House Republicans don’t care about 2016, alas

You could spend all day reading news and commentary about the federal government shutdown, but little of it is about the 2016 presidential race. In a way, that’s a relief. (It’s three years away! Can’t we take a break from the never-ending campaign?) It’s also key to why the Republican Party seems to be on such a self-destructive course.

At right is a photo tweeted yesterday by U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, a Republican from Georgia. It shows the eight Republicans selected to represent the House in a conference committee that would meet with Senate Democrats to hammer out a deal to end the shutdown. House and Senate Republicans have balked all year at such a conference committee, fearing that it would weaken conservative proposals (like defunding Obamacare) that passed the GOP-controlled House. As David Weigel explains, at the eleventh hour, Republican leaders in the House decided that it would make good theater to assemble on their side of the conference committee table while Democrats stayed away. (Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray said that her party opposed going to conference “with a gun to our head that says we’re shutting government down.”)

Advertisement

Weigel says the sliced-lengthwise view of the conference committee is “largely about optics.” Now take a good look at the photo: Eight clean-shaven white guys over 40 in nearly identical uniforms.* Apparently, there was a memo telling them to take off their suit jackets but keep their cuffs buttoned and neckties in place.

This is not a photo that’s been vetted by party leaders concerned about winning the next presidential election. The message, consciously or not, is that the Republican bargaining team is Tea Party-approved, untainted by RINOs or squishes… or women, or racial or ethnic minorities, or long-haired, freaky people.

In terms of presidential politics, the optics are terrible for a party that is dangerously dependent on old white men. They’re not great for Republicans running statewide in most of the country. (See Weigel on how the shutdown may be dragging down this year’s Republican nominee for governor in Virginia.) But they’re fine for the Republican Party that’s based in anti-Obama congressional districts. None of the men in the photo are likely to lose their seats over the shutdown or a refusal to raise the national debt limit. (RollCall.com does not include any of them among its “competitive” races for 2014, and none are from districts that voted for Obama.)

This split between what’s good for the presidential GOP and what’s good for the congressional GOP is related to Mark Schmitt’s argument that there’s not enough partisanship among Republicans in Washington now—if you define partisanship as loyalty to the whole, not to fiefdoms and factions:

The current Democratic Party, which trims and disciplines the aspirations of its core progressive activists, is a good example of a fairly strong party, which is why it’s consistently frustrating to the left.

But the modern Republican Party is not strong. It’s something more like a loose association of independent forces, including Tea Party–backed members, those with their own sources of campaign money from ideological backers, many with seats so safe that they can happily ignore all their non-conservative constituents, and outside agents like Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, who Businessweek recently described as the de facto Speaker of the House.

Schmitt likens DeMint and Tea Party leaders such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to “corporate raiders,” maximizing their careers "with little regard to the long-term future of the Republican Party and its shrinking demographic base.”

TheWashington Post’s Ezra Klein recently interviewed Robert Costa, the Washington editor of The National Review (which has been trying to enforce some discipline in the conservative movement since William F. Buckley was its editor), and Costa also alluded to the insular world of House Republicans:

…so many of these members now live in the conservative world of talk radio and tea party conventions and Fox News invitations. And so the conservative strategy of the moment, no matter how unrealistic it might be, catches fire.

When you hear members talk candidly about their biggest victory, it wasn’t winning the House in 2010. It was winning the state legislatures in 2010 because they were able to redraw their districts so they had many more conservative voters. The members get heat from the press but they don't get heat from back home.

Costa may be overstating the role of the gerrymandering process here. (As Jonathan Bernstein writes, “current districts help Republicans, but that appears to be primarily because of where Democrats and Republicans live, not because of cleverly drawn lines.” That is, Democrats are concentrated in big cities, and many of their votes are “wasted” on congressional candidates who win with 80 or 90 percent.) But his comments underscore how little motivation most House Republicans have to rehabilitate their party’s image so that it appeals to a national electorate. They know that the Old White Guy Party is going to be at a disadvantage in 2016, and being responsible for a government shutdown isn’t going to broaden its appeal. They just don’t see a reason to care.

* They are Majority Leader Eric Cantor, 50, (R-VA); Rep. Chairman Dave Camp, 60, (R-MI) chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee; Rep. Hal Rogers, 75, (R-KY), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; Rep. Paul Ryan, 43, (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee; Rep. John Carter, 71, (R-TX); Rep. Ander Crenshaw, 69, (R-FL); Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, 67, (R-NJ); and Rep. Tom Graves, 43 (R-GA).

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Joshua DeCuir
4 years 3 months ago
If this blog is going to be called "Unconventional", it could start perhaps by reading & citing sources that do not automatically prooftext the author's argument. Because while it is true that the percentage of the white vote has been shrinking, it is not at all a certain thing that this will lead to a lasting Democratic majority. In other words, demographics are not necessarily speaking, destiny. Sean Trende has been the most persistent in making this point, and lays out his arguments that no national party can afford to write off the white vote, especially the blue collar, middle class white vote that has trended Republican. This is just one example of his argument: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-democrats%E2%80%99-problem-with-white-voters/ And as Ross Douthat has consistently noted, there are trends in the Democratic Party that could lead to its rupture post-Obama, including a mass defection of the kinds of blue-collar white voters that used to form its base. These trends are overshadowed right now in the glow of a victory, but once he recedes from the scene, it is not clear how those trends will hold. But whatever the arguments are, wouldn't it be more unconventional to analyze them instead of jumping on to the conventional wisdom? And just for the record, while I am a Republican, I am one who believes that the party must re-tool its message in significant ways (including on immigration) that retain the support of middle class & blue collar whites, while also attracting a greater share of the non-white vote.
Robert Sullivan
4 years 3 months ago

No party can afford to write off the white vote, but there's a limit to how much of the white vote the Republican Party can get, especially given its conservatism on social and environmental issues. And it certainly can't win with just white men, which is the main reason that a "we'll fix everything" congressional delegation of all white men doesn't help the party's national image. But, no, there's can't be a lasting majority for either party if we continue to have fair elections. The Republicans will eventually figure out how to assemble a majority in presidential races. I wouldn't recommend just holding fast and waiting for a "rupture" in the Democratic Party, however. Barring a huge scandal that damages the Democratic Party, it's hard to think of a credible Democratic presidential nominee who would lose a big chunk of white, blue-collar voters who voted for John Kerry and Barack Obama.

Joshua DeCuir
4 years 3 months ago
"I wouldn't recommend just holding fast and waiting for a "rupture" in the Democratic Party, however." Hence my comment that, as a Republican, I think the party needs to be proactive at re-tooling its message, particularly on economics (see, e.g. Ramesh Ponnuru & Ross Douthat) that will appeal to middle class whites, but to Asians & others for whom an economic message is salient. Beyond that, I think Trende's point is not so much that the Democratic coalition will rupture, but that it will remain to be seen whether the particular coalition Obama has assembled will remain in its intensity or this particular form. But I don't see how we can discuss this topic without at least giving Trende a fair hearing.
ed gleason
4 years 3 months ago
Fair hearing for Trende'? no need to wait... all we need to do is watch the GOP lose the Virgina governors race. and the national GOP money class will throw Tea Party overboard just like the tea they were named after. I'm wanting a good seat at the dock to watch the fun.
Marie Rehbein
4 years 3 months ago
Unfortunately, it will be necessary to replace (the few) reasonable, thoughtful, functional Republicans with Democrats, no matter how incompetent they may be (not that they are), in order to counterbalance the monolithic Tea Party representatives.
Carlos Orozco
4 years 3 months ago
Marie, would those Democrats do anything to stop the current bankrupt, all-snooping, war-crazed, banker-owned government headed by President Obama? In any case, Republicans are the essential counterpart in the bipartisan show the majority still call "democracy".
Marie Rehbein
4 years 3 months ago
Yup.
Stanley Kopacz
4 years 3 months ago
The republican party is no more essential to democracy than the Whig party was. Another party would emerge to fill the space. Ideally, in my view, this party would widen the field of options, to the left and green of the democrats. An entire system that only allows for the participation of two parties is far less democratic than it could be and needs to be questioned. This recent debacle is evidence of severe system failure. Renewal and reform is needed.
Carlos Orozco
4 years 3 months ago
"Deficits don't matter" -Dick Cheney

Advertisement

Don't miss the best from America

Sign up for our Newsletter to get the Jesuit perspective on news, faith and culture.

The latest from america

Pope Francis meets with priests, religious and seminarians at the Metropolitan Cathedral in Santiago, Chile, Jan. 16. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Francis focused for the second time today during his visit to Chile on the abuse scandal that has rocked the Chilean church. “I know the pain resulting from cases of abuse of minors, and I am attentive to what you are doing to respond to this great and painful evil,” he said.
Gerard O’ConnellJanuary 16, 2018
Pope Francis dove head-first into Chile's sex abuse scandal on his first full day in Santiago.
Jars of medical marijuana on display on at the Western Caregivers Medical dispensary in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Richard Vogel, File)
The Justice Department is vowing to enforce a federal ban on marijuana, even as some states try to move toward full legalization.
Ellen K. BoegelJanuary 16, 2018
Catholic women may be part of a Democratic voting wave in 2018. They are ready to welcome women deacons.
Mark M. GrayJanuary 16, 2018