And how I hate repeating myself!

The problem is, when history repeats itself, and you've seen it before, what else can you do?

When I read about the third party threat by religious conservatives, I started a post titled "Good News for Hillary," but now I see (via Glenn Reynolds) that the Anchoress has done a truly first rate job:

Had Ross Perot not run in 1992 it is unlikely Bill Clinton would have been president. I suspect the Democrats would like nothing better than to see a third party of conservative Christians siphon just enough votes away from the GOP to do the same for Hillary.

We're already watching the Clintons re-run all their moves from the '92 playbook. Triangulation Kitty is again being served up to feed the masses, this time with Bill as the Hard Left Outside and Hillary as the Softer, Chewy and Yummy Center. We're already watching the press do what it can to bury any negative perspectives on the Clintons and their team.

I have an additional worry, though, and while I know I'm going over old ground, I think that the argument that the best shouldn't become the enemy of the good is largely lost on people who prefer having a Hillary Clinton presidency to a Giuliani presidency. This is not because they really prefer the former candidate to the latter; it's just that the dynamics involve their view of themselves.

And like it or not, Hillary is a lot less threatening to their view of themselves as Republicans and conservatives than is Giuliani.

This cannot be overstressed.

Glenn also links Slublog, who quotes from a New Jersey purist named Dan Sullivan:

"Who could possibly replace social conservatives as the GOP's grassroots?" asked Dan Sullivan, a northern New Jersey veteran of several campaigns. "Country club Republicans? Those people write checks and spend their free time riding horses. They;re not going to take off work and drive two days to volunteer on a Senate candidate's race like pro-lifers and homeschoolers did for Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania in 2004."

This generated the following comment at Ace:

Toomey lost because the fucktard RINOs in the RNC and Bush protected Specter and gave him a shitload of cash and support, Specter woulda lost had they not done that, and we'd have at least had a replacement for Santorum had we done that.

Note that Arlen Specter was the top vote-getter in Pennsylvania, out-performing either Bush or Kerry. That a Republican moderate can win in a Democratic state is newsworthy in itself, but that he'd get more votes than either presidential candidate in a highly-charged election like this -- well, in my opinion it puts ideologues in both parties on notice that the voters like moderately conservative candidates who can work with both sides.

Factor into this Arnold Schwarzenegger's huge popularity (65% in a heavily Democratic state) and I think it's obvious that the Republican Party is in a position where it could become the party of consensus.

I stress "could" because I know the ideologues in both parties will do their damnedest to stop this from happening. Consensus and ideology are like tar and water. Yet ordinary Americans love consensus and eschew ideology. Regardless of his positions on individual issues, Specter is seen as a symbol of both.

Anyway, as we all know, in 2006 Santorum actually ran to the right of Bush and (surprise!) lost his seat to a moderate Democrat. Why? Because he was perceived by the general voters as being too far to the right. Hmmm.... Now that I think about it, I predicted that Santorum would lose, and I don't think I ever took the opportunity to say "I told you so," so I think I should get a pass on repeating what I said then (because I'm only now saying "I told you so" for the first time):

Not that it really matters what I think, but if I were asked to perform a political autopsy in advance of the Republicans' death, I'd probably point out that the right wing in Pennsylvania is not especially strong to begin with. They tried like hell in the Toomey campaign, but they couldn't manage to unseat moderate Arlen Specter in the primary. Sure, they can be counted on to vote for Rick Santorum. But consider the bulk of the mainstream voters in the barely Republican Philadelphia suburbs. They voted against Toomey, and had to be asked nicely to reelect Arlen Specter, which they did along with the rest of the state -- which Bush lost. (While it could certainly be argued that Pennsylvania Republicans are a bunch of RINOs, how will that help Santorum win?)

In the two years since that election, Bush has been vilified relentlessly as a a stupid, far-right, religious warrior who talks to God before sending troops to their death, etc.

And now the strategy is to run against him from the right? In Pennsylvania?

Sorry, but the math just plain doesn't work.

(Unless the goal is to lose.)

What she has going for her, though, is that there are plenty of Republicans who would rather endure having a Democrat in office than endure Arlen Specter. They would also rather endure a President Hillary Clinton than a President Rudolph Giuliani.

Is this because they prefer Hillary and her wrong-almost-all-the-time policies to Giuliani's wrong-maybe-twenty-percent-of-the time policies? Hardly. The reason involves personal morale. Religious conservatives cannot stomach being led by a man who is against them on key issues. They cannot look themselves in the mirror each morning knowing that their values have been discarded by the man in the White House, who heads their own party, as they'd feel no sense of purpose, and would have nowhere to go.

Having Hillary as president, though, solves the problem of personal morale in the way that only having a great enemy (I hesitate to say "Satanic") can. She is seen as someone worth fighting, and by any standard, definitely is "the other." It is easier to organize and galvanize forces against her. With any luck, she'll even oblige by engaging in acts which could be construed as "persecution." With Hillary as president, there will be no question of who is the most against her. The more to the right someone is, the more anti-Hillary he becomes. The future of far right conservatism would be brighter than ever, with far right conservatives prouder than ever. With any luck, Giuliani could even be spun as the guy who "lost to Hillary" and over time, few will remember why he lost.

Thus, a third party candidacy has enormous appeal. Real conservatives have an opportunity to take a stand! For principle! As opposed to being betrayed by another RINO.

I hate to say it again, but I have to.

It is in their interest to have the party lose to Hillary.

Needless to say, it is also in Hillary's interest. So while religious conservatives rail, she's busy triangulating:

Many Democrats, including Senator Clinton, are doing their best to soften the edges of their support for abortion rights, emphasizing they favor policies that might reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

"Far better for the GOP to lose in 2008 than for pro-lifers to be marginalized from both parties. If Rudy gets the nomination, I will oppose him vociferously. I would want to see protesters with giant gruesome aborted baby photos crash the convention. I'd want the GOP version of Chicago in 1968."

It's easy to say "you'd think they'd learn."

It's also easy to forget that what they want is not so much to have their party win; it's to have their causes win. They'd rather be right to their causes than subordinate them to winning, though, and what better evidence could there be of that than mounting a third party challenge which they know is absolutely certain to lose?

Why, a third party campaign is so certain to lose that winning or losing isn't really the point, so much as overturning the chessboard.

Such a tactic may be many things, but chess "strategy" it is not.

The appeal is that while it can't win, it's nonetheless seen as more "dignified" than losing. (And as they know they will lose, it's a perfect cut-your-losses tactic. The fact that it's a tantrum will be excused, too. Much the way 1960s excesses are.)

I'd be tempted to call the strategy of overturning the chessboard childish, but that would be bad strategy.

What I'd propose instead (if I had any wind left in my sails) would be an alliance between libertarians and religious conservatives. The more they hate each other, the more it proves the beauty of the small government federalist approach that it is in both of their interests to favor.

(Unfortunately, right now that sounds like utopian thinking.)