"As a life-long Republican and occasional federal official, I must acknowledge a hard truth: I don't much care how a divided government is next realized. And, in 2006, there's only one way that's going to happen."
-- William Niskanen

The Washington Monthly recently ran a forum entitled, It's Time for Us to Go, in which William Niskanen and six other erstwhile Republicans extolled the benefits of a Democratic victory in the forthcoming Congressional elections. Niskanen's views were based on statistical and historical analysis suggesting that divided government tends to mean smaller government. Some of the other writers were more emotional. A few of them sound to me, quite honestly, like they are cranky because their own time in power has passed. I am not coming from the same place as these has-beens. I am a never-was and never-want-to-be.

However, I agree that the Republicans deserve to lose this November. On Tuesday, September 12, I cast my last vote of 2006. A registered Democrat (I often find excuses to vote for Democrats, even though I disagree with them on many important issues ), I took part in the Maryland primary, casting my ballot for certain losers. I voted, futilely, against the "teacher-approved" slate. These are the union-endorsed candidates who before every election promise to "reduce class size" and "close the achievement gap" and who after they win proceed to enact their real agenda of raising the ratio of non-teaching staff to classroom teachers ever closer to infinity. In Maryland, and especially in Montgomery County, the "teacher-approved" slate always wins, and the education bureaucracy always gets more bloated.

I am not angry with President Bush. As far as the war in Iraq is concerned, if I had been in his position, I would have done the same thing. I thought that when the UN passed a resolution telling Saddam Hussein "Allow unfettered inspections or else," then when he obstructed inspectors we had to follow through with "or else." I understand now that the international community takes it for granted that the UN never means what it says when it threatens bad guys (just ask the people of Darfur), but I suffer from a lack of diplomatic subtlety and nuance.

Still right now, nothing looks worse than "K Street Republicans" and "Big-Government Conservatives." The philosophical differences with neoconservatism that I outlined three years ago have only deepened since. That piece, which re-reads quite well if I may say so myself, quotes Bruce Bartlett, now a participant in the Washington Monthly forum, as a skeptic back then as well.

Sending a Different Message

Ordinarily, I vote every time, even when I do not like the choices. I like to send the message, "I am here, and I care, so try to earn my vote."

This time, I want to send a different message. The message is, "I find both parties totally unsatisfactory. I value liberty and individual responsibility, and legislators of both parties have flouted those values in recent years."

The Atlantic Monthly recently ran a story on strategists for both parties who for tactical reasons think that it might be better to lose in these elections. If only. The only thing better than getting rid of Republicans would be getting rid of both Republicans and Democrats and electing some independents. But I do not see any credible independents taking advantage of what would otherwise be a great year to try to break into the market.

I want everyone who agrees with me to stay home, too. I want the headline on Wednesday morning after the election to read, "Mid-year Election Suffers Record Low Turnout." Of course, even if only one vote is cast in each Congressional District, as long as the Democrats win, the mainstream media will report it as "Bush Repudiated! -- Democrats Win Overwhelming Popular Mandate!" But I am thinking that if turnout is particularly low, somebody, somewhere will notice, and maybe some candidates committed to liberty and individual responsibility will emerge next time.

The author is a TCS Daily Contributing Editor.