perfidy

I've been having an interesting argument with Spoons over his quixotic effort to get conservatives to oppose Bush. (This has nothing to do with Gay Marriage day here at Perfidy, but I'm going to run with it anyway. Spoons is getting married, but to a girl. So he isn't qualified to speak on that issue.) He is of the position that it will not advance the conservative agenda to have Bush reelected and confirm in the collective mind of the GOP elite that pandering to the left (little opposition to gun control, prescription drug benefits, huge spending on liberal programs with no reform, etc.) is a successful election strategy. He says:

As conservatives, we can't do much about what kind of Democrats we'll get, because we're not going to vote for one. We can, however, do something about what kind of Republicans we get, by voting for good ones, and refusing to vote for bad ones. If we take the tack advocated by Kim (and, in fairness, the overwhelming majority of conservatives), and insist upon voting for any Republican, no regardless of whether he's conservative or not, then we give up any control over what kind of Republicans we get. Republican positions on domestic issues will then be decided by swing voters and soccer moms.

This is a valid point. And if I thought that there was any chance that voting against (or at least not for) Bush would result in the second coming of Reagan, I might sign up for his program. But as I said in the comments to his post,

I can see where you're coming from. And in all honesty, I would support your ideas more strongly except for the fact that no matter what kind of drubbing the GOP gets, it will always attempt to pander to the middle. Pandering only goes left in this country. Our only hope of getting the candidate you are dreaming of is for him to arrive as Reagan did - by fighting for a strong conservative policy based on a moral conception of politics. That candidate could rally support from the true-blue conservatives, the moderates and even people in the other party. But the GOP will never try, and never could, impose a strong conservative agenda on a mediocre candidate, president or congress. And they won't go looking either.

Politics is compromise, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. If we shoot every candidate who is half good, we will not be in a position to elect one that is good. The Republican party spent decades in the political wilderness until Reagan saved them. We can't count on having another Reagan everytime we need one. The Goldwater style political idealism that holds absolute positions on conservative issues is a ticket to irrelevancy and being locked out of high office. We need to win where we can, and as often as we can - even if the victories are partial, or not what we wanted.

The grassroots movement in the Republican party that resulted in the congressional victories back in 94 is an example of how the rank and file party members can pull the party to a more conservative viewpoint. This is the kind of thing that conservatives can do to influence the direction of the party. While we do not know yet whether Bush is serious, the outcry among conservatives over excessive spending seems to have had an effect on his policy. We can be sure that conservative outcry would have no effect whatsoever on a Kerry administration.

So while I share with Spoons the concerns with Bush's policies in many areas, I cannot abandon my support for the best deal we're going to get, conservativeness-wise. The proper course is to get the man who is closest to you in viewpoint into office, and then try to move him in the right direction.