Matt Yglesias at Tapped has an interesting post concerning a the splintering of the true-believer neo-cons from the Bush administration, realist Republicans and the foreign policy gurus of the Democratic party and their views on Iraq. He is arguing that there could be an electoral alliance between these three groups based on opposition to the Bush Iraq policy.
I disagree, as my blog has a fuller takedown of these arguments. A shorter version is offered here.
The primary problem is one of incentives.
The true believing neo-cons realize that Bush is their best chance of getting any part of their agenda implemented, no matter how poorly done. If a the neo-cons sit out this election or campaign against Bush as being weak on terrorism and a Democratic candidate becomes President, the neo-cons will see their agenda discredited and off the major agenda for at least one electoral cycle, and probably three or more. An incompetent Bush is more desirable than a competent Clark or Dean.
The Democrats in the Senate have too many memories of proposing good policy additions to horrendous legislation and then seeing Bush grab all the credit for the popular parts. They remember Max Cleland get slammed for opposing the Bush version of Homeland Security although that was a Democratic idea and iniative for months while Bush opposed it. They are seeing how the short-term Keynesian features of the current tax cut are benefiting the economy and the president. The lesson that they have learned is that good policy is not good politics.
The independent Republicans are only so indepedent since an effective switch will require at least two allies to decisively tip the balance of the Senate (including a Zell Miller counter switch). The Republican Senators knows that Rove will unleash the attack dogs for primary challenges if people stray too far from the Bush line, and again good policy is not good politics in the current political climate.
So what are the incentives here?
