Don’t misinterpret conservative differences
April 24, 2002

Liberal analysts and reporters spend more time psychoanalyzing and probing the American right than they do trying to understand what conservatives want and believe.
They know, of course, that conservative voters make up the base of the Republican Party and therefore are the core support on which President Bush must rely. Without conservative support and enthusiasm, he wouldn’t have made it to the White House and he’ll need that same support and enthusiasm this fall if he wants to increase his party’s strength in the House and win back the Senate.

This upsets many liberal analysts because the very idea that a politician would court or depend upon conservative support strikes them as somehow distasteful. So, when conservatives are happy and enthusiastic, this fact tends to get reported as a sad commentary on the need for someone like Bush to have to depend on the support of less than reputable elements within the body politic.

But let there be even a whisper of discontent on the right and people who don’t have a clue as to what it might really mean treat it as front-page news. Thus, in recent days both The Washington Post and The New York Times have rather gleefully observed that some conservative leaders are beginning to express misgivings about some of the positions the president has been taking.

In one sense, the stories are accurate. Conservative leaders and activists have been upset, in varying degrees, by a number of Bush administration policies and decisions.
But by focusing on the differences conservative leaders have with many Bush policies, they miss the mark. These very same conservatives will tell you that they are in overall agreement with what the president is trying to do and that they consider him one of them. This overall support remains strong and is reflected in poll after poll.

What those seeking holes in the president’s support don’t appreciate is that in a healthy political environment people can and do differ on specific policies without quitting the team. It seems to me that they simply don’t understand the difference between the role of the ideologically driven activist and that of the elected official.

The activist works to elect people whom he hopes will work to build the sort of world he or she envisions.

Most activists recognize that the politician lives and works in a world in which compromise is necessary and progress is incremental. They ask only that the men and women they help elect get up in the morning and do what they can to advance the principles that got them elected in the first place; that they do what they can to advance the cause.
The activist’s role, while recognizing this, is to prod and push; to demand more of the politician while recognizing the constraints under which all elected officials operate. As long as they sense that the men and women they elect share their values and are trying to live up to their promises, they will stand with them.

I talk to dozens of conservative activists around the country every week and I can say that at this point, they remain convinced that the man they helped put in the White House continues to merit their enthusiastic support. This doesn’t mean they always agree with him, and it doesn’t mean he has a blank check to ignore them, but it does mean they continue to view themselves as part of the same team.

However, a cautionary note is in order here. When conservative leaders began complaining that a previous Bush didn’t seem much interested in pursuing the policies that won him conservative support as the heir to Ronald Reagan, their criticism was dismissed as irrelevant.

His White House dismissed the criticism of conservative activist leaders as the carping of a few disgruntled leaders without troops rather than as warning signs of trouble to come. It was a mistake from which he never recovered.

Now there are reports of White House advisors doing the same thing again.

They have a president with great poll numbers and are convinced that the criticism the media is focusing on is irrelevant because it’s coming once again from leaders without troops. So, even as the media overestimates the importance of the criticism, they, like those who advised an earlier Bush, are underestimating it.

The man who occupies the White House today should know better than to let history repeat itself.

---

David Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union and a Washington-based government affairs consultant