Suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up not just with the war and corruption, but also with the Republican drift toward big-government who stayed home, or even voted Democratic, on election day 2006. ~Michael Tanner

Wouldn’t it have been nice if that were true?  There is, in fact, no exit poll data that I know of that corroborates that independents turned against the GOP because of the “Republican drift toward big government.”  In any case, wouldn’t it be more likely that big-government measures would have driven down Republican turnout, since you would expect at least some Republicans to be most opposed to such policies? 

Yet Republican turnout in 2006 remained fairly steady (36% in CNN’s national exit poll, of whom 91% voted for the GOP).  The party ID figures were almost identical to 2004 (37%-D; 37%-R; 26%-I), which also suggests that independents did not stay home in large numbers compared to earlier elections.  The difference between 2006 Republicans who voted for the House GOP and Republicans who voted for Bush is a statistically insignificant two points.  To be more precise, since party ID in itself is not conclusive, consider how self-described conservatives voted in 2004 and 2006: they backed Bush’s re-election 84-15 and backed the House GOP in 2006 78-20.  There is some slight decline, but the more significant decline came among self-described moderates–45% of them supported Bush in ’04, just 38% supported the GOP in ’06, and according to these exit polls they made up a significantly larger part of the electorate (45% in 2004 and 47% in 2006 to 34% and 32% conservative respectively).  Does anyone think that the realistic way to capture a larger percentage of this larger group of self-described moderates in the current election cycle is to hew to small-government line? 

McCain does need economic and small-government conservatives, but every indication from the actual voting habits of Republicans and most conservatives is that policies that expand the size and scope of government essentially do not change their willingness to support the GOP.  If Medicare Part D wasn’t a deal-breaker, choosing Tim Pawlenty as a running mate certainly isn’t going to do it.  On the other hand, ruling out someone like Pawlenty guarantees that McCain will have more difficulty making up the lost ground with moderates and independents. 

On policy, I am in agreement with Tanner about small-government conservatism, but I fear that if small-government conservatives and libertarians keep telling themselves fairy tales about how excessive spending lost the Republicans control of Congress we will never get very good at presenting our arguments in ways that will win over significant public support.