Why 'Red Herring' Candidates May Help Diehard Conservatives

Jill Lawrence makes a fascinating point in her column today, writing that "Pat Toomey -- the diehard conservative who drove Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party -- seems almost middle of the road compared with his fellow Republican Senate nominees."

If her theory is true -- and I believe it is -- then it implies that the shrewdest move conservatives can make is to field more conservative candidates.

Think of it as a negotiation. A smart negotiator will always ask for more than he is willing to settle for.

In political terms, this means that if you start off a negotiation by asking for, say, a Sen. Christine O'Donnell, you will likely be able to settle for a Senator Toomey. (You do this, knowing Toomey is really who you want, as he would be a major improvement over Specter).

(Conversely, if you start off by asking for a Toomey, you may be lucky to end up with a Mitch McConnell.)

Of course, elections aren't negotiations per se. And there is certainly no conspiracy to field ultra-conservative, yet highly colorful candidates in order to make a "compromise" candidate more palatable (though that would be brilliant). This is a happy accident.

Still, it's fair to say that we all judge things based on context. We form opinions of what is appropriate or mainstream by looking around and comparing them to other things that are more or less extreme. A child is tall compared to the other kids in his class. A house is big compared to other houses in the neighborhood. We define "mainstream" based on perceptions of what is the norm.

This theory, of course, flies in the face of what has become conventional wisdom among some Republicans -- that the GOP is harming itself by running too many candidates who are too conservative (and perhaps too colorful).

To be sure, voters within a state are unlikely to be comparing a Senate candidate from, say, Pennsylvania to one from, say, Nevada -- but the national media definitely does.

And when you consider that the national media (which I think everyone agrees skews liberal and is therefore is more likely to view mainstream conservatives as out of the mainstream) can only focus on a few stories at a time, isn't it possible that some prominent conservative candidates might inadvertently be serving as red herrings?

For example, it seems to me the national media largely stopped focusing on Nevada candidate Sharron Angle's gaffes once O'Donnell started to gain national attention. Based on that observation, isn't it fair to say that Angle benefited from O'Donnell's candidacy -- just as Toomey and Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio may benefit from, say, Angle's candidacy?

To be sure, if your goal is to elect Republicans, this calculus is debatable. But if your goal is to increase the number of conservatives in office, and to make conservative political philosophy more mainstream, it seems to me that conservatives should run more right-wing candidates, not less.

As the saying goes: "Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss you will land among the stars."


Update: Blogger Rob Port's post, "Christine O'Donnell Moving the Overton Window" adds to this debate.


Note: Matt Lewis has spoken at Club for Growth meetings, an organization Toomey previously led. Additionally, a family member of Lewis' previously consulted for Toomey.