Before I join in the sport of post-defeat Republican recrimination, allow me to indulge in a rare moment of bipartisanship.
Philosophers and partisans will debate for years the question of whether
Democrats deserved to win the 2006 elections, but let us agree that the
Republicans deserved to lose.
Through its own crapulence, jobbery and malfeasance, the Grand Old Party
lost the House of Representatives, the jewel of the Republican revolution,
the engine of conservative policy reform and home to the much-maligned
freedom fries. The Democrats needed 15 seats to capture the House, and they
passed that mark handily, like a running back carrying the ball through the
end zone, into the bleachers and all the way to the concession stand - and
then ordering a hot dog. Then, twisting the knife and mangling this metaphor
beyond all human decency, the Senate fell into the Dem column like one
enormous hanging chad.
Let's take the Democrats at their word. They wanted this election to be a
referendum on President Bush and the GOP. Despite valiant efforts by the
Republicans to make the election a choice between two parties, the Dems
succeeded in making it thumbs-up or thumbs-down on just one: the GOP.
And so the Republicans were doomed. The cliches are no less true for being
cliches. The GOP came to power in 1994 promising lean government, and became
the party that needs to unbuckle its pants and loosen its belt two notches
after every lobbyist-paid meal. The GOP once had the reputation of being
able to run the government like a business and wars like a finely tuned
machine. But under compassionate conservatism, government became a
faith-based charity.
As for the war(s), the finely tuned machine is clogged with Iraqi sand. The
Democrats think the only solution is to "redeploy" the whole kit and
caboodle out of there for repairs. To Bush's credit, he understands that
wars, particularly this one, need to be won. But, alas, the Democrats won
the argument at the polls.
Now, let's get back to the important business of pointing fingers and
assigning blame. Conservatives have been sharpening their bayonets for
months, waiting to inaugurate the first great intramural bloodletting of the
new millennium. Libertarian types think the fault lies in too much social
conservatism. Social conservatives see too much worldliness. Both see too
much compromise, while moderates, squishes and other RINOs (Republicans in
name only) see too little compromise. Realists and isolationists see too
much war. Neoconservatives and other hawks see, if not too little war,
certainly too little commitment to do everything it takes to win the ones
we're in.
Of all these arguments, the only two you are likely to hear ad nauseam are:
too much social conservatism and too much war.
Continued... |