Mike Castle Meets Up with the Tea Party

Were you to ask me to choose between a political candidate with decades of experience and another candidate with no experience whatever, the choice would almost be too easy.

Were you to ask me to choose between a candidate who is a sure winner and another candidate who is very likely to lose, I would, if I had turned on my rational faculties, opt for the former.

Like most people I value politicians who know how to get things done, who can manage the maddening complexity of the government. They may not be the most zealous ideologues, they may even cast a few questionable votes, but they are also role models for decorum and propriety. What could be wrong with that?

Given those predicates, if I were voting in the Delaware senate primary last Tuesday, I would have chosen Mike Castle over Christine O'Donnell.

Rejecting a candidate who has a proven record of winning elections for one who has a history of making embarrassing public statements does not bring your party any closer to a governing majority.

No less a pair of conservative intellectual titans, Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer, were horrified, aghast, at a loss for words when upstart O'Donnell beat Castle last Tuesday.

Yet, when the time came to express their feelings about O'Donnell, neither of the two was at a loss for caustic criticism, the kind that will be appearing in opposition ads between now and November.

So much for party loyalty. So much for sportsmanship, for grace under fire.... While I have no reason to think that either was wrong, there are other values beyond expressing your feelings.

As though this were not shocking enough, Mike Castle outdid them all in the realm of bad sportsmanship. The matter would normally pass beneath your radar, but it emphasized something that has been making its way through my own consciousness.

After he had lost the primary election, Mike Castle did not bother to call Christine O'Donnell to concede and to congratulate. He managed to connect with Pres. Obama and Vice Pres. Biden, but did not even try to reach O'Donnell until Thursday. He left a message on her voice mail.

Better yet, for the good of the party and the good of the country, Castle compounded the insult by refusing to endorse O'Donnell. Link here.

So here we have the wiser and more experienced candidate behaving like a petulant child. Like a pathetic whiner and a sore loser.

Why did Mike Castle's conscience refuse to allow him to support Christine O'Donnell? Because she attacked him personally, and worse yet, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity did too. Because no one ever suffers the indignity of a personal attack in American politics.

With apologies for the vernacular, Mike Castle should grow a pair.

At a time when Tea Party activists are being criticized for their immaturity, establishment favorite Mike Castle has taken it upon himself to give us a quick lesson in childishness.

Hasn't Castle made it that much more likely that O'Donnell will not be elected? Even if she has the slimmest of chances, being endorsed by Castle will surely help her cause. And what, after all, does he have to lose by making a gracious gesture.

From here things become more complicated. Democratic governance depends on small gestures of courtesy and respect. Congressional debates are sprinkled with pro forma declarations of esteem for opponents. The opposition party is always credited with being the "loyal" opposition.

One would assume that when  you disagree with a member of your own party, you would also know enough to maintain the proper level of civility.

These gestures matter because they affirm, in a ritualized fashion, that the disagreements expressed in these bodies are political, not personal.

To gain more insight into the issues involved I would recommend this morning's articles by Peggy Noonan and Kirsten Powers. Links here and here.

Both women make important points, and encourage us to take the Tea Party seriously as a national political phenomenon. Noonan points out, wisely, that the Tea Party represents a repudiation of the Republican establishment for being too weak, too ineffectual, too concerned with placating Democrats and too unwilling to fight them on the issues.

Establishment Republicans were trying to be conciliatory and mature, they were trying to work with Democrats, but they were just getting rolled. They did not just want to be respected; they wanted to be liked. And they wanted the kind of good press that comes your way when you are a Republican attacking Republicans.

If you want to be conciliatory and to get along while your opponents are shooting at you, you are going to get hurt.

There is nothing wrong with gestures of conciliation, with showing an ability to compromise. But if these gestures are not reciprocated you need to have another plan. Continuing to be conciliatory when you are getting nothing in return is political appeasement.

Witness John McCain's history of assiduously courting the liberal media. He was their Republican darling. Yet, when it came to his election they were more than happy to turn on him.

Or better, take the case of George W. Bush. How did it happen that Bush allowed himself to be attacked and vilified by Democrats and the media without defending himself? That is the greatest mystery of the Bush administration.

An administration that brought the fight to terrorists around the world turned tail and ran when the Democrats began attacking it.

As I see it, and as I understand Noonan's analysis, the Tea Party is a response to the fact that George W. Bush refused to fight back.

We have it on the authority of no less than Karl Rove that the Bush administration's biggest mistake was in not responding to those who were attacking him for having lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Link here.

Appeasing your opposition and attacking your colleagues are two sides of the same coin. The sense that you can only work with the opposition by giving in to their imperious demands disregards a basic political principle.

Once you have expressed your pro forma high esteem for the loyal opposition, you can and should defend your position vigorously. You must ensure that you are getting a goodly amount of what you want. If, as Peggy Noonan says, you get 15% while your opposition gets 85% you have been had. You have been too conciliatory and have driven a soft bargain.

The Bush presidency began with James Baker leading the fight for Florida's electoral votes. Few individuals are more polite and courtly than James Baker. And yet, when it came to fighting for his candidate, few people were more ferocious and formidable than James Baker.

The failure to see that you can be both at the same time has done damage to the Republican establishment. When Mike Castle voted for the cap and trade legislation he became the poster boy for capitulation. And capitulation is never a sign of good negotiation skills or of considerable political experience. It is a sign of fear.