Redstate

By Martin A. Knight Posted in Archived | Elections | pxawd | pxowd | self-fulfilling prophecies — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I have never been well disposed (to say the least) towards "X!, only X!, and X alone! can win ...! Pick X! or we're dooooomed ...!" as an argument in favor of X being the GOP nominee. In fact, to be honest, it p*$$@s me off no end. I generally don't particularly care who "X" happens to be ... well, I'd like to say that I don't care who X happens to be, but I'll confess that I am somewhat more hostile towards those who make this argument where "X" just happens to be one particular crackpot of a Congressman from Texas.

That said, and to be honest, it is not just moRons that are guilty of this; McCainiacs, Fredheads, Romneybots, Hucksters and Rudybots have all posted up diaries and written comments here that can be distilled down to just to "Pick X! or we're dooooomed!" (or PXOWD for short). Personally, the notion that the failure of a candidate to convince Republicans to give him/her their votes for the nomination means certain failure in November for the person who actually was able to accomplish that feat strikes me as ... well, dumb. Mostly because, barring very unusual circumstances (e.g. the 1991 Louisiana Governor's race), this is hardly ever true.

Y'all may call me a crazy idealist, but I always default to the position that the guy (or gal) who wins a GOP primary (especially at the state and national level), given the right campaign strategy (especially with respect to a heavily Left-oriented Fourth Estate) and execution is capable of winning against any Democrat in all but a few districts, and in every single one of the states. Yes - California, Rhode Island and New York can be turned Red. By a down-the-line conservative Republican even; I don't believe there's any state where the combination of a united Republican base and a decent majority of the center cannot win elections.

Now, of course, this is not to say that out of candidates X and Y, one (let's say Y) would not face more obstacles in cobbling together that winning coalition than the other - even if he is more likely to win the nomination. Either way, PXOWD arguments, especially when adopted by the Party establishment, don't help. Winning the center (i.e. "moderates" and Independents") is not about positions, it's about memes, marketing, presentation, and (at its most basic) winning the most newscycles; that the eventual winner may come out battered and bruised by the apparatus of his own side doesn't help.

I am as yet to see an ultimately positive result from a party adopting PXOWD and acting on it. Instead of focusing on how to market whoever the eventual candidate turns out to be, money and other resources are flushed down the toilet attacking all candidates who are not X. The problem that arises when X fails to win the nomination is obvious ... and so is the problem that arises if X actually does win the nomination on the strength of the party establishment bashing his opponent(s).

What makes PXOWD even worse though, at least from my perspective as a guy who is a Republican because he is a conservative, is that it is far more often than not, in the past decade at least, deployed in favor of an X who is a "moderate." It's a common enough refrain; a conservative cannot win in State A, so we must pick "moderate" X, or we're dooooomed!

Here's the problem with that; for the past few years, I've read hundreds of articles on conservative sites stating, as a matter of fact, that this or that demographic or electorate is "trending Democratic". Hispanics, Asians, bachelors' degree holders, the suburbs, NY-26, CA-50, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, etc. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen a group, state or district being reported in the past decade as "trending Republican." Even in the aftermath of 2004 where the story was that Bush expanded his vote numbers in every state and demographic - remember that it was in that same election that we lost our majorities in the nation's state legislative seats.

Now I wouldn't claim to know exactly why it is we seem to be losing home ground hand over fist, (thank the Almighty for the "exurbs") but I'd bet that the regular backing of a "moderate" X by party establishments because we must PXOWD! doesn't help. Couple that with the regular deployment of the "extremist", "far right", "divisive" and "too conservative" labels being thrown against conservatives by their "moderate" fellow Republicans during primaries and it's no wonder. It might win us an election here and there in the short term, but in the long term, it only serves to drive conservatism out of the political mainstream and render traditional, and ultimately even "moderate" Republicans, unacceptable to electorates from the get-go.

Which leads me to PXOWD's partner in crime; PXAWD - "Pick X! and we're dooooomed!." I consider it worse, by far, than PXOWD because X could very well be the candidate most likely to win the general election. In fact, X could end up being every Republican's dreams come true. So PXOWD may indeed have some redeeming qualities if it is in service of the right candidate. One can't say the same about PXAWD - it is no more than pre-conceding victory to the other side without having yet crossed swords in the event X happens to win the nomination. It was the same argument used in 1966 against Reagan in the Republican Gubernatorial Primary by (George) Christopher and his supporters. It is the same argument being heavily deployed against one of the men running for our party's nomination right now.

The truth is that what the "Pick X! and we're dooooomed!" argument actually does is provide the set up for a self-fulfilling prophecy. As per Robert Merton (hat tip to Wikipedia);

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.

Saying that this guy, X, or whoever he is, is guaranteed to lose, no matter what is something like an act of sabotage. If enough people say it, and say it often enough, it soon becomes part of conventional wisdom. Donors who would have sent money to X's campaign would refrain because it would be throwing money at a losing cause. After all, "everyone" knows he's destined to fail. Traditional activists and potential volunteers would find better things to do than to organize to help out a foredoomed candidate. "Moderates" would see it in the newspapers and as usual vote for the guy who appears inevitable thanks to the sure "loss" that would be suffered by X.

When election day rolls around and X loses, the very same people who repeated the PXAWD conventional wisdom would be congratulating themselves on their foresight, and not acknowledging at all what role they played in making it true.

PXOWD and PXAWD arguments have made numerous appearances on Redstate over the course of the Primaries in favor or in opposition one candidate or another. I don't think they serve any ultimately useful purpose. Even if the candidate is a conservative in a Blue state or district, and yet he still wins the nomination, his ability to run a credible race and even if he loses, provide a foundation upon which succeeding candidates for that office may run is more often than not damaged - and don't doubt that a loss today may be the seed of a victory two cycles forward.

I'm an idealist at heart; I think we (Redstaters at least) should always start with the assumption that all our candidates (in whatever race) are electable and then put our focus on weeding out those that don't match us in principle or policy. PXOWD and PXAWD, either before or after the primary, don't help in that.