“There must be a few times in life when you stand at a precipice of a decision. When you know there will forever be a Before and an After…”
― Justina Chen Headley, North of Beautiful
Before getting into the heart of this discussion, there is one thing which needs to be pointed out. The national Republican Party is currently dominated by the ascendancy and presidency of Donald Trump. This fact is obvious to most people, but is worth mentioning because of the relevance of this national party domination to the current state of the Republican Party in Mississippi and specifically to the choice of a Republican nominee for Governor. It is vital to understand because Donald Trump is not a “traditional” Republican. In fact, one could easily argue this is the reason he was elected by a different coalition of voters than was expected for most national Republican officeholders; who were fed up with “establishment” political parties in general, especially the political brand which most Republicans in national office represented. Trump was an outsider, a disrupter, of the status quo. Whether or not he lives the principles out in his life or to what extent he believes them firmly, he is also primarily conservative in his promise to pass policies that are in keeping with “social conservative” principles (pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, etc.) Despite being a business man, Trump’s stances on economic issues and the role of government are much different from what we once considered traditionally Republican. Trump is not keen on new taxes, but is for increased government spending on infrastructure and the expansion of government’s role in many different areas, from involvement in the economic decisions of businesses to locate or manufacture their goods where they please to the astronomical increase in the use of tariffs to artificially affect prices outside of free-market forces. Trump’s appeal is not to truly “shrink” government altogether. His rhetoric is to make government quit working against “you,” as the perception is that it has not been geared to help “you,” as much as it should. The “you” in this case is the “common man,” the person traditionally employed in manufacturing or other jobs and who struggles to make ends meet and to keep himself or his family in the middle class. (I am using the masculine version of pronouns in the broad sense here, representing both male and female.) In this way, Trump is a “populist” more than he is a traditional political “conservative,” as the word has been defined in the past two decades. This is not meant as an insult or meaning what he represents is good or bad. However, it is very true that Trump’s ascendancy to political power and total domination of the Republican Party at this point reveals the fact that being “socially conservative,” is the main thing people are referring to when they say they are a “conservative Republican” in the current atmosphere, at least in the remaining parts of traditional conservatism represented in the current Republican Party. Trump’s power rests upon having convinced a large portion of the voting population that he will keep their life as they currently enjoy it from being changed by outside forces, as many perceive that it was in danger of being changed. Government will not necessarily be shrunk at all, as spending has only gone up, but its interference will not be directed to the common working American or their way of life. Instead, it will be used to aid them and certainly to keep back the forces which threaten to change that way of life. With all of that being said, the main point of this introduction is that despite what they may say in their ads or try to represent themselves as being, neither nominee for Governor in Mississippi is much like Trump, plain and simple.
There is only one way in which they are like Trump or at least like the policies Trump advocates, and it bears mentioning. Both Republican candidates and one also might mention the Democratic nominee, Jim Hood, as well are avowed “social conservatives.” Hood, Reeves, and Waller all advocate support for protecting the lives of the unborn. All staunchly advocate the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. All are openly and unabashedly believers in Jesus Christ. Therefore, there is really no question that all three are social conservatives. Save for a minority of partisan voters, who question Hood’s social conservatism simply because he is a Democrat and the national party is more socially liberal, there is no proof at all to contradict these statements. None of the candidates have ever shown any hatred of or lack of work to support these “traditional,” social conservative stances. Any hint to the otherwise is just rhetoric to cast suspicion on the sincerity of the others’ beliefs in this regard, but lacks any real proof. The difference of the candidates from Trump then does not lie in social conservatism. The difference between Reeves or Waller and the President has to do with the personal style, the President’s economic populism, and the purpose of government.
In regards to style, Reeves is a natural introvert and according to some, socially inept. You seldom, if ever, hear of someone describing their delightful experience talking with Reeves or of their good time in his company. Whether intentional or not, this has translated into a perception of him being socially aloof, conceited, and having an air of entitlement or superiority. In keeping with this introverted nature, he does not appear comfortable expressing his emotions overtly, whether positive or negative. On the other hand, President Trump, as many populists were before him, is extremely comfortable with fiery rhetoric and tapping into the emotions of a group or crowd. Reeves is controlled and calculating in this respect and generally comes across as more cold. When Reeves does attempt to imitate the President’s rhetoric or confrontational style, no amount of lighting, scripting, or consultants seem capable of changing the fact that it comes across as inauthentic. In fact, when Reeves has tried to imitate Trump’s more emotional and confrontational style, it often instead shines a light on his natural tendency toward introversion, instead of selling the viewer that he is naturally fiery and confrontational. If Reeves were to get fired up emotionally about any topic, it would probably be more about the prospect of cutting a budget than about any issue that affects the religious values or economic conditions of the average Mississippian. Reeves is perfectly willing to seek retribution on those who have crossed him politically during his work in the Mississippi Senate. Yet, these actions were almost always taken behind closed doors and in actions that were calculating and precise, instead of emotional and in bombastic public behavior. Truly, Reeves is not Trump in style and this is readily apparent to most everyone. Equally so, Waller is not like Trump in style either. While Waller is much more extroverted than Reeves, seeming to enjoy interactions with others through conversation. He comes across as relatable in a way Reeves cannot naturally accomplish. However, Waller’s difference from Trump is that he comes across as the good-natured father or even grandfather figure, as opposed to Trump’s image as a fiery fighter ready to jump in the ring either in person on via social media. Waller is extroverted in conversation and seems reasonably comfortable expressing positive emotions (empathy, interest, caring, etc.), but reserved in expressing negative emotions or seeking out confrontations. Clearly, neither Reeves nor Waller is “Trumpian” in their nature or style, but both in differing ways.
As stated the President is an economic populist in practice, despite whether someone might want to call him “conservative” or not. Again, this is not to paint this populism as a positive or negative trait, but a true one nonetheless. Trump is more than willing to use whatever powers he or the government have at their disposal to advance the path he wishes to pursue. He raises tariffs on Canada and China to protect certain industries. He spends government money as subsidies to farmers affected by his tariffs. Only today, he put out a Tweet literally stating, “Our great American companies are hereby ORDERED to immediately start looking for an alternative to China.” None of these actions and manifold others are anything similar to a traditional “economic conservative,” who have always advocated free markets and a lack of government intervention in trade. Instead, he is a populist, attempting to appeal to people that he is doing things that will benefit them, regardless of whether they are “small government” or “free-market” in nature. Thus, the positions he takes are ones which he hopes become “popular” paths forward, without necessarily being ideologically purely in line with economic conservative principles. In this regard, Reeves is vastly different than the President. Reeves has consistently been a politician who desires to be seen as willing to slash government spending and to advocate for less government at every turn, whether or not the government is actually providing services most people find beneficial and services which may generally be seen as quite popular. He has actively pushed, along with Speaker Gunn in the House, the largest cut in corporate taxes in Mississippi history. He has delighted and was seemingly the most visibly excited conducting hearings in which he berated various department heads of different agencies about how they would have to get by with less funding and their budgets would have to be cut in the future. He has pushed “school choice” and the use of vouchers which shift money away from traditional public schools and allow that money to be spent to support private schools. Yes, Reeves is fairly extreme in the zeal with which he want to see government spend less money, regardless of whether the cuts involve services traditionally seen as needed or vital. Take the issue of roads and bridges and their upkeep, or lack thereof, in Mississippi. From the current Governor, Phil Bryant, downward, everyone in Mississippi knows that our roads and bridges are in horrendous shape. Many of those roads and bridges at this point sit condemned with traffic unable to even use them. Yet, despite prods from Governor Bryant, Reeves could not or would not even pass a bill to provide the needed funding to truly address this issue. Regarding public education, Reeves disdain for anything operated or provided by the government is probably its most visible. Reeves has pursued few issues with the fervor and consistency which he has pursued the cutting of public school budgets and funding for public school related activities. In almost every case, when caught between a need for the state that required government spending to meet or simply letting the need go unmet, he has always seemed to lean and err on the side of letting the need go unaddressed rather than spend anything to solve it. In this way, Reeves is extremely different than President Trump, who has made infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) improvements a cornerstone of his agenda and one which requires government to spend vast amounts of public funds. Trump has not shied away from raising the debt ceiling or any other activity to spend funds necessary, if the alternative meant letting a popular or in his perception “needed” government service disappear. Waller differs from Trump a bit was well in this way, but actually has a touch more common ground than Reeves has with the President. Waller advocates increased spending for roads, bridges, and other infrastructure via a “tax swap,” which he insists will not require a true raising of taxes. Waller has also advocated increased spending on public education, mainly for economic development reasons and making the state more attractive to industry. Waller has stated he does not see the need to raise taxes to fund many of these priorities, but to simply shift spending toward completing them. While Trump has supported increased government spending on many fronts, he has not advocated necessarily putting more funding toward public education, and in that way Waller differs from him. Trump has not been very vocal on the issue, but one would have to assume that his appointment of Betsy Devos, a staunch public school critic, as Education Secretary would have to be interpreted as being substantially different from the support Waller seems to advocate in regards to schools and school funding. Waller is a bit closer to what President Trump actually practices on the priorities of the spending he advocated, but not completely in line with his same priorities, especially in regards to public education.
This point leads into the final difference between the candidates for the Republican nomination for Mississippi Governor, a difference in what the role of government should be in our lives. The President seems to view the government as a tool to use to meet his political goals, the goals he believes will be best for the country economically or otherwise. He mainly seeks to shrink government where he believes it is doing work that is not in the best interest of the country or at least in the interest of the “working man” he desires to appear to represent, conversely growing it in the areas where the opposite perception holds. In contrast, Reeves very much seems to advocate the government, no matter its function or purpose, as being fundamentally a problem which needs to be shrunk or removed. Reeves’ devotion to his philosophy of less government is so pure and certain, that he does not seek to compromise on it in any real way. Whether this is to protect his political record and reputation as a “traditional economic conservative” or whether it is just inherently a part of his nature, there is no compromise in Reeves pursuit of his idealogy. Whatever problems the government may be addressing or could address, they are better to go on unsolved than to compromise his academically pure view of less government spending. Reeves view of an ideal government seems to be an extremely limited one, but one which does come alive here and there, if the goal is to help a large company or corporation. Reeves seems to see the large company or corporation as a generator of economic activity, and from Reeves’ actions one can see a pattern that government intervention to help such large businesses or corporation is the one type of government action he finds acceptable. However, Reeves is staunchly against government spending, even at present levels, if the goal seems to be services or interventions which help individuals or much smaller businesses. Waller, on the other hand, seems to be more pragmatic in his vision of government, whether the goal is helping businesses or individuals. Waller is advocating a generally limited government, but one which is willing to take action and use resources to address problems of widespread concern, such as his proposals on road/bridges and public education. In this way, Waller seems less academic in his vision of government’s scope and purpose and less interested in adhering to one particular theory or what is good or bad based upon what is nationally seen as pure “economic conservatism” and shrinking the government at all costs. Reeves is focused to pursue his vision of government, regardless of the effect on the common Mississippian. Waller is more focused on having a positive effect on the common Mississippian, while doing his best to pursue his overall limited vision of government in his efforts.
These differences make for a crossroads of sorts in Mississippi politics in this runoff election for the Republican nomination for Governor. Either Reeves or Waller will not be truly “Trumpian” choices, that is a given. The choice will instead be whether the Mississippi Republican Party will be one that chooses to be a “big tent” of conservative leaning ideas, which can incorporate support for services which are seen as benefiting the common good of the state, and might compromise a bit on staunch, economic conservative ideals. Or, will Mississippi make a choice that goes back to the “pre-Trump” adherence of making government shrink, regardless of noble intentions or services it provides that are perceived as beneficial, in the pursuit of the old pure “economic conservatism” that once dominated what many now call the “establishment” wing of the Republican Party. Will the party be one which can make room for both the ideologically pure, establishment style economic conservatism and those who advocate a more pragmatic view of the role of government? Or will the party take a harder line, allowing only the totally pure devotees to government cuts and establishment economic conservatism. The choice will not only decide the heart and soul of the Republican Party in Mississippi, but the choice has the potential to cause a seismic shift politically in our state; a shift which one particular socially conservative Democrat, named Jim Hood, may benefit from and exploit this November by providing a place for those who may find themselves cast outside the Republican “tent” by the results of the runoff election. I hinted at the eventual development of these lines in the Mississippi Republican Party which began to form a few years ago and how a “conservative” Democrat might be able to exploit them, if Reeves’ and Gunn’s style of Republicanism became totally dominant in the state-level party. Depending on the results of the soul-searching and eventual choice made in Tuesday’s Republican runoff, the state could have a more diverse Republican Party that makes room for slight differences in some views, or the results could set the stage for the reappearance of a “socially conservative” Governor in Mississippi, who happens to be a Democrat.
*If you are interested in the article from several years ago somewhat predicting the current fault-lines in Mississippi state-level politics, please click on the following article from 2015: Return of the Mississippi Conservative Democrat?).
– Clint Stroupe
As always, all views expressed on The Thinking Conservative Blog are personal and my own alone.
The Thinking Conservative Blog 