| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| A practical guide for frustrated conservatives |
| 2006-05-17 |
| by Jim Geraghty, National Review's "TKS" Blog. Mr. Geraghty has written a series of very intelligent posts responding to the "I'm frustrated about immigration/pork/_____(insert issue here) and so I'm gonna sit out the '06 election and teach those bums a lesson" meme that's been popping up among conservatives in the blogosphere, including many Rantburgers. Sorry for the long post, but this is good and important stuff and can't really be edited down any more without losing its impact. From the first post in the series . . . put me down as one of those guys who cannot comprehend the argument that conservatives ought to sit out this election to “punish” the GOP so that they’ll “learn a lesson” and get better/more conservative in the future. To advocates of this position, I must respectfully ask… are you out of your flippin’ mind? By what logic does a constituency become more influential and powerful by becoming less active, and demonstrating less capability to turn out the vote and influence elections? Let’s say Congressman Tom Tancredo represents your views on illegal immigration. You’re angry at the GOP leadership for not espousing his positions; you’ve concluded that they don’t listen to him. Do you really think the ball will get moved in your direction by throwing the party that has Tancredo out, and replacing it with the party that doesn’t have a Tancredo figure in it at all? Do you really think a Democratic Congress will get tough on illegal immigration? . . . Or let’s say you’re unhappy about high federal spending. Your solution is to give Congress to Democrats, who have a long and well-established reputation for flinty tightfistedness on public spending and an ironclad commitment to spending taxpayer’s dollars wisely… oh, that’s right, they don’t! . . . What kind of foreign policy statements do you expect from Democratic Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, or Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Biden, and majority committee members John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer? How about “President Ahmedinjiad, we can work this out”? “Mr. Zarqawi, you can have Iraq, because we’re outta there”? “Kofi Annan, you're doing a heck of a job!” . . . In the second post, he gets more specific on the matter of consequences: Who are the Republican lawmakers most angering the conservative base? Well, let’s say Sens. Trent “I’m tired of hearing about Porkbusters” Lott, Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, John McCain for cosponsoring Kennedy’s immigration bill and campaign finance reform, Arlen Specter for being a pain in the tushie over judges, Chuck Hagel for being the New York Times’ favorite Republican senator to criticize Bush, and other minimally-conservative Republicans like Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Well, they’re not going to lose in 2006. Most of ‘em aren’t even up for reelection this year. Look at the Republicans most in jeopardy in 2006. (I’m using National Journal’s most recent rankings.) In the Senate, a bad year for the Republicans would mean the loss of Rick Santorum (who has lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 88 out of a possible 100, and a 92 in 2005) in Pennsylvania, Jim Talent (93 rating lifetime, and a 96 in 2005) in Missouri, Conrad Burns (91, and a perfect 100 in 2005) in Montana and Mike DeWine (80 lifetime, only 56 in 2005) in Ohio. Of course, Ohio voters who sit this one out will replace DeWine with Sherrod Brown, who has a lifetime rating of 8 and 4 for 2005. And they won’t get to revisit that decision until 2012. . . . Yeah, maybe if conservatives stay home, they’ll knock out liberal Republican Chris Shays of Connecticut. Whoop-de-doo. Who’s going to be left standing? Trent “I’m tired of hearing about Porkbusters” Lott, Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Nice job, guys. Your effort to re-conservativize the Republican Party in Washington by staying home this year will have the effect of massacring the actual conservatives and empowering the moderates who you disdain. Perhaps we can call this counterproductive maneuver “RINO-plasty.” But that’s okay, the staying-at-home-conservatives insist. The GOP will win back the House and Senate in 2008, establishing a true conservative majority. Maybe. But as I mentioned, what kind of lengths do you think the Democrats will go to in order to keep power once they’ve got it? Does the “Fairness Doctrine” ring a bell? You think Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t try that tactic to hinder conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling “unregulated speech” on the Internet and blogs? Think the MSM was cheerleading for Democrats in 2004? How much more fair and balanced do you think they’ll be when their task is to defend Democratic House and Senate majorities AND elect President Hillary Rodham Clinton? My guess is, they’ll make the CBS memo story look accurate and evenhanded by comparison. Think the GOP can prevail in close races once they’re out of power? Ask the members of the military who had their ballots in Florida blocked. Ask Doug Forrester how well his anti-Torricelli campaign worked when he suddenly faced Frank Lautenberg at the last minute. Ask Dino Rossi. Ask Democrat Tim Johnson if he’s glad the last county in South Dakota to report its results just happened to have enough of a Democratic margin to put him over the top in 2002. Once the Democrats regain control of Congress, a GOP takeover is going to be exponentially harder than it was in 1994. You’re never going to catch the Democrats as flatfooted again. . . . We usually like looking at the Daily Kos crowd insisting for an immediate pullout of the troops or impeachment hearings right this second and we laugh at them for their ludicrously unrealistic expectations. But apparently the Kos are not the only ones with an all-or-nothing mentality. Sometimes in life you have to use the West Coast offense, nickel and diming your way down the field instead of going for the long bomb. It's how the Left got as far as it did in the 1960s and 1970s. If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reins of power. . . . So, if you're a frustrated conservative, what should you do? I’m spectacularly pleased that yesterday’s post generated so much discussion around the web. . . . Some e-mailers agreed, some e-mailers disagreed, SOME WERE VERY ANGRY AND HAD FORGOTTEN WHERE THE ‘CAPS LOCK’ KEY IS, but the most important and common question from e-mailers was, “Okay, if sitting out the 2006 election doesn’t get us where we want to go, what will?” It’s a great question; here’s my best shot at answering it. One: Frustrated with the GOP as a whole? Then support the guys you do like. I roll my eyes when somebody says, “Ah, they’re all a bunch of crooks.” That just says that the complainer hasn’t bothered looking for a member of Congress that represents their views. If you’re mad as heck about immigration, there’s Rep Tom Tancredo and the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus or Sens. Jon Kyl, or Jon Cornyn. If you’re mad about pork, there’s Sen. Tom Coburn. If you don’t want to send money to the RNC, NRSC, or RNCC because they support too many “Republicans-in-name-only,” then fine; send money to the lawmakers who you see standing up for the conservative policies you want to see enacted. The rest of the GOP will notice if candidates like Tancredo and Coburn suddenly get a deluge of small donations for their stands. . . . More than a few e-mail writers seemed supremely discouraged about this course of action after Pat Toomey fell about two percent short in his primary challenge to Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania in 2004. The reason the RNC, the NRSC, and RNCC always support incumbents against primary challengers is because it is, I am told, a part of their candidate recruitment strategy. Republican candidate recruiters often find themselves trying to convince happy, successful individuals in the private sector to give all that up and voluntarily sign on for at least a year’s worth of stress, expense, privacy invasions and aggravation of a campaign. One of the ways they can attract candidates is to say, ‘once you’re in, we’ll always have your back. We won’t abandon you two years from now, or four years now, or any time in the future. The leadership of the Republican Party will always stick by you in a tough campaign.’ . . . Two: Vote for lesser of two evils? Maybe. If Chafee wins his primary, and you face a choice between a Democrat and a liberal Republican, maybe it’s worth leaving that slot blank. (You still ought to show up and vote, even if it’s just for other races.) But my hair goes grayer when I hear a conservative say, “I’m so mad at Bush that I’m not even going to vote this year.” My friends, Bush isn’t on the ballot! Show up at the ballot box, look for your congressmen, and if they’re running this year, your senator and your governor and your mayor and whatever other races, and judge them based on the job that they as individuals have done. Don’t vote against your congressman because you’re mad at Ted Stevens (unless, of course, your congressman IS Ted Stevens). Don’t blame your local guy for Trent Lott. Maybe you decide that your local congressman has let you down and isn’t worth supporting. That’s fair enough. (By the way, once in a while a really angry e-mailer will exclaim, "how dare you tell me who I have to vote for!" Hey, it's your decision. Vote for whoever you like. But be aware of the consequences. Don't vote for the other guys because you're convinced it will set in motion some triple-bank-shot scenario that will help your guys in the long term. There's a lot of "things need to get worse before they get better" mentality out there, which strikes me as creepily similar to Marx's "immiseration" theory — that the only way things get better is when they get much, much worse and reach the breaking point. I'd ask advocates of this mentality, do you see it a lot in your daily life? Do you often act against your best interest, because you want to hit bottom so that things will then get better later? How's that working out for ya? Cause I'm always trying to move the ball in my direction, even if it's three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust.) Three: Realize some lawmakers will be a mixed bag. There’s a quote from former New York City mayor Ed Koch that begins Joe Klein’s latest book: “If you agree with me on nine out of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist.” You will rarely encounter a lawmaker who agrees with you on all your issues; you’ve got to prioritize, and decide which ones are dealbreakers for you. . . . Another thing – we do have to recognize electoral realities. Conservatives shouldn’t have much ire at Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. Maine is a pretty liberal state; the two nice ladies are about as conservative as you’re going to get out of that state. You’re not going to get a rock-ribbed social conservative, so you make do with someone who votes our way on taxes and defense issues. If I still lived in New Jersey, I would prefer a Bret Schundler type, but it’s been proven, cycle after cycle, that a really conservative guy just isn’t going to win in the Garden State; we have to take our tax-cutting Christie Whitmans until the political attitudes in the state change. Four: The real fight on so many of these issues is in the Republican Presidential Primary. Obviously, many, many conservatives are furious with President Bush for his policies on spending, the Medicare prescription drug bill, and most of all, immigration. The 2008 race will really begin early next year. Look hard at the candidates, and volunteer early for the guy who stands where you want the party to stand. This is good advice, for anyone . . . of any political persuasion . . . on any issue . . . at any time. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #2 If Congressman Tancredo would be kind enough to move to my district - I'd be delighted to vote for him. Unfortunately, he's not in my district. I've got politicians who believe that the GOP stands for spending like a bunch of drunken Kennedy's and leaving the back door open. I've had it - if they want another term, they can do it without my help. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2006-05-17 20:49 |
| #1 Pardon me, but I'm not a 'conservative republican'. I'm an independent who's always looked upon both parties with suspicion. And it has been a hold the nose and vote routine too many time. Take a look at voter registration. Neither party has a majority. Both have to rely upon those of us who are non-aligned to push either over the top in a competitive environment. However, when it's no longer competitive because they basically act and sound the same on immigration/pork/seriousness about the WOT, you've delivered me nothing. Last time I checked, one of the protocols for cancer is to apply chemotherapy and radiation to kill the sucker. I guess we'll find out if that works. If they're too stupid to learn, then maybe I'll just wait around for Caesar after they destroy this experiment. |
| Posted by: Elmatch Elmolugum1622 2006-05-17 15:47 |