Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, July 05, 2009 1:43:32 PM
I read what has to be the
most bizarre comment ever:
Me- You guys are making the mistake of thinking that your problem wasn't your record, it was the lack of idealogical purity...
All we need to do is nomination someone who is more in tune with the base, and we can win!
The GOP made this mistake in 1964, the Democrats made this mistake in
1984 and 2004. The result is always a bigger loss, not a smaller one.
What makes this odd is the thought that Kerry was ideologically pure. In fact, Kerry was an attempt at a "compromise" candidate, a "war hero" who was supposed to steal defense voters from Bush.
The fact is, yes, Mondale lost by being ideologically pure, and that was a losing proposition in '84 because promising to raise taxes was not going to win any votes after the horrible economic times everyone had experienced in the 1970's. So at the time an ideologically pure Democrat was the last thing anyone wanted.
However, what does that have to do with whether an ideologically pure Republican would win? Most people would not vote of an ideologically pure Klansman or an ideologically pure communist, but that does not mean they don't want candidates with consistent philosophies, just that they reject specific philosophies.
And, in this case, I think the Republicans calling for conservative candidates are right. We have lost on ideological compromise, and, as politics has been drifting so far left (basically since FDR, and especially since the late '60's), a move a bit right may be a winning proposition. It worked in the '80's and worked for the congress in the 90's. In fact, good will toward conservative positions even allowed Bush and other "moderates" to remain in office despite low popularity numbers far longer than they should have.
So, while I think an "ideologically pure" Democrat would fare poorly, that is not an argument against ideological purity, only against that specific ideology.
POSTSCRIPT
I know I said I would not be writing, but this comment demanded a response. Sorry it is so short, but typing
IS hard, even if I managed to write a little bit.
In any case, see "
Some Confirmation" and "
Why Obama Won, And Why He Is Losing Support Now" for more arguments on the same subject.
Oh, and last point, I am not saying Palin is the best choice. I have some personal reservations about her as the nominee in 2012. However, it is not because of her being a conservative. She bothers me for many other reasons, which we need not discuss here, but her conservatism is not a problem for me, nor do I think it would be a negative should she run.