Along the way, Fiorina makes a number of observations. One of the most important regards how Americans define themselves politically.  Conservatives have, for many years, taken solace in polls that consistently show that more Americans define themselves as “conservative” than “liberal,” including a recent Gallup poll showing a whopping 20 percent gap in favor of “conservative.”  Almost as a mantra, conservatives like to describe the U.S. as a “center-right” country.  What Fiorina points out, however, is that rank and file voters are not defining “conservative” in the same way as the pundits and politicos.  Fiorina’s polling data finds that fully one-third of those who call themselves conservative do not hold traditionally “conservative” views on either economic or social issues.  These people might be deemed “attitudinal conservatives.”  They are tired of gay pride marches, tired of anti-war protests, tired of what they perceive as liberal excesses seen in daily life, from crazy tort suits to school policies that expel kids for drawing a picture of a gun, fed up with what seems excessive, out of control spending.  But they are neither social conservatives on issues such as gay marriage and gun control, nor free marketers on the economy.  Fiorina finds that only about twenty percent of these self-identified “conservatives” are both free marketers and social conservatives.  That means that roughly eight to ten percent of the electorate is defining itself as “across the board” conservative. (Conversely, while self-described “liberals” are about half as many as self-described “conservatives,” they are much more likely to hold “liberal” views on both the economy and social issues, thus putting about 12 to 15 percent of the electorate down as “across the board” liberals.)

This suggests that Republicans need to re-establish the Reagan coalition of moderates, libertarians, and social conservatives.  This can be done, with each group finding the resultant product preferable to the liberal nostrums of the Democratic party.  But doing so requires that people stop the incessant arguments about who is a “true” conservative; stop thoughtless “RINO hunting,” and cease defining everyone who disagrees with them on some issue as “not conservative.”  This is, by the way, not a problem limited to any one part of this old Reagan Republican coalition – I see this tendency toward internecine war in all three camps. Reminiscent of the various guerrilla groups in Monty Python’s comic epic Life of Brian, libertarians, social conservatives, and moderates seem to hate no one more than the liberals – except each other.

It is true that other political scientists, such as Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz, have reached different conclusions than Fiorina, but I think Fiorina is the one who is more correct.  What Abramowitz notes is that there are big gaps in the electorate on many issues.  For example, 76 percent of Democrats favor government guaranteed universal health care, but just 31 percent of Republicans agree.  But what Fiorina picks up on, that Abramowitz misses, are questions of tone and degree.  Republicans and Democrats may sharply disagree, for example, on abortion or gun rights or gay marriage, on the war in Afghanistan, or on Obama’s regulation of the economy, but a great many Americans, if not most, would simply like to tone all these issues down, whichever side they are on.  Pollsters push these voters to choose – “do you support the President’s surge in Afghanistan (or not)?”; “Do you favor Roe v. Wade (or not)?”; “Do you support or oppose the President’s plan for healthcare?” etc.  If pushed between such bipolar options, yes, most Americans can take sides.  But many may feel that there are pluses and minuses on both sides.  They don’t want to be given the either/or choice that the pollsters demand.

Political leaders, like the pollsters, increasingly seem to benefit from forcing that either/or choice on voters.  Of course, in a two party system (which I support), it is true that on Election Day voters face an either/or choice.  But politicians have been trying to make that choice more stark than voters would like it to be, gambling that given two stark choices, the other side’s vision will seem the more extreme.  This would explain why Democrats are always so eager to paint Republicans as extremist wackos, and vice versa.  Republicans are happy if Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres are the face of the Obama administration.  Democrats want Michael Savage to be the voice of “conservative” America.  Each side figures that’s a battle it can win.

But does this leave an opening for a more moderate approach, one that does not fudge on core beliefs, but leaves more space for nuances of opinion, for degrees of agreement and disagreement?  I think so.  I have argued that the winning Republican ticket in 2010 and 2012 will be some sort of return to “normalcy,” if I can use the term Republicans used to win landslide victories in 1920, 1924, and 1928.  After a pair of high stress, crusading presidencies (Bush abroad, Obama at home), Americans, I think, will want someone who promises NOT to turn healthcare upside down; who does NOT try to make major changes in social security; who does NOT fan the flames of culture war from the left or the right, and who does NOT seek to radically change the American relationship to the world (something both Bush and Obama have undertaken), but merely to defend American interests and use American power prudently.  (See my piece on how Sarah Palin won in 2006 and became an incredibly popular governor – tactics she abandoned in 2008).

The failures of the Obama administration and the intellectual vacuum of the Democratic Party (has there ever been a party so bereft of new ideas; is there anything in their platform not from 1946 other than the disastrous “cap and trade”?) give Republicans a great chance to restore the Reagan Coalition to power.  No one got all they wanted from that coalition, but is there really any doubt that all elements got something, and that America came out the better for it?  But returning to power requires all oars in the water, pulling toward victory against the common foe, not arguing over who is the “real” conservative or demanding complete adherence to a single vision of the good life. We are in a position to seize a win of historic proportions, if we don’t self destruct first.

Eugene V. Debs — a “Democratic activist” who chooses as his pen name the name of an open socialist, and not one of today’s cuddly European socialists, either, but a socialist back in the days when socialist and Marxist were the same thing — tries to shame us Republicans into supporting nationalized healthcare:  Why, it’s just us, Turkey, and Mexico without nationalized healthcare. “In every other advanced capitalist country” they’ve drank the Kool-Aid.  Well, don’t I feel chagrined, not to be in the company of Cuba, Peru, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the Ukraine, and all those enlightened, prosperous countries with nationalized medical delivery systems. In Germany, the health delivery system was nationalized by Bismark.  Spain implemented national health insurance under Franco, Austria adopted it under Nazi rule in 1939, as did the Italians in 1944.   Makes you wonder what Mr. Debs has against the Turks, who are, in fact, one of my favorite people.  As Mr. Debs eventually notes, “even a dictatorship like Singapore provides universal care.”  Personally, I never thought that the fact that “even” a dictatorship did something was really a selling point for government action.  Anyway, I suppose that Mr. Debs’ argument was used a lot during the revolution:  There were the Tories, angrily denouncing their more adventuresome countrymen, “in every other advanced country they have a king.”  So, case closed, I guess.

Now can we discuss this seriously?

Well, no, I guess not.  Mr. Debs raises straw man after straw man: “Why even conservatives elsewhere embrace universal coverage.”  Then we get some horror stories, only they’re not even real ones, just fictional. Sheez, Eugene, surely you can do better than that.  I can come up with some horror stories of people denied care in just a few minutes.  Of course, horror stories can be found in every country, and horror stories about people denied care in “universal coverage” nations abound.  It is true that in countries such as France, Germany, and even the UK (I appreciate that Mr. Debs agrees that we ought to say “even” the UK, a subtle reminder of the failures of the NHS) most people are happy with their coverage — but of course shouldn’t he admit then that here in the good ole’ U.S.A. most people are happy with their care, too?  To use his own phrase: Who are you going to believe Mr. Debs, “me or your lyin’ eyes.”?

And we’re told that if we really believed we shouldn’t endorse a government mandate of what Mr. Debs calls universal coverage, then we should repeal the law requiring hospitals to provide medical treatment to all comers in the E.R.  Of course, that doesn’t follow, any more than opposing an expansion of Social Security or welfare or unemployment or workers’ compensation necessarily indicates a desire to abolish the whole system.  (Holy moly, Democrats are opposing an increase in military budget – they must want to abolish the armed services!  Are they crazy!)  Mr. Debs also seems to take his anger about America’s emergency room policy out on me personally — that coverage isn’t good enough, so he’s mad, apparently, that I even brought it up.  But if we are going to discuss universal coverage, that is part of the picture, isn’t it?  Why don’t the liberals ever mention this? I mean, if some conservative says, “All Americans have coverage, Mr. Debs would jump in, wouldn’t he?  “No,” he would say, “about 15% of Americans lack health insurance.”  Well, isn’t the reality — the problem we are asked to deal with — that most Americans have very good insurance with which they are very satisfied, but a minority must rely on emergency room care?  If we can’t even state what current U.S. policy is without a nasty, personal, rebuke from our resident socialist (or maybe just “Democratic activist”), how can we honestly discuss the problems with that system.

Meanwhile, the straw men keep coming – such as the one that anyone said that ER care was “consonant with real insurance.”  Or the one that it is hypocritical to oppose a massive government scheme unless we are willing to have crummier insurance ourselves.  I’m not sure I follow that, either.

And all this is necessary just to clear away the detritus.  No wonder this debate never gets anywhere.

If we want to talk healthcare reform seriously, we need to lose all the self-righteousness, the nasty, smart-ass tone, the non-sequiturs and straw men.  I am all in favor of expanding health coverage.  I believe that we can have health insurance for basically all Americans, and that there are many ways to do it, but I think – as I said in response to the original question – that it is bad policy and bad politics for the GOP to suddenly endorse universal health coverage.  I believe that one thing that makes the United States a superior place to live is that we have NOT followed our industrialized neighbors in their policies in this area.  I believe that the more capitalistic, individualistic, lower tax atmosphere of the United States is good for America and good for the rest of the world, which benefits from our dynamism.  I believe that the U.S. and its people have benefited from not having the type of system Mr. Debs wishes to impose on us, and I do not believe that the peoples of Europe have benefited from their efforts over the long term, once all factors are taken into account.

But then, why should Mr. Debs and I agree on this big picture? I’m a Republican interested in bringing my party back to power, and supportive of economic opportunity, limited government, and freedom.  Democrats tend to be more interested in security and equality than in freedom and opportunity.  Nothing inherently wrong with that — security and equality are pretty important to most people.  But Mr. Debs is a self-identified Democratic activist, and given his chosen moniker, possibly a socialist/Marxist.  He is almost certainly not interested in seeing Republicans retake power, and probably is not as concerned as I am about freedom, opportunity, and limited government.

All that said, now, Mr. Debs, would you like to seriously discuss nationalized healthcare and its alternatives?  And if so, please let us begin by agreeing that it is OK to state what current policy is; and that “everybody else is doing it” is worthwhile knowing — it may lead us to ask why — but it is not, strictly speaking, an argument for us to do it.

To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.

No.  What we are discovering is a new “third rail” of American politics – universal health coverage.  The left has promoted this issue for 60 years, and ever since Truman, it has driven them over one cliff after another.

The U.S. has a system of universal coverage now – it’s called “show up at the emergency room” – and while it is far from perfect, the overwhelming majority actually seem pretty content with it – at least any time we get down to the specifics of some other form of “universal coverage.”  Every other scheme put forth, or tried in the states, does indeed involve intrusion into personal decision making on our most intimate issues (our health) or (and sometimes, “and”) outrageous costs.

This does not mean Republicans should do nothing.  We should push to allow sales of policies across state lines; we should continue to promote health savings accounts; we can consider targeted subsidies; we should reduce coverage mandates; and we should look further – mindful of the political consequences – at ways to decouple insurance from employment.

But adopt universal coverage?  It’s bad economics, bad for liberty, and by now we should be realizing, universal coverage is bad politics.

To read other contributions to this symposium, click here.

Riiight.

The reasons for anger are not hard to discern or understand.  If two of these three had stood with the other 38 Republican Senators and 178 House members, the stimulus bill would be dead, and most Republicans – including me – think we’d be better off if the bill were dead.  I don’t want to debate the bill, however, but rather the reaction of Republicans to these three moderates.

The rage is palpable, and the call is for revenge, ousting them from the party.  Not only callers and blog commentators, but also the talk hosts and bloggers, are demanding that these three be challenged and “real Republicans” put in their places.

Of course, people tend to reserve their hottest anger for “traitors,” but would it not be more constructive to devote this rage over the stimulus bill to ousting Democratic senators, who voted unanimously for passage?  Surely there are many juicy targets out there, if not in 2010 (when, of the “traitorous three,” only Specter is up for re-election) then down the road.  Why do Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Kent Conrad, and Mark Begich hold seats in what are generally reliable Republican states at every level?  Is it not possible to defeat Harry Reid in Nevada, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Robert Byrd in West Virginia, or Sherrod Brown in Ohio?  How is it that Democrats control both of Virginia’s senate seats?  Not that long ago, Republicans controlled seats in Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Delaware, New Mexico and Michigan.  Is it really impossible to elect a second Republican Senator to join Chuck Grassley from Iowa or Dick Lugar from Indiana?  Is there no way to defeat appointed Senators Roland Burris of Illinois or Mike Bennett of Colorado in 2010?

For a forward looking party that is prepared to tolerate some ideological diversity in favor of a more conservative Congress overall, there is no end to Democratic targets, each of whom voted for the stimulus, and each of whom has a more liberal voting record than Collins, Snowe, or Specter.  So where, if talk radio and the blogs are any indication, are conservatives focusing their rage and preparing to focus a great deal of time and money?  On primary challenges to Specter (in 2010), Snowe (in 2012), and Collins (in 2014).  Are these seats really more winnable for “true conservatives” (whatever that means to you) than the seats listed above?

Those outraged by RINOs have had some success, if you can call it that.  Linc Chafee no longer serves in the Senate, replaced by the more liberal Sheldon Whitehouse.  The RINO hunters no longer have to complain about Gordon Smith, who has been replaced by the far more liberal Jeff Merkley.  RINO Norm Coleman sits on the critical list, apparently to be replaced by the ridiculous and far more liberal Al Franken.  The GOP is indeed becoming a small, disciplined minority, with the emphasis on “small” and “minority.”

I don’t mean to suggest that incumbents should never be challenged in party primaries.  Of course they should.  And there assuredly are times when a state or district would elect a more conservative Republican than the one holding office.  But care needs to be taken in identifying those situations, separating them out from situations where a RINO might be the best available option, or even more, where it is better to let the RINO be and use our resources to unseat Democrats.  RINOs  – the dreaded “Republicans in Name Only – are almost always more conservative than their Democratic successors.  A Republican in Name Only meets with other Republicans, gets info from the Republican staff, feels the pull of the caucus and party loyalty.  This effort of the last decade to rid the party of RINOs has done just that – and perhaps also rid us of Congressional majorities as well.  People join the party for a reason, for some sense of affinity.  We should encourage that, not push them away as RINOs.

The solution to regaining congressional majorities may not be easy, but it is simple.  Target liberal Democrats, not RINOs.