So Bruce Bartlett rides again. He's the libertarian economist/thinker, very much estranged from the Bush administration, who's been arguing that, since (in his opinion) Republicans basically have zero chance to win the presidency in 2008, they should figure out who among the Democrats is least bad when it comes to conservative principles and policies, and more or less reconcile themselves to that candidate. Bartlett thinks Hillary's the one, going by that calculus. The other day in the LA Times, he was at it again, noting that conservatives recently have agreed a few times with Senator Clinton (on the wisdom of failing to take Barack Obama's advice concerning meeting with foreign leaders, for example) and suggesting the Right is finally taking Bartlett's advice. A quote: "I'm starting to see the makings of a rapprochement between Clinton and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."This could have important political implications. There are lots of different ways to fight a battle. At one extreme, one can fight to the death like a trapped rat; at the other, one can offer only token resistance. Not long ago, I thought most conservatives would have employed the trapped-rat option at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. But at least a few conservative opinion-makers are ratcheting downward their level of resistance. They are coming to terms with the growing likelihood that she will be our next president and concluding that maybe it is something they can live with."
Ugh. Where does one begin? Fundamentally, suffice it to say: this is not principled (note the emphasis) conservatism. Principled conservatives don't take as their most important data point the likelihood of winning the next election. You don't fight for your pinciples only when you're likely to win. You fight for them, period. Furthermore, yes, Hillary has said a few things with which the right can agree. So what? What about her views on taxes, on health care, on government regulation in general, the fact that given the antiwar nature of her base of support it's going to be almost impossible for her to mobilize support for an effective war on radical Islam? A few points of agreement don't negate the dozens of points of disagreement.
Bartlettian thinking held consistently over the years would have strangled one of the most crucial piece of development of American conservatism, the Goldwater campaign of 1964. After all, Goldwater that year was very much an underdog candidate, with little chance of actually winning. That was clear shortly to many observers very early on in the political year. Bruce Bartlett-type cogitations would have counseled Republicans then to ratchet down their opposition to LBJ and reconcile themselves to another Johnson term, and to heck with worrying about who gets the GOP nomination. Thank goodness the Goldwater movement rejected such thinking. We should, too.
