E-mail this story to a friend Have comments? Send them to the editor. Printer Friendly Version Subscribe for Free! Other Columns by Christopher G. Adamo Christopher G. Adamo Bio

For nearly the last four decades, a consistent pattern has been established in the Republican political arena, whereby both good and bad fortunes can be directly correlated to the overt conservatism, or the lack thereof, in the party. The more conservative the party and its candidates are, the better they do on Election Day. Conversely, as GOP members seek "common ground" with liberal Democrat rivals, their prospects at the ballot box diminish.

Republicans ignore this relationship at their own peril. Yet it appears that they are about to do so once again as they go into the 2008 general election season. The two dismal defeats in the recent Alabama and Mississippi congressional special elections should be construed as a warning sign, but thus far, the party seems intent on critically misinterpreting them. So more calamities are likely to follow.

That such a simple and reliable pattern of cause and effect can be so casually refuted or ignored by the party hierarchy is a testimony to the power of the liberal press to mischaracterize events, as well as a grim reflection of the corrupting effects of the Washington environment where truth, right, and reality are utterly flexible, to be defined by the latest public opinion polls.

Having enjoyed past successes only in those situations where Republicans have effectively contrasted their conservatism against the transparent liberalism of the Democrats, some may wonder just why they would ever think they could instead play by Democrat rules. In order to understand the aspects of the political landscape that often spell doom for Republicans, the inherent differences between the parties, their foundations, and their current compositions need to be properly understood.

The structure of the current Democrat party is a conglomeration of numerous, and often completely disparate special interest groups. It is of secondary consequence that these groups may often conflict or even oppose each other, since their political support from the Democrat Party most often manifests itself as access to the public trough.

Thus, with few exceptions, the leadership of these organizations are chiefly indifferent to the fact that another constituency within the party's voting base might be receiving largess even though its goals and purposes conflict with the first. The government has plenty of pork to go around.

From its inception, the Republican Party has fundamentally differed in this respect. It instead coalesced its members around a series of principles and ideals, interwoven into a complex "tapestry" that requires intellectual and philosophical consistency in order to function or survive. Thus, the Republican Party has far less latitude to pursue opposing courses if it is to maintain any sense of coherence. And, every time its leaders lose touch with this actuality, the party's standing slips precipitously in the eyes of the public.

As a result, while aspiring Democrat candidates can associate themselves with their party leaders (even someone carrying as much political baggage as Barack Obama), while still maintaining their own perceived identities on issues of importance to their constituencies, Republicans are assumed to be politically joined at the hip with their party leadership. Such a prospect bodes particularly ill these days, given that the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee and default "party leader," is John McCain.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3