This article originally appears in The American Thinker
In this, the season of Republican discontent, the various tribes that make up the GOP have been slapping on the war paint and dancing the war dance while getting ready for the big day.
No, not election day. The real fun begins the day after the vote when the recriminations following a probable Republican loss of the House (and perhaps the Senate) will explode into the kind of internecine warfare not seen by the GOP since the Goldwater debacle of 1964. Many conservatives will have the long knives out hunting for scalps, looking for scapegoats, and readying the hot tar and feathers for use against some very special targets.
The immediate butt of their ire will be a small but influential group of pundits who, to one degree or another, are predicting a GOP loss prior to the election while intimating in so many words that perhaps this is the best thing that could have happened to the party at this time. The logic (or insanity depending on one’s world view) used to justify this position is that a thoroughly chastened GOP will magically reform itself in two years, kick out the deadwood in Congress, throw up a new generation of dynamic conservative leaders who will take the party back to the promised land in 2008.
Yeah. Right.
It should be noted that there is a difference between those, like Richard Baehr, Chief Political Correspondent for The American Thinker, whose coldly rational and logically devastating look at Republican prospects in November points to a probable takeover by Democrats of the House and those who actually look forward to a GOP defeat, believing that it would be good for the party. After all, with a half dozen seats written off already due to the malfeasance or turpitude of the GOP member, the historical forces at work during the off year election of a second term incumbent become extremely difficult to overcome when the margin for error is as small as it is for the GOP.
I have dubbed this group of GOP curmudgeons Reynoldistas after Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds whose “Pre Mortem” post on the election raised the hackles of many conservatives who felt the blogger was being a defeatist by listing the reasons for the GOP’s probable downfall. Reynolds makes it clear that he believes that the GOP deserves to lose while also saying that the Democrats don’t deserve to win. Is this defeatist? Or realism? Or, as Mr. Reynolds claims, is it simply analysis?
It is perhaps unfair to lump Reyonolds in with other pundits who are actually urging people to sit on their hands on election day in order to teach the GOP ” a lesson.” The problem is that the effect that Reynolds has on the thinking of other bloggers and, more importantly, the fact that he is widely quoted by the opposition, does tend to raise the visibility of questions surrounding conservative commitment to voting on election day. Whether he realizes it or not, many see his belief that Republicans deserving defeat is no different than those Republicans who believe a Democratic takeover would somehow be good for the party.
As a counterpoint to the Reynoldistas, there are many conservatives who are dismissing the polls out of hand while confidently predicting that the GOP will hold on to both Houses of Congress despite the seeming lack of evidence for such optimism. I have dubbed these sunny side of the street Republicans Hewittonians after the most enthusiastic and eternally optimistic Hugh Hewitt. Again, it may be unfair to Mr. Hewitt to lump him together with some of the mindless partisans who refuse to recognize the dire straits that the GOP finds itself in three weeks out from the election and viciously attack anyone who they believe isn’t showing sufficient enthusiasm for the coming GOP victory. But for those who hunger for hope and a reasonable analysis, Hewitt supplies the antidote to the Reynoldistas relentless pessimism.
But the question is are both camps doing a disservice to the party? Or, are they both serving a vital purpose to prepare the party faithful for both the election and its aftermath?
A GOP loss will, from a purely political standpoint, be a devastating blow. The inevitable finger pointing and scalp hunting that would follow a Republican debacle on election day would almost certainly encompass the current leadership in the House and open the door to new leadership who, it is hoped, will have learned a thing to two about satisfying the base not to mention how to govern according to conservative principles. In this respect, the Reynoldistas are correct that a loss at the polls would probably make the GOP a better, smarter party.
But is an electoral loss necessary to achieve that goal? The Hewittonians are convinced that party reform could best be accomplished as a majority, albeit a chastened one. Wholesale turnover of the leadership would not be in the cards but that doesn’t mean that meaningful change couldn’t be accomplished in other areas, especially on the issues of pork and earmarks.
In the end, both the pessimists and optimists make it clear that they only have the good of the party at heart. This is all well and good except when it comes to the real world consequences of a Democratic takeover of the House. It is when thinking of what handing the reins of power over to a group of irresponsible, unserious, conspiracy mongers in the Democratic party that one should pause and think very carefully about teaching the GOP “a lesson” about anything.
Criticizing the Administration for their failures in Iraq and the War on Terror is one thing. There are many of us who wish that the War was prosecuted much more vigorously and with more passion. Now imagine a party in power that doesn’t believe we are at war at all, that the War on Terror is a political ploy being used by the White House to win elections and gather power for the executive at the expense of the other branches of government.
It is simply unconscionable to advocate for the defeat of the only party that wishes to engage the enemy in battle, confront rogue states that support terrorism, and do everything that the Constitution allows to keep the homeland safe. We can quibble about details regarding strategy or tactics. But in the end, the election of Democrats would mean a radical change in the way that the War on Terror will be fought. A newly hatched Democratic Congress, driven by their far left net roots who will take full credit for any electoral victory by the party, will disengage from Iraq, end programs that have proven themselves over time to have kept us safe from attack at home, while turning to the United Nations for directions on what to do about Iran and North Korea.
It is perhaps inevitable that there is enormous discontent among conservatives with this Congress and even with the President. But conservative angst about their performance and translating that dissatisfaction into election day pouting absolutely must take a back seat to what the alternative would be. For if the Democrats take control, the blame for such a turn of events will be shared by both Congress itself and those who believe that reforming the party takes precedence over the safety and security of the United States.
Those are the stakes. Now quit your griping and go vote.
8:24 am
You realize, of course, that there is an easy way out of all this. Now that I’ve become convinced that the two-year drumbeat of “GOP BAD†will pretty much cost the GOP BOTH houses of Congress, I will make some predictions for you:
Between Nov. 7 and Jan. 3 (the start date of the 110th Congress), you will see just about all the positive stories about Iraq come out of the MSM that most conservatives felt were being withheld. Why? With nobody from the Bush Administration running in 2008, Iraq will only be a peripheral issue that no one can really take full advantage of. Who’s going to run anti-war against nearly everyone running that is for it in some way or another?
Expect the Dem Congress to not only not insist on a withdrawal plan from Iraq, but also approve all requested funding for Iraq. Bush and the GOP Congress set up Iraq funding in such a manner that a rejection of any appropriation for it means quick disaster on the ground for our troops there. Not even John Murtha has the guts to play with that. Call it Bush’s adaptation of “just in time.â€
Expect Bush’s poll numbers to go back to the 60%-65% range by Nov. 2008. I think we know why this will happen.
It’s really simple, if I may be so presumptuous: All a lot of folks in the Mainstream Media want is a Bush defeat of some sort. With a clean slate for the 2008 Presidential elections, the only way Bush can be “defeated†is to send the GOP Congress packing. After the MSM has gotten that, there’s no real interest in pushing for withdrawal (And let’s be honest here: The US will not fully withdraw from Iraq for another generation. Our history of military engagements overseas proves we will not fully do so.).
8:48 am
I do not understand the big to-do over Glenn Reynolds demise of the Republican party. Genn makes no pretense to be a Republican. He is pro abortion, pro gay marriage and against almost all conservative views. He is pro America which is the only thing that distinguishes him from the far left. He is the great “blogger”, but hi blog is just a bunch of links with litle commentary. I don’t know, but I see Glenn as the msm see Obama, for some reason he gets way to much credit for doing way too little.
10:40 am
From Brad S
“It’s really simple, if I may be so presumptuous: All a lot of folks in the Mainstream Media want is a Bush defeat of some sort. With a clean slate for the 2008 Presidential elections, the only way Bush can be “defeated†is to send the GOP Congress packing. After the MSM has gotten that, there’s no real interest in pushing for withdrawal (And let’s be honest here: The US will not fully withdraw from Iraq for another generation. Our history of military engagements overseas proves we will not fully do so.).”
Um, if the MSM is powerful enough to get a Republican Congress defeated in 2006, why have we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress up to this point? Wouldn’t the all powerful liberal press have prevented this? Conservatives use the MSM as an all-powerful devil at times (not born out by any facts that I can see), and an out of touch helpless relic at others (when pointing at talk radio and plotical blogs as the real voices that matter). Isn’t it uncomfortable to insist that you are headed east and west at the same time?
As to our history of military engagements keeping us in Iraq for another generation, where in our history have we maintained troop presence in an active shooting war (and a civil war at that) with large U.S. military deaths, for at least 25 years (a generation)?
The split in the GOP Rick describes has several sources. Perhaps many Republicans can no longer “stay the course” with the conservatives that keep starting with an answer and then bending the facts to make the world appear to fit their answers, as does Brad above. Conservatism in some hands is a belief system that cannot be wrong, instead of a set of ideas that make a lot of sense for managing human affairs, but need to be re-examined and altered as situations change.
My thought is that those Republicans who wish to teach the GOP a lesson are referring to a lesson in humility, proclamations of unwavering certitude in spite of massive evidence of being wrong, and a mind-numbing arrogance that any means justifies the ends.
Politics, as a means of social control, has always (and will always) swung on a pendulum of progressive and conservative cycles. Societies need a certain amount of stability to maintain its own structure, traditions, identity, and the means to allow citizens to succeed (conservatism). Societies also need to adapt to the changing world around it, to bring more goods and services to the largest number possible of its citizens, and to fight the inevitable overcontrolling tendencies of governing bodies (liberalism). Both are necessary, neither are perfect, and neither can be permenant in a functioning society.
10:53 am
Reynolds points to Schiavo event as one of the leading reasons why Republicans should fail yet the Schaivo event was propelled by non-partisian actors, we saw the mainstream media 24/7 coverage along with Jessie Jackson plus coalition for the Catholic Church plea for her life yet it was all reduced to the argument that Republican politicans and some moralizers alone were solely responsible for entertaining the notion that the federal government should supercede state control.
Reynolds did the same thing on stem cell research argument…he placed the fault against embryonic stem-cell research solely upon Republican politicans and ‘those’ moralizers when in fact science has never been able to substantiate or validate this type of research.
Also, the man is a professor who will acknowledge that dissent in American universities are restricted but then he pretends that is really isn’t as bad as what some people claim it to be.
Reynolds is pro-Reynolds and serves only his interests. As far as I can tell the only principle he holds dear to his heart is that he be able to live forever.
11:50 am
The last line of this post sums it up nicely: Stop whining and go vote. Amen.
1:56 pm
ed,
WRT active military presence in hot zones, one could very credibly state that Kosovo, where we have troops, is an active shooting war. Albeit with far fewer casualties. And our 19-year military presence in Haiti (!) in the early 1910s-1920s was the target of numerous guerilla skirmishes.
Please keep in mind, ed, that I don’t believe that MSM has a political bias against Republicans. I DO believe that MSM’s main purpose is to engage in as much political game theory as possible, to show the world how relevant they are to power. You see, what MSM really wants is to trap politicans in some sort of Gotcha, followed by some sort of “apology” or tribute-paying to MSM. I am confident we can all agree that the Bush Administration has stubbornly refused to do this.
What’s the best way to deal with the stubborn mule? The 2×4 treatment between the eyes, of course. In this case, the MSM wants to ensure he faces defeat of some sort. It does not matter what MSM’s past behavior was; all they want is some piece of Bush hide to nail on a wall. Once they got that, they tend to slink away or ignore Bush.
2:02 pm
Also, ed, keep this in mind. Whenever someone bleats about the need to be taught lessons in “humility,” the word often comes with an unspoken reminder “Don’t you forget who put you in this position. Don’t you forget to take care of them.”
If you’re quite the independent-minded person, that unspoken phrase should make you feel contempt for anyone who hints it.
2:10 pm
Brad S:
Thanks for the expansion on your comments. Your examples of our staying in serious shooting wars were a little strained for the point I was making, but your point is valid and taken.
I agree that the media wants power and relevance, as that translates into dollars. The MSM is used for a whipping boy, and is subject to being used as a strawman in conservative arguments. By the same token, liberals use fundamentalist religions (to name just one group) in a similar manner. My main point is that the majority of Americans know they are being whipsawed by the rhetoric of the left and the right and more honestly from both would be appreciated. And by the way, I agree that the media loves to use Bush and other politicians as gotcha trophies.
4:27 pm
Also, ed, keep this in mind. Whenever someone bleats about the need to be taught lessons in “humility,†the word often comes with an unspoken reminder “Don’t you forget who put you in this position. Don’t you forget to take care of them.â€
If you’re quite the independent-minded person, that unspoken phrase should make you feel contempt for anyone who hints it.
Don’t feel that way, Brad. I have needed a lesson or two about humility, and it had to do with my behavior and nothing else.
6:28 pm
I’m with Karen, shut up and Vote, kinda like the book Laura Inghram wrote …Shut up and Sing.
9:57 pm
[...] Between that and this, I’d say it’s time to hit the panic button. Assuming there’s anything left once Moran and Mary K are done pounding on it. [...]
11:55 pm
A Pox On Both Their Houses!
Glenn Reynolds certainly managed to stir up quite a fuss with his “pre-mortem” from a few days ago. While I don’t agree 100% with every part of his analysis, I do think he makes a lot of good points… though…
12:15 am
Glenn who? Never mind, tell me later. I don’t have time to get aggravated, I have to go pick up the Republican yard signs for my church group so we can all get out our sledgehammers and pound them into the ground like they were Pelosis and Kerrys.
5:31 am
The fact that the GOP has ALREADY cleaned up its act in many ways shows the mindless un-neccessity of making leftwing dolt Nancy Pelosi Speaker as a ‘cure’ for what ails the GOP. By clean up I mean the fact that in January 2007 the GOP leadership will be almost completely different from what it was 14 months prior.
So, this purging concept (let the dems win so we can reform the GOP) from a conservative viewpoint is a terrible idea.
Might as well prescribe amputation for athlete’s foot!
I’m not interested in pre mortems. It aint over til its over.
What I am interested in is the mind-boggling fact that mediocrities like Casey in PA may beat an articulate and excellent Senator like Rick Santorum. Casey’s debate performances have been pathetic. I am also worried that economic illiterates who think Bush is responsible for gas prices going up and now down are going to be elected.
I am interested in why the economic boom is being so under-reported.
I am interested in Pelosi’s votes, and doubly interested in why the media feels no need to tell us what the leftwing Democrats really represent.
“I see Glenn as the msm see Obama, for some reason he gets way to much credit for doing way too little.”
ROFL. Good one! (yeah, a sycophantic NPR interview of the Obama twerp, an idiot who takes huge sums of campaign $$ and then says he’s for us taxpaypers paying for political campaigns – no thanks! .. rant off)
9:32 pm
Rick: you GOTTA see this:
http://newsbusters.org/node/8468
Cindy Sheehan, Paid By Kerry Campaign? Authors Say Yes on Fox News
Posted by Tim Graham on October 20, 2006 – 07:29.
Cindy Sheehan became an instant liberal-media celebrity when she held a vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas and demanded to meet with him (a second time) over the death of her son Casey in Iraq. But is the liberal media only about creating the legend and leaving the negative details out? MRC’s Justin McCarthy reported that on Wednesday’s “Fox and Friends,” Melanie Morgan and Catherine Moy, authors of the book American Mourning, said they found Sheehan was paid by John Kerry’s campaign in 2004 to speak out against President Bush. Said Morgan:
“We have Federal Election Commission documents. I mean we went to an extensive research, we followed the money, that’s how you always figure out what’s going on…We found that John Kerry and Michael Moore personally recruited Gold Star family members just within days and sometimes even at the funerals of their sons to come and work for the campaign in order to undermine the candidacy of George W. Bush at the time. It was shocking and, and really offensive behavior and that’s exactly what happened to Cindy Sheehan who we tracked down. She went on the payroll of John Kerry’s campaign within days after her son’s death as well as her daughter Carly. Ultimately, there was a split between the two because she felt that John Kerry wasn’t radical enough and didn’t have an anti-war agenda that matched hers.”
The authors also appeared on Tuesday’s “Hannity & Colmes” to make their charge:
“It was John Kerry’s political campaign, John Kerry personally, along with Michael Moore, went to Cindy Sheehan just days and a couple of weeks after the death of her son and asked her to make a commercial for him.And they did the same thing, political operatives, they asked the other families.”
This is a pretty explosive charge for the rest of the Sheehan-promoting media to ignore.