Replies

This is very shrewd analysis on your part. The Republicans did try a fairly conservative strategy in 1970 but failed miserably overall despite the election of Jim Buckley to the Senate from NY. It amazes me how staunch Republicans think that the way to win is not "to rock the boat" but to "go along to get along." That fails every time as you said. I believe that GW Bush will until the end of his political career always be trying the failed approach to "go along to get along." He can't see the whole country because he is blinded by public opinion polls. The polls are one of the worst things to happen to American election strategy. This talk of "retaking" the Senate is sheer fantasy. Even when the Republicans had 50-50, with Cheney breaking the tie, not much positive was happening in the Senate. Notice how few "profiles in courage" once can find in the Senate today. Even Jesse has "gone soft" at the end of his 30 years. And Phil Gramm is going out, having conducted some kind of senseless quarrel with Jan Scruggs, founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

1970 could be a counterexample. As to the weakening of once fire-breathing conservatives such as Helms, seniority has to take some of the blame (the old guys usually sell out) though terms limits would not produce miracles. Look at the term-limited California legislature!

Another possible solution (not for the Senate but the House) would be to inject fresh blood by dramatically increasing the size of the House to reflect the population ratios laid out in the Constitution. In any case, at a time when even many "extreme" conservatives on FR seem to have completely forgotten free market arguments on issues such as the minimum wage and housing subsidies, the short-term prospects for small-government policies (even with a comfortable GOP majority in the Senate) are pretty dismal.