Or, Why helping Ron Paul in any way is a ridiculous way to help civil liberties.
Hell, a ridiculous way to help anything having to do with Liberalism. Hell, why restrict it just to Ron Paul? If you're helping anybody but Obama this year, you're doing yourselves no favor.
Oh, the reader says, you're one of those Obamabots! You've never been anything but a consistent supporter! Well, you ever wonder why? No? Too bad. Because there is a very specific reason that despite all the imperfections of the party in the last twenty years that I support Democrats consistently, and you need to know it. It's not necessarily a blindingly original insight, but it is something that needs to be said after so many years of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot nearly every election year.
I support Obama, in part, because I find him an inspiring, creative, and clever political figure. But there's another reason I support him: he's there, and he's got the political wherewithal to stay there. I don't take such things lightly. There's a reason.
Put simply, I expect Republicans to be opportunists, not grateful penitents when it comes to gaining power. I expect them to take full advantage of the power of the offices they attain, and then some.
Looking back at the last twenty years, can you actually remember a time when restraint was considered a virtue in the GOP? When they had any interest in coddling us or seeing to our wishes? No, when they have the power, the Republicans undo the things progressives want done. Whether its penny-ante stuff like lightbulbs, stuff of medium importance like appointments, or critical stuff like Government shutdowns and the Debt Ceiling crisis, the GOP's response to our concerns has been one extended "FUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOUUUU!!!!!!" to each and every one of us, and what we believe in.
Please, be my guest. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me Ron Paul didn't actually make a television commercial where he shows us where he'll blow away major departments of our government, that. Tell me that Ron Paul didn't at least look the other way while people published the most racist, sexist and homophobic trash this side of the Nazi Party in his name. Tell me you want Ron Paul writing actual policy in the Presidency. Or, failing that, Mitt Romney. Hell, are you frothing at the mouth for a Santorum Presidency? Or have you not divorced yourself from the idea of a Newt Gingrich administration, instead?
Republicans have never been that gracious in victory, nor magnanimous, but that's not the worst part. Where we don't win Senate races, we risk our majority there. Where we don't win House races, we lose our chance to take back control of the House of Representatives. Where we don't win the White House, we cede the control of the Presidency. Do we not remember what the GOP did with the Legislative and Executive Branches, or even the consequences for the Judicial Branch?
Are we just that thick? I don't think so. Or at least I hope we're not.
Truth of the matter is, that Republican policy is objectively worse than that of the compromised Democrats we complain about. They disappoint us more, they make us feel more angst about their lack of loyalty, but there are directions our country takes under Republicans that they don't take under Democrats, and that's a provable fact.
The relative ideological loyalty of those in the House and the Senate is a matter we can take care, and in fact I think we can best take care of if we have a solid majority, and the confidence that comes with it. When we have that, we are much closer to whatever our goals are than otherwise. Yes, there will be disappointments and compromises we don't like. That happens.
What also happens, though, is that when you hand an elected office to somebody, when you concede or forfeit that contest, you give them the power that comes with it. That is the first order effect of losing an election. That effect, in my opinion, typically dominates over any second order effects. The idea that if we throw elections, we can punish the Democrats who are not loyal to our issues, and that this will lead to long term success, is little different in its error from the Supply Side theory of tax cuts.
No, really! See, Republicans expect that when the rich keep more of their profits, they'll do more business and hire more people, and that the secondary effect, the taxes that come from this economic activity, will replace the money lost by the primary effect of losing that revenue in taxes. But as we know, my fellow Kossacks, the primary effect of the tax cuts, the reduction of revenue is not compensated for. The economic boom that supposedly comes never does, much less yields the new revenue required to break even.
Helping Republicans or letting Republicans win to spite wayward Democrats has only served to reward Republicans with offices. Those victories, the policy changes that the Republicans use their power to force, and the political prestige they glean from winning the elections far outweighs the political sting the Democratic Party's politicians might feel from us. They look at the Republicans getting elected, and they say to themselves "they were right, being too liberal is a political liability."
That is what has happened every time. No matter how emotionally satisfying or cathartic it might be to bitch and moan about how Democrats and Republicans are just one party, that they're no different from one another, I've never found this to be the case, and where there are similarities, they are there because Democrats have been timid about being Democrats. Losing elections, in my memory, has never helped them be less timid.
Clinton tacked right after a disastrous mid-term. Obama tacked right after a disastrous mid-term. Obama only tacked back left after he saw liberals standing up for themselves, and changing the public conversation so broadly, after he saw that going our way, distinguishing himself would net political benefits.
In other words, Obama saw that his constituency would support him, so he acts to encourage that support. He noted the support he lost on the debt ceiling deal and the other compromises, and decided that he had more to gain from being a good Democrat.
Politicians aren't all that complicated. If they think they can get enough votes to see reelection by appealing to a certain segment of voters, or pursuing a certain political course of action, they'll do that.
People are going to take the cue of what political system reigns supreme from the results of the election. It's one reason Republicans fought to tarnish our victory with accusations of vote fraud. They didn't want Republicans to take to heart that they lost. Because they didn't take that to heart, the leaders of the GOP were capable of motivating their members, whatever misgivings they might have about the party, to show up and vote for the Republicans.
They got some pretty strong results, and those results helped revive conservatism when it seemed dead. Of course, the patient's still critical, but it isn't flatlining anymore.
Modern Conservatism isn't going to defeat itself, at least not entirely. They'll always be able to rationalize the odd defeat. But if they find themselves getting their asses kicked every election they take their attitudes to, the GOP might find itself short on energy to mount these challenges, to maintain their beliefs. It'll be Republicans who get gun-shy about conservatism, the way Democrats get about liberalism.
If we want to teach the Republicans a lesson, if we want to push the Democratic Party over the threshold towards greater fidelity to its liberal roots, then we need to push the Party towards victory every chance we get.
Now if you're saying, "We need better candidates.", I'd say, sure! We do. It will help! But don't forget the overall goal: we need a political victory for the Democrats that galvanizes party members, and makes 2010, rather than 2008 look like the fluke.
And really, just forget about selling self-defeat as a political winner. America doesn't need more Republicans in power for any reason. We need to end the reign of the right in America, not vacillate more in the service of communicating our spite to those who disappoint us. It will be easier to determine which weeds to pull when the garden is ours, and we're the ones choosing who wields power.
Note: The original title to this article was "A Bullet In The Brain Is a Bad Cure For A Headache", but somebody pointed out to me that this is the anniversary of the Assassination attempt on Gabby Giffords. Naturally, that made this title in exceedingly poor taste, so I have changed it. I apologize to those I offended through this oblivious choice of title.