A revolt or just some push-back?
David Brooks finds that “a funny thing has happened this primary season; conservative voters have not followed their conservative leaders.” Brooks is referring to the fact that Mike Huckabee and especially John McCain have done well in most Republican primaries and caucuses.
There's probably something to Brooks' argument. As I have observed, the failure of "across-the-board" conservative candidates to do better in South Carolina suggests some resistance by voters who place a premium on one aspect of conservativism to the notion that they are obligated to give other aspects their "due."
Yet Brooks may go too far in claiming that there's a "revolt." Let’s focus first on McCain. Brooks points out that in conservative South Carolina, McCain lost among the very conservative voters, but won among the somewhat conservative and the moderates. How is this a “revolt” against conservative leaders? The “leaders” Brooks seems to have in mind – he mentions Rush Limbaugh and unnamed writers for National Review – are very conservative. Like-minded South Carolinians as a group rejected McCain. I don’t know that Limbaugh or National Review writers have ever led or strongly influenced moderate conservatives or moderates.
Keep in mind too that McCain himself can probably be considered "somewhat conservative" (or at least intermittently conservative). That fact, along with his heroism and his status as the only Republican doing quite well in the polls against Hillary Clinton, should be sufficient to explain McCain's appeal to somewhat conservative voters. No rebellion need be posited.
Perhaps Brooks sees significance in the fact that only 34 percent of South Carolina voters identified themselves as very conservative, while 24 percent said they are moderate. But I understand there was substantial participation by non-Republicans in Saturday’s primary. In any case, one would have to compare the numbers Brooks cites with the corresponding numbers in past Republican presidential primaries before drawing any conclusions.
Huckabee represents a different case. He did well among the very conservative even though many conservative “leaders” don’t consider him very conservative. This occurred because the very conservative South Carolinians who voted for Huckabee tended to be evangelicals who placed a very high premium on their particular agenda. To that extent at least, Brooks is correct when he says “conservative voters are much more diverse than the image you’d get from conservative officialdom.”
As you can probably tell from that passage, Brooks bristles with contempt for conservative intellectuals who read less than “pure” conservatives out of the movement. I think I understand where he’s coming from. It is incorrect in my view to claim that, on balance, McCain and Huckabee are liberals. At worst, they are moderates who lean to the right. But conservatives certainly aren’t out-of-line to the extent that they criticize McCain or Huckabee for specific non-conservative positions they take on major issues. To borrow Brooks’ terms, it may be misguided for conservatives to “expel” McCain and Huckabee, but it’s not necessarily inappropriate to “find them wanting.”
