Playing To Lose

With all due respect to Charlie Cook, his latest column for National Journal is an interesting read, but even he acknowledges at the end that it is pure nonsense. It is not the way politics is played in this country.

But this brings us back to the original point. Should Republicans want to win? If Democrats win the presidency and hold onto the House and Senate, how long will it be before they self-destruct?

Democrats had majorities in the House and Senate when Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, and it took the party only two years to lose majorities in both. For Republicans, they already had control of the House and Senate when George W. Bush won in 2000. It took six years before they self-destructed, losing majorities in both chambers.

Lord Acton is famous for his line that "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is debatable how much is corruption, how much is arrogance and overreaching, and how much is sloth or growing out of touch, but the result is the same. Whether it is Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals, too much unchecked power is an inevitable problem.

A different way of approaching it is that every decade or two, a party has to destroy itself and be reborn. Like forests need fire to begin the regeneration process, from time to time, parties need the dead wood cleared out and space made for new growth to emerge. But to rise like a phoenix, you have to get down to ashes first.

I would argue that the Democrats didn't really reinvent themselves after their 1992 defeat. I'd say they more or less hunkered down and waited. But they still contested - hard - every election. Cook admits as much at the end of his column. It's actually more of a thought experiment than a real proposal. Still, he has a real point. The Republicans let their core values, forged under a truly unique, powerful leader, Ronald Reagan, bleed away while they were in power. The Democrats, of course, did the same after their once-in-a-lifetime leader, Franklin Roosevelt, passed from the scene.

IOC May Halt Torch Relay

In the wake of protests in Britain and France, the International Olympic Comittee is considering canceling the Olympic torch relay completely.

BEIJING - The IOC will consider ending the international leg of the Beijing Olympic torch relay as a result of the anti-Chinese protests.

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge says the issue will be discussed by the organization's executive board on Friday.

The Frrech had to cancel the final leg of the relay due to the extreme protests. If the San Francisco leg of the relay on Wednesday degenerates into the same mess, my guess is that the IOC will halt it at their meeting. The early signs are that the San Francisco one will be even worse.

SAN FRANCISCO - Three people protesting China's human rights record and the impending arrival of the Olympic torch climbed up the Golden Gate Bridge on Monday and tied the Tibetan flag and two banners to its cables.

The banners read "One World One Dream. Free Tibet" and "Free Tibet 08."

The protesters wore helmets and harnesses as they made their way up the cables running next to the south tower of the famed span. The climb had the group suspended about 150 feet above traffic.

Reached by cell phone as he dangled from the bridge, demonstrator Laurel Sutherlin said he was worried that the torch's planned route through Tibet would lead to more arrests and Chinese officials would use force to stifle dissent.

I do not, in any way, believe that China has any right whatsoever to be in Tibet. But the fact is that this kind of destructive protest will probably make things worse rather than better. The Chinese government and people are going to feel nothing but bitterness and anger over this and are going to be less likely to negotiate, not more.