BARACK OBAMA this week celebrates the first anniversary of his own historic victory, recapturing the White House for the Democrats after eight years of George W. Bush. And for once, Republicans have won something. They have regained the governorship of Virginia, a state which in 2008 Obama became the first Democrat to carry in 44 years and New Jersey. Republican win in New Jersey is notable. This is a state that has been trending Democratic for a decade. Taken together, the results will inevitably be portrayed as a referendum on Obama, and a Republican double would be widely interpreted (in the Grand Old Party at least) as a national thumbs-down for a president whose approval ratings have already dropped to the mid-50s.
But would it be? In reality, no. But in politics perceptions are all. This is what in American politics is termed an “off-year”, without either a presidential election or midterm Congressional elections. The Obama administration had all but written off Virginia, where the Democratic candidate waged a poor campaign in a state which makes a habit of electing governors from the opposite party to the one that holds the White House. New Jersey is a different matter. Obama campaigned extensively for Jon Corzine, the incumbent Democrat (and a former cochairman of Goldman Sachs). The White House will naturally insist it’s business as usual. But Republicans will take the Democratic loss as proof that Obama’s personal star-power no longer suffices to win elections on its own.
So Republicans exorcised the George W. Bush factor up to a point. The last president left office with some of the lowest poll ratings and a collective national (and international) heave of relief. But nine months is an eternity in politics. Team Obama still blames the previous administration for the country’s woes; the country, however, no longer sees it like that. This is now Obama’s economy — 10 percent unemployment and all. In the public mind, Iraq remains very much Bush’s war, but the ever more unpopular Afghan conflict now belongs to Obama. Equally, Republicans had sunk so low under Bush in the 2006 and 2008 elections, that they had nowhere to go but up. In fact, the party has corrected none of its underlying problems. It has yet to come up with convincing new leaders. Even more important, it remains intellectually bankrupt, bereft of new ideas.
AS for the brightest Republican stars, name recognition from the recent presidential campaign counts for most right now as might be expected. With John McCain out of the picture, the three most popular Republicans nationwide are McCain’s two closest challengers for the 2008 nomination: Former governors Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts. Then, of course, there’s the polarizing Sarah Palin, whose forthcoming memoir “Going Rogue” is already best-seller on Amazon, even though it doesn’t hit bookstores until Nov. 16. Tim Pawlenty, governor of Minnesota and strongly considered by McCain as running-mate, is also a factor while some see Bob McDonnell, the telegenic Republican as a budding national figure. But an indication of how bare is the cupboard right now is the talk of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, yesterday’s man if ever there was one, as a possible 2012 candidate. But aren’t all of the above strong conservatives? Indeed they are (with the possible exception of Romney) — and therein lies the problem. In today’s confused Republican landscape, only one thing is clear: The party is moving to the right. The reasons are various; among them are increased partisanship in Washington and jerrymandered districts, which has created ever safer seats. These days, the main danger for a moderate Republican incumbent often lies in a primary challenge from the right. But the result has been the near-extinction of Congressional Republicans in places like New England, and reflex, near-monolithic Republican hostility to any Obama initiative. Take health-care reform, the most important of those initiatives. The only Republican senator to back the proposal has been Olympia Snowe, one of a dwindling band of party moderates on Capitol Hill. She hails, predictably, from Maine in New England.
Doesn’t homogeneity make oppo sition easier? In the short term, that’s probably true. Thus far Republicans (who tend in any case to be more disciplined than Democrats) have held together remarkably.
They have been able to simply to oppose whatever measures are proposed by the White House or the Democratic majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, and given the peculiar rules of the Senate, where any contested legislation needs a filibuster-proof majority of 60 to pass, that strategy could be enough. But in the midterms of 2010, and in the presidential vote of 2012, voters will be looking for constructive policies from Republicans, not the single destructive word, “No”. And in the policy vacuum, the party is turning on itself.
But civil war is not a Democratic speciality. Not right now. In essence, the Republican leadership is losing control of the grassroots. The party on Capitol Hill may be conservative, but not conservative enough for activists.
America may be a more conservative country than Britain, but as in Britain, elections in America are won and lost in the center of the political spectrum. Red-blooded conservatism fires up the faithful; its relentless hostility to big government flourishes when huge public policy issues like health care and green energy dominate debate. But the net result may be to drive independents and moderates to the Democrats.
Take Sarah Palin: While a minority of voters adores her, a large majority cannot abide her. That is not a formula for long-term success. If they continue on their present track, Republicans could be heading toward not a 1980-model Reagan triumph, but a 1964-model Goldwater disaster.
