Via Rick Perlstein, an interesting nugget in this CBS/NY Times survey:
Almost three-quarters of Republican primary voters - including 60 percent of conservatives - want a candidate who would compromise with Democrats in order to get things done. Only 14 percent said they want a Republican president who will stick to Republican positions even if it means getting less accomplished [23% of conservatives -- MD]. A majority said they believe McCain would compromise the right amount as president.
What does this say about the status of the old polling staple that American voters are "ideologically conservative" and "operationally liberal?" Survey results like these cast doubt on the notion that the electorate is, in the aggregate, all that ideological in the first place. What we see here is an emphasis on pragmatism, on "getting things done." Moreover, these results were taken from Republican primary voters, who we would expect to be more ideological than the electorate at large. So while that 14-23 percent will refuse to budge, compromise or yield their position, come hell or high water, the rest want to work things out.
Of course, deciding what's to be done is another issue entirely. Conservative ideologues have staked out positions that are immune to compromise; there is no meaningful middle ground between preserving Social Security and privatizing it, for instance. That ideologues control the agenda for the Republican party is not news, but if the party rank-and-file are uninterested in taking positions on public policy that lead to legislative deadlock, then what does that say about the future electoral fortunes of conservative Republicans? The survey doesn't tell us what exactly these primary voters want the government to do, but the very fact that they see an active rather than a negative role for it does suggest, in Perlstein's words, that "the conservative era is over."
Republicans refused to compromise in 2006 and it cost them dearly. We can't say for sure that they will be more circumspect in 2008, but I think it's safe to say that they will run on the fashionable platform of "change," albeit one narrowly focused on addressing the most egregious lapses of the Bush years: corruption, cronyism, waste and incompetence. The groundwork for this reconciliation with government has already been laid by Newt Gingrich, whose most recent book and public statements argue for a platform of "real change" based on Americans' supposed unity on "almost every important issue." Of course, Gingrich only focuses on issues that are typically understood to be "conservative" positions, such as "making English the official language" or including "'one nation under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance" or "support[ing] the option of a single income tax rate for everyone." It's hard to see how these tailor-made "important issues" are going to resonate widely in an election year dominated by the economy, health care and Iraq, but the promise of change and reform from endangered Republicans with moderate reputations might be enough to keep them in office. If not, then it becomes hard to describe the electorate as anything but ideologically and operationally pragmatic, if not outright liberal.
--Mori Dinauer
