The Democrats passed a fairly substantial tax increase by overriding a Pawlenty veto thanks to some moderate Republicans. Now, the question: what ought we to do with them? Their leadership roles in the minority caucus have been stripped and some BPOUs are withholding endorsements. Enough?

A revelation of moderates for the uninitiated, they are terrible in the minority. It doesn’t matter what party to which they belong, when they’re outside of the majority they can’t be relied upon. It’s something I first noticed when doing research on Senator McCain. When moderates belong to the party in power they are more ideological, they follow more closely in line with their party brethren.

When in the minority the moderates are unreliable. They swing away from their home party towards the party in power. Could be for a number of reasons, they miss being in the spotlight, they’re not as concerned with ideological challengers to their seats, whatever. These are general observations, individual results may vary.

Moderates are good for getting a majority as they win in tough districts. In the majority they generally work well with the leadership. Yes, sometimes they act as a break on the agenda but in they end they are a necessity, sometimes a pleasant one.

Sometimes unpleasant. Two consecutive brutal elections have put the Republicans into a super-minority in both houses of the Minnesota legislature. The Republicans had been able to hold together their minority enough to protect Pawlenty’s veto until this week. The cost of losing this ability has meant a large tax increase affecting mostly the middle and lower class and it might mean even more tax increases as Minnesota now has a billion dollar budget deficit.

Six Republicans in the State House are responsible for this situation. What ought we to do with them? Don’t endorse, don’t donate, don’t support. They didn’t stand with their party, their leadership or with the governor. If they can’t be relied upon to protect a gubernatorial veto of a tax increase of this magnitude they don’t deserve support.

Most of the time moderates should be tolerated but now these representatives have crossed the line. Not supporting them in 2008 might mean losing the MNGOP some seats but it’s not as if keeping those seats is important. The legislature is not likely to switch hands so those votes for Speaker are meaningless. They’re unreliable. Let them go.

Getting rid of moderates regularly isn’t a bad idea as a principle. The importance of some issues change over the years. A moderate might be elected because their district requires a certain view on abortion but also wants a tax cutter. Moderate elected, a few years passes. Illegal aliens are suddenly an issue. Immigration wasn’t an important topic ten years ago but has come to prominence now. The moderate is a squish on immigration but the district is favorable to the conservative viewpoint. In this way moderates age poorly and soon become anachronisms. High turnover is a fine thing in this light.

Often the districts where we find longtime moderate incumbents are much more partisan than first thought. Most of the six districts held by our six disappointments are fairly safe GOP districts. After 2006 they would almost have to be. To allow moderates to hold conservative areas is to hurt the movement.

And new moderates will follow. There are always lots of squishes, young and old, to fight in those tough districts. They’re not rare. They’ll be there when we need them in the good times but when they aren’t there for us in the bad times there’s no reason to give them undue loyalty. Rep. Erhardt, Tinglestad, Abeler, Heidgerken, Hamilton and Peterson were warned about wavering and now it’s time to act.

Cross-posted at Martin Andrade Blogs. Comments welcome.