The GOP strategists once again react to getting clobbered by calling for an embrace of their (alleged) opponents’ policies. After all, if only Romney could’ve distanced himself from pro-life fanatics and gun nuts he’d still be basking in the warm glow of victory right about now. Via American Conservative the astute Daniel Larison responds to one particularly bright idea, the “let’s out-amnesty Obama” meme:
It’s fantasy to suppose that any Republican nominee can double the amount of support Romney just received four years from now. The landscape would not be transformed, and a Republican candidate running on a me-too immigration platform would probably see turnout from his core constituencies decline yet again. Whatever amnesty proposal a Republican candidate embraces, it will be perceived at best as too little, too late by those it is supposed to win over, and it will confirm that the party leadership is oblivious if not openly hostile to what its constituents prefer. It’s a political disaster waiting to happen, and quite a few Republican pundits seem only too eager to rush towards it.
What’s most interesting here is not so much the issue of open borders itself as what is revealed about the GOP’s fundamental philosophy — and maybe even about that quintessentially American pragmatic spirit. When what you stand for hampers your odds of success, the answer is … to stand for something else?