I was reading George Will's most recent article, which repeats many of the complaints I made in my last post, when I was surprised by the vitriol many conservatives heaped upon him. Now I am no blind defender of George Will, I have criticized him several times (see "A Really Foolish Idea", "Greed", "George Will Gets It Wrong" and "Materialist Arrogance"), but in this case I simply do not understand all the anger. People criticized him for using the phrase "tincture of lawlessness", apparently upset that he had not unleashed sufficient vitriol. Others, apparently thinking the Democrats hold too few congressional seats, launched into tirades about Obama's incapacity to serve as president. And still others offered less coherent criticisms, apparently simply upset that Will is not as angry about Obama as they are.

So, I am sure some readers are saying, what does it matter? Some people are upset with Will, they are angry about what Obama is doing, what's the problem with that?

The problem, simply put, is that the new born "angry right" is the biggest threat to any Republican restoration. Just as the "Angry Left" managed to shoot down Gore and Kerry, the Angry Right is the best ally the Democrats could have. As I have argued for a long while, Obama and the Democrats face big problems in 2010 and 2012. First, it is likely that in the next several months, some sort of rift will open between Congress and Obama, especially if he continues to accumulate power in the executive branch, or at the very least when it becomes clear his economic plans are faltering (see "Easy to Explain", "The Future" and "I Told You So!"). But even worse for Obama, his pandering to special interests and passing of anti-business legislation will likely hamper any economic recovery (as I described in "Trashing the Economy"), which means a president elected largely for offering "new answers" will be facing an electorate as the man with the wrong answers. If not 2010, then certainly 2012 offers the Republicans an ideal opportunity to retake both congress and the White House.

On the other hand, two things could derail this. First, the Republicans could fail to present a clear alternative to the Democrats, and thus deprive themselves of any advantage (see "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position?"). However, as I argue in "Hurrah For Murchison", I think this is unlikely, as the scope of public dissatisfaction will likely push them in the right direction, whether they want to go or not.

The second worry is much more likely to come to pass. If the right persists in signs of excessive anger, especially if it drifts into topics which the public sees as on the fringe, such as charges that Obama is not a legitimate president, or that he is a stealth Moslem, then the public may begin to doubt the right, just as the lunacy of the truthers, Code Pink and others on the angry left managed to turn many off to the Democrats during the past 8 years. It is fine to offer opposition, even to express anger at some of his choices, but to tear into other conservatives for not showing enough vitriol, or for failing to mention one's pet argument, that makes us seem as insane as the MoveOn crowd, and that is a sure way to push the center pack into the Obama camp.

Then again, I am sure many will come back and argue that I am "selling out", that I am ignoring "legitimate constitutional issues", which "matter more than winning". To which I have two replies. First, I do not believe these are legitimate issues. All but a few die hards have given up on the forged birth certificate claims (see"Not A Smoking Gun" and the preceding articles), and the rest rely upon a few statements from the debate on the 14th Amendment to argue that every subsequent court ruling was wrong. However, that is not how the government works. "Legislative intent" is not only not controlling, it is not established by a single representative's statements. So this supposed "constitutional law" is, in reality, mostly in the heads of those who want to see Obama as illegitimate. (I will be writing on this very, very soon, as there are even more problems than this with the arguments I have read, but for now I will leave it there.)

But all of that is made irrelevant by my second argument. Legitimate issue or not, that is all irrelevant if you cannot get a hearing. If the other party controls the entire apparatus of government, it doesn't matter that you have right on your side. So to say "winning doesn't matter, I'm right" is to write oneself out of the political process. I do not advocate surrendering one's values, but I do propose that if something is clearly a losing issue, one which will keep you out of office, perhaps you should focus on something else.

Let me give two less emotional examples.

Ron Paul has a host of issues that resonate with conservatives. Small government, states rights, free markets, all of those are winning positions. However, Ron Paul simply could not shut up about his belief that the war in Iraq was illegal.Beyond that, he could not resist the temptation to expand upon that idea, even going so far as to say he wasn't sure if he would respond to an invasion. Had he simply downplayed this belief, not hidden it, not denied his beliefs, simply made it less of a centerpiece of his campaign, there is every chance he would have won over mainstream conservatives. (Well, his association with some white supremacists groups may have proved a problem, but that is a different topic.) He shot himself in the foot by taking his weakest argument and leading with it.

Likewise, when I discuss the TARP, bailouts and other monetary issues, I often mention that my ideal is for the US to return to a gold standard, completely deregulate banking, and stop allowing the government to define money at all. However, I move on immediately after stating it is unlikely we will ever see that happen. Why? Because it is a losing argument. Maybe one day the gold standard will get serious consideration once more, but for now, fighting for the gold standard is to give up any chance of having a voice in public opinion, as the public is convinced the gold standard is an antiquated failure. So, rather than waste time on a losing argument, I focus on issues on which I might have some influence, hoping that, should we move in a more sensible economic direction, eventually the gold standard won't be seen as such a crazy idea.

But those who would rather be right than win just can't accept this. As I wrote in "The Need for Realism", they are adopting a childish "all or nothing" approach, which ends up meaning "nothing" in practice. Just as single issue voters, they would rather get a candidate who supports nothing in which they believe, than support someone who is only right 30% of the time. (See "Single Issue Voting") I simply cannot understand that position.

Yet that is what the Angry Right is pushing, an all or nothing platform and a set of assertions which drive away independents and moderates. And that is why I fear them more than I fear the left. The left, through its own destructive policies, will make itself marginal in the years to come. The only question is what will replace it. And, sadly, the angry right is making it more likely that the choice will not be any movement endorsing greater individual freedom.