Is President Obama consulting the Pat Brown electoral playbook?

Drummond, R. (1966, July 12). Can Reagan beat Pat Brown? Youngstown Vindicator. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KwJJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-oIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2698,3491894&dq=ronald+reagan&hl=en

In this even-handed piece, Roscoe Drummond opines that anyone purporting to predict the outcome of the 1966 California Governor’s race is either a fool or a liar.  Drummond held that both Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan would have serious hurdles to overcome in winning the general election.  

In Reagan’s case, Drummond repeated the frequently-heard (even today) complaint that Reagan had heretofore spoken “largely in attractive generalities.”  I’m skeptical, however, that the reality of the Reagan campaign was quite as vanilla as Drummond makes it sound. 

(I’ve read numerous books and articles over the years which emphasized Reagan’s use of town-hall style Q&A sessions in his primary campaign.  Indeed, Reagan himself contended that it was the citizens of California who kept bringing up the issue of student unrest at Berkeley—an issue which, even today, some contend Reagan inflamed for the purpose of winning the election.)

In any event, Drummond concluded:

[Reagan’s] potential supporters  may not feel they must agree with him on everything, but they will want a fuller disclosure of his convictions and his capacity to deal with the burgeoning problems of [California]

With regards to Governor Brown, Drummond candidly admitted the incumbent was vulnerable, in part, “because many feel that his administration has become weary and self-righteous.”  

Well…let’s just be thankful that we don’t have any Democrats like that running for re-election today.

No one "has" to unite behind a GOP candidate until November

In light of the recent calls to "unite behind a candidate" (i.e., unite behind Romney) I thought it might be timely to remind Republican primary voters of a little conservative movement history.  It wasn't until after the "too-conservative-to-win-a-general-election" Ronald Reagan defeated GOP moderate George Christopher in the summer of 1966 that real unity emerged amongst the California GOP.   In fact, for the first time since Earl Warren (a gap of a quarter century) the GOP nominees decided to run as a unified ticket led by Reagan, rather than running on the "every-candidate-for-himself" model.(The truce of Reagan)

The reason I point this out is to suggest that Republican primary voters nationally are just as savvy in 2012 as California's GOP voters were in 1966 when the dynamic political reporting duo of Evans and Novak observed:  "[GOP candidates and voters] know their only chance of success in a state where a divided, declining Democratic party still remains the majority party is a Reagan landslide victory…” (The truce of Reagan)

On the off-chance that the electoral angst being experienced by Jeb Bush and others is sincere, let me reassure the governor that the vast majority (if not all) of us conservative and libertarian voters are well aware of the risks.  We recognize (notwithstanding the ill-advised comments of Sen. Santorum) that Romney is faaaar preferable to a second Obama term.  However, we also recognize that there is absolutely no reason that "we need to get the primary over with."  On the contrary, many of us believe that even if our preferred candidate cannot win the nomination, carrying on the fight and making the Romney forces "sweat it out" holds the possibility of forcing some much-needed concessions from the camp of the Inevitable One.

Furthermore, I would encourage each GOP candidate's camp to realize that we in the grassroots are finished carrying the water for "our President, right or wrong."  Any Republican president who is tempted to go off the reservation by embracing Big Government, uber-regulation, or the rolling back of individual liberties can expect just as much protest and activism against him, as President Obama has received. 

It's probably best if all Republican voters go into this November recognizing the blunt truth that Evans and Novak saw so clearly nearly 50 years ago:

What is called unity is really a truce dictated by Reagan’s landslide primary win over moderate George Christopher. ‘If Reagan had won by 50,000 or 60,000 votes, we’d be scratching each other’s eyes out,’ one prominent liberal Republican here told us. ‘But with the size of his win, we have no choice but to accept him. That still doesn’t mean we buy his ideology or him.’ (The truce of Reagan)

As Hawkeyes caucus, the RSS Ronald Reagan encourages remembrance of Reagan’s primary style.

The more I learn about Reagan’s political history, the more I realize how the Republican party continues to fight the same internal battles that were going on when the Gipper first came to prominence.  In February 1966, liberal Republican senator Thomas Kuchel came out in support of Reagan’s primary opponent George Christopher.

Kuchel stated at a news conference Christopher is an outstanding candidate who represents the traditional progressive viewpoint of the Republican Party.

“[Christopher] was progressive,” said Kuchel.  “He demonstrated a keen interest in health and welfare problems.  He supported the rapid transit program.

It surely will not escape the keen reader’s attention that Kuchel’s verbiage and favored policies could be applied to today’s Obama campaign (e.g., progressive, rapid transit/high speed rail, health/Obamacare, etc.)  What is perhaps more relevant for us as the actual voting for the 2012 primary begins in Iowa, is what Reagan himself had to say about this whole business of primary endorsements and intra-party mudslinging:

Our primary election is a valuable and integral part of the political system.  With this, of course, there is the right and indeed the responsibility of party members to make their own personal choices.  The candidate and his supporters must conduct themselves in a  manner which engenders no bitterness so that the nominee who heads the ticket will have united backing.  This is the way I intend to conduct this campaign.