Meet Winfield Scott
I've sung this tune before, but the time is right to bang the drum again. Let me tell you a story...
There once was a political party that was fighting the Democrats over a series of issues. But the Democrats played the political game better, and kept insisting on compromises that favored their positions. Trying to get along and seem "bipartisan", the political party agreed to these compromises time and again, to the point that eventually their leadership, including the incumbent President, decided to give in and support the Democratic position on these issues altogether. Left without a platform to run on, the political party nominated a war hero to be their presidential candidate, hoping his popularity and personal integrity would be enough to win.
I know this all sounds familiar, but of course since the primaries aren't over, I'm not talking about today.
The political party was the Whig Party, not the Republicans.
They were arguing over states' rights, nullification, and slavery, not immigration, campaign finance, global warming and stem cell research.
The incumbent President was Millard Fillmore, not George W. Bush.
The war hero was Winfield Scott. He lost in a landslide.
And so will John McCain, I predict, if he gets the nomination - which seems all but certain at this point.
Following the election of 1852, without a platform significantly different from the Democrats, the Whig Party fell apart. Some of its members joined the Democrats, others formed a new party with a platform opposing the Democrats on the issues the Whigs compromised over, especially slavery. Thus was the Republican Party born, and the political rise of The Black Republican began. And to such an end as the Whigs experienced I expect the Republicans to come to in the coming years.
UPDATE: Hugh mentions the W-word himself, though more as a warning than pronouncing a doom.
But like any good prognosticator, I'll hedge somewhat.
The Republicans of today have one great advantage over the Whig precedent, and that advantage might prove my prediction wrong. Unlike Winfield Scott, who opposed slavery despite the Whig platform supporting it, John McCain supports the major issue of the war in Iraq. And despite intense pressure, the Republicans never quite got around to adopting the cut-and-run strategy of the Democrats. Although McCain has compromised over the "torture" debate, he is seen as strong on our overall war against Islamic terrorists, while Democrats generally try to deny that there's even a war on. If enough people think McCain's positions on these military and security issues is better than the Democratic alternative, and if he picks up more moderate and independent voters than he loses from disgruntled conservatives sitting out the election, he could pull out a slim victory.
But at this point, it looks like I'll be one of those disgruntled conservatives sitting out the election.
I compromised for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the fact that he did not veto McCain-Feingold, and despite him adopting global warming rhetoric. At the time, I thought "immigration reform" was possible without amnesty. And I've always thought the stem-cell compromise he decided on - while not perfect and still inhumane - was the best we could hope for without causing a huge fight we couldn't win. Moreover, on each of these issues, I believe the President was doing what he thought was right, and only on immigration reform do I question his motives.
John McCain has been a leader in opposition to my position in all these issues but stem-cell research, and there he has waffled, avoided discussion, and dissembled. I think everything he does is driven by ego, and I most certainly question his motives. I do not think I will be able to sacrifice my principles enough to pull the lever for McCain, only to see his support for the troops undermined by his plans to give terrorists open borders and Constitutional rights, which they can in turn use to escape justice and harm American civilians inside the the United States. If we are going to neuter the sacrifice of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, by allowing the enemy to avoid the fight overseas and evade capture here, we might as well take the Democratic approach and bring them home to die along with the rest of us.
And for that, we could just as well elect the real Democrat. The Hobson's Choice from here to the Republican convention will turn into Catch-22 in November, and I'd just as soon take the part my namesake took when he left the Whig party. If it's good enough for Abraham Lincoln, it's good enough for me.
Comments
How well and eloquently you have framed the issues. It really does appear to be a dark day for America, but who knows? It's not over yet. Perhaps Romney can still pull it out, or, as some have suggested, a brokered convention will end up in the selection of Fred Thompson for President.
I concur with your analysis of McCain, however. He can't win a general election because his only point of opposition with the Democrats is the war, and that is winding down. In everything else he is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and, as you say, why buy the knockoff when you can have the real thing?
Posted by: Antimedia | January 30, 2008 01:56 PM