Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:07:33 AM
The most idiotic thing the Republicans have done in the past few decades is to accept the Democrats' terms in the national debate and enter into a fight on their home turf. As common sense should tell them, the minute you let your opponent set the rules, you give him an immense advantage. And, sure enough, the Democrats have been punishing the Republicans ever since, and, at the same time, by abandoning their principles, the Republicans are also losing a lot of their base.
Perhaps an example or two will help.
First, let us examine Bush's prescription coverage plan. The project itself is based entirely upon the Democrats' socialized, redistribution-based theories, not the Republican platform of personal responsibility and small government. By admitting that it is the duty of the government to provide low cost prescription coverage to seniors, Bush conceded everything. There is no difference in the justification for prescription coverage and for universal health care, it is just a matter of degree. So by saying that prescription coverage is a valid governmental function, Bush essentially conceded that universal health care is valid as well. In doing so, he set himself up for a loss. For as long as he admits the government should function as a caretaker, he will always lose, as the Democrats are far more willing than he is to take that to its logical conclusion. The moment he allowed the basic socialist assumption, he lost the fight.
No Child Left Behind shows a similar logic. While the class of 1994 fought to get rid of the Department of Education and return schooling to the states, Bush has conceded that it is the duty of the federal government to fund and control state schools. Yes, he put some window dressing in the form of performance goals, but those are easily removed later. The part that mattered to the Democrats was that he admitted the validity of the Department of Education and central federal control of education, and thus gave up the game again.
Lastly, we can look at campaign finance reform. Now, I know Bush punted hoping the Supreme Court would do what he lacked the nerve to do, but he DID sign the bill, so he is still to blame. And what did the bill concede? Nothing less than the revocation of the first amendment. Even more than religion, the first amendment was intended to protect political speech. If we can control political speech, even if we try to disguise it as "controlling money", we have cut the guts out of the first amendment. If McCain-Fiengold is valid, then what argument is there against the fairness doctrine? Campus speech codes? Restrictions on abortion clinic protests? Any restriction on our speech at all? The minute he signed this, Bush gave the Democrats the high ground on controlling our speech "for our own good".
As I said, and as these examples show, the minute the Republicans concede the basic premises of the Democrats, they set themselves up to lose. The Democrats are far more willing to take those arguments to their logical extremes, and so sound more consistent once both sides grant the same premises.
This should be a lesson for the members of any future administrations who feel the need to rule as "centrists" or to "reach out across the aisle". It may be necessary at times to allow opponents some small concessions, but never, even for a moment, do so by conceding their socialist, redistribution-based premises. Doing so just sets one up for future losses.