Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:00:09 AM
It is conventional wisdom that so often goes unheeded, but "look before you leap" really is one of those platitudes that people would do well to follow. Why do I say this? Because, looking back over the several months since the election it seems that Republicans, prone to rather rapid panic, have failed to follow this simple, sage advice.
I am thinking specifically of those who, immediately after the election, were calling for a change in the Republican party, arguing "tax cuts are not enough", that 'we need to be FOR something" and "must offer our own health care initiative". Granted, now that Obama's poll numbers have fallen so far that even the pro-Obama media is admitting something is wrong, this position seems quite foolish, but for a time this vocal faction was very briefly the public face of at least part of the Republicans, and that was a mistake.
How so?
Well, for several reasons. Foremost because they were a gut reaction to a loss, one taken without sufficient reflection. I warned in "
At last" and other posts that a McCain loss could bring about such a knee jerk shift to the left, and sure enough, the minute a nominally right wing candidate lost, that was the conclusion. The right has no support, we must move left and
NOW!
But that misses two points. First, that we were at the time unaware of precisely why McCain lost. I argued that ti was not his conservatism, but rather his vacillation on many issues, as well as his hesitation and his "insider" image that hurt him, but then again, I would have been the first to admit we needed to wait and see before basing any decisions on that impression. But those pushing the "conservatism is dead" line were not waiting, they were sure they were right.
The second point, and one I failed to mention at the time, was that, while Obama may have held the high ground for a moment, we needed to wait and see if he could keep it. And we have seen that he had some problems in that realm. So, even if the public momentarily was ready to embrace big government, we really needed to wait and see if that was a permanent shift or a momentary enthusiasm.
Which is my point. Had we panicked and listened to the doom sayers, we would now be seeing our own numbers dropping along with Obama's. Had we suddenly "rebranded" the Republican party as "Big Government Lite" we would now be "enjoying" the same support he does, but more so, as the public, looking for someone to protect them from Obama's over-reaching, would find their former champions had turned against them, which would probably make us even less popular than Obama.
Actually, rather than write this whole post, I probably could have made my argument in one sentence: Who is going to get excited about voting for Arlen Specter?
POSTSCRIPT
I wrote a lot on this topic, so I will provide only a selection of links.
On the McCain Defeat and the Consequences: "
Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!", "
Learning Too Much From History","
At last", "
A Problem With Certain Conservatives", "
Why We Need Adults", "
One More Reason Not to Sit It Out", "
"Selling Out"", "
Abandoning the Party", "
Jacob Frank and Hillary Clinton"
On the Need to Change the Party: "
Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "
The Party of 'No'?", "
Activism As The Only Acceptable Position?
", "
I Told You So!", "
The Big Lie", "
The Big Lie Part II", "
A Question"
On the Way Centrist Positions Weaken Parties: "
Clinton and Bush Killed the Center", "
The Myth of Polarization", "
Swing Votes", "
Our Divided Nation", "
All Or Nothing Thinking", "
The Shortcomings of Pragmatism", "
Pragmatism Revisited", "
Pragmatism Revistied, Again"
However, to clear up a mistake some make, I am not calling for the extreme commitment to"all or nothing" single issue voting, or inflexible, uncompromising approach to politics. As I argued in "
To Correct Myself", "
Single Issue Voting", "
Principled Voting or Suicide" and "
Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion", we need to be absolute on principles, but to allow for compromise in our methods. Many make the opposite mistake, and compromise their principles but remain rigid in methods. So please do not read the wrong message into my opposition to centrists. I oppose those who are centrist on principles, not on methods.
POSTSCRIPT II
This topic needs to be examined in more detail, as the push for "centrist" positions continues even as such positions fail to excite the public. Partly it is because pundits think they sound high minded when they denounce "extremism", but there are also those who really believe "moderation" is the ideal, or who think they can find some clever "third way" between capitalism and socialism. It is a topic that needs to be covered in much more detail, and so one I am likely to revisit soon.