By: Charles C. W. Cooke – nationalreview.com – April 5, 2023

The general consensus around last night’s disastrous electoral showing in Wisconsin seems to be that the Republican Party had — has, perhaps — two problems in 2023. One is abortion, post-Dobbs. The other is the continued specter of Donald Trump. As John McCormack notes today on the homepage, the conservative candidate for Wisconsin’s supreme court lost in part because his opponent “put the issue of abortion at the center of her campaign,” which was popular, and in part because he “could be tied to Trump,” who is not.

Only one of these impediments is worth taking hits on the chin over.

Republicans need to do better on abortion. It is a scandal that, having correctly spent 50 years trying to get the abomination that was Roe overturned, the party was as unprepared as it was for what came next. The American public was not where Roe forced it to be, but it is not where pro-lifers are, either, and the movement is going to have to accept that and adjust accordingly. This will require solid messaging, a willingness to compromise, and an understanding that “send it back to the states” requires 50 strategies, not one. If Republicans keep winging it on abortion, they will keep losing on abortion — in certain parts of the country, at least. The aim here should be to do as well as is possible given the constraints.

That said, there was always going to be some political pain associated with overturning Roe — and this is fine. The purpose of obtaining political power is to advance your preferred policies and/or to prevent others from advancing theirs. Nixing Roe was a project that took half a century; if the worst thing that happens to Republicans as a result of its completion is that they gained less of a majority in the House than they expected to gain and they lose some races in the Midwest, that’s really not that terrible a deal. As Jim Geraghty observed recently, the Democrats played a long game with Obamacare — a game that, despite some serious losses, they arguably won. Change inspires backlash; if you want change, that backlash must be borne. We are in the backlash phase of Dobbs at present.

No such case obtains for Donald Trump. The very idea is ridiculous. Trump is a candidate. He’s a vessel. He’s a servant. Like any other politician, his value lies in his ability to win elections and deliver change. If he can’t do that — or if he’s such a liability that he’s destroying the party’s chances elsewhere — he’s useless. One can say reasonably that one thinks cutting taxes is worth some political losses or that fixing entitlements is worth some political losses or that altering government education policy is worth some political losses, but one cannot say reasonably that nominating a given candidate is worth some political losses. It’s absurd.

Especially if, as a result of other factors, the party has its work cut out. Political parties can survive if they take some positions with which the voters are uncomfortable while nominating candidates who are broadly liked. Political parties cannot survive if they take some positions with which the voters are uncomfortable and nominate candidates who have proven themselves toxic. Once again, conservatives must decide what they want out of politics. Is it policy, or is it something else?

To see this article in its entirety and subscribe to others like it, choose to read more.

Source: Restricting Abortion Is Worth the Heat, Donald Trump Is Not | National Review