Adam Nagourney writes for the New York Times Week in Review, the most Give-Uppy article I've ever seen! I think he must be a lurker. His argument, which I think is a good example of the Give Up hypothesis, is that letting Republicans hit rock bottom would lead to greater future success for the Democratic party. Hence, it might be a good thing to lose again in 2006 midterms, so Republicans won't be able to spread the blame for their horrific failures onto Democrats.

From this perspective, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency. There's the prospect of continued conflict in Iraq, high gas prices, corruption investigations, Republican infighting and a gridlocked Congress. Democrats would have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2008, by this reasoning, and for the future they enhance their stature at a time when Republicans are faltering.

Indeed, some Democrats worry that the worst-case scenario may be winning control of Congress by a slim margin, giving them responsibility without real authority. They might serve as a foil to Republicans and President Bush, who would be looking for someone to share the blame. Democrats need a net gain of 6 seats in the Senate, and 15 seats in the House. "The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House and 3 or 4 seats in the Senate but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government," said Tony Coelho, a former House Democratic whip. "We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut. This way, they get blamed for everything."

Mr. Coelho quickly added, "Obviously, from a party point of view we want to get in and do things, but I'm talking about the ideal political thing."

Ha! Damn right! I love this stuff. I might just vote Republican in November just to fuck them over.

Now, Clin-ton isn't onboard for this plan, but I'm not surprised. However he does make another Give Up point.

"I don't buy the argument that we'd be better off if we almost got there and didn't win a majority in either house," Bill Clinton, the former president, said in an interview. "I think when you suit up you've got to try to win, and I hope we will win because we will get better public policy and it'll be better for America."

Exactly, Democrats will eventually win because our public policy is objectively better. Republicans are a slow-motion and inevitable trainwreck, Clin-ton and I agree on that, and the longer they're in power the more they demonstrate their inability to improve the lives of ordinary Americans. However, my argument isn't to try to stop the train from wrecking by throwing the Democratic party onto the tracks, that's just futile and destructive. We should let this wreck complete itself, then pick up the pieces and move on. Now, I think if we could take over both the Senate and the House in 2006 that would excellent, because we may be able to then ameliorate the worst effects of Republicanism on this country, but, anything short of real power would probably just be counterproductive.

So, anyway, Give Up! Failure is victory!

Thanks Jeff E