Forsyth's foresight

I guess it had to happen sometime: the New Republic has a standard contrarian piece up on why losing the 2006 midterms would be good for the Democrats. The piece is web-only and - at 1,000 words - only slightly longer than a newspaper column, so maybe (if the Democrats do lose the midterms) the good people of TNR will finally realize these articles are silly in time for the 2008 election.

The article is called "The case for losing. Long term-investment." and here's how the author, David Forsyth, puts it:

Consider that the GOP has three potential candidates for 2008--Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Condoleezza Rice--with 50-percent-plus approval ratings from Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike. The Democrats have none. An opponent with these kinds of numbers would be more or less impossible to defeat. But if Republicans maintain their majorities, it becomes far more likely that Democrats will not have to face one of these candidates--or if they do, that the GOP candidate's moderate credentials, and hence his or her crossover appeal, will have been severely damaged before the general election.

Having the GOP run Congress will be bad for Giuliani, McCain and Rice because when the theocratic branch of the Republican Party retains control of Congress this will greatly harm the country the primary runs of Giuliani, McCain and Rice. They will have to contend with hardline competitors. The Democratic nominee will then face either one of these hardliners who will go all homohating Terri Schiavo on us and Republican voters don't really want that (they want someone who kills A-rabs), or said Democratic nominee will face Giuliani, McCain or Rice but the popularity of Giuliani, McCain or Rice will have been fatally undermined by the tarring and scathing of a gruesome primary season.

The question before us: this is bullshit in how many ways exactly?

But first let me note that there are normally two arguments on why losing might be a good idea. The first is that the next election is more important and losing this one helps you win that one. The second is that losing the next election will help you win several afterwards: circumstances (war, economy, corruption) are expected to deteriorate forcing the winner of the coming election to take all sorts of unpopular actions that will make the winning party so unpopular it will win once but then lose and lose and lose.

"Let them clean up their own mess", is, I believe, the correct phrasing of this argument. It rests on the premise that the GOP is both willing and able to clean up its mess. Not even the New Republic is dumb enough or contrarian enough to put that argument forward.

Now, let me count the ways in which this silly article is special (as in: licks the windows of the special schoolbus that takes it to the special school):

1. The Democrats have no well known potential candidates with crossover appeal. That's mainly because there are no well known Democrats who have declared they'll run. But I am pretty confident that some Democrat will get to run in 2008. People will get to know who he or she is because, as I recall, Presidential candidates tend to get a lot of press attention. Wether the candidate will have crossover appeal depends mostly on whatever silly meme the press and the talking heads choses to stick to in describing the candidate's "character". The Daily Howler will never go out of business. I am guessing that James Forsyth is on the Joe Klein-side of the Klein-Krugman divide in punditry, blithely unaware that he's causing the problem by pointing at it. Calling someone (even an as yet unknown someone) unappealing will make that person less appealing.
2. The Republicans have several widely popular potential candidates. Sure. But the Democrats will only have to run against one of them at the most. Besides, these candidates have one thing going against them: they're Republicans. If Democrats win the House and the power to subpoena that comes with it, the Republicans will no longer be able to lie with impunity, while all the Republican scandals of the last 5 years will be rehashed. If the Democrats win in 2006, the Republican brand will be tarred in 2008.
   
3. The Democrats need Republican infighting to win 2008. Maybe. But who says there won't be Republican infighting (or a fundie Christian candidate) if the Democrats win in 2006? Who says there will be infighting if the Democrats lose? Who says that the presence or absence of Republican infighting during the primaries will be of any importance at the actual election in November, 2008? Bush smeared McCain in 2000 and that didn't seem to matter. Well, it's James Forsyth and his amazing crystal ball, of course!
   

Forsyth's argument is, in essence, that it takes a theocrat Republican to sink low enough to start a whisper campaign that Rice is carrying McCain's lovechild. He may very well be right about that, but as the past 200 or so years have amply proven, there are other ways to win American elections. Forsyth also ignores the obvious fact that after a 2006 Democratic victory (to paraphrase Kermit) it won't be easy being red.

And who exactly are these very popular Republican candidates? Can they win both the primaries and the general election? Forsyth thinks that if the Republicans lose in 2006 the Christian fundamentalist base of the Republican Party might cut Giuliani some slack for being socially liberal. He also thinks that the Confederate base of the Republican Party might cut Rice some slack for being black. And he thinks that Democrats and independents might cut McCain some slack for being a far right conservative but still managing to spinelessly sell out to Jerry Falwell, George Bush and the Bush tax cuts. He's living in lala-land.

To prove my point (about lala-land), here's what Forsyth writes about Condoleeza Rice:

There is no doubt, though, that Rice would be a formidable presidential candidate. The only scenario under which one can imagine her getting into the race is if the GOP appears to be in crisis and she is drafted as the electoral savior.

The most likely crisis, in my view, is a collapse of the Middle East right on top of the US army. Rice was instrumental in the clusterfuck that is US foreign policy under Cheney. She has lied and obfuscated with the worst of them ("historic document", anyone?). To describe her as a formidable presidential candidate is an insult to candidates everywhere.

James Forsyth knows all this, it's his job: he's assistant-editor at Foreign Policy for Christ's sake.

UDATE:
Great minds explode alike. Over at the Prospect,Ben Adler uses the words "silly", "inane", "infuriating" and "perverse".