indeed, his unfavorables run at about two-thirds. That’s simply unheard of. Any candidate with unfavorable or disapproval ratings hitting 50 percent is pretty much assured of losing. So, if Trump becomes the GOP nominee, and anything close to these unfavorables persist, the question is not will Trump lose, but how bad will he lose.

Of course, Hillary Clinton also possesses poor favorable-unfavorable ratings, with her unfavorables running at about 54 percent.

Indeed, a Trump-Clinton contest would have two significantly unpopular candidates facing off. Based on these numbers, neither should win. But someone has to, right?

At least at this point in time, Trump’s woes are far more significant than Clinton’s, especially given the significant share of Republicans who would be dissatisfied – 48 percent according to an ABC/Washington Post poll – with Trump as the party’s candidate.

As a result, even with all of her problems, Mrs. Clinton could wind up with the best showing of any Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon B. Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Consider that in the post-World War II era, only three Democratic candidates for president managed to gain at least 50% of the vote – Barack Obama did it in 2008 at 52.9% and in 2012 at 51%, Jimmy Carter in 1976 at 50.1%, and LBJ in 1964 at 61.1 percent. The other victorious Democrats failed to hit 50% -- Truman in 1948 at 49.6%, Kennedy in 1960 at 49.7%, and Bill Clinton in 1992 at 43% and in 1996 at 49.2%.

It is bizarre, yet at the same time, given Trump’s negatives, not difficult to envision Hillary Clinton topping 55% of the vote, especially given the very real possibility that many conservative Republican voters could simply stay home and not vote. And the negative fallout for the GOP would then be felt down the line in terms of lost U.S. Senate, state and local races.

It pays to recall that there was at least a purpose to Goldwater’s big loss in 1964. That is, it was the dawn of the conservative movement within the GOP, and it eventually led to Ronald Reagan becoming president. In that sense, Goldwater’s loss ultimately was a party building positive for Republicans. Donald Trump is the exact opposite, that is, he is an unprincipled, populist force that promises to undermine the GOP, with a good chance of sending the Republicans into a political wilderness.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Cracking the Republican Establishment Conspiracy

by Ray Keating

When it comes to Republican politics, it’s hard to figure out whom the establishment is. Indeed, with Fox bringing back The X-Files, perhaps it’s a job for Mulder and Scully to unearth the true “establishment” conspiracy.

During this presidential election season, the word “establishment” seems to be on the tips of everyone’s tongue, including the media, many conservatives and even liberals.

Today, the establishment seems to be a vague, mysterious group that controls elections and the government in our country. The far Left doesn’t like this establishment as it is viewed as some kind of big business cabal. And when looking at Republican candidates, the media, such as CNN, talk a great deal about who is favored and not favored by this establishment.

But it’s particularly hard to pin down exactly who this establishment is, and what it stands for – especially when looking at “establishment” charges being hurled at Republican presidential candidates. But then again, the best conspiracies are shadowy and hard to pin down, right?

A true establishment once flourished in the GOP. It was the party’s liberal Eastern Establishment, led by, for example, the New York crowd of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, Senator Jacob Javits, and Senator Kenneth Keating (no relation, thank God). There, of course, were many others, such as Lowell Weicker, former senator and governor from Connecticut, and assorted non-Northeasterners like President Gerald Ford.

The key here is that each of these Republicans was unabashedly and unashamedly liberal on a host of issues. For example, Rockefeller loved big government and high taxes, with New York still paying the price for his misguided, costly policies more than three-and-a-half decades after his death. And Weicker was pro-abortion.

To a significant extent, this establishment held great sway over the party, that is, until conservatives took it on, starting really with Barry Goldwater’s nomination in 1964 as the party’s candidate for president. In 1980, of course, Ronald Reagan, distinctly conservative and non-establishment, won the White House, and at that point, the liberal Eastern Establishment in the GOP was in retreat.

Today, other than an oddball elected official here and there, the Republican liberal establishment is dead as a formidable political force. So, what then is all of this talk about a Republican establishment today?

Looking at the basis for “establishment” accusations, it’s not about conservatives taking on liberals. Rather, it’s about a populism that tries to present itself as part of conservatism. But populism feeds on people’s fears, especially these days by making the bad economy about big business, international trade, and immigration. Conservatives understand process of economic growth, while populists view the economy more or less as a zero-sum game, such as, for example, the mistaken notion that there are only so many jobs to go around, and therefore international trade and immigration is about losing jobs and income.

How else can one explain “establishment” accusations being hurled at Senator Marco Rubio, for example? After all, Rubio is pro-life, favors pro-growth tax and regulatory reforms, stands for religious freedom, understands and is strong on foreign policy and national security matters, is unashamed in his Christianity, and wants to kill ObamaCare and replace it with consumer, market-based reforms. Does that sound in any way like an establishment Republican? Of course not, that is, unless one opposes his free trade stance, and argues that he is insufficiently anti-immigration.

To be realistic, there is no all-powerful Republican liberal establishment today. Indeed, the only way to believe that is if one were a populist masquerading as a conservative. Rather, the case can be made that, while far from being consistently principled, conservatives have become the Republican establishment.