A Liberal Can't Win in Pennsylvania

Throughout much of this election cycle, we heard a lot of "A conservative can't win in Pennsylvania," or specifically, "Pat Toomey is too conservative for Pennsylvania."  Now that Pat Toomey won his election to the US Senate, AP writer Marc Levy has already spun the analysis that "Pat Toomey is too conservative to win reelection."

Three things really bother me about this analysis.  First is the common refrain used by the media that Toomey is "more conservative" than Rick Santorum.  This involves the mindless left-right dichotomy, instead of a common sense understanding of different views on fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues.

It is undeniable Toomey is more fiscally conservative than Santorum—who I don't consider a fiscal conservative at all, having supported all of Bush's overspending, expansion of Medicare, and defending to this day the use of earmark.  (Indeed, what is curious is that the Sestak campaign both tried say "Toomey is more conservative than Santorum" and "Toomey supported Bush's deficits"—yet the reason Toomey scored higher than Santorum on indexes like the American Conservative Union's is that he voted against much of the deficit spending under Bush.

But the reason Rick Santorum is so demonized as an "arch-conservative" is his views, and moreso his rhetoric, on social isses and foreign policy.  Few would consider Toomey "more conservative" than Santorum on social issues (in fact, many social conservatives considered Toomey not conservative enough).  Like Santorum, Toomey is pro-life.  But Toomey is much more moderate on things like same-sex marriage and gays in the military (having suggested he would support a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell).  Toomey would not have tried to get Congress involved in the case of a single woman, Terry Shiavo.  Nor would Toomey push a federal government program to promote marriage—which includes a taxpayer-funded website with dating tips.

On foreign policy, Toomey supported the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan (as did a majority of both parties in Congress), but never adopted the extreme rhetoric of Santorum against "islamo-fascism" and in support of further wars with Iran. (Indeed, I would suggest much of the neo-conservative views in support of these wars, in support of torture and the Patriot Act, and against the Mosque at Ground Zero are not conservative at all, as they are neither part of the libertarian nor Russell Kirk traditionalist views at all). Toomey and Santorum have very different views on immigration and free trade, which would likely baffle the media to figure out which is the "conservative" view.  Comparing Toomey to Santorum is not well thought out at all.

My second issue is a long-standing one: that whenever the media urges "compromise" or "bipartisanship" it is always conservatives who need to move toward the middle, or Republicans who need to work with Democrats.  For one example, see the Patriot-News post-election op-ed.  Or consider how the media is already blaming the Tea-Party candidates for some losses—not the horrible candidates put out by the party hacks, whose records of tax-hikes, overspending, and corruption were why the Tea Partiers rejected them.  This is much the same as when the establishment blamed the Club for Growth for GOP losses—not the incumbents who lost to Club for Growth candidates, then worked for Democrats (like Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland, and Joe Schwarz in Michigan).  Then you have cases like Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski, and Charlie Crist; whose rejection by Republican voters led them to try to switch parties or run as independents to maintain power.   The media embraces these candidates only because they are more leftists, and blames conservatives—not obvious self-interested actions by incumbents—for any losses of any so-called moderates.

Finally, the lesson that should be learned is that a liberal cannot win in Pennsylvania.  Indeed, Joe Sestak was one of few candidates to campaign as a true liberal state-wide, Joe Hoeffel, who has been uncompetitive each of his election attempts, being another.  Ed Rendell, off his record as a Philadelphia mayor who cut taxes and took on the unions, ran as a moderate.  So did Barack Obama, who promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans.

In Pennsylvania's competitive Congressional races, the Democrats who won—Altmire, Holden, and Critz—voted against or opposed Obamacare.  Those who lost—Patrick Murphy, Dahlkemper, Carney, Kanjorski, and Lentz (in Setak's seat)—all voted for Obamacare or supported it as a candidate.
The lesson should be clear: liberals and liberal policies lost.  That may not be the same as say Conservative/Conservative ideas won; but the idea that anyone should move the to left to win re-election is laughable.