What SHOULD Happen in November

Several months ago I wrote about my how my libertarian streak was breaking the surface and the resulting rage against the machine, the complete incompetence of the Republican controlled Congress, was infuriating me (read it here). It led me to conclude that the Republicans ought to lose the midterm elections. I have since backed off a tad and instead of the apocolypse of a directionless, idealess, rageful, vengeful, Bush hating, Democratic Congress, have decided that a Democratic House would be sufficient smack in the face to wake up the GOP from slothful idiocy and indolence.

I'm glad to see that the the New York Times is willing to publish an Op-Ed that agrees with my assessment.

How to Win by Losing
By RAMESH PONNURU
Published: September 13, 2006

CONSERVATIVES are dreading the November elections. The Republican capture of the House of Representatives in 1994 was one of modern conservatism's signal political accomplishments. Now the Democrats are poised to take back the House. If that happens, however, conservatives will find several silver linings in the outcome.

It would be worse for conservatives if Republicans actually gained seats. The Congressional wing of the party lost its reformist zeal years ago and has been trying to win elections based on pork and incumbency. An election victory would reward that strategy, leaving the congressmen even less interested in restraining spending, reforming government programs and revamping the tax code. Political incompetence and complacency, sporadic corruption and widespread cynicism: having paid a price for none of it, Republicans would indulge in more of the same.

Yes! Completely accurate critique I think. They have become so lazy and self-absorbed in the House and Senate that NOTHING is being accomplished even when the Republican party controls all three branches of government. Wither tax reform? Social Security reform? Immigration reform? I want my taxes lowered, simplified. I want my personal retirement account instead of the tottering 1960s era socialized blunderbuss. I want secure borders and rational immigration policies that make it easier and more attractive to follow the rules than the current incentive to break them. I want fiscal frugality, debt reduction, balanced budget economics. I want an energy policy that zealously reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Where is the majority? Why don't they act? They're clearly too busy accepting bribes from lobbyists, entertaining their mistrisses, smoking cigars, congratulating themselves on being masters of the universe. They need a defeat to restore themselves.

Of course, that's just a thought experiment. Almost nobody thinks that Republicans are going to pick up seats. The question is whether they will have a reduced majority or no majority. And outright loss might be preferable. A narrower House majority would most likely accomplish even less than the current one has. The party's small moderate caucus would gain in power and use it to frustrate conservatives. With no conservative reforms on the horizon, congressmen would revert to the pork strategy.

A straight loss, on the other hand, would make the Republicans hungrier and sharpen their wits. Freed from the obligation of cobbling together thin majorities for watered-down legislation, Republicans would be able to stand for something attractive. Some conservatives worry that Republican officialdom will see defeat as a reason to turn left. But that didn't happen after the last major Republican defeat in 1992. Then, conservatives were able to persuade the party that it had not lost power because it was too far right. They would make the same case this winter, but with more voices in the news media than they had back then.

The effects of victory on the Democrats may also be helpful to Republicans. Powerlessness has stoked Democrats' rage. If the party wins the House, its left-leaning "net-roots" may grow more enraged still, because the Democrats would then have the illusion of power without its reality. Even under their most optimistic calculations, they would have the smallest Democratic majority since 1957 -- and they will have to deal with a Republican president and (probably) Senate.

House Democrats could initiate countless investigations of the administration and schedule votes to make Republicans look bad. But they could not do much to affect either the conduct of foreign policy or the composition of the courts, which are the areas where their most fervent supporters most desperately want influence. If the Democrats try to appease their base by impeaching the president, they will probably increase President Bush's poll numbers, much as Republicans once improved President Bill Clinton's.

This is really the best part of the entire scenario. The leftists will insist on using their House majority to make a total ass of themselves. Pelosi and her ilk are truly bumbling idiots. Whenever they get up to speak they make the President's oratory look like Churchill's. It would be delightful to watch the radical hijackers of the donkey party, the netrooters and kos kids, self-destruct on a national stage. And you know, you KNOW they would. I almost salivate at the prospect. Given the megaphone, their own words will condemn them.

So the policy tradeoffs for Republicans are not especially troubling. They would still be able to set foreign policy and appoint judges. They would be blocked only from making domestic-policy reforms they show no sign of attempting anyway.

There is also the matter of the 2008 elections. Do Republicans really want to go into 2008 running a unified government? The last time an election maintained unified party control from one presidency to another was in 1928. And the 2008 elections matter more than the 2006 elections, because, again, the president has more say over foreign policy and the courts than the House does. If Democrats win the House now, the next Republican presidential candidate will be able to run against Nancy Pelosi and the liberal committee chairmen who would suddenly be in the headlines.

Isn't that prospect just delicious? The notion that the House Democratic leaders would have to actually espouse a philosophy, describe an agenda, have a plan, something other than 'hate Bush', to me seems very exciting. Given the division in their party, they will be completely unable to have a coherent message. The plethora of investigations and hearings they will launch will make it totally impossible to have a consistent message or theme. The internal squabbling, bickering and outright civil war coupled with the external projection of confusion mingled with anger will render the House completely ineffectual. They will emerge as the symbol of everything that is wrong with American politics. And I can't wait for THAT.

Winning in 2006 will make it harder for Democrats to address their long-term structural problems. It has happened before. They confused the Watergate landslide of 1974 for a mandate to embrace McGovernism for 20 years. If they win because of high gas prices, bad war news and conservative discontent now, they will be less likely to adopt new approaches to national security and social issues. That, too, will help Republicans in 2008.

Who knows? If Republicans play their cards right, and the Democrats prove unequal to the task of running the House, the voters could put the Republicans back in power on Capitol Hill in 2008. After a few years in the wilderness, maybe they will be disposed to using that power for conservative ends.

Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review, is the author of "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."

The GOP has grown too drunk with power and take their opponent's incompetence for granted. I think a GOP oss in the House in November 2006 is the best thing that could happen for their prospects in 2008. I also happen to think that the self-destruction of the leftist MoveOn/Kos/netroots wing of the Democratic party is the best thing that could happen for Democrats. The restoration of that party, the reestablishment of an ideological alternative in American politics (something we haven't seen for quite some time), is the best thing that could happen to politics within the Republic. Our nation is strongest when we have honest debate and alternatives. The complete lack of any other ideas, the ideological bankruptcy of the left, have hurt us, and the restoration of a true Opposition will utlimately be best for the country.

Technorati: ChrisCam, webcam, Weblog, Politics, Election 2006, Election 2008, GOP, Republican, Democrats, Congress