If republicans refuse to approve tax increases, does Obama win?

the first step in understanding were we are now is an ugly truth that does not get much discussed:

Republicans in congress got themselves into this mess by turning down a budget deal with Obama that was far better than anything they could of dreamed of achieving a decade before, and instead opting for a go-for-broke strategy that required they take the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2012.

And it was the most conservative wing of the party that imposed this policy.

This is an Monday morning quarterbacking. I wrote about this possibility extensively on free Republic and other conservative venues at the time.

Back them I didn't say the strategy couldn't work, as no one could know how the election would play out (including the people certain of victory).

What I did point out what I believed to be the obvious at the time: that it was a high risk strategy with enormous opportunity costs, because if it didn't work the "best had become the enemy of the good", and the conservative movement had thrown away both the chance for real deficit reduction on terms very favorable to conservative principles and the ability to influence the shape of "Health Care Reform" in negotiations with a president who was desperate to achieve some level of bipartisan support.

For example, IMO conservatives could have forced the inclusion of strong tort reform measures and far greater flexibility on state regulations of the exchanges. (And remember, the exchanges and mandated coverage were both originally conservative prescriptions to encourage personal responsibility and prevent "free riding" on the backs of taxpayers and payers of health insurance premiums were are providing free care to the uninsured. For example states would've had the ability to set up something more like the Utah plan).

Instead, conservatives in Congress elected a program of pure opposition, and the terms for establishing the exchanges are now going to be largely dictated by the federal government, and states will be forced to set up at least one not-for-profit, noncommercial plan.

And while I thoroughly understand the desire of some conservatives not to appear to support any plan of which they don't approve, in this case doing nothing in fact amounts to doing something, and that something has been to give liberals and the Democratic Party's an enormous policy win.

Because conservatives should not kid themselves: the exchanges are eventually going to prove extremely popular, and once voters - including a lot of "conservative" voters - discover that for example they can now start a small business without subjecting their families to the risks of remaining uninsured or covered only by extremely limited catastrophic risk policies, they are going to become strong supporters of these policies, and they are going to steamroller over politicians and political parties who oppose their improvement and eventual expansion.

Conservatives may not like this, but a look at the history of such programs in the rest of the industrialized world shows you that once they are in place, there is no going back, and the best conservatives can do is to try to limit the extent to which they subvert individual initiative and the extent to which they are redistribute program.

So now, I'm going to give another piece of extremely unwelcome advice to conservatives in general and the Republican Party in particular.

(If you don't think there's any difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, and that the Republican party does a far better job of advancing conservative principles, you need read no further, and instead can comfortably sit back and whine as Republicans in Congress again lose their policy shirts to Obama).

Don't - again - let beliefs in Simon-pure ideology get in the way of practical politics.

Protecting historically low tax rates and tax "breaks" such a carried interest for a small sliver of ultra high income tax payers is not a smart hill to die on.

These taxpayers as a group always do fine, and always will.

I instead, expend political capital protecting higher income taxpayers who really need it: people in the 150K-500K range.

Quit trying to kill the estate tax, and instead work to raise the limits - elimination is too easy a target for Democrats.

Quit talking about unattainable "replace and repeal" - for example pulling the health insurance rung out form under the un/under-employed children covered under their parent's plans.

In short, stop looking like the party of Romney & Co. and start looking like a party that actually cares about the real problems and prospects of the vast majority of upwardly mobile Americans who are trying to start a small business without health care, or send their children to college, or save for retirement at currend interest rates.

And in return, bargain hard on entitlements: accept the fact that you will not get as good terms as were possible before the strategy of obstruction failed to take both houses and the presidency filed, you can still a agreement far better than is likely if public opinion turns further against conservative programs (which it very clearly could).

And above all else, do not put yourselves in a position of taking positions you will get backed out of by events, and looking like losers who had to concede fundamental principles in the face of political and economic reality, rather than a party willing to bargain hard but realistically of the basis of those principles.

Because however good in makes one feel short term, mid and long term the conviction that the appearance of virtue is more important than the actuality of results is a sure-fire prescription for political disaster.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.