I noticed that blogger-extraordinaire Matthew Yglesias was at an event hosted by the New America Foundation the other day and heard Charlie Cook, a non-partisan election analyst, suggest a provocative thesis.
As Matt explained: “Cook suggested that perhaps the best thing for the Democrats would be to lose in 2004, force the Republican Party to deal with the consequences of their unsustainable fiscal policies, and then return to power in force in 2006 and 2008 with the GOP’s governing orthodoxy thoroughly discredited.”
I think the world of Matt and frequently enjoy Charlie Cook’s work, and I kind of see where they’re going with this approach, but this strategy strikes me as a terribly bad idea.
First, we’re already dealing with the consequences of the GOP’s “unstable fiscal policies,” but no one seems to care, or, at a minimum, a significant percentage of Americans remain unconvinced of their failure. Indeed, the Republicans’ governing orthodoxy has already been “discredited,” but their base of support has not disappeared and their rank-and-file are not hanging their heads in shame. In fact, just the opposite — Bush is still the odds-on favorite in November and the GOP is poised to gain seats in Congress.
Those of us who would like to see Dems win can’t sit back and hope that the public will suddenly start to reject conservative governing philosophies simply because they don’t work. That’s never been an effective strategy in the past.
Second, I’m more than a little worried about the Bush administration’s reckless approach to foreign policy and what that will mean if given another four years to wreak havoc.
Third, Clinton was able to reverse — rather quickly — the spiraling debt built up by his immediate predecessors, but Bush’s massive deficits will take a lot longer to undo, especially if he has another four years. The consequences on taxes, domestic spending, and the economy could be devastating.
And lastly, I shudder to think what the federal judiciary will look like after Bush has another four years with a Republican Senate to nominate hundreds of conservative ideologues to lifetime positions on the federal bench, including a few seats on the Supreme Court. The effects would be felt for a generation, if not longer.
Oddly enough, I heard comments similar to Cook’s almost four years ago, during the Florida recount debacle. I remember plenty of well-intentioned Dems saying that we should just let Bush have his one term. After all, they said, Bush would probably create huge deficits, high unemployment, gut the environment, and ignore health care, so we’ll win easily in 2004!
That hasn’t worked out and I don’t think Cook’s idea will either. Beating Bush in November should be Dems’ top priority this year, not looking ahead for the potential benefits of losing.
I’m all for looking ahead, but let’s try really hard to win this election before thinking about what we’ll do in 2008.