In the 18th Century in Poland and the Ukraine there was a religious movement among Jews led by a man named Jacob Frank. It was never a very large movement, especially as it sprung out the movement once led by Sabbatai Zvi, who had claimed to be the messiah but later converted to Islam, making him unpopular among most Jews.

Frank based his religious tenets upon a dictum that said the messiah would come when the world was entirely good or entirely evil. Since converting everyone to virtue seemed unlikely, Frank proposed the other option, piously sinning to bring about the messianic age. In short, Frank proposed doing evil to do good, starting with technical breaches of religious law, moving to debauched orgies and ending with the wholesale apostasy of his followers by conversion to Catholicism.

By now, I am sure you are asking "This is a political blog, right? I didn't go to the wrong page again, did I?"

You can relax, there is a point to all this, and a relatively timely one at that.

Just as in 2006, I am starting to hear the voices calling for a therapeutic defeat of the republican party. Again voices, often the same voices as in 2006, are saying that the party has strayed too far from its core beliefs, and we would benefit from a little time as the minority party. They argue that unless the party suffers a major defeat, we will continue to drift to the left and eventually there will remain no real conservative party.

In short, as Frank proposed doing evil to do good, they are suggesting defeat in order to achieve victory, though they often couch it in terms of "sending a message."

First, let me deal with the "message" concept. This part doesn't relate to my Frank analogy, so I will limit myself to a few brief comments. And the argument is simple: Yes, allowing republicans to be defeated will clearly send a message, but will it be the right one? Or will they receive the wrong message?

If you think a bit, it becomes clear that the message may not be understood. If a moderate republican loses to a leftist democrat he can see things two ways. He can correctly assume that he was too far left and his constituents allowed him to lose to make him move back to the right. On the other hand, he can think that the more left-leaning politician won because the district wants left-wing policies, and he could think he needs to move to the left to win. So,  not only may our message not be heard, but it may actually push the republicans who lose in the opposite direction we intended.

But let us leave aside the idea of a "message" and ask, even if it is not done to "send a message", whether a bit of time in the wilderness might not lead the republican party back to a more conservative position. This argument is a bit more plausible, if less often explicitly made; the idea being that the republicans have been corrupted by their long time in office, their practice of compromising with democrats, and their tendency to move left to win media approval, and that, their representatives having lost their way, the republican party as a whole would benefit from some time out of office.

However, this is where my Frank analogy comes in.

Had I lived in the 18th century I would have had two questions for Frank. First, what happens if you only succeed in making the world 99% evil? Haven't you just pushed the world even farther form the messianic age? And second, whether you succeed or not, does the end result make up for all the harm you do along the way?

And I have similar questions for the republicans who advocate killing the patient to cure him:

1. What happens if your plan has the same ill effect the "message" did? Or worse yet, what if a few RINOs manage to hold on to office, providing a bad example? Is it not possible that you could end up pushing the Republicans to the left rather than the right? In their time out of office, might they not just as likely conclude that the time of conservativism is past, and that they need to be even more like the democrats to win back office? Yes, time in the wilderness may allow for a reshaping of the party, but is there any guarantee it will be reshaped in a more conservative direction?

2. Even if the republicans reform properly in 4 or 8 years, will it be soon enough? A lot of harm can be done in 4 or 8 years, and with a far left president and congress it could take decades to undo the damage. Four years of Carter's economics and foreign policy is still doing harm today, almost thirty years later. We still feel the reverberations of FDR and even Wilson today. And with longer lifespans, Supreme Court appointments can do active harm for decades, not to mention the precedents set living on for generations. So, even assuming the republicans benefit form their time out of power, what will it do to the rest of the country, and will the harm done be too great to repair? (Before you dismiss this, think about how Wilson and FDR changed the shape of politics, we still live on the terms set by them.)

So, I would suggest, as I did in 2006, that we not give in to our understandable distaste at less than ideal candidates. There are several things to do:

1. Fight in primary elections for the best candidates we can find. This is the time and place to air our ideological differences, not the general election. Fight here for the best candidates we can find, and make it clear to those candidates who is supporting them and why.

2. Close ranks during a general election. Yes, you may end up voting for a less than ideal candidate, but at least republicans have some control over even a RINO president. We will have no influence in a democrat administration. So a bad RINO is still better than democrat in terms of the influence conservatives will wield. If we opt for a "phoenix" policy, hoping to self-destruct to be reborn conservative, we deprive ourselves of any representation for at least a few years, and that is never an good situation. Even a RINO provides at least some representation for conservatives. A completely democrat lock on all the branches does not.

3. Forget single issue voting. Many pro-lifers, for example, will not vote for someone who is insufficiently pro-life. But this ends up being self-defeating. They don't support a republican who supports them 25% of the time, and get a democrat who supports them 0% of the time. This holds for any single issue, even some close to my heart. Immigration, budget, abortion, foreign policy, gay marriage, none of these can be used as a litmus test.*

4. Make clear what you expect. Yes, RINOs may not be open to all constituent messages, but if they get enough mail urging them to adopt more conservative positions, eventually they may move a little to the right. And, even if they don't, there is always the next round of primaries. (Though facing a more conservative challenger, after receiving angry conservative mail may be enough to push them at last to the right.)

5. Don't disdain half-steps. A lot of voters will avoid any policy that is part liberal, or a candidate who is "wrong" on some issues. I would argue the opposite. If a policy is part liberal, it is also part conservative. If the conservative part is more conservative than the present circumstances, then it is a net win. Likewise, if a RINO is still more conservative than whoever he replaces, it is a victory. We cannot wait for perfection, as that will lead to inaction and handing the nation to the other side. Liberals have won so much precisely by moving in a series of baby steps toward their goals. Recall how the smoking ban started with just a warning label, and abortion legalization arose from allowing married couples to buy condoms. Half steps can be put together to take us a long way, but all too often conservatives eschew them as insufficient, and thus hand the government to the liberals.

6. Remain loyal. Yes, the republican party can be frustrating, it can move far to the left at times, but it is the best tool we have. If we don't remain loyal, then we have no influence. If we sit out elections, what clout do we have when we try to push the party rightward? Loyalty does not pass unnoticed by everyone, and disloyalty is remembered for a long time. For example, the evangelical threat to sit out 2006 and this election has probably harmed them more than they know. I am sure a lot of contenders are examining their options for forming a coalition excluding the evangelical wing, as they have proven that they can not be counted upon if a difference of opinion arises. It has pushed them to the fringes, and they no longer have the influence in the party they once did.

7. Don't give up hope. Yes, there are going to be times when the republicans look a lot like democrats, but don't give up. Remember, after Eisenhower we had to sit through Nixon and his price controls, and Ford, to get to Reagan and we had to sit through the first Bush to get to Newt. If we keep fighting for conservative candidates within the party, we will eventually get what we want, but be patient. Everything takes time.

In short, unlike Frank, I don't believe in doing evil to do good. The traditional tools of party and primaries exist for a reason, they give us an avenue to eventually make ourselves heard, if we just have some patience. But we live in impatient times, and over and over I have heard those who argue for a shortcut, quick-fix to the problem of RINOs. Many have made eloquent arguments in favor of voting for Hillary to get real conservatives in office, but the eloquence is more like Milton's Satan than anything else. After just four years of Hillary will there be enough left for a republican to build upon?

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

* I know I have said in the past I could not support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy, but that was just hyperbole. If he were to somehow become the republican candidate, I would support him, though I would try to make it clear however I could that voters expect him to adopt a slightly more active foreign policy than he espoused in the primaries.
 
So, please don't accuse me of inconsistency.

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

UPDATED 01/18/2008

It appears Thomas Sowell agrees with me to some degree. As I ask whether allowing a democrat into office may not do so much harm that the "rebirth" of the Republicans will come to late to fix the damage, Sowell also argues that allowing Hillary into office, rather than voting for "the lesser of two evils", is too dangerous to allow while Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Nothing new to report. Just happy that an author I respect actually agrees with my position.

UPDATED 01/30/2008

I am again hearing that it "may do Republicans some good" to be out of office for 4 years. However, in this case I think it is more whistling past the graveyard than any true belief in the beneficial qualities of time out of power.

I think as McCain wins primaries, many conservative Republicans are becoming convinced their party will lose the election, and, as a result, are trying to make the best of a bad situation by reviving this chestnut.

I still don't believe time out of office is a good thing, but I am also not convinced the Republicans will lose. As I have said before, Hillary can only get 50% of Democrats, and has virtually no support among other voters, so she will likely receive about 25% at best. And, in the alternative, Obama has not yet faced any real questioning. Democrats are afraid of upsetting black voters (as well as whites voters suffering from liberal guilt) and have treated Obama with kid gloves for the most part. Once he has faced real questioning by an opponent not beholden to minority voters, his lack of experience (as well as his more crazy proposals, such as invading Pakistan) will make him a less appealing candidate.

Not that I think 4 years of McCain or Romney will be great for the Republicans, but I still think it will be better than 4 years of Obama or Hillary. On the other hand, McCain or Romney may select a decent VP who will give us someone appealing in 4 or 8 years.