Now, what about those whom Obama and his supporters vanquished? What the Republican party badly needs is a Night of the Long Knives [bold mine-DL].

The GOP has been laid low, thanks to politicians who swapped their principles for power and lost both. As the chief electoral vehicle for conservative and free-market ideas, the Republican party cannot regain America’s confidence –nor should it — until the guilty have been cast into the nearest volcano. ~Deroy Murdock

While not limited to its meaning as a reference to the bloody party purge in Germany in 1934, “Night of the Long Knives” is probably most closely associated in this country with that particular purge.  Unless that is the sort of association one wants to make (perhaps Murdock had the great political success of Harold Macmillan in mind?), perhaps that is not the best way to describe the start of the rebuilding process inside the GOP. 

As an anti-Bush, non-Republican, dissident conservative, I find that there is something superficially attractive about this idea.  Like the Tsarist in Darkness at Noon cheering intra-communist persecutions, I could take some satisfaction in watching Republicans turn on themselves in waves of self-destructive purges, but the history of the American right leads me to think that exactly the wrong sort of people would emerge as the purgers and the winners in this scenario.  Besides, I’m not sure that most Republicans and mainstream conservatives want to follow this line of thinking through to its logical conclusion.  After all, who gets to define who should be declared “guilty” and what are the criteria for “guilt”?  Do not be so ready to eliminate Danton, Robespierre, as it could lead to your doom as well.  Instead of learning the (obvious?) lesson from the last eight years that the GOP and movement have become too ideological, inflexible and hostile to dissent on major policy issues, as I proposed in my remarks at Yale on Saturday, there is an idea out there that if there were some more purges that would fix what’s ailing Republicans and conservatives.  If we took Murdock’s initial comments seriously, this would be the Dougherty Doctrine on crank.  

Taken to one extreme, anyone who voted for Bush is in some sense “guilty” for enabling the administration to do all of the things it has done, and even those who spoke out against policy X but otherwise argued for continued support of the administration in other areas share in some of the guilt.  Arguably, the hard-core party regulars, the ones who still approve of Mr. Bush and voted for McCain are in some ways the “guiltiest” of all, as they have apparently proven to be indifferent to all of the failures and blunders that Murdock considers absolutely unacceptable.  Inevitably, this sort of talk will lead to scapegoating one faction or one element in the party, and as usually happens in scapegoating the wrong people are going to receive most of the blame.  The trouble with political purges, besides the shameless opportunism and naked pursuit of power that they usually involve, is that the list of people who are selected for the volcano is drawn up entirely arbitrarily and what was once considered absolutely vital, team-player party loyalty becomes a cause for elimination.  Naturally, Murdock excludes from the list of Bush’s errors the war in Iraq, because there would scarcely be any mainstream conservatives left if all of the war supporters were to be held accountable for this greatest, most appalling and most politically costly error.  Including Iraq among the administration’s successes, as Murdock does, and putting the focus on spending and government expansion as the greatest sources of GOP woes, Murdock demonstrates the arbitrary, typically self-serving nature of political anathematisms.   

Of course, Murdock quickly shows that he is not all that serious in what he is saying.  Whom does Murdock nominate to be driven into outer darkness?  For the most part, failed former and current Congressional leaders and Karl Rove.  Having started with a zealous call for purification, Murdock ends up with a tame critique of a bunch of has-beens.  Denouncing Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich…in 2008–how very bold!  Hardly any of the people Murdock identifies by name matter (and, yes, that includes Gingrich), and even the current House and Senate GOP leaders are likely to be replaced, which makes calling for their ouster seem almost redundant.  Perhaps Murdock will next go out on a limb and say that Dick Cheney should not be the nominee in 2012. 

Apparently unaware of the odd contradiction of praising the pro-bailout GOP presidential ticket while damning the other bailout supporters, Murdock writes near the end:

John McCain and Sarah Palin campaigned energetically while advocating lower spending and tax cuts. Alas, the bailout fiasco cut them off at the knees.  They otherwise might have prevailed, and deserve praise for trying to do the right thing.

Ah, yes, the “bailout fiasco”–that would be the fiasco in which McCain and Palin supported the bailout, breaking with grassroots conservatives and a majority of House Republicans.  The very support for the bailout that makes McConnell, Boehner, Blunt, et al. “guilty” apparently should have no effect on McCain or Palin.  They deserve praise for “trying to do the right thing,” when, in fact, they did what Murdock regards as very much the wrong thing.