The 2016 election season is officially underway, especially for Republicans who have not yet established a default candidate. Fortunately for the Democrats, they already have a de facto nominee in Hillary Clinton, an individual who is far more respected and far better connected to the Democrat donor class than any other Democrats even considering a bid (Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Liz Warren, and Martin O'Malley). Republicans, however, have a long primary season ahead of them, something that may or may not harm the ultimate nominee. One thing is clear: if the members of the conservative base want someone other than Jeb Bush to be the party's standard bearer, they need to coalesce around one figure sooner rather than later. The best choice for this alternative champion is Governor Scott Walker.
Scott Walker has been catching fire lately. Between surging in the polls and finishing respectably at CPAC (a victory that should ignite more activist support for his campaign), he appears to be emerging as a serious alternative to the Bush Dynasty. As 2012 showed us, poll surges do not really mean much on their own, but I think it could be different this time if Walker is able to sustain these levels through the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. This hypothesis is more or less consistent with Bartels' (1987) analysis of the 1984 Democratic primaries. Basically, that paper showed that the electorate will not begin to strongly support an alternative candidate to the establishment choice until the candidate shows that he or she can win meaningful contests and not waste the votes of his/her supporters. If Walker can sustain and expand his current levels of support, he should be able to win some contests next year and perhaps win the nomination.
Before thinking ahead to the contests, perhaps it would be instructive to think about why conservatives should even support Walker in the first place. In my view, he has a record (both electoral and in governing) that should excite conservatives. Walker won three elections in four years in a deep blue state with strong union traditions. Walker's first election may not have been all that impressive- 2010 was a banner year for the Republican Party- but the other two (especially his recall election victory) were impressive. So, he clearly has a record of winning tough elections; that is always a plus. More importantly, however, Walker is not afraid of anyone or anything. If you recall, Walker early in his term challenged an archenemy of conservatives everywhere: public sector labor unions. After an intense standoff, which saw Democratic senators flee the state and union members trash the Capitol complex, Walker was still standing and won (a victory validated by his subsequent victory in the recall campaign). In that debacle, Walker proved that he has the resolve necessary to be a strong president.
Another factor working in Walker's favor is his distance from Washington Republicans. Right now, being a member of Congress is hardly something about worth bragging, as public confidence in Congress is about as low as can be and the House GOP caucus is fractured. Between all the publicity stunts, calls for Boehner to be removed as Speaker, and partisan games, it seems that being associated with the Washington crowd is a rather toxic association, at the moment. Walker, on the other hand, has been a successful governor and has chosen to focus his attention not on perpetual wedge issues (like gay marriage), but on the economy, public debt, and government efficiency. This insulation could prove to be a major advantage for him throughout the electoral cycle.
I am not trying to be a commercial for Scott Walker, but I am trying to point out the logic of why conservatives should rally around him. First, conservatives need to settle on one champion if they want a prayer of defeating the establishment choice. Look at it this way, the last time the Republican establishment did not pick the nominee was 1964 with Barry Goldwater. Nixon, Ford, Reagan (1980, 1984), Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney were all backed by the political class of the Republican Party before the convention. In most cases, these candidates were able to outlast a pack of conservative alternatives (Dole being, perhaps, the exception as he faced no strong opponents) who tore each other down and split the conservative vote too many ways. For example, Romney won by outlasting Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Pawlenty, despite cruising along at 25% in the polls for most of the cycle. Similarly, McCain outlasted Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, and others despite not being the most dynamic candidate imaginable. The same thing, I think, will happen this time if conservatives do not coalesce around Walker early. Already, we are seeing something similar appear, as the 2016 field now includes: Bush, Christie, Walker, Carson (although for how much longer, I do not know, that prison rape gaffe was pretty bad), Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Carly Fiorina, and probably some combination of Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Pete King, and Mike Huckabee. Since Jeb already has the support of the donor class, he merely needs to not do anything stupid and he probably wins the nomination over this large field. If however, the contest was merely between Christie, Bush, and Walker, conservatives could actually win. Instead of dividing the conservative vote, Walker could actually unite the base and pull off the upset, but only if the other conservatives drop early and rally behind him. Intriguingly, we could see the opposite of the normal trend this time: instead of conservatives dividing the base vote, moderates and party favorites could divide the donor/political class vote.
Additionally, I think Walker would be far more acceptable to all factions of the Republican Party than any other conservative alternative. Unlike Rand Paul, his foreign policy views will not alienate readers of the Weekly Standard, but do not appear to be as over-the-top militant as someone like Santorum or Graham. Unlike Ted Cruz, Scott Walker has not foolishly instigated a government shutdown and pitted Republicans against each other, yet he still has heroic conservative credentials. And unlike Santorum or, to tell the truth, most of the other Republicans in the field, Walker is not going to plant his flag as a cultural warrior fighting against the rising tide of support for gay marriage, but he quietly sides with the consensus positions on social issues among Republicans. In other words, he holds positions acceptable to social conservatives without being belligerent about it (cough, Santorum, cough). Finally, his economic views and record should resonate with most of the party. In short, I think he is as acceptable an alternative nominee to the entire Republican Party as you will find.
In closing, I would just like to reiterate the importance of limiting the number of conservative candidates in 2016. It is a matter of common sense, a unified opposition to Jeb Bush will be far stronger than six or seven candidates floating along at 5% in the polls, splitting primary victories in the South and Midwest, while Jeb sweeps New England, the West Coast, the Upper Midwest, and Florida en route to the nomination. If conservatives really do not want the political and donor class to determine the 2016 nominee, they should unite behind one banner and win enough delegates to pull off the upset. As I see it, Scott Walker is their best hope.
Scott Walker has been catching fire lately. Between surging in the polls and finishing respectably at CPAC (a victory that should ignite more activist support for his campaign), he appears to be emerging as a serious alternative to the Bush Dynasty. As 2012 showed us, poll surges do not really mean much on their own, but I think it could be different this time if Walker is able to sustain these levels through the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. This hypothesis is more or less consistent with Bartels' (1987) analysis of the 1984 Democratic primaries. Basically, that paper showed that the electorate will not begin to strongly support an alternative candidate to the establishment choice until the candidate shows that he or she can win meaningful contests and not waste the votes of his/her supporters. If Walker can sustain and expand his current levels of support, he should be able to win some contests next year and perhaps win the nomination.
Before thinking ahead to the contests, perhaps it would be instructive to think about why conservatives should even support Walker in the first place. In my view, he has a record (both electoral and in governing) that should excite conservatives. Walker won three elections in four years in a deep blue state with strong union traditions. Walker's first election may not have been all that impressive- 2010 was a banner year for the Republican Party- but the other two (especially his recall election victory) were impressive. So, he clearly has a record of winning tough elections; that is always a plus. More importantly, however, Walker is not afraid of anyone or anything. If you recall, Walker early in his term challenged an archenemy of conservatives everywhere: public sector labor unions. After an intense standoff, which saw Democratic senators flee the state and union members trash the Capitol complex, Walker was still standing and won (a victory validated by his subsequent victory in the recall campaign). In that debacle, Walker proved that he has the resolve necessary to be a strong president.
Another factor working in Walker's favor is his distance from Washington Republicans. Right now, being a member of Congress is hardly something about worth bragging, as public confidence in Congress is about as low as can be and the House GOP caucus is fractured. Between all the publicity stunts, calls for Boehner to be removed as Speaker, and partisan games, it seems that being associated with the Washington crowd is a rather toxic association, at the moment. Walker, on the other hand, has been a successful governor and has chosen to focus his attention not on perpetual wedge issues (like gay marriage), but on the economy, public debt, and government efficiency. This insulation could prove to be a major advantage for him throughout the electoral cycle.
I am not trying to be a commercial for Scott Walker, but I am trying to point out the logic of why conservatives should rally around him. First, conservatives need to settle on one champion if they want a prayer of defeating the establishment choice. Look at it this way, the last time the Republican establishment did not pick the nominee was 1964 with Barry Goldwater. Nixon, Ford, Reagan (1980, 1984), Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney were all backed by the political class of the Republican Party before the convention. In most cases, these candidates were able to outlast a pack of conservative alternatives (Dole being, perhaps, the exception as he faced no strong opponents) who tore each other down and split the conservative vote too many ways. For example, Romney won by outlasting Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Pawlenty, despite cruising along at 25% in the polls for most of the cycle. Similarly, McCain outlasted Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, and others despite not being the most dynamic candidate imaginable. The same thing, I think, will happen this time if conservatives do not coalesce around Walker early. Already, we are seeing something similar appear, as the 2016 field now includes: Bush, Christie, Walker, Carson (although for how much longer, I do not know, that prison rape gaffe was pretty bad), Rand Paul, Cruz, Rubio, Carly Fiorina, and probably some combination of Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Pete King, and Mike Huckabee. Since Jeb already has the support of the donor class, he merely needs to not do anything stupid and he probably wins the nomination over this large field. If however, the contest was merely between Christie, Bush, and Walker, conservatives could actually win. Instead of dividing the conservative vote, Walker could actually unite the base and pull off the upset, but only if the other conservatives drop early and rally behind him. Intriguingly, we could see the opposite of the normal trend this time: instead of conservatives dividing the base vote, moderates and party favorites could divide the donor/political class vote.
Additionally, I think Walker would be far more acceptable to all factions of the Republican Party than any other conservative alternative. Unlike Rand Paul, his foreign policy views will not alienate readers of the Weekly Standard, but do not appear to be as over-the-top militant as someone like Santorum or Graham. Unlike Ted Cruz, Scott Walker has not foolishly instigated a government shutdown and pitted Republicans against each other, yet he still has heroic conservative credentials. And unlike Santorum or, to tell the truth, most of the other Republicans in the field, Walker is not going to plant his flag as a cultural warrior fighting against the rising tide of support for gay marriage, but he quietly sides with the consensus positions on social issues among Republicans. In other words, he holds positions acceptable to social conservatives without being belligerent about it (cough, Santorum, cough). Finally, his economic views and record should resonate with most of the party. In short, I think he is as acceptable an alternative nominee to the entire Republican Party as you will find.
In closing, I would just like to reiterate the importance of limiting the number of conservative candidates in 2016. It is a matter of common sense, a unified opposition to Jeb Bush will be far stronger than six or seven candidates floating along at 5% in the polls, splitting primary victories in the South and Midwest, while Jeb sweeps New England, the West Coast, the Upper Midwest, and Florida en route to the nomination. If conservatives really do not want the political and donor class to determine the 2016 nominee, they should unite behind one banner and win enough delegates to pull off the upset. As I see it, Scott Walker is their best hope.
RSS Feed
