. . . excuse me for not enthusiatically endorsing the sentiment he expresses
here:
But I really hope we don't lose sight of the fact that we're in
a bad position -- worse than we anticipated, I think it's fair
to say -- and that winning is indeed
preferable to "losing with principle and ideological
integrity."
Am I serving as an apologist? You betcha I am. I also
served as an apologist for the horrible candidate John McCain,
and I will continue to serve as an apologist until we actually
win something and can better afford to be choosy.
Meh. ("Meh" being on of the many blogger tropes
I've shamelessly stolen from Ace, who was named CPAC's 2008 Blogger of the
Year.)
The problem with Ace's argument is in his use of the word "we."
To whom does this first-person plural refer? I'm reminded of
the punchline of an old joke where the Lone Ranger says: "Tonto,
We're surrounded by hostile savages!" To which Tonto replies,
"What do mean 'we,' Kemosabe?"
Are "we" conservatives, or are "we" Republicans and,
assuming that these two circles on the Venn diagram are not
coterminous, what is the proper relationship between "we" and
"we"?
Unlike Ace, I am far from certain that a John McCain presidency
would have been better in the long run for either either
conservative "we" or Republican "we" -- or for
that much larger set, "We the People."
A couple of days ago, I explained in a phone conversation with
a buddy that, if I'm going to get screwed over, I'd much
rather be screwed over by my enemies than by my friends.
An honest enemy is better than a false friend. The realities of
coalition politics in a two-party system require toleration of
sincere disagreement and a pragmatic acceptace of necessary
compromises.
At some point, however, every man must draw a line and say, "This
far and no further." Otherwise, you become an advocate of
The Politics of Meaninglessness, and your support can be taken
for granted by any opportunistic scoundrel who puts an
"R" beside his name (e.g., Arlen
Specter.) Some may argue that on Nov. 2, 2010, a
conservative in Florida would feel compelled
to hold his nose and vote for Charlie Crist, but the
time for making such a shameful compromise of
principle is not
15 months before the Republican primary.
This was what Phyllis Schlafly meant in 1964 when she said
the Republican Party must offer A Choice, Not An
Echo. Ace says we (by whom, I suppose, he means
conservatives) cannot "afford to be choosy"? Yet it was at
the very zenith of liberalism's prestige that Schlafly argued
that, if the GOP wishes to succeed, it can only do so by offering
a clear, principled alternative to the liberalism of the
Democratic Party. Even when principled conservatism is, in the
short term, a loser at the ballot box, if you believe that
liberal policies inevitable produce disaster -- and I most
certainly do believe that -- then to lose an election by standing
firmly for principle is merely the first act of a drama that
will end in triumph.
Barry Goldwater's 1964 defeat paved the way for Ronald Reagan's
1980 victory precisely because conservatives heeded Schlafly's
advice. Of course, Reagan loyally supported Gerald Ford against
Jimmy Carter in 1976, but only after coming within an eyelash of
taking the GOP nomination away from Ford.
Which brings me back to my thoughts about the 2008 election. If
the Republican Party could nominate as its presidential
candidate a man whose only apparent political
principle has been the advancement of his own ambition
and still win, what kind of cynic
would call that a good outcome? When the GOP nominates the
wrong man, the electoral debacle that inevitably
follows cannot be interpreted as evidence that the party
should nominate more scoundrels like that.
Which brings us back to
Charlie Crist, you see. Political loyalty must be a two-way
street. If GOP leadership wishes to promote a strong sense of
party loyalty, then in what alternative universe does it make
sense for John Cornyn to repeatedly jab his thumb in
the eye of the party's conservative grassroots? And who
can blame the grassroots when they
complain about this abusive treatment?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
the state of facts and evidence."
--John
Adams
Facts and evidence clearly show that the current national
leadership of the GOP is a bunch of clueless losers who
couldn't organize a winning campaign in an election
for treasurer of a high school math club. When the only
place your leaders ever lead you is to disaster, you need to get
some new leaders. And if Ace's "we" means conservatives,
then "we" are entitled to demand conservative leadership.
But you're still my hero, Ace, no matter what
David Frum says.
