Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Growth Curve   [Ramesh Ponnuru]

Michael Crowley argues (sub. req'd.) that the Club for Growth is hurting the Republican party by backing primary candidates who can't win the general election. The Club, which has ties to NR in the person of Dusty Rhodes, would presumably reply: So what? It doesn't exist to help the Republican party. But Crowley's argument also suggests that the Club sets back conservatism. And that is a harder case to make.

Even looking at the narrow partisan question, Crowley overestimates the damage that the Club has done. To run conservative primary candidates in moderate northeastern districts such as Marge Roukema's, he writes, would be to force the party to commit "political suicide." But wait. Isn't Roukema's New Jersey district currently represented by Scott Garrett, a Club favorite? Wasn't he the very candidate whose primary challenge to Roukema the Club backed? And doesn't his continued representation of the district—Garrett is in his second term—suggest that the Club's strategy wasn't so suicidal after all?

Nor was it counterproductive to run a primary campaign against Joe Schwarz. As Crowley himself notes, the Democrats are not likely to beat the Republican who ousted him, Tim Walberg.

This leaves Crowley with three examples of the Club's alleged tactical stupidity. The first two are its backing of Pat Toomey's primary challenge to Arlen Specter in 2004 and its backing of Steve Laffey's challenge to Lincoln Chafee this year. Toomey would clearly have had a harder time holding the seat than Specter. But how much does nominal control of the Senate really matter? A party with 218 seats in the House can, under the right circumstances, accomplish a lot more than a party with 217 seats. Having 51 seats in the Senate just isn't as important. And it isn't at all clear what Chafee would do if the party's "control" of the Senate depended on him. I think the Club made the right call both times.

I don't know much about the race in Idaho's first congressional district, which furnishes Crowley's third example. The Club's candidate, who won the primary, was Bill Sali. According to Crowley, Sali is widely viewed "as an insufferable jerk." Again, Crowley concedes that Sali is likely to win. It may be that a candidate with a more pleasant personality would be more effective in Congress. (Then again, there are counter-examples, such as Ways and Means chairman Bill Thomas.) But was an equally conservative nice guy available? If one wasn't, should the Club have settled for a nice guy who would vote worse? In Idaho? Based on the evidence provided, I'd say the Club made the right choice again.

(Incidentally, I haven't agreed with every choice the Club has made. In the last cycle, I thought it was foolish to back one of Dan Lungren's primary opponents in California, and said so; in this cycle, I thought it was foolish to back Kevin Calvey in the race to succeed Ernie Istook in Oklahoma. Primary voters evidently agreed with me both times.)

08/29 02:57 PMShare