Most readers interested in Republican Party dynamics have heard of the so-called “Buckley rule.” It is with reference to William F. Buckley, late founder and publisher of National Review, and conservative intellectual icon. It is often repeated by people who either cannot appreciate nuances, are willing to rely on presumptions, and more so lately, is invoked by those with a preference for a candidate who is a moderate or worse. Their seemingly compelling idea is that conservatives to be effective must vote for “the most conservative candidate that can win.” They refer to that, as if unassailable anyway, as “The Buckley Rule.”
The only problem is William F Buckley never said it or maintained it as being so. It is a corruption. Buckley was a wordsmith and careful in his phraseology and according to a close associate who was there at the time of the formation of the policy, purposely did not use the term “electable.”
Neal B. Freeman gives the most authoritative explanation of Buckley’s meaning and application in his article, appropriately in National Review, Buckley Rule — According to Bill, not Karl — What supporting “the rightwardmost viable candidate” meant in WFB’s lexicon. The Karl of course refers to Karl Rove, one of the chief corrupters of the actual statement.
Freeman was there when Buckley devised the policy statement in response to the 1964 nomination battle between wealthy media favored New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and the hated Barry Goldwater, Senator of Arizona. It was a statement as to how National Review was going to operate in the 1964 election. Buckley’s “rule” was, “National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate.”
We all knew what “viable” meant in Bill’s lexicon. It meant somebody who saw the world as we did. Somebody who would bring credit to our cause. Somebody who, win or lose, would conservatize the Republican party and the country.It meant somebody like Barry Goldwater. (And so it came to pass. For the next 40 years, the GOP nominated and elected men from the West and the South. Nixon won twice, Reagan twice, the Bushes thrice. Only in recent cycles has the GOP reverted to its habit of nominating “moderates” favored by the establishment. Dole, McCain, Romney — all of them were admired by the fashionable media until they won the GOP nomination, at which point they were abandoned in favor of the liberal nominated by the Democrats.)
Bill Buckley was careful with words. If he had opted on that June day for the words “rightwardmost electable candidate,” we would all have recognized it as a victory for Team Rockefeller.
I did not check back every five minutes over the next 50 years to see if Bill had amended his formulation of the Buckley Rule. But in the following year, 1965, he reaffirmed his position by running in New York City as a third-party conservative against a highly electable Republican. I can tell you as the manager of that campaign that there was never a single day, from our first planning meeting in February until the polls closed in November, that Bill considered himself even remotely electable. But viable? Absolutely. He was the best candidate in the country to carry the conservative message into the heart of American liberalism. And for those who needed further reinforcement of the point, five years later Bill’s brother, James, ran for the U.S. Senate as a third-party candidate against a mainstream-Republican incumbent.
We all understand that it is Karl Rove’s mission to promote the Republican party. It was the mission of Bill Buckley to promote the conservative cause. There should be no confusion between the two.
May we suggest the term “electable” was also not chosen, or at least also appropriately not used, because it is not possible to reliably differentiate between qualified reasonably articulate candidates with no scandals attached. “Electable” is a description so subjective as to be unprovable. It has a multiplicity of facets that are themselves subjective, none of them assured or set. It is a concept subject, both to changing fortunes no one has control over or are subjectively controllable by others, it is a concept often dependent on actually unknowable factors or effervescent matters subject to change and of varying degrees of importance.
Ben Domenech writing at Real Clear politics, following up on Freeman’s article, had some excellent add-on points and references as to who we would be missing today with such presumptuousness attached to the corrupted Buckley rule.
Consider the evaluations of electoral viability we have seen just in the past several years from the NRSC and establishment money: Charlie Crist was without question more electable than the upstart Marco Rubio; Arlen Specter more electable than conservative activist Pat Toomey; Trey Grayson more electable than odd duck Rand Paul; Robert Bennett more electable than political neophyte Mike Lee, who easily could’ve turned out to be another Joe Miller or Sharron Angle. Tim Scott, the most recent addition to the Tea Party Caucus in the Senate, had to beat the Republican establishment in South Carolina at every stage of his career, including the sons of both Carroll Campbell and Strom Thurmond. Consider what the Senate would look like today without any of these figures. Nor is the failure of evaluation simply one of electability: there was more than one voice in the recent Texas primary pointing out that David Dewhurst, with a proven statewide electoral history, also had a longer record of supporting conservative policy causes than Ted Cruz, thanks to occupying the important Lt. Gov. position for so many years. Thankfully, the Texas base proved wiser on that point – Dewhurst’s failing is not one of policy, but one of cronyism.
Others might say a ham sandwich can be made electable, and looking at the quality of some of our legislators, how can that be denied. So how immutable is the concept?
Jumping to a moderate because of a subjective presumption of electability has many drawbacks for conservatives. Things to be concerned about include promoting someone who damages the brand, who compromises on key matters, who while somewhat conservative, cannot effectively defend the cause, who may be subject to being rolled by the Washington establishment. Too often we get candidates under such “auspices” of electability who are mute or stunt social issues when social issues drive fiscal costs. Their focus is made impossible by the singularity of their focus.
So called moderates may represent a slower boat to oblivion for the country, but they are still sailing in the same general direction of the big government establishment, and once elected are that much harder to dislodge from the helm.
Problems of viability in promoting the conservative cause are not present with Sam Clovis. He is authentic. He has the qualifications and the ability to articulate conservative principles. He has “electability” with the unity of Republicans to the same degree as any Republican running who help to the degree expected of others toward their favored candidates. If conservatives were to not help the moderates favored candidate in the general, that candidate is no more “electable” against Braley. Self described practical moderates and conservatives are not as practical as they purport to be if they do not understand that truth. Claiming a quality conservative like Clovis is not electable will only be true by their petulance or passivity.
Vote for Sam Clovis, he has run a positive campaign, he will well represent conservatives and to do all that needs to be done in stopping the Obamanation. R Mall
Looks like Clovis got 2nd.