Let's get back to the meat of the idea of a Dobson candidacy. Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost slapped around Noah's evangelical illiteracy last night. Jane Galt had a kickin' comment section on the issue. One comeback in the comment section was-"In ten or twenty years, could we see a Focus on the Family candidate? Quite possibly."
The 2000 primary campaign literally had one; Gary Bauer, who came out of the FotF-affiliated Family Research Council. He didn't do that well. You can make a case that you have a FotF candidate in 2004. His name is George Walker Bush.
Say what? On most of the issues, the president has largely toed the theocon line. The problem has been that the president hasn't gone to the mat for those issues. He could have pushed harder for school vouchers. He could have pushed harder for his judicial nominees. However, he was pushing against a Democratic brick wall that was near-impossible to overcome. I'll make the case that spending the political capital on a long-shot fight wouldn't have been wise and aided the cause of his foes.
There isn't that much room, other than the unwillingness to spend political capital, to beef. He's a bit too polite to Muslims and not being theologically pushy on the differences between Islam and Christianity. He wimped out on the stem-cell decision. He's not been pushy enough with the Chinese on the civil rights of the house churches there. There is room for improvement, but not too much. A President Dobson couldn't have delivered much more than President Bush has under the circumstances.
If you think that his record isn't strong enough on the moral issues of the day, may I offer up the Constitution Party and Reconstructionist-flavored Howard Phillips? Dobson voted for them in 1996 when Bob Dole got him POed. No thanks? I thought so; they're a bit too wingnut for me, too.
Were Dobson to run, he would get less than a percent of the vote and ruin his ministry. A similar fate would befall any other theocon who wants to show up Dubya. The Constitution Party has a following among people who have the domestic economics of a libertarian, the social policy of Bob Jones U and the international policy of Pat Buchanan. That's enough different from Bush to warrant a protest vote, but a protest vote that'll get 1% as a high-water mark.
The thing that will keep a theocon party from forming is that the Republican party is the theocon's home; they don't make up a majority, but make up enough of a plurality that a nominee will have to be acceptable to them. The nominee may not be one of them, but agree with them on most issues, leaving only the real zealots to vote for a protest party.
Most theocons will realize that, while Bush might be wimpier than they'd like, he's a distinct improvement over the Democratic nominee. If a protest vote might bring on a President Kerry, theocons will hold their nose and vote for Dubya.
Such a party might form if Sully's Eagles take over the Republican Party, bringing young "South Park Conservatives" (translation-libertarians who are strong on defense) in to take over the party. That might prompt a conservative party to form, especially in blue-state areas. However, I don't see that happening, for it would take a large influx of young libertarians to take over the GOP from its theocon base.
A second possibility is that of a secular centrist party forming. If the Democrats keep lurching to the left and Republicans stick to their standard platform, there will be room for a Ventura-type radical centrist party. That will leave the Republican party the party of economic conservatives and theocons, loosely resembling the Focus on the Family Party of Galt's vision.
Barring those two scenarios, the Republicans are the theocon's party, for better or for worse.
Recent Comments