New at Reason

Brian Doherty looks at the election as a Hatfield-McCoy thing.

Comments

Curtis | October 26, 2004, 4:20pm | #

Uh, did I miss something or does it seem that a very similar article could be written about the Democrats "supporting" Kerry...!?

Morat | October 26, 2004, 4:34pm | #

I think he's overlooking something critical: The criteria for winning and the criteria for successfully governing are completely different.

It's quite easy to surpress internal dissent on issues long enough to win. All you do, really, is blame the "other party" (or the French, or the Russians, or whomever) for lack of progress, and explain that you'll "get right to work on those issues once those obstructionist bastards are dealt with".

You don't have to actually legislate anything. And it's remarkably good at getting out the vote.

Tell the Religious Right that you can't overturn Roe versus Wade because of "obstructionist judges and Democrats", and let them know that only control of the Senate can fix it. Pass a few "partial-birth" abortion laws, remembering to cull out any "health of the mother" exceptions so the courts strike it down, and then go whine to the pro-life people. They'll back you 100%.

Go tell the fiscal conservatives you TRIED to cut taxes more, but of course the Democrats held out. Then tell them those nasty Dems were even WORSE about cutting budgets, and actually managed to increase spending despite all you could do. Boom! Instant credit for cutting taxes, and the fiscal conservatives know that you'd have cut spending if it wasn't for those darn Democrats. So better turn out next time around.

It all works really well unless you manage to snag control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Oh, you still blame the Democrats for problems, and throw a lion's share of the blame to "activist liberal judges" but your base doesn't cut you as much slack anymore. You're controlling the levers.

They want results. And that's when the tensions inside the party cause real problems. Up until that point, you can ignore the more volatile issues and blame lack of progress on the other side. You can pass whatever there is consensus on (hint: Tax cuts. And little else) and for the rest, well...just votes to highlight how much better you are than those naughty Democrats.

Not that this doesn't work both ways, of course, but the Dems seem to handle inter-party issues a lot better.

Gene Berkman | October 26, 2004, 5:22pm | #

Buchanan says elections are a kind of feud, and you vote for the party you belong too. That is a strong argument against joining a political party.

When I joined the Libertarian Party - in 1972 - I did not agree to always support the candidate.

But perhaps Pat is engaging in a subtle move to ensure the defeat of Bush. Everyone knows that Reagan won because of "Reagan Democrats" many of whom share Buchanan's views on trade and social issues. Perhaps his editorial is a subtle message to Reagan Democrats to return home and vote for John Kerry.

Hans | October 26, 2004, 5:26pm | #

Gene,

I don't think so. If you watch the McLaughlin Group regularly, Pat makes it pretty clear that while he disagrees with Bush on a lot of issues, he disagrees with Kerry on every issue. He wants Bush to win.

Gilbert Martin | October 26, 2004, 5:35pm | #

"Uh, did I miss something or does it seem that a very similar article could be written about the Democrats "supporting" Kerry...!?"

What's also missing in the litanty of conservative gripes about Bush is the either/or calculation that all conservatives must make.

The President is either going to be Bush or Kerry - one or the other - period. That is the only realistic choice conservatives have.

Conservatives may not be happy about Bush but I can't see how any of them would think Kerry would be a better alternative.

Ken Shultz | October 26, 2004, 9:11pm | #

There are good reasons for a conservative to think that a Kerry Presidency with a traditional Republican congress might be preferable.

By a conservative, of course, I mean a tax cutting, budget busting, free trade, pragmatic foreign policy conservative; you know, like the ones that were in power during the Reagan and Bush the Elder Administrations and like the ones who came to power in the House during the Clinton Administration too.

phil | October 26, 2004, 9:14pm | #

"Uh, did I miss something or does it seem that a very similar article could be written about the Democrats "supporting" Kerry...!?"

I think that while there is some similarity, this is a somewhat different thing. Since both houses and the presidency are held by the GOP, Kerry hasn't really been able to annoy his base with unpopular decisions and policies. And if he wins, he may end up fairly popular with his base because none of his ridiculous proposals will get past the GOP congress. So he can blame them for all failures. Remember Clinton only became popular after he lost congress to the GOP.

kevrob | October 27, 2004, 11:14pm | #

It all works really well unless you manage to snag control of the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Oh, you still blame the Democrats for problems, and throw a lion's share of the blame to "activist liberal judges" but your base doesn't cut you as much slack anymore. You're controlling the levers.

Bush deserves all the crap flung at him for never vetoing anything, no matter how porcine, that emerges from Congress. I guess it was too much for voters to realize that in his term-and-a-half as Governor of Texas, he cohabited, as the French say, with a Democratic Lt. Gov. and got along famously with him. I don't think he was ready to deal with the likes of Jumpin' Jim Jeffords, or Tom Daschle's agressive and novel uses of the filibuster. "Controlling the levers" in the Senate now means being able to depend on 60 votes, whenever the minority gets serious about fighting the majority.

W, a feeble attempt at recess appointments aside, sat on his political capital, rather than spend it, only to see it evaporate. He forgot the "use it or lose it" rule.

Kevin