Back in the pre-election days, I repeatedly argued that letting McCain lose would not "send a message", would not move the Republicans right, but would instead drive many Republicans left, making them think they needed to "reinvent" the party. And, sure enough, that is what happened. Oh, a few on the right are saying we need to be more conservative, but most are saying idiotic things like "tax cuts are not enough", "we need to be FOR something" and so on, arguing that we need to move in the Specter direction (see "Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?" and "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? "). Look how many on the right are insulting Cheney for daring to defend the president's actions. The Republicans are, by and large, running scared from a single defeat, just as I predicted.

But enough of that, I covered all of that in my post "I Told You So!", so I will let readers go there for the rest of that argument. I will only stop to add one comment. Notice that the Democrats do not panic in the same way, when Gore lost they didn't demand a "re-invention", they didn't immediately put Zell Miller on the top of the ticket, they ran John Kerry. And when Kerry lost? They ran Obama and Clinton. The Democrats, for better or worse, have a lot more conviction than the Republicans. Maybe it is because they might have a "big tent", but they also have a die-hard core who believe in their left-wing vision. While the right is torn between economic conservatives and libertarians, social conservatives, authoritarian social conservatives, paleo-con protectionists, Reagan Democrat crossovers, RINOs, moderates and a few others. And we have allowed our vision to be diluted by each segment, rather than creating a platform and telling them to take it or leave it, as the Democrats have¹. In addition, the right is still apologetic over their beliefs. Even with a fairly friendly media outlet in both Fox and talk radio, the right is terrified of being seen as "mean" or "uncaring" or "for big business" or "for the rich" and apologizes or backtracks on defense of economic rights, abandoning principled positions in favor of "popular" causes which they then abandon as well. It is not a position likely to win voters.

But that is another post. I should return to my point.

My problem is that the "win by losing: argument is too attractive. While I argued against it, as it turns out rightly, when proposed as an argument for voting against McCain, I fell for it myself. A while ago I wrote "It Sounds Strange", arguing that, just as Clinton took credit for Newt's reforms in 1994, and won himself a second term, if the Republicans win in 2010, Obama will be saved from himself and probably get another four years. At the time it sounded sensible, but I was wrong.

Well, not wrong, but I was fighting the wrong fight. You see, I know the Republicans, and I know how bad they are at voicing their own argument. While the Democrats will take credit loudly for every good thing that comes from their policies, even ascribing to their policies benefits which had nothing to do with them, the Republicans will not even accept credit for their victories. With the exception of Reagan, who was a most exceptional Republican, no Republican in recent memory has been willing to stand firm in his beliefs and take credit for his victories. Unfortunately, we have too many honest men, and too few salesmen. Men who will say "Well, the economy is recovering because industries have grown and the private sector has expanded..." going on for thirty minutes providing details, and too few who say "Tax cuts let the economy repair itself!" And say it over and over regardless of how the media and Democrats howl in objection. Instead, the few salesmen we have are so spineless they back away from the truth and end up selling the opposition's platform.

And knowing that the Republicans can't sell themselves, I argued it would be best if we lost in 2010, so Obama could go down in flames and make room for real Republicans in 2012. Especially, as I argued in "Hurrah For Murchison ", as it is likely that the massive damage his policies will cause will force the Republicans to run some small government, fiscally conservative candidates, as big government Republicans will probably not be too popular after the Obama collapse.

But that was wrong of me. Look at how the Democrats win. Do they call for tactical retreat? Do they denounce those who stray too far from the reservation²? No, they take every victory, hold on to it tooth and nail and build on it to get more. They didn't denounce Clinton for running right. Nor do they denounce the blue dogs for running against some of their core values. Instead they bully the blue dogs into line, and they accept that Clinton might have to throw a bone to the center every so often. They recognize that a 55% victory is still a victory, and even that getting 30% is not a total loss³.

And we should do the same.

So, since there is still time, what should we do for 2010? Well, first, we should not run the same slate of RINOs, forget about "seniority" and who can bring home bacon and all that. Vote in conservatives, people who offer a real choice when put in opposition to Obama's policy. And, better still, those who have clean hands. If we vote for incumbents, they need to be people like DeMint or Coburn, whose opposition to big spending and big government is pretty consistent⁴. We need people who can be seen as standing in contrast to big government, big spending, nanny state intrusiveness.

And more than that, once they are in, they need to toot their own horns. Loudly! They need to sing their own praises and run down the opposition with the same zeal the Democrats do. They don't need to adopt the ugly, personal attacks, the "he played on our fears" shouting, or the charges that the president is a moron. They don't need to paint Rahm Emanuel as Darth Vader. What they do need to do is clearly and loudly state every time a Democrat policy does harm, or their own policy does good. They need to play Reagan's part, the cheer leader for private enterprise and freedom.

If we can dot hat, then we could win the congress in 2010 and still win the White House in 2012. And that is a much better strategy than winning by losing. Just look at the Democrats. They may not have good ideas about governing, but I must admit, they are pretty good at running a party. So why not take a few pages from their play book? Control the message while accepting a big tent, make sure we make that message clear and in opposition to Obama's policies, and be sure to promote ourselves every chance we get. It certainly is a better strategy than trying to run the government as a "party in exile".

Then again, if the Republicans can't find a small government, low tax, low spending slate for 2010, or cannot find people who cna promote themselves and their policies, or can't even agree on a consistent platform, then maybe they should take a dive in 2010. Though if they can't find it by 2010, I have little hope for 2012. If they can't find small government candidates for 2010, then in 2012 they will probably revisit "compassionate conservatism", only slow, not stop or reverse, the growth of government, and set the stage for another Democrat in four or eight years who will continue Obama's work.

So, I say, either do it right in 2010, or else despair of our future. If the Republicans can't get it together and put a new Reagan⁵ in office after the rerun of Carter we call Obama, then they have truly lost their right to be the party of conservatism, and we are headed for some sort of socialist disaster.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Sadly, abortion is the one plank we have adopted as immutable, and it shouldn't be. As a criminal question, is rightly a state not a federal issue. Which means our one single definite position is one we should never take.  (I can see an argument being made that, at the very extreme edge, abortion policy could enter into the personal freedom debate. Pro-choice proponents would argue if abortion is restricted other "rights" could be restricted, and those on the pro-life side could argue that once we allow partial-birth abortion and infanticide of those born during abortion attempts, we have abrogated right to life enough to allow other killings of born individuals, but both are quite remote arguments and way down the slippery slope. Even if I accepted either, it would place abortion law pretty low on the list of laws threatening my liberty. While in several decades, conceivably, abortion law could threaten freedom, there are laws today taking away rights, which makes it strange that this has remained the single consistent plank in the Republican platform.)

2. The Lieberman excommunication was quite out of character. The Democrats have kept more heterodox members, such as Zell Miller. I really can't figure out what happened there, except that some personal issues were unwisely vented in public. Normally the Democrats are much more shrewd and accept quite a wide range of beliefs, as the numbers alone give them control of committees. And they also know that, at crucial points, party loyalty will usually win out. (Look at Liberman's vote on actually removing Clinton from office.)

3. As I wrote in "Single Issue Voting" and "Principled Voting or Suicide?", sadly many of our single issue voters on the right think getting 0% from the other side is  better than getting 25% from our own. Remind me to play poker with these people, as they must fold every time they don't draw a royal flush. A partial victory is still a victory, and a partial loss is still better than a total loss. Did we scuttle every ship that survived Pearl Harbor? No? Why not? Because you can build on what is left after a loss, but when you destroy what is left yourself, then you give the opposition even more advantage. Sadly it is a lesson the single issue voter never learn. And that class is coming to include not just pro-life activists but many self-described "conservatives" as well.

4. We can't be too doctrinaire here, some incumbents have largely clean hands with a few exceptions. So long as they have been more opposed than supportive of big government, that is fine with me. I doubt anyone holds office who is 100% pure, the job by its nature requires a little taint. So we can't expect saints in politics, but we can ask for those who break 51-49 on the side of good.

5. Just to be clear, I do not venerate Reagan as some do. Just read "Lebanon and Saint Reagan" and "Depressing Realization". But I do think he was committed to the right principles, even if he did not always act them out, and he was a great salesman for his beliefs. And that is exactly what we need right now.

----------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Most of my thoughts on this matter can be found in the following articles (some linked above):

Jacob Frank and Hillary Clinton
A Difficult Decision
Abandoning the Party
"Selling Out"
Forget Hope, Try Realism
To Make It Very Simple
Why We Need Adults
One More Reason Not To Sit It Out
Covering Old Ground Again
The Carter Analogy
Learning Too Much From History
Single Issue Voting
At last
Third Party Problems
Why I am a Republican
Misplaced Blame and A Power Play
Remember I Predicted It
Easy to Explain
Confirmation
Strange Bedfellows
The Future
And It Starts
The Big Lie
The Big Lie Part II
The Party of 'No'?
A Question
It Sounds Strange
Specter Rumors
I Disagree with the WSJ
How the Right Loses to the Left
I Told You So!
Inescapable Logic II
Activism As The Only Acceptable Position?
Hurrah For Murchison
Why Shrinking a Party May Be Good
Calm Down a Little

Obviously a lot were before the election and contain predictions later proved wrong. I still stand by them however. After his European love fest, Obama appeared to have peaked, only a two points above McCain and was sinking. Had the economic news not turned south (aided by media doom and gloom), and had McCain not fumbled that so badly, he had a chance to pull out a victory. Nor did it help that the media kept so many Obama scandals from reaching the public at large, while McCain refused to fight dirty when he had legitimate gripes (Wright's racism was a legitimate issue, as was Ayers' involvement, yet McCain ignored both as campaign issues.)

Well, no point in rehashing lost battles. I just thought I would mention that I do not regret predicting an Obama defeat. It was not that I underestimated Obama so much as I overestimated McCain and his handlers (at least until the dumped Gramm, at that point I lost a lot fo faith in him).

POSTSCRIPT II

I also do not think this position contradicts my argument that we are better off losing Specter, as I argued in "Specter Rumors " and "I Disagree with the WSJ ". Yes, the Democrats would have kept him to keep the numbers, but in some cases I think keeping numbers is damaging, and in that one regard I think the Democrats may have it wrong. Losing Specter does send a message that the era of big government Republicans is done (provided we follow through with candidates to match), which may both fire up the party and help make Republicans distinct int he public mind from both Obama and Bush. That could help a lot, as I describe in "Why Shrinking a Party May Be Good ". Sometimes presenting a clear message and a new image can be worth losing a senate seat. Especially one as utterly unreliable as Specter. (Which may actually help explain the Lieberman loss as well. Maybe the Democrats did it to send a clear anti-war message. It is possible.)

POSTSCRIPT III

As some may disagree with my argument that abortion is a criminal, and thus state, matter, let me present a few essays arguing for my vision of government, and the division between state and federal:

Why I Am Not A Libertarian
The Citizen Dichotomy
My Vision of Government
My Vision of Government Part II
Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases
Inescapable Logic
The Benefits of Federalism
Conservatism, Incremental Change and Federalism
Liberal Bait and Switch
Inescapable Logic II

Obviously, these alone will not convince those who strongly disagree, so I will have to say to them, be patient I will return to this topic in a post of its own very shortly.

One final point. As I wrote in "A Strange Reaction" , I believe in absolute right and absolute wrong, and believe that compromises between the two always work out for the worst (see "Inescapable Logic" and "Inescapable Logic II"). However, that has nothing to do with this question. The Republican party is perfectly right to put abortion in their platform, so long as they leave it as a state matter, or limit it to overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring the question to state voters. But if they push for any federal legislation, even if their position is right, they are pushing to do the right thing in the wrong place. It is a question that should be left to the states. So, right or wrong, posing it as a federal question is to address the issue in the wrong forum.