1) Spend as long as possible - if possible, a decade or more - denying that any problem exists. When problem becomes undeniable, deny the possible efficacy of proposed left-wing solutions.
2) While denying the existence of said problem, take actions that not only do nothing to fix the problem, but actively make it worse.
3) When denial becomes impossible, do what the left reccomended in the first place, but be bitchy about it.
Seriously. I think this might explain everything from global warming to Israel-Palestine. Specifically, this Rich Lowry piece (via Yglesias) where he condescendingly writes:
Israel’s withdrawal itself required the shattering of illusions. The Israeli Right had to give up its dream of a Greater Israel. The Israeli Left had to abandon its dream of a negotiated peace with the Palestinians. Both were fantasies, but anyone who imagined that leaving Gaza would transform Palestinian politics or Israel’s security for the better has watched those comforting notions sink as well.Okay, but look at who really lost here - the Israeli right lost a real, material goal: The permanent capture of Gaza. The Israeli left got more-or-less what it wanted (withdrawal from Gaza), but not the way they wanted it.
But here's a what-if for you (and yes, I realize there's been a few of these this week): What if - shocker of shockers - we had simply followed the lead of the Israeli left in the first place and withdrawn from Gaza and most of the West Bank say, sometime in 1995? Instead of actually expanding the settlements in the post-Oslo period? Maybe that would have been a good idea, huh?
Now, the left might have carped about it not being negotiated, but really - who's defeat is greater when the dream of Greater Israel is finally abandoned? Likud or Labour?
Also notable in Lowry's piece is the admission - as Matt notes - that nobody seriously believes Israel's policies will work in any meaningful sense. So Olmert is the Bush of the Middle East. Congratulations, Jerusalem.