Associated Press
George Will eyes "constructive defeat" in the 2012 presidential race.
Last week, Rachel talked to Salon's Steve Kornacki about the 2012 campaign, and he noted that there may come a point at which congressional Republicans stop thinking about the presidential campaign, and start thinking about their own re-election prospects.
No one in the party would ever talk about this publicly, but there may come a point at which GOP officials believe President Obama is going to win re-election. The next question, of course, is what Republicans would do if they grudgingly accept this premise. As Kornacki put it, party leaders may very well conclude, "Let's save the House, let's try to win as many of these Senate seats as we can."
If this strategy sounds familiar, it's because we've seen it before: in 1996, the GOP-led Congress concluded Bill Clinton was likely to win a second term, so Republicans began legislating -- for their own benefit -- in advance of the election. It mattered less whether it would help the president and more whether it would give lawmakers a record they could run on themselves.
In 1996, it worked for everyone: Clinton won easily, and Republicans kept the House and Senate. Could we see a replay in 2012?
In an important column, conservative George Will argued over the weekend that GOP officials should do exactly that, focusing on "constructive defeat" in the presidential race, because "neither" Mitt Romney nor Rick Santorum are "likely to be elected."
If either is nominated, conservatives should vote for him. But suppose the accumulation of evidence eventually suggests that the nomination of either would subtract from the long-term project of making conservatism intellectually coherent and politically palatable. If so, there would come a point when, taking stock of reality, conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than, and not much less important than, electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.
Several possible Supreme Court nominations and the staffing of the regulatory state are among the important reasons conservatives should try to elect whomever the GOP nominates. But conservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013.
Obviously, Will isn't making the case in support of an Obama second term, but rather, Will is working under the assumption that the Republican field just isn't good enough, and by focusing on a Republican-led Congress, the party can mitigate the effects of another four years of a Democratic president.
George Will, it's worth emphasizing, is not just another conservative voice -- he's the most widely syndicated columnist in the country, and an influential voice in Republican politics. If he's already lending credence to "the '96 strategy," it's likely others in the GOP will be more inclined to take it seriously.
There's no doubt many factors that contribute to this -- the improving economy, the "corrosive" effect of the Republican nominating fight, Romney's underwhelming and unimpressive candidacy -- but regardless of the motivations, it's worth watching to see if Will's sentiment takes hold in the coming months.
Leave a Comment:
Will is onto something here. And Obama needs to do the same - campaign on the fact that the President cannot do everything alone. We need to get rid of the do-nothing congressmen whose strategy only changes in an election year.
It also calls into question the reported decision of the Obama campaign to withhold funding from Democratic congressional races.
I don't understand how the president can do anything with the campaign funds of any other candidate. Can you explain for me?
It remains to be seen if the female electorate will remember the attacks on women's health care (and I would say sexuality) made by Congressional and individual state Republicans. This is where the presidential race has mattered, as the candidates reinforce a picture of the GOP as out-of-touch with issues that pertain to women, independents, and minorities.
It's not just the female electorate, men that truly support women need to remember that the GOP hasn't supported anything FOR working Americans, period!! So when you go to vote, just remember why America has lost it's triple A credit worthiness - thank you GOP! Snark...
It used to be the case that parties catered to their base during primaries and then headed to the 'center' for the general. I don't think that's the case any more for the Republicans. Consider that, in 2008, McCain turned further to the right with his selection of Palin for VP. I'm not certain that was the intent--the McCain campaign was taking all that PUMA crap seriously--but that was the effect.
The GOP has moved even further to the right since then, and I have my doubts that they can find their way back to the 'center' for the general election. In fact, I do not see the party letting up on it's attack on women's issues, labor rights, LGBT rights or on anything else. They do not seem capable any longer of thinking and acting tactically, and they may very well end up losing enough important constituencies to make victory in November impossible, women being by far the largest group.
Very interesting to see that this political move of 'constructive defeat' is actually being stated, of course just in a liberal blog, but non the less accurate. Rush Limbaugh took on the social issue of birth control as a political move, to demogog anyone who dare continue to talk about conservative social issues, as Santorum has done. This is his way of saying, listen, Santorum, I get you, but you've got to start talking about something else. I will take the heat for the social conservative issues, but you've got to move on otherwise this heat will be directed at you.
This also is kind of an F-U to Romney who know's to leave thesse issues alone, yet Limbaugh is still coaching Santorum because he thinks possibly Mitt is too much of a self-fish corporate stiff to give him support.
At any rate, the dems are still playing responsive and restraining politics. Like they have a crazy demon possesed child that they have to control. Instead of hitting it over the head, they are restraining their message, restraining their advances, and having muted responses to the crazy insane outburst. I think this strategy is somewhat fitting. With Democrats rooting from the sidelines cheering on the machine.
We will see if Democrats can keep the bear hold onto the Republicans and focus on what they want to accomplish. My belief is that this craziness is just a distraction. Dems will be stuck trying to reason with and control the crazies on the right, lost in a world that they cannot understand or reason with, and Mitt Romney will move so far to the left, that he will sail ahead in the polls against Obama while the dems are still bear holding the Rush Limbaugh debate about prostitution and birth control pills.
The answer: Lead democrats. Lead, don't follow Republicans to a race to the bottom. It's a trick!
Let's assume Mr. Will's premise is true. What this says to me is that The White House along with the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate should begin tossing a ton of progressive legislation in the hopper knowing that [a] Republicans will have to vote for it 'lest they go into the campaign being on record opposing roads, schools, etc., or [b] if the GOP refuses to vote for the measures, it is handing the president and Democrats a ready-made election issue.
It is time to take the fight to the congressional races, and Maddow has been out in front on this. Just compare her guest list of with Dems up for election in battleground states. Quelle coïncidence!
Oh our Maddow may wear frumpy footwear, but I suspect they have steel toes.
Since when are Chucks frumpy? If they're good enough for the Doctor, they're good enough for our Dr.
Since when? Oh come on- since Cindi Lauper. Cute, no question, but thems are steel toes, you betcha. Last week, she was only getting started on Virginia. I shudder to think what she is like when she really gets ornery. Yeehaw.
Steve, this would make sense if the Congressional GOP was more moderate and less conservative than the Presidential contenders. It is not. In fact, the leadership is scared that it can't get a budget because of the crazification of the GOP caucus. So, what could Congress do that would help the GOP generally, while not also helping the presidential field? Nothing. This "strategy" only makes sense if you let the GOP presidential candidate moderate himself with impunity now or in the general. Not gonna happen. it sounds like a nice strategy, but there is no practical way for it to be applied this cycle.
Now, more likely than in '96, the election will be determined by block voters down the line on (R) or (D). Especially with Obama as a movement figurehead, it's unlikely that focusing on Congress will do the (R)'s very good, especially watching how all the (R) governors that were elected have very unfavorable ratings already.
What does it mean to "legislate -- for their own benefit -- in advance of the election?"
They've been playing scorched-earth for three plus years now, which is a big part of why a majority of poll respondents want a Democratically-controlled Congress. I don't see them suddenly going all sweetness and light: approving Presidential appointments that have been stalled since 2009, passing jobs bills submitted by the Administration, etc.
About all they can do is try to bring home lots and lots of pork -- and that's going to be very, very easy to use against them on the #hypocrisy front.
Of course, come 2013 it's unrestricted war again no matter what -- doing their best to make the electorate so miserable that they have a shot at a 2010 reprise, followed by an open election in 2016 with the economy in depression.
Will struggles for relevance in a party gone mad.
The man has intelligence, and he has a firm belief in his convictions. Where I fault him is in his selective application of his principles.
He is quite simply a pompous coward. He knows very well where this upwelling of irrationality in the GOP is coming from. And he has no stomach for confronting it, because he knows it is a game where Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Hannity hold all the cards.
Conservatives are fond of recalling the history of Germany in the 30s. Failure to stand up bullies who use power to punch down on scapegoats, who play to a country's delusions and worst instincts.
Limbaugh is vulnerable for just a few more days after the Fluke non-apology. Will George Will stand up for conserving what is good and valuable in society? No. And why? Because that is not what conservationism means to him. Conservatism means acceptance in the club of the status quo elites- of mutual stroking with those equal in stature to his own monumental ego. If it sounds like sublimated autoerotic perversity, that's because it is.
George, find your balls. Do something that attacks the dynamic that the GOP must confront if they are ever to return to sanity.
I believe this decision was effectively taken some months ago when it became clear who was in the field. Since then I have maintained this election is all about 2016 in terms of the Presidency and that is what concerns me. I do not see our side having much at all on the bench.
If you'd been asked in 2004 about prospects for 2008, would you have identified BHO?
2010 was a problem year, since State governorships have, lately, been the minor leagues for the Presidency. The Senate used to be a big source, but less so -- Senators are so valuable for the long term that it's dangerous risking them on Presidential races. Even if they win, they're out of the game (IMHO a shame, by the way. The Brits do it better by far.)
Still, have a look at relatively junior Democratic Senators, especially those who weren't elected in 2010. Likewise, have a look around at some of the Democratic governors. They may not be well-known outside of their states but that's easy enough to change -- it's the track record that counts at that level.
And don't count Hillary out just yet
Actually I did see BHO coming. Not my fault I did, but I did. A good friend Is an Illinois State Senator & was a colleague of his in the Illinois State Senate whose father preceeded him in the seat and both are very close to BHO.
Do House members actually have anything to fear? Gerrymandering seems to have worked perfectly for them. They have done nothing for the country for years and they are still returned at something like a 70% rate to their safe district house seats...the Senate is another story. SCOTUS requires that the Dems win the Senate....
not even. they would need at least 60 and that is not gonna happen. If the dems have 51 senators (i would NEVER rely on Manchin), then we are going to see about the filibuster under senate rules in January 2013.
You'll know the GOP has given up on winning the Presidency when the pundits start reminding us, incessantly, that we are and always have been and always will be a center-right nation.
Which is why we currently have a center-right president.
Unfortunately, the US does seem to be a center-right country. Too bad for the GOP that they are a far-right party. It's the Democrats who (as a party) are center-right. What we really need is a genuinely left-wing national party. Simply having a party to the left of the Republicans isn't enough.
The reality is that the republicans are being manipulated by far right crazies. State and National; elections have become a crusade for a handful of fanatics who truly feel that their way is the only way and by god they will stop at nothing to impose their will upon us all using the republican party.
What we have is the right wing republic theocracy versus the U.S. constitution and the freedom it guarantees.Live free or convert.
Can I just take a minute here to say how interesting, informative, and constructive this article is? When we have been blasted with the idiocy of "sluts" and college being for snobs, it is refreshing to have an article that actually progresses the discussion in a thoughtful productive way. It really is too bad the George Wills of the world are a dying breed. Republican Intellectuals I call on you to take your party back!! I need someone to challenge my viewpoints with rhetorical panache backed by thoughtful factual argument!
In the words of the immortal Stan Lee - 'nuff said
Re George Will hoping his party will succeed at "the long-term project of making conservatism intellectually coherent and politically palatable" is the real wishful thinking here.
There is no way to do this. Conservatism isn't a coherent doctrine, except in so far as its basic tenet is simply "Might is Right."
I've never seen a more intellectually bankrupt 'ideology' because in ever single instance it exists only to provide cover for those who wield unearned power over others.
I agree with you jjm-3261835 - there is simply nothing there. They're simply against everything Democrats are for, including everything they used to be in favor of as late as their 2008 presidential platform. There is no real policy except improving the wealth of their friends and family, defunding public education and privatizing EVERYTHING.
Given that approach by the GOP, it is difficult to understand why the Obama campaign, according to reports, is refusing to contribute to Democratic congressional races. Republican control of Congress will ruin an Obama second term.
0bama's a Republican pretending to be a Democrat in order to monopolize all the resources for his own purposes. He got mostly everything he wanted from the 2010 Congress. Not everything WE wanted, but everything HE wanted, and he doesn't give a damn about ordinary 99% Americans except for their campaign contributions.
0bama wants to make those Bush tax cuts permanent, because that's money in his pocket in several ways. 0bama wants to start a war with Iran for the same reasons. Regular voters had better recognize that (obviously) the Republican candidates are insane and un-electable. So we're stuck with Barack W. Cheney for the next four years. Our best strategy is to populate Congress and State & Local governments with ACTUAL Liberal Democrats (i.e., NOT Bob Kerrey).
Democrats are in a similar conundrum to that presently confounding the Republicans: the Presidency is already decided, so the best strategy is to OCCUPY Congress!
That was always the best strategy including in 2010. Too bad it wasn't implemented.