Being the Angry Party Will Keep GOP Out of Power

Bruce Bartlett, as always, is a fascinating read, and we should all be thankful for both his service and his clarity of thought.  He actually makes for a pretty good example of a modern day Mugwump, and thus he is an example of the sort of former Republican that we ought to want back in the fold.

I share one of his concerns, particularly about the party's greater level of partisanship, and the changing face of conservative media.  But understand; there is a perception among conservatives of a partisan edge to the Democrats' victories in 2006 and 2008 that we did not see in the '90s (even in Democratic years like 1998).  The way many conservatives see it, the way to win is not by emulating the no-drama strategy of the Obama campaign, but rather the hard-nosed, foul-mouthed Chicago tactics of Rahm Emanuel circa 2005 and 2006.  I don't share that view, and here's why: we can't count on the media cover that Democrats get.  We take maximum damage for our transgressions against taste and decorum.  They don't.  Still, I understand the other side, and I try to heed the words of Reagan: they accept our agenda, not the other way around, and if you're ever happy with everyone inside the party, then it's probably too small to win.

One of Bruce Bartlett's concerns I do not share, exactly, and that is over the Republican's new emphasis on defending Medicare.  I know that Medicare needs to be put on sounder fiscal footing, and that Medicare Part D did not do so, but I also know that there's a huge wave of baby boomers, a large number of whom were the core of Republican support throughout the 80's, who are going to need decent medical care, and lots of it.  One of the nice things about Republicanism is that we have continually put forward ideas for modernizing Medicare, even when they were utterly rejected: Newt Gingrich's far-too-soon plans in 1995, Medicare Advantage, Part D, and so forth.  One of the weaknesses of Democrats is that they have not.  I'm on the record in favor of ethical comparative effectiveness, but it's not the piggy-bank that will fund universal coverage; it's actually the very basis of how private insurance works, and it hasn't shown much promise at controlling overall premium costs as new and better medical technology comes online and the population ages.  Otherwise, the Democrats' ideas for fixing Medicare basically amount to paying less money for everything and to everyone because we're the government and we can.  That, to me, is a path towards some severe inequalities in the provision of needed care over the next thirty years or so.  Michael Steele's op-ed on the GOP's Seniors Health Care Bill of Rights wasn't perfect, but I think we need to lay down our marker on how a system that isn't going away will serve our once and future voters.

So I'm not an ex-Republican yet.  I decided never again to say "I'm a conservative, not a Republican!" on the morning of November 8, 2006, and I haven't looked back, so to a large extent Bruce Bartlett and I will have to agree to disagree.  But on reaching out to former Republicans and minorities who will be aided by our agenda? I think there's plenty of room for agreement.