We've heard this story before, but I wanted to write about it considering Michael Steele's recent remarks. It has become fashionable for Republicans to follow the Rush/Gingrich model and hope that steadfast opposition will somehow bring them back into power (see Cantor, Eric). Often deputized into this argument, at least among some conservatives, is the example of the Democratic Party's resurgence. The Democrats didn't moderate--in fact, they moved further left, the argument goes, so why should Republicans?
First off, I recall the party line after the 2006 elections being that the Democratic Party's return to power was actually a victory for conservatism, and that it was the result of Republicans being too wasteful. The latter was the McCain campaign's line. But the former doesn't compute--empowering the center-left party is a victory for the right? The argument was that most of the Democrats who won were conservative Democrats. Of course, this is silly on its face, since there's a world of difference between a conservative Democrat and a conservative Republican. See this chart if you don't agree. But it is a relief to know that the class of 2006 was actually a victory for fire-breathing liberals like Heath Shuler and Bob Casey.
The examples of Shuler and Casey are actually very constructive. After 2004 the Democrats chose three major issues upon which to campaign: corruption, the war, and the economy. The latter involved a shift to the left, but the former involved no shift and Iraq war opposition, while anti-Bush, isn't particularly liberal, as Daniel Larison can attest. So, ultimately not a huge leftward shift. On the contrary, the Democrats moderated significantly on culture war issues like abortion, as Casey and Shuler can attest. Shuler might be excused because nobody more liberal than him could have won his district, but Casey cannot, as a more credentialed social progressive could easily have won a race against Rick "Santorum" Santorum. But selecting him, and people like him, was a signal that social issues were out, and the economy and the war were in as the major Democratic issues. This was a very wise decision in retrospect, as culture war tropes were soon to get tired as the economy tanked, and Democrats' focus on the economy paid dividends.
Ah ah, some of our conservative-minded friends might say, that doesn't count as moderation. The Democratic Party is still pro-choice! Yes, it is, but backing candidates who buck the party line is an act of moderation, because in doing so you are changing the composition of your party. Backing Bob Caseys and Jim Langevins (of course, Langevin chose not to run) sends a signal, but it also means that people on the opposite side of the culture war are represented in your camp, which gives you a reason not to pursue it so singlemindedly. Indeed, were it not for the Caseys and Langevins of the world--in other words, were this still Bill Clinton's Democratic Party--the Freedom of Choice Act would have already come up for a vote in Congress. And, ultimately, that it hasn't is frankly good news from a political standpoint. At this point, it would serve only to antagonize pro-lifers, many of which have been welcomed into the Democratic fold. In my mind, this process counts as moderation.
So hopefully this answers the notion that moderation isn't required. Indeed it is. Sure, the Democrats had to modulate their pitch to the public--which meant less "Get your laws off my body!" and more "Americans are being left behind by globalization." People responded more to that message. However, in order to be successful, Republicans need to find a pitch that can get them 50+1 percent, one which addresses peoples' anxieties and sets up the GOP for the cure. Naturally, this will involve moderating on some issues and sharpening on others. I don't know what that will wind up looking like, but I am almost positive on one thing: the next Republican president will be Democrat-lite on economic issues. Especially if Obama manages to turn the economy around.
