. . . 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.