(1) Who were the explicitly anti-Trump candidates?
(2) Generally, too many anti-establishment candidates ran.
By Sussex Watchdog
NJ.com writer Jonathan Salant is widely considered to be extraordinarily biased against Republicans and progressive reformers by both Democrat and especially Republican campaign operatives. Even the moderates think he sucks (and we have that in writing). Establishment Democrats count on him to robotically repeat their line but everyone else has little use for him.
So, you can imagine the bemusement that came with Salant’s political prognostications on Sunday morning. Sure, everyone can have an opinion, but Salant’s understanding of the GOP borders on superstition. You can imagine him beginning the effort by placing a mouse in his pocket and a garland of garlic around his neck.
Post-primary, the NJGOP establishment is still in its cups, yet to recover from a series of shocks, near-losses, and outright losses – all at the hands of vastly outspent rightwingers. Even the line didn’t hold up in places like Bergen and Morris Counties.
Nowadays, nobody runs openly as a “moderate”. Not in the GOP, anyway. Not even in the New Jersey GOP. So, every Republican candidate in every contested primary is trying to convince Republican voters that he or she is the conservative in that race. It makes for a lot of confusion.
Salant was trying to make the point that anti-Trump Republicans defeated pro-Trump Republicans or, as he put it, “only in the 5th District did the apparent pro-Trump candidate emerge victorious.” But that’s not being honest because none of the Republican candidates was overtly anti-Trump, not even in the way that Seth Grossman is (and he’s actually pro-Trump) and certainly not in the intellectually honest way that conservative columnist Paul Mulshine is. Ask yourself: Who is the equivalent of Paul Mulshine in the New Jersey Republican establishment today?
Criticism of the former President is muted, and the phrase “anti-Trump” is found on campaign literature as often as a self-description of “moderate” is, which is never. But despite all that many Republican voters, motivated by dissatisfaction, do figure out who is who and they appear to be getting better at it.
During the height of the Tea Party movement, Joe Kyrillos, an establishment State Senator running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator defeated three Tea Party conservatives 163,817 to 19,238 and 17,161 and 12,823 respectively. Kyrillos got 77 percent of the vote. In conservative Sussex County – without a line – Kyrillos won the primary with 45 percent of the vote (Sussex County’s Bader Qarmout came in second with 24 percent).
In last Tuesday’s CD07 Republican primary, establishment candidate Tom Kean Jr. defeated six opponents who were running to the right of him. He did so on a vote of 24,106 to 12,481 and 8,102 and 2,907 and 2,576 and 2,176 and 414. That is 45 percent of the vote. The anti-establishment vote in CD07 now mirrors that of Sussex County a decade ago. And on Tuesday in Sussex County, Kean was defeated with 33 percent to 37 percent for Pastor Phil Rizzo. And that was with the support of the Sussex County political establishment.
In 2006, as the establishment candidate, Kean won the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in Sussex County 4,809 to 2,414 – defeating a Steve Lonegan-backed candidate 66 percent to 34 percent. Now the relative strengths of the establishment and rightwing have been reversed.
Things have gotten a lot more crunchy, but maybe not in the way that people once defined it. Until quite recently, conservatives liked to talk about the movement’s three-legged policy stool of guns, babies, and taxes. More recently, especially since 2016, it was a four-legged stool of guns (the Second Amendment), babies (Pro-Life), taxes, and illegal immigration. That’s all in flux now.
The good news is that what it means to be a “social conservative” is changing and broadening. The bad news for some will be what those changes mean. Some talk of the rise of “bar stool” conservatism that is a reaction not to social changes, but to the bullying by movements associated with those changes.
Take same-sex marriage, for example. Many of the new “social conservatives” support it, just as they support basic civil rights protections for people regardless of their sexual preferences or identity. That said, these new conservatives (very often recent Democrats or with no party identification) loathe the religion-like proselytization by the LGBTQ+ movement, their demands that we fly their flag and celebrate their deal (and the name-calling if we don’t), and once in power their attempts to mandate their movement and indoctrinate children in schools and employees in the workplace.
A lot of “bar-stool” conservatives are former liberals (many still identify as liberals) – it is just that they still think they have the right to judge for themselves what a man is or a woman is, still believe they should be allowed to suggest that the science of chromosomes trumps the religion of faith-based feelings. They don’t like being threatened, they don’t care if they are “cancelled”, they have chosen to stand up to the bullying.
These new social conservatives have expanded the ranks but not the movement – because they are not “movement” people. They don’t want to be told. Not by a drag queen… or a religious leader. Nevertheless, they have potential for bringing together a loose majority.
Social conservatives – once a movement coasting south – have been provided a new urgency, a new momentum, by the overreach of the flag wavers, curriculum mongers, and pronoun Nazis’. But prognosticators like Jonathan Salant would be wrong to believe it’s the same movement it was just a few years ago. Here is an interesting discussion between two younger writers on the subject – one who was just published in the New York Times.
