Is Fred Thompson “Conservative Enough?”

By John A. Tures
Associate Professor of Political Science
LaGrange College

(10/10/07) There’s a lot of talk, especially in the South, about whether Fred Dalton Thompson can win the nomination. The affable ex-actor certainly appears to have the personality to appeal to voters. But conservatives wonder if he has “the credentials” to motivate the base.

This debate among Republicans has centered on a single issue: abortion. Some of this is the former Tennessee Senator’s fault, owing to his statement about having a “perfect record” on this particular issue. Critics have scoured his past for pro-choice skeletons in his closet, including his prior lobbying record.

But using a single issue as an ideological litmus test is rather limiting, especially considering that such a belief system should apply to a plethora of issues. Therefore, rather than judge the “Law & Order” candidate on a single stance, it makes more sense to evaluate his voting record on a number of issues.

To conduct such a study, I use the rating system developed by the American Conservative Union (ACU), which gives the candidates a score between 0 and 100 based upon their votes on a series of roughly 20 bills before the United States Congress. Politicians who cast their votes the way the ACU prefers would vote naturally receive higher scores.

Using this ACU system, I find that Senator Thompson had a lifetime rating of 86, calculated in 2002 (his final year in office). His ratings from 1995 through 2002 are as follows: 83, 85, 88, 84, 84, 92 and 84. In other words, his voting record shows incredible precision, especially when compared to that of his former Tennessee colleague Bill Frist. The ex-Senate Majority Leader’s record swung anywhere from the low 70s to 100, and not in any discernible trend.

So where did ex-Senator Thompson break ranks with the ACU? In 2002, he voted in favor of campaign finance reform (HR 2356) and against a tort reform package that would limit medical malpractice awards (SB 812). He missed two other votes, which lowered his overall score. You may wonder about that malpractice vote. It wasn’t a G.O.P. moderate vs. conservative battle, as Senators Mike Crapo and George Allen Jr. voted against it. So I suppose it makes sense that Thompson hired Allen (a former primary candidate himself) to be his campaign co-chair.

But is an 86 “conservative enough” for a Republican? Let’s compare him to another Republican presidential primary candidate with a similar lengthy voting record: Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. The man from the Sunflower State has almost always produced a voting record in the 90s (his overall average is a 94, and even had a “perfect” conservative score at least once in his career. But in 2006, Senator Brownback turned in a “Thompson-esque” score of 87, following a national trend where many Republicans bucked the conservative mantra somewhat.

Perhaps it would be helpful to compare Thompson to more than a single candidate, such as a current presidential primary foe. The ACU doesn’t always calculate an annual average for the G.O.P., but in 1998, the average G.O.P. Republican Senator ACU score was 78, so it appears that Thompson is batting above average. He’s no Jeff Sessions (R-AL), but he’s also no Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

What arch-conservative critics fail to observe is that the G.O.P. will need a candidate who is electable, given that the 2008 map definitely doesn’t favor Republicans. Already likely to lose Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico, if the election were held today, the G.O.P. candidate would come up short in the Electoral College….and that assumes that states that voted for Clinton in 1996 (Florida, Tennessee and several Western states) don’t also slip away.

Thompson has shown that he’s not only electable, but he’s “conservative enough.” An ACU record in the 80s is just what the G.O.P. desperately needs to keep the base and win over a few independents, avoiding the specter of a Clinton-Obama presidency, as well as a weakened presence in the House and Senate in 2008.