THE 2006 ELECTION
THE 2006 ELECTION: REPUBLICANS MAY HAVE
SUFFERED A DEFEAT, BUT CONSERVATIVE
PRINCIPALS ARE STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE
by
Ken Eliasberg
Last week I took a brief look at the the recent election, making passing reference to the sad and sorry state of the Republican party (which, for the sake of the country, I hope is an easily remediable situation). I also observed that, in my opinion, conservative principles remain quite viable, although, admittedly, less likely to see the light of day in the current Congress. Hopefully, that will be rectified in 2008. Today, I would like to take a closer look at the loss, examine why Republicans lose elections that they should not lose, and, briefly elaborate on why I feel conservative principles remain pretty much in tact.
As noted, we suffered from weak leadership in both Houses—Frisk and Hastert may be real sweethearts, but they are and were considerably less than powerful leaders. Also, our politicians are much too accommodating; they take this bipartisan business somewhat seriously. Thus, they co-operated with the Dems on some very bad legislation (alienating portions of their base in the process). Republican politicians—at least some of them—seem to change when they get back to Washington. They act like country bumpkins who are just so damn happy to be invited to the party that they are not required to participate in making arrangements for the party. Perhaps that’s due in part to the fact that, prior to 1992, so many of them had never experienced the thrill of victory (fortunately, the Clintons changed all that—God, they were good for the Republican party; I only hope that Hillary continues to engender the same degree of enmity in Republicans in 2008 that she did in 1994—no one is more richly deserving of such enmity).
This latter, somewhat unkind reference to Hillary, brings up another point that may account for Republican losses in 2006. For too long, we have relied on the ineptitude of our opponent, and we got lucky in doing sto. Al Gore and John Kerry were (and are) empty suits who inspired no one and ran foolish campaigns. In addition, we are at war, and many voters do not trust the “mommy” party when it comes to matters of national security. And you can beat that drum just so often before it has a somewhat hollow ring to your audience. You cannot just keep relying on your being in a war; you must continue to sell the war to the public by pointing out its relevance and, if you are not, or at least do not appear to be, making progress, what you will do differently to better shape the course of events. Bush did not do that until after the election, which, of course, was more than a day late and a dollar short.
And, by the way, I don’t want to take anything away from Karl Rove; Republicans have come a long way when it comes to political infighting, but they still have a long way to go - they just don’t take politics as seriously as the Dems. They lost because they didn’t fight (either by replacing some of their dead weight or by not favoring it over a party that has nothing but dead weight to offer). When it comes to politics, Republicans are novices. They lack the passion for the cause and the bad manners to appropriately face up to the opposition. The lack of passion is due to the fact that, as noted, Republicans do not take politics as seriously as Democrats. A partial explanation lies in the fact that control of government is much more important to Democrats than it is to Republicans. Why? Simple! When the Dems lose government, they lose the engine that pulls their socialist train. Republicans, on the other hand, have always taken a laissez faire approach to government, i.e. just get it off of our backs. If they don’t want to live in a welfare state, they better learn to take politics much more seriously.
Unfortunately, Bush has chosen to take a different approach. Believing that government can play a more active role in resolving certain of society’s problems, Bush endorsed, to his detriment, the concept of conservative big government (which, by definition, is an oxymoron). Reagan had it right when he observed that government is not the solution; government is the problem.
Then there is the Republican’s unwillingness to slug it out, or, for that matter, even confront the opposition. David Horowitz observed that he came over to teach the Republicans bad manners. Lots of luck! Republicans pride themselves on being above nastiness. They just don’t get it; politics is a nasty business, and, on occasion, you have to get down and dirty—we just don’t seem to have the stomach for it (and, if we don’t develop it, it will cost us and the country dearly). Thomas Sowell, in his January 9, 2007 column in Townhall.com entitled Random Thoughts captured the different approach of the parties in this statement: “Who says there is no difference between the political parties? When Democrats are criticized, they counter-attack. When Republicans are criticized, they whine that they are innocent.” Therein lies the fundamental difference in the character of each Party; when Dems are attacked or even appear to be attacked, they immediately counterattack, i.e. they go on offense. When Republicans are criticized, they immediately become defensive. A perfect example of the difference can be found in the behavior of 2 of our presidents when their position was in jeopardy—Nixon and Clinton. When it became clear that Nixon had erred seriously, Republican leadership went to him and advised him to step down. When Clinton was challenged, after lying to the country for more than 8 months and then lying under oath, the Dems merely circled the wagons around this shameless dirtbag and had no compunction about putting the country through the impeachment ordeal (and please guys, don’t tell me it was all Ken Starr’s fault). Another example might be Nixon and Gore. When Nixon lost in1960 (by approximately 100,000 votes), he chose not to contest the election, despite the fact that there was abundant evidence of Democratic fraud in both Illinois and Texas. He refused to put the country through that ordeal, while Al Gore did not hesitate to produce the 2000 election chaos, thereafter complaining about Dems being disenfranchised, i.e. Bush stole the election or Bush was selected, not elected, etc. Republicans are going to have to learn the art of political street fighting - this just isn’t a Marquise of Queensberry event; I have often said that Republicans are the guys who bring a knife to a gunfight.
That said, all is not lost - Republicans lost, but conservatism did not. Why not? Because it really wasn’t on the ballot. What I mean is simply this—conservative principles weren’t defeated in the election; they were betrayed and abandoned long before the election. As I have frequently pointed out, Democrats offered nothing; on the contrary, when cornered all that they offered up was we’re against Bush, with the explanation that it is not our job, as the party in opposition, to offer a proposal, let alone an agenda. However, Republicans can take little comfort from Democratic bankruptcy since it was enough to win the election for them. Republicans better regroup, rethink, retool, and get energized if they don’t want an even bigger disaster in 2008, i.e. a Hillary Clinton presidency.
I could go further and even make the argument that conservative principles could not lose because they were never really in the fight to begin with, i.e. George Bush, who I admire and respect (certainly when contrasted with Bill Clinton, a gutless con man) is quite simply not a conservative. Nor are many of our elected Republicans. Thus it would be unfair to draw any conclusions as to the post-election state of conservatism in this country—other than to say it will be in serious trouble if those voters in the country who consider themselves to be conservatives (which, despite the ill-informed observation of a somewhat less than astute academic, are the majority in this country) don’t come out to vote.
One nice part of Republicans losing is that at least you won’t hear any screaming of cheating, disenfranchisement, or recount, etc.—Republicans are fairly old school when it comes to dealing with defeat gracefully; I only wish they were more vigorous and forceful in dealing with victory.