Conservative Iowans who voted for Mike Huckabee on Thursday night may have been casting a vote for social conservatism, but media liberals cheered the victory as proof that Reaganism is dying in the Grand Old Party. In his live washingtonpost.com Web chat at 10 pm on Thursday night, Washington Post associate editor Robert G. Kaiser (formerly the Post’s managing editor, the second-in-command) declared with some joy that the Reagan coalition is "fracturing" due to the Huckabee win. But Kaiser also mocked Huckabee as unelectable. "Are we going to elect a president who dismisses Darwin? Are we going to elect a Baptist minister? I doubt it." He predicted fiscal conservatives and national-defense conservatives would vote Democratic or stay home instead.
Before he took any questions, Kaiser made this opening statement:
The early results are fascinating. They actually deserve the label "historic." I think we have seen two big things here tonight: The Reagan coalition is indeed fracturing, and the Republican Party is now certifiably in the midst of an indentity [sic] crisis. This does NOT mean there is no hope for the Republican candidate next November, but it does mean that the Republican Party we have been living with since 1980 is on its way to the dust bin of history, to coin a phrase.
A questioner soon challenged him to explain his boast:
Boulder, Colo.: In the opening portion of the chat you suggested that the Republican primary results represented the crumbling of the Reagan coalition. Could you please explain why you think this?
Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for the prod. My thinking is this: Reagan brought together evangelicals, old-fashioned country-club Republicans, southern middle-class voters and the group that became known as "Reagan Democrats." Huckaby [sic] wins Iowa without bringing together any broad coalition at all; he got evangelicals and a few others, it looks like. Other Republicans fractured in many directions.
I agree with the now-common commentary that there is no heir to Reagan now, or even to President Bush. Fred Thompson was, for ten minutes, the guy tapped to play that role. He did very poorly in Iowa tonight--14 percent.
I also confess to thinking for a couple of years now that the Republican coalition was in danger of fracturing. I may be looking tonight for evidence to support my own theory. But I don't think so. I think it's really happening.
Several other questioners asked him for more comment on collapsing Reaganism:
Philadelphia: Robert, is there a chance you may be getting a little carried away here? I half expect you to break into a chorus of "The Times, They Are a-Changin'"
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes there is a chance. But keep watching. I think it really is happening.
_______________________
Gainesville, Va.: Robert, on the crumbling Reagan coalition, are you suggesting, like David Brooks, that Republicans need to move back into a more George Bush the First kind of moderation to win?
Robert G. Kaiser: I don't know. I liked that Brooks column, but it was short on prescriptions. I think H.W. Bush was a really ineffective politician, which is why he joined Jimmy CArter as one of only two presidents in a long time who got beaten after one term.
I do think the Republicans need a lot of new: New people, new ideas, and new ways to talk about the country's problems. And as I have suggested in chats a year or two ago, George W. Bush is going to be a heavy weight for Republicans to carry for a long time.
Kaiser started mocking Huckabee’s chances when asked "Why are so many pundits dismissive of Huckabee's chances in a general?" Kaiser replied: "Are we going to elect a president who dismisses Darwin? Are we going to elect a Baptist minister? I doubt it. I think the ‘new weather’ overhead is bad for a Huckabee candidacy myself. I have been wrong--really wrong!--before." The dismissal of Huckabee drew a string of comments:
Washington: Bush isn't exactly a big believer in Darwin, and he's served two terms!
Robert G. Kaiser: But he carefully never dismissed evolution the way Huckabee has.
_______________________
Anonymous: But a plurality of Americans dismiss Darwin! Our country is like at the bottom of developed countries on the percentage of people who believe in evolution.
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes, I've seen those polls. But evolution is not a voting issue, as they pollsters say, for a lot of them. And many of the main-stream Eastern and Midwestern Republicans that any GOP candidate has to have to win might be alienated by a Baptist minister from Arkansas as the GOP standard-bearer.
_______________________
....Mt Airy, Maryland: Why can't a Baptist minister be elected President? The comment you made is ridiculous. ... I do have a problem with someone who doesn't read the papers (uninformed) and who dismisses science...
Robert G. Kaiser: Because we have a long tradition in this country, going back to the founders, of keeping the clergy in church.
_______________________
....Re: Ministers: How can you forget James Garfield? He was minister who was elected president.
washingtonpost.com: "Garfield was a minister and an elder for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), making him the first -- and to date, only -- member of the clergy to serve as President."
Robert G. Kaiser: Yes I almost mentioned old James. Might we refer to him as the exception who proves the rule?
PS: One questioner asked Kaiser if he votes in elections, and drew this reply:
Glad to have the opportunity to say that I do vote (unlike my friend and colleague Len Downie, who has for years said he avoids voting to help him avoid coming to a conclusion in his own mind about who would make the best president/ mayor/whatever). But I often find it really hard, because, as a natural skeptic and trained doubter, I haven't been able to feel enthusiasm about a candidate in a long time. More than once I have cast a "wasted" vote on some kind of protest candidate. I decided very late on those.
THe hard thing for non-journalists to understand is how those of us here actually think. As I have said many times in earlier discussions, I have never had any idea how David Broder, Dan Balz and our other political reporters vote in elections (and most do vote). And those guys all worked for me for years when I was an editor here. We analyze; we speculate; we look for strengths and weaknesses. But even amont ourselves, we very, very rarely state a preference.
Our big preference is for a good story. In 2008, we've got one!
