Why the Democrats probably won’t win, even though it seems like their turn

In America with our famous two-party system, the historic political pattern has consisted of periodic swings of the pendulum, in which one party or the other would dominate the government for several election cycles until power was returned to the other party. As Ben Shapiro argues in a thoughtful column, this historic pattern was founded on the fact that the parties, notwithstanding their differences, had significant common ground—basic moral and national allegiances that virtually all Americans shared. Since the 1960s, however, Shapiro continues, the Democrats have moved so far to the left that the political center no longer rests between the parties, but within the Republican party—and this is true even though the Republicans have also moved to the left, though not nearly as far as the Democrats. Therefore the familiar and time-honored swing of the pendulum is no longer viable or desirable. And therefore, contrary to the Democrats’ fond expectations, they will not win the control of the Congress in 2006, or, if they do win it, their extreme liberalism, anti-Americanism, and pacifism will result in the instant return of power to the Republicans, just as the fluke election of Clinton in 1992 (made possible by Perot) led immediately to the historic Republican victory of 1994.

That’s Shapiro’s thesis, and I agree with it. But I would go further and say that Shapiro’s view supports my constantly reiterated position in 2004—a position that would probably appall Shapiro—that a Bush loss in the 2004 election, though leading to horrible consequences in the short term, would have helped save conservatism and the country in the medium to long term. The defeat of Bush, I argued, would free the Republican party from his left-leaning influence and allow the Republicans to regain the conservative principles they had abandoned under Bush. Meanwhile, the Democrats would, as Shapiro indicates, so discredit themselves in power that the revitalized Republicans would easily win back the White House in 2008.

In other words, the constitutional weakness of the Democrats to which Shapiro points means that, pace certain “realistic” Republican strategists, Republicans do not face the choice between blind allegiance to liberal-leaning Republicans like Bush on one hand and acquiescence to the leftist Democratic takeover and ruin of the country on the other. Republicans can afford to hold out for a real conservative standard bearer, instead of constantly compromising their principles on the basis that “we must move to the left in order to defeat the Democrats.”

- end of initial entry -

Howard Sutherland writes:

For true conservatives, there is no ideal result possible in this year’s elections. Today’s tactical problem is how to make the anti-conservatism and political fecklessness of the GOP blindingly obvious to conservatives without letting Bushpublicans and Democrats force through the Bush/Kennedy/McCain Death of America (DOA) bill. I think you are right that the House is the key terrain. If Democrats take the House, America loses the fight because they will pass DOA. The Senate, even though majority GOP, has already passed DOA. With national survival at stake, how much worse would a Democrat-run Senate be?

About the only thing Bush has got slightly right is judicial appointments, but America can survive some more blocked Bush judges far more easily than inviting the rest of the third world to invade. Maybe the best we can hope for is for the GOP to hold the House, so stalwarts like Tancredo and his caucus can keep blocking DOA until the best president Mexico ever had is safely out of office in January 2009, while letting Democrats screech and preen in the Senate blocking Bush judges—as conservatives fume over the GOP’s political ineptitude and (except for Tancredo & Co.) lack of principle. Maybe that unpalatable combination will get conservatives thinking seriously about either a real third party to the GOP’s right or mounting a true conservative coup within the GOP, without having to pay the ultimate price of DOA. No more Bushes, McCains, Frists, Hatches, Cannons, Roves, Mehlmans…?

In his heart of hearts, I suspect Bush would like the reverse, with a GOP Senate (its leadership is already on his side about his DOA dream and desired legacy; holding the Senate would keep him from looking like a totally impotent lame duck as well as covering him against Democrat impeachment) and a Democrat House, which will would happily destroy America and give Bush DOA. Not because they love Bush—they hate him even though he is really so like them—but because of their irresistible urge to destroy what’s left of the old America.

Both scenarios are nightmares: GOP House/Dem Senate is the nightmare of sweaty palmed wondering if we can hold the line long enough; Dem House/GOP Senate is the nightmare of knowing we are overrun. As for Dem House/Dem Senate, some nightmares don’t bear thinking about (although Bush would be impeached over Iraq). But aren’t we living a nightmare already, even if it is one we may still wake from?

LA replies:

I agree with Mr. Sutherland’s guess as to Bush’s real wishes for the House. Someone else has suggested, and it makes sense to me, that Bush has an understanding with Democrats that if they win the House, he will work with them to pass the Death to America bill, and they will hold hearings about him, but not impeach him.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2006 08:47 AM | Send