What Would Reagan Do?

We had some inkling of the problem last year when some who claimed to be movement conservatives decided they would not vote in 2006 and Republicans deserved to lose because President Bush hadn't done everything 100% of the way they demanded on a range of issues.

Most of these issues, whether it was Harriet Miers, Immigration or Dubai Ports were being manipulated by Democrats to inflame conservative disagreements. Add the scandal of EX-Congressman Mark Foley to the Democrats bag of tricks.

Dick Morris thinks it is working. His article in The Hill today is a gloomy forecast of GOP voters sitting out election day.

It's hard to imagine that any GOP voter would hand over the House of Representatives to Democrats. The House is one place where the GOP has held the line on issues from terrorism and the war to immigration and tax cuts. Handing it over to Democrats would reverse course on all these issues.

Tony Blankley in today's Washington Times asks if GOP voters could be that stupid:

No thanks, we're stupid
By Tony Blankley
Washington Times

John Stuart Mill once famously called the British Tories "The Stupid Party." From time to time since then, the Tory's American cousin, the Republican Party, has also earned that moniker. Now may be one of those moments. If current polls and anecdotes are to be believed, there may be a million or two conservative Republicans who are planning to not vote this November.

Of course, Mill also said that : "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but also by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."

Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, dismal -- and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government.

They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote.

Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, number two could as well read "eating dog excrement is something." I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker, "Stupid."

Here are some tell-tale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party which would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):
1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.

A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7.
I have heard it put around that the Republicans need a couple of years in the wilderness to regain their conservative bearings.

While turning over the Congress to the Pelosi/Kennedy mob for even two years would be recklessly irresponsible -- particularly during a dangerous war -- there is no assurance the wilderness years would last only twenty-four months.

In 1954, the Democrats, led by the great Sam Rayburn, retook the House after control had see-sawed back and forth for ten years (1944 -- Democrat; 1946 -- Republican; 1948 -- Democrat; 1950 -- Democrat; 1952 -- Republican; 1954 -- Democrat). Mr. Rayburn (one of the shrewdest politicians ever to play the game) was so sure that the Republicans would take back the House in the Eisenhower re-election year of 1956, that when he became speaker after the 1954 election, he didn't even bother to move his furniture back to the better office suite occupied by Joe Martin (the Republican speaker who returned to minority leader status after the 1954 Republican loss.)

They decided to keep their previous office spaces rather than go through the bother of moving across the hall.

As it turned out, the Republicans didn't re-take a majority of the House for forty years (the Gingrich-led election of 1994). So for forty years the Republican minority leaders got to keep the better office space (that looked out over the majestic National Mall), while the Democratic Speakers for forty years got a view of the parking lot.

I don't care who has the better office space in the future, but any conservative ought to be very concerned about who has the political power in Washington. The Democrats have virtually promised to scandalize the Republican administration (with subpoena and impeachment-seeking oversight hearings) for the next two years -- in preparation for defeating the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.

Moreover, every Democrat who beats a Republican in three weeks will have two years to feather his or her nest, and use the powers of incumbency to defeat his 2008 Republican challenger.

Even more important, in a closely fought 2008 presidential election, every extra Democratic incumbent senator, congressman and governor makes it just a little more likely that the Democratic presidential candidate may win that district or state. All those freshly tuned new Democratic machines will help get out Democratic Party votes for the top of their 2008 ticket.

This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.
There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.

A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.

The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.

Can there really be such a thing as "Cut and Run Republicans" who don't get their way, so hand over the House and Senate to Democrats?

WWRD -- What Would Reagan Do?

If President Reagan were alive today, what would he do with today's situation? Readers may recall Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." Can you imagine in your wildest dreams that the man who transformed the American conservative movement would approve of destroying the remaining conservatives in government for the sake of ideological purity?

I had a front row seat to witness the conservative movement becoming mainstream. I stood on the platform at the GOP convention in Detroit where Reagan was nominated in 1980 as Barry Goldwater, the father of American conservatism spoke. I worked for Congressman John Ashbrook and met William F. Buckley Jr., both of whom were founders of the movement. I've met Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum and the anchor for conservative Republican women.

And of course I worked for Ronald Reagan in the White House when he pulled out all the stops to get his Vice President George H.W. Bush elected. Some conservatives said that Vice President Bush wasn't conservative enough. President Reagan disagreed.

President Reagan would never agree with those who say we deserve to lose. Anyone who thinks like that is not serving conservative values, but abetting liberal policies. Not exactly what a real conservative would do.