“Too many on our side refuse to accept a small win, hoping for a total restoration of constitutional order.” “You are blind”
The political turning point for the conservative movement seems to have been Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Democrats and the media launched an all out attack on President Bush personally and the Bush administration. The administration was unable to respond effectively politically, even to the outright lies and distortions. From that point on Bush seemed to give up and became a punching bag for the press and the Democrat Party. Neither he, nor the Republican leadership in Congress (Hastert & Frist) seemed to have any fight. As a result the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Hastert resigned to become a lobbyist, and Frist retired to go home. Boehner and McConnell took over as the GOP Congressional leaders and did nothing except maintain a low profile while currying favor with the Chamber of Commerce and K Street lobbyists. George W. Bush seemed to have zero initiative and became a punching bag for 2 years, setting up the Obama election and even larger Democrat majorities in Congress. McCain ran a pathetic campaign against Obama. There were no “small wins”, there wasn’t even an attempt to fight.
I disagree with your premise that “our side” is unwilling to compromise or accept “small wins”. The frustration of our side is with a Republican party that seems to have no core principles or willingness to fight for anything. The concern isn’t that the party will take “small wins”, the concern is today it capitulates totally to the leftist agenda. Since 2006 the Republican Party has been unsuccessful in countering any offensive by the Democrats and has failed to advance any item of the conservative agenda. They have had the Constitutional power of the purse since 2010 and have yet to use it to reign in spending or defund any government program. I for one would be happy to see them go to the wall on an issue and compromise. However, complete capitulation on every issue is not compromise. Witness the annual capitulations and humiliations over the budget battle when the Constitution gives the party controlling the House of Representatives the upper hand.
As to the left compromising on Kennedy instead of Ginsberg, Ginsberg took himself out when it was revealed he had smoked pot (i.e. committed an illegal act). At that point in our history there were still a sizable number of voters who considered commission of a crime to disqualify one from serving on the Supreme Court. Reagan and his advisors could have nominated a proven conservative jurist such as J. Harvie Wilkinson, but instead they chose to compromise by appointing a somewhat obscure federal judge from the most liberal court in the country. Choosing not to fight is not a “small win”. In the case of Kennedy’s appointment to the Supreme Court the huge victory of the left was keeping Robert Bork off the court and forcing Reagan to compromise on principle by selecting a nondescript judge without any strong judicial philosophy. Note that since the Bork fight over ideology, Republican presidents have been reduced to looking for obscure, moderate, non controversial judges to appoint to the court or position for the Supreme Court (remember the left taking down Miguel Estrada before he could be positioned for the SC). Recall also the Clarence Thomas fight where the left put Republicans on notice not to try putting conservatives on the under the cloak of a minority appointment. Thomas, while conservative, was no judicial heavyweight. As a result we get justices like Kennedy, Souter, and Roberts. Not to mention George Bush’s desire to appoint the intellectual and philosophical lightweight Harriet Miers to the Court. Would her appointment have been a “small win”?
Contrast to the Democrats when they took office under Clinton and Obama. Their appointments — Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotamayor are all hard core leftists who were put into office with the help of Republican leaders who were more than happy to compromise. The Democrats had big wins, not small wins with all of their appointments to the court. What was our “win” for the RINO Republicans supporting these nominations?
As to Obamacare, the decision not to implement single payer was not a “compromise” from the left. Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote and without any input from Congressional Republicans. It was a total victory for the left. They had the votes to pass single payer if they had wanted to pass single payer. The decision not to go for single payer was not a “small win” for Republicans, the GOP was a non factor due to its huge losses in the 2008 election. No, the decision to pass Obamacare instead of single payer was a calculated political move by the Democrats to move to socialized medicine in two steps, it had nothing to do with any “win” by the GOP. Actually the two step process allows the Democrats to continue attacking the GOP as fighting for the wealthy at the expense of the struggling middle class.
You accuse other conservatives of refusing to accept small wins. What is a small win? Perhaps you consider TPP to be a “small win”. Forgive me but when the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to win approval of a treaty, and a GOP Congress cedes that power by giving up its power to amend the agreement and agreeing passage requires only a 51% majority vote, I don’t consider that to be a “small win”. I consider it to be a big win for President Obama.
No the turning point was the Iraq war. It proved a disaster and incredibly unpopular. Along with the 2008 recession/depression, the Iraq war elected Obama and big Dem majorities in Congress. You could call Obamacare (and Gay Supreme Ct ruling) “saddam’s revenge”