| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Instapundit: Post-Election Blues | |
| 2006-11-10 | |
| I NOTED EARLIER that Ann Althouse is depressed about the elections, and looking around it seems that a lot of people feel that way. Well, I understand that, God knows. But one iron rule of elections is that you win some and you lose some. And people tend to exaggerate their importance and, if they're on the losing side, catastrophize. I remember lots of gloom-and-doom and catastrophization in the gun rights community ten or twelve years ago. Defeat seemed inexorable, the media were all on the other side, the politicians who were supposed to be on the right side of the issue couldnt' be trusted, the electorate seemed easily manipulated, and --- well, enough. Sound familiar? Ten years later the Democrats won't touch the gun issue, right-to-carry laws are passing in state after state, and the "assault weapons ban" -- once seen as the camel's nose in the tent -- has expired. How did that happen? Not because of gloom and doom, but because people worked to make it happen: worked politically, worked in terms of communications and media, worked in terms of not getting discouraged but just plugging away. Want the electorate to come around to your views? You've got to persuade them. Over the years, I've seen this hold true for one issue after another. Is this a "detached and academic" perspective? Well, I am an academic, after all, and I'd probably be detached about the end of the world, which this isn't. Maybe I "lack fire," but I think it's a realistic perspective, borne of experience. It's okay to feel bad for a while. Maybe it's even therapeutic. But ultimately, things happen because people want to make them happen, and work to make it so. Meanwhile I note that Rush Limbaugh, who was complaining about my pre-mortem before, now says he feels "liberated" because he's able to say things like . . . what I said back before the election. Well, better late than never, but one problem with the GOP is that it lost touch with the things it was supposed to stand for, and a little more tough love from Limbaugh before the election might have done some good. To which I would add: avoid the temptation to succumb to Pelosi Derangement Syndrome. They're our political opponents, but not all of the Dems are necessarily our enemies. Critique 'em strongly when they are wrong, don't go along just to get along by any means, but be sure to give 'em props when they get something right--especially the new folks in town, some of whom (e.g., Heath Schuler, Joe Lieberman) are more with us than against us on the big things, and can be separated from the crazies with a little judicious persuasion. Going all moonbat on every little thing in our rhetoric ("Pelosi = Osama!") is a sure path to a long time in the wilderness, while a touch of rationality goes a long way--especially if the Donk leadership comes off as unable to restrain its moonbat fringe.
| |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #5 MARY MATALIN was simply awesome on FOX, among other things making it crystal clear to the audience that the Dems win was NOT a vote or mandate for the traditional Liberal-Alternatist agenda. The Dems are already engaging in attempting to "clarify" their stance on the WOT + putting the burden on Dubya-GOP for any problems. NOT EVEN 2007 or DE FACTO SWORN IN, AND ALREADY CHICKEN LITTLE IS CROSSING THE ROAD. KEEP BUYING THE POPCORN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-10 23:20 |
| #4 The biggest issue is that the U.S. will no be able to undertake offensive operations against the jihadis. The initiative has passed to al-qaida and Iran. They have no reason to let up in Afghanistan or Iraq. They are on the offensive in Somalia. They can hit Isreal as soon as the Hezbollah recover their strength (or they may wait for a more sympathetic president). Syria and the Hezbollah can recover ground in Lebanon. The Democrats agree with the European position that terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a war. If they are wrong we are going to lose a lot more people because of this and, yes, this is a catastrophe. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2006-11-10 12:59 |
| #3 I have to agree with that this is not a catastrophe. The average loss in a 6th year election is actually slightly larger than this. When you add in the gains from the 2002 election, the Rupubs are actually in better shape than they should expect. Don't forget that Zel Miller wrote a book about how the Dems were a "National Party No More". I think Pelosi Derangement Syndrome is justified, but this can be an oportunity. If she keeps the conservative/moderate Dems out of positions of power, it will confirm the Dems as the Party of Children. This may be the Dems last chance to prove they can act like adults. Al |
| Posted by: frozen Al 2006-11-10 10:21 |
| #2 Surely it's not the election people are reacting so strongly to, but Bush's reaction to it. |
| Posted by: JSU 2006-11-10 10:13 |
| #1 Duh-oh! That last paragraph is me, not Prof. Reynolds; it should be hilited, but I hit "submit" too fast. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. Preview is my friend. . . . |
| Posted by: Mike 2006-11-10 09:59 |