Resident Fellow David Frum

Karl Rove offered comforting words to grieving Republicans in an article published Thursday:

"History will favour Republicans in 2010. Since World War II, the out-party has gained an average of 23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president's first mid-term election. Other than FDR and George W. Bush, no president has gained seats in his first mid-term election in both chambers."

Conservatives can only hope so. Early indications, however, point ominously the other way. Like the economy, the Republican Party will most likely get sicker before it gets better. There are at least four reasons to think Karl Rove over-optimistic:

1) The political cycle may favour Republicans, but the business cycle now favours the Democrats. The U.S. economy has visibly slumped into recession on George W. Bush's watch. If the economy recovers by 2010, the Democrats are well placed to claim credit. If problems linger, however, they are almost as well placed to escape blame. The Wall Street Journal may describe Wall Street's weakness as "the Barack market." Eventually, that description will gain force. For many months to come, however, Obama can safely argue, as Ronald Reagan argued 12 months into his first term, that the economy's troubles were inherited from an unpopular predecessor.

2) True, Ronald Reagan's party lost votes in its first mid-year election, 1982. But Reagan's stringent anti-inflation program imposed short-term pain for long-term gain. In Obama's program, by contrast, the pain is all long-term. In the short term, he offers a big increase in government spending, cash rebates and wider health coverage. That's short-term gain for long-term pain. It seems unlikely that very much of that long-term pain will have arrived by 2010.

3) The U.S. electoral map offers more opportunities for Democrats in 2010 than for Republicans. In 2010, the Democrats will be defending 15 Senate seats to the Republicans' 18. No more than three of the Democratic seats look vulnerable (including Ken Salazar's in Colorado and--less so--Blanche Lincoln's in Arkansas). There's talk of Arnold Schwarzenegger challenging Barbara Boxer in California, but Schwarzenegger would have to endure a nasty primary fight first, with no guarantee of success.

By contrast, at least five Republican seats look vulnerable: Ohio, struggling with a manufacturing downturn; Arizona, where a popular Democratic governor is eyeing the seat of a retiring John McCain; Florida, where incumbent senator Mel Martinez won only 49% of the vote in the strong Republican year of 2004; and Louisiana, where first-term Senator David Vitter is suffering the after-effects of the D.C. Madam sex scandal.

4) Perhaps the strongest reason for doubting Republican chances in 2010 is the collapsed intellectual state of the party. Parties revive when they have something to say--some message relevant to the lives of actual voters. The party offered no such message in 2008, and there are no signs it will develop such a message soon. The dominant wing in today's GOP is the "say it louder" wing. Rush Limbaugh tells his audiences that the way to win in 2010 is by returning to the template of 1994 and 1980--campaigns 15 and 30 years in the past! It would be as if the Democrats had responded to Ronald Reagan by returning to the good old themes of Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson. (Which come to think of it, they did--with dismal results.)

Defeated parties do recover in time. The Republicans will find a new voice and a new way forward. The practical question is: How long will it take them? Those who promise that the Republican recovery can be accomplished quickly, easily and without substantial reform only prolong the coming tour through the wilderness.

David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.