Why “Shrink to Win” is a Good Strategy

WSJ’s Peggy Noonan claims “shrink to win” isn’t a good strategy. She’s referring to a statement by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Caroloina who said he’d rather have 30 good and reliable conservative senators than 60 unreliable Republicans. She goes on to say “Good luck stopping an agenda you call socialist with 30 hardy votes.”

But this is short-term thinking. Yes, if all you’re focusing on is the power of votes in the immediate future, then DeMint’s strategy makes no sense. But there is power in the government that doesn’t have to do with pure voting power, and there are potential benefits to a 30-member minority of “good and reliable conservative senators”.

The problem Democrats would have with only 30 Republican senators would be that there would be absolutely no doubt about who’s in power and who’s responsible. Nobody could say “The Republicans pushed that bill through” or “The Republicans kept us from passing bills that would have helped this problem.” Such excuses would fall flat, since the Democrats would have an obvious majority. As such, Democrats would either; 1) overreach, causing damage to their long-term prospects of staying in power as their policies fail, or 2) have to moderate their policies to produce success. In the first case, the Republican party benefits politically, theoretically leading to Republicans coming  back to power and the country being theoretically benefitted from such a resurgence, and in the second, the country benefits directly. Either way, the country wins.

This would not happen with a mixed group of Republican senators ranging from liberal to conservative because the same problem that caused the Republicans defeats in the last two elections would remain unsolved. That problem is lack of  a clear message, and lack of differentiation between Republican and Democrat policies. Democrats are defined by liberalism. Republicans have traditionally been defined by conservatism. But as Republicans have become more liberal, they have lost elections. Anyone who claims they are losing because of conservatism has it exactly backwards.

Claims of Reagan being inclusive with a “big tent” strategy are frequently in error. Reagan did not change his principles and policies to include liberalism. Reagan explained conservatism so that more people realized they agreed with him. He didn’t move towards liberals, he made liberals move towards him. That’s how he got so many people into the tent. If Republicans continue to try and be liberal in order to attract liberals, they will attract neither liberals nor conservatives. Conservatives will continued to be turned off, and the idea of liberals leaving the Democrat party for the Republican party without a change of heart is laughable.

A dedicated, conservative group of 30 senators would have the power to define a clear message. They would be able to change the perception of what a Republican and a conservative is. And their clear, unified voice would allow them to be seen as leaders, and lead the Republican party back to victory. It wouldn’t happen immediately, and much damage might be caused by liberal policies in the meantime, but trying to attract liberals by adopting liberal principles and policies will lead to success neither in the short nor long-term.