The Mouth of Rove: The Marginalization of the WSJ

In the Lord of the Rings, the Mouth of Sauron was the ambassador and messenger of Sauron. As a Black Numenorean, the Mouth had given up his greatness to worship and serve Sauron.

Likewise, the Wall Street Journal appears to be descending from once great heights to serve as the mouth of Karl Rove and other establishment Republicans who are trying to undermine the success of movement conservatives and the Tea Party.

The latest example of this is Tuesday’s column by William Galston, The Jeb Bush and Tea Party Divide. Galston uses Jeb Bush’s recent comments about immigration and the Common Core K-12 standards to call attention to the “conspiracy theories” and “paranoid style” of movement conservatives that “threaten to marginalize the GOP.”

The marginalization of the GOP by the Tea Party and conservatives has been the standard line of Rove and establishment Republicans for sometime. They claim–after pointing to a few U.S. Senate races where a Tea Party candidate nominated by Republicans lost in the general election–Republicans are killing themselves by nominating conservatives that can’t possibly win general elections.

Of course, they conveniently forget the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul that won the general elections that conservatives supposedly aren’t capable of winning.

Well, let me rephrase that. They don’t exactly forget about Senators Cruz and Paul–they just spend most of their time telling us how bad they are.

The Wall Street Journal has spent a lot of column inches lately reminding us of just how much harm Ted Cruz is causing the GOP. Kimberley Strassel, generally one of the WSJ’s finest columnists, recently took potshots at Cruz because of his efforts on the debt ceiling. Her argument boiled down to pointing out the folly of Cruz arguing with the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over procedure, rather than substance, noting that “Mr. McConnell holds the same positions as Mr. Cruz on spending, ObamaCare, gun control, etc.”

Ann Coulter recently tried to make this same argument when she took issue with Red State’s less than stellar opinion of McConnell. However, Eric Erickson’s column in response took her apart, as he noted McConnell’s support for a long line of moderate or liberal GOP candidates who lost to current conservative U.S. Senators in the primary. The U.S. Senate would look very different today if the McConnell-supported GOP opponents of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Mike Lee were in office.

Of course, that really is the idea. It is the liberal and moderate GOPers that Karl Rove and company want in the Senate. Why?

Ostensibly, it is because these folks give the GOP the best chance to win back the Senate. Strassel notes, “Republicans have fumbled their last two Senate takeover chances, mostly thanks to infighting.” That would be the fault of the Tea Party, we are reminded.

Galston takes the same approach as he looks to a dim future dominated by the Tea Party: “If the tea party prevails, get ready for an avalanche of anger, followed by a repetition of 1964,” referring to the Goldwater defeat by LBJ.

However, the reality is that Rove and other establishment Republicans want more moderates and liberals in the U.S. Senate because of the simple fact that they are moderates and liberals themselves. They like big government as long as they are in charge of it and can somewhat stem the Democrats push for really big government.

Of course, they don’t call themselves moderates and liberals. They prefer the term “mainstream conservative” which columnists like Galston helpfully use so that they can claim, along with Strassel, that the Tea Party types are “attacking fellow conservatives.” Which, conveniently, leads to marginalization of the GOP.

Its funny how the marginalization of the GOP is blamed on movement conservatives when the establishment candidates, like Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, have been the ones getting beat in recent years. Likewise, it has also been the policies of the establishment like Trent Lott, Arlen Specter, and Dennis Hastert, rather than conservative policies, that have led to the GOP’s loss of the U.S. House and Senate.

Its understandable that establishment Republicans are upset with the recent emergence of conservatives as a force within the GOP. They had a nice run of 100 years or so with little competition from the right. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan became the political leader of the conservative movement of William F. Buckley, Jr. and others that they had to worry about being competitive.

The movement of the WSJ Editorial Page to the center is sad. After being a leader on the right for decades, they are abandoning that role just as they could make a real difference in the long-term governance of America.

In the process, they are likely to marginalize themselves, along with the rest of the mainstream GOP.