A study in contrast

CAMERA ONE

October 9th, 2009:

Sarah Palin stands ready to stump for the Republican gubernatorial candidates running in the two most closely watched campaigns in the country this fall, but neither seems to want her help. ... "The governor offered her assistance with both races," said Palin adviser Meg Stapleton. "The ball is in their court." Neither GOP campaign wanted to discuss why they didn’t want Palin in the state ...

November 4th, 2009:

Republicans swept governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia on Tuesday, giving the GOP bragging rights by winning two key states that Barack Obama carried a year ago. ... The easy victory by Bob McDonnell in swing-state Virginia and the closer win by Chris Christie in Democratic-leaning New Jersey were a tonic for Republicans after stinging setbacks in 2008 and 2006.

CAMERA TWO

October 22nd, 2009:

Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on Thursday endorsed Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman over Dede Scozzafava, the Republican Party's choice, in the special election for New York’s 23rd congressional district.

November 4th, 2009:

Democrat ends 150-year Republican reign with victory over Conservative: The second special election in the Tri-Lakes area in less than a year has produced the first Democrat to represent a vast swath of northern New York since before the Civil War.

And that furious scribbling sound you hear in the background? That's just Democrats writing checks ... to SarahPAC.

NY-23: Buy the ticket, take the ride

Brief synopsis:

President Barack Obama appoints US Representative John McHugh (R-NY) to serve as Secretary of the Army, bringing on a special election in New York's 23rd district.

State legislator Dierdre Scozzafava and accountant Doug Hoffman seek the Republican Party's nomination. Scozzafava wins; Hoffman pouts, runs on the Conservative Party line. The GOP's "conservative" faction pouts, and defects, with him.

Hoffman's campaign quickly picks up enough steam to "spoil" a Republican victory, and looks set to just possibly actually win the seat for him. Scozzafava drops out of the race ... and endorses Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

And why not? Owens certainly isn't a Republican ... but he's not pretending to be one. Which makes him about 1000% more honest than Doug Hoffman, who called himself a Republican for exactly as long as it was convenient to his ambitions to do so, then jumped the GOP ship as soon as his ambitions and the Republican Party's ambitions dipped below 100% correlation.

In the alternative universe inhabited by Robert Stacy McCain, serving as a Republican state legislator and receiving the Republican Party's nomination for Congress makes one a "Republican in Name Only," while putting a torpedo into the GOP's chances of retaining a US House seat makes one a "real Republican."

This hallucination interpretation of reality makes sense to McCain because he conflates the Republican Party (a party of big government from its very beginning, the party which originated "progressivism" -- the party, in other words, of Dede Scozzafava) with a populist splinter school of "conservatism" that's been effectively homeless since it left the party of its upbringing (the Democratic Party) in the last half of the 20th century.

To everyone living in the real world, on the other hand, it only makes sense that the establishment Republican candidate would, having been forced out of the race, endorse the other establishment party's candidate, not the candidate who destroyed her candidacy and broke her party's hold on the district.

As always, the good news remains that there is no good news for the Republican Party in all this. If Hoffman wins, the GOP is on the Peckerwood Populist leash for the next few years and loses, loses, loses. If Owens wins, the GOP loses a seat and goes to war with itself and loses, loses, loses. Either way, third parties in general gain. Gotta love it.

NY-23: Scozzafava concedes

Now things get really interesting.

For the next four days, at any rate, the GOP's "conservative"^* faction has broken the Republican Party to its leash (and they're whooping it up, too, you betcha).

After that ... well, that kind of depends on what happens Tuesday.

If Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman wins the election, the "conservatives" will likely exercise de facto control of the GOP at least through 2012. That probably means four more years for Barack Obama, but the Republican establishment can't afford to leave an opening for additional "third party" outbreaks unless it wants to become a "third party" itself. Being the minority opposition party in a two-party system beats complete disintegration. Of course, closing off a "conservative" exodus to a third party may well amount to hanging up a "don't let the door hit you in the ass" sign for other types of Republicans (libertarian-leaning ones, for example).

If Democrat Bill Owens wins, on the other hand, the situation will get a lot more fluid. GOP establishment types will have plenty of ammo for a sort of drawn-out Night of the Long Knives versus the ringleaders of the "conservative" defection, and all-out war for control of the Republican Party is a distinct possibility. Which, again, probably means four more years for Barack Obama and definitely enhances the prospect of one or more third parties tearing big, bloody chunks out of the GOP's rotting carcass.

There's just no good outcome in this for the GOP. If you hear music in the background, that's the fat lady and the world's smallest violinist tuning up for the Big Shew. Good stuff, Maynard!

-----
*: I've started putting scare quotes around "conservative" in the context of the NY-23 race because it's not evident that the ... zeitgeist, for lack of a better word ... of the movement driving the Hoffman candidacy is responsive to that term as normally used (i.e. Goldwaterite, Buckleyite, Reaganite, etc.). "Right-wing populism" /= "conservatism."

Pawlenty punts

This, I admit, is surprising.Via Red State, hat tip to The Other McCain:

We cannot send more politicians to Washington who wear the Republican jersey on the campaign trail, but then vote like Democrats in Congress on issues like card check and taxes. After reviewing the candidates’ positions, I’m endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York’s special election. Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections.

I didn't think Pawlenty had the stones to risk his modest "moderate/establishment" support base with such an obvious pander to his party's Flying Monkey Caucus, at least this early in the game.

What's his angle here?

Is he trying to stake out some new territory for himself between Romney and Palin -- more willing to buck the establishment than Mitt, but not quite so ... impulsive ... as Sarah? I'm not sure how he thinks that will help him.

Or perhaps he's hoping for a "heads I win, tails they lose" scenario versus Romney and Huckabee, neither of whom have endorsed Hoffman yet. If they do, he beat them to it. If they don't, they're wafflers and fence-sitters while he made the call and took a stand.

Or maybe both. Or maybe he just panicked and took a shot in the dark.

Whether or not he gains anything at all from this remains to be seen. What he's lost on it, though ... shhhhh ... hear that noise? It's the quiet shuffle of GOP establishment mandarins -- the smoke-filled room guys, the heavy fundraising hitters, the "my state for a seat on the Big Court" politicos -- tip-toeing away from Tim and toward Mitt. Or maybe even toward Newt.

Next questions

Question #1

Is Sarah Palin:

a) About to break the Republican Party to its conservative faction's leash; or

b) About about to just break the Republican party, period?

[Hat Tip -- The Other McCain]

Either outcome represents bad news for the GOP, but possibly good news for libertarians.

So hey, she turned out to still be useful for something after all.

Question #2

Why doesn't the Libertarian Party's web site mention Joe Kennedy, Libertarian for US Senate from Massachusetts?

He's running under the label "Liberty" rather than "Libertarian" on the ballot, but there's a good reason for that -- actually, 45,000 good reasons. Massachusetts has perverse ballot access laws that make it much more expensive ($60k versus $15k) for an "established party" candidate to get on the ballot. Kennedy is a dues-paying member of the national LP, and is a board member of, and endorsed by, the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts.

It's not like there's a crowded nationwide field of US Senate candidates that LP News has to winnow down for lack of time and space to cover. This is a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy ... and Massachusetts is a state where Libertarian Senate candidates have done well in the past. Michael Cloud polled 16.7% in 2002 versus John Kerry. I'm pretty sure that's the standing LP record for best performance in a US Senate race.

Is LNC/LPHQ punishing Massachusetts for the refusal of favorite son George Phillies to sit, roll over and play dead on command from the Watergate? Inquiring minds want to know.

The possible up side to NY-23

In a previous post, I explained why there's no especially good reason for libertarians (or, especially, partisan Libertarians) to jump on Doug Hoffman's Conservative Party bandwagon in New York's 23rd US House District.

Just because Hoffman's not noticeably more libertarian than his GOP opponent, Dede Scozzafava (and in some ways noticeably less libertarian), though, that doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a Hoffman victory, or even a "spoiler" showing. We very well might -- and those benefits might be minor or major.

The "minor benefits" package looks something like this:

To the extent that the race represents a confrontation between the Republican Party's establishment on one hand and its conservative faction on the other, there will be fallout.

If the GOP folds -- plays the "we learned our lesson" card and starts catering to its conservative faction to an even greater degree than it has for the last 30 years (if that's even possible) -- the Libertarian Party stands to pick up some new supporters for whom this is the last straw. The GOP's libertarian faction isn't large, but it's probably larger than the existing LP. Despite its best efforts, the LP hasn't done well at recruiting from that faction ... but a GOP capitulation might change that as "libertarian Republicans" come to the realization that they're once again being ordered to remain quietly seated at the Kids' Table, while the New York temper tantrum has earned the conservatives yet another chair at the Big People's Table. An additional benefit might be that the LP gains third party cred/vote share versus the Constitution Party as CP members decide the GOP really has learned its lesson and return to the Republican fold.

If the GOP decides instead to spank the conservatives and send them to their room without dinner, on the other hand, the "libertarian Republican" faction stands to make some moderate gains within the party. "Libertarian Republican" candidates may get support from the RNC and other party committees in next year's congressional primaries, with petulant conservatives denied that support.

The "major benefits" package is a lot less likely, but while we're dreaming, let's dream:

There's some chance, however, small, that if the GOP stands up to its conservative faction -- spanks it and sends it to its room without dinner, as I put it -- the little bastards will crawl out the window and run away in large numbers. To the Conservative Party in New York, probably; to other conservative third parties (the Constitution Party, Alan Keyes's startup, etc.) elsewhere, or perhaps the Conservative Party itself will go national.

If that happens, the fallout won't all be good. As a matter of fact, it may well be cataclysmic. A substantial split in the GOP -- say, 20% of its support going off to one or more other parties -- means that the US will go, overnight, from de facto one-party state to something an awful lot like a de jure one-party state. Neither a rump GOP nor its defectors, even if unified, are going to be able to pull pluralities or majorities in very many congressional or state legislative districts, and that's assuming (it's never safe to assume) that some "mainstream" Republican pols won't respond to their party's disintegration by crossing the aisle to become Democrats.

If this thing goes all the way, head to head, mainstream GOP versus conservatives, we're looking at the Democrats very likely pulling up into the area of 70-75 seats in the US Senate and 300-350 seats in the US House of Representatives in 2010-2012. That's bad. In the short term, even the occasional gridlock that the two wings of the Uniparty sometimes get into would be much better.

BUT!

There's an up side, too: If the GOP splits in any substantial way, it becomes a "third party." Still a bigger "third party" than the Libertarian Party, but suddenly the playing field gets a lot more level for Libertarians in our attempts to become "the second party." The whole "Republicans are better than Libertarians because we can win" schtick goes flatter than day-old beer.

Winning that battle would be a long shot; and it's an even longer shot that we'll get the chance to fight it at all. If Hoffman wins next month, the GOP will almost certainly grovel and buy its conservative faction off with flattery and power; if he "spoils," which is the most likely outcome, it's 50/50 whether the GOP grovels or gets out the bullwhip, and either way the case against a split will be more persuasive to conservatives.

But hey, we can dream. The conservatives are pulling out all stops to bring this fight to a head of some kind -- The Other McCain reports that Dick Armey is now stumping for Hoffman. With Newt Gingrich on record in support of Scozzafava, at the very least this thing will probably have an impact on the 2012 GOP presidential field. If Hoffman wins and the GOP holds together, Mike Huckabee benefits; if Hoffman "spoils," Gingrich gets an "I told you so" opportunity. Romney and Palin seem to be staying away from the whole thing and I don't blame them.

Update: Eric Sundwall, former chair of the Libertarian Party of New York, has been good enough to weigh in with occasional comments, especially on New York related stuff. Be sure to check out his blog for more good stuff.

-----
Related Memeorandum topics:

Newt Gingrich on "practical choices"

David Frum on "Republican fratricide"

Libertarianism, conservatism and the number 23

The setup:

New York's 23rd US House District has a special election coming up next month, due to the appointment of US Representative John McHugh as Secretary of the Army.

The Republican nominee for the seat is state legislator Dierdre "Dede" Scozzafava (campaign site here). The Democrats have nominated Plattsburgh attorney Bill Owens (campaign site here).

The 23rd being a Republican-leaning district, that would seem to be that -- Scozzofava in a walk. But it's not quite that simple.

In New York, even in Republican-leaning areas, a Republican running for public office usually needs the nomination or endorsement of a third party -- the Conservative Party -- to assure victory. And the Conservative Party declined to get behind Scozzafava, instead nominating Doug Hoffman, a Lake Placid accountant (campaign site here).

The situation:

Hoffman is polling well, and seems to enjoy substantial support from the "conservative" wing of the Republican Party versus "GOP Establishment" nominee Scozzafava. Whether or not he has the juice to win is debatable, but he almost certainly has the ability to cost Scozzafava the race and turn the seat Democrat.

So ... why should any of this be of interest to a libertarian, especially a partisan Libertarian? Two reasons:

- First, it sets up an interesting argument about whether or not conservatives and libertarians are allies, even within the confines of the GOP.

Conservatives are backing Conservative Party candidate Hoffman versus Republican Party candidate Scozzafava, but as Eric Dondero at Libertarian Republican points out, they weren't willing to back Libertarian Party candidate Bob Smithers versus Republican write-in candidate Shelley Sekula-Gibbs in Texas back in 2006.

To put as fine a point as possible on it, conservatives have proven over and over that they'll pout and turn a seat over to the Democrats rather than back a partisan Libertarian; and that they'll pout, bolt to a third party, and turn a seat over to the Democrats rather than back a partisan Republican who leans libertarian.

Is that how allies treat each other?

- Second, it highlights the tendency of conservatives to piss down libertarians' backs and try to tell us it's raining. At least some conservatives are trying to sell Hoffman as the more libertarian choice versus Scozzafava. One of them, Robert Stacy McCain, even plays the "all together against the deluge" card:

Right now there is a battle being waged in upstate New York that may, to some important extent, determine the future of this nation. ... There is too much important work to be done now for anyone who is a genuine friend of liberty to be engaged in intramural score-settling.

By which he means "support Hoffman."

But who's engaging in "intramural score-settling" here? Conservatives are revolting against the GOP Establishment, but if the race in New York's 23rd district is any indication, that revolt is not liberty-centered.

I wouldn't call Scozzafava a "libertarian Republican," but then again I'm hard put to think of anyone I'd so designate. All indications, however are that she's more libertarian, in significant respects, than Hoffman.

Hoffman's trump card -- played on the entrance page to his campaign site and appearing at the top of his list of issues links -- is that he supports the maintenance of marriage apartheid while Scozzafava voted twice for marriage freedom.

On spending issues, Scozzafava has a legislative record of actually voting against bloated state budgets. Hoffman's weak rejoinder (he has no legislative record to consult) is that he'll go after pork/earmarks ... which constitute an infinitesimal portion of the federal budget.

On taxes, Scozzafava openly favors making the Bush tax cuts permanent, getting rid of the death tax once and for all, and fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax to permanently stop its downward climb on the income ladder. Hoffman has signed a pledge not to increase taxes, but his actual proposals are bromides about flat taxes, etc. ... and he even hedges his no-increase pledge: "Before we even consider raising taxes we must first bring spending under control."

They've both got strong 2nd Amendment statements on their campaign web sites. They differ on abortion (Hoffman pro-life, Scozzafava pro-choice), but so do libertarians, based on our individual assessments of questions of fact (e.g. when personhood inheres, and therefore rights become operant, in an unborn child).

I'm not trying to put Hoffman down here -- he does have redeeming, pro-freedom qualities, including apparently not being a Know-Nothing on immigration ("There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States -- and to work here -- while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.") -- but I'm just not seeing how anyone could sell him as The Great White Libertarian Hope to Scozzafava's Evil Socialist RINO, which is what some conservatives are apparently trying to do.

"Small-l libertarians" don't really seem to have an obvious horse in this race. Based on campaign web site statements, I'd rate Scozzafava as slightly preferable to Hoffman, though.

Conservatives want libertarians as allies in their revolts against the GOP Establishment, but they decline to ally themselves with libertarians against that same Establishment when there's a real L/libertarian in the race. The "coalition" they propose runs one way: Libertarians are to support besieged conservatives, but conservatives must never be called upon to reciprocate.

Meh ... I don't friggin' think so. The burden of proof, at this point, is very much on the conservatives to prove they're serious about a "coalition." Being the enemy of my enemy isn't enough, especially when you've proven over and over again that you'll switch sides most ricky-tick when it's my ox, rather than yours, that's being gored.