From the standpoint of the
Democratic Party, it is unfortunate
that the next national elections are 17
months away. So many recent events
have gone the Democrats’ way: the extirpation of Osama bin Laden; winding down
of U.S. engagement in Iraq, and with it reduction in military spending and
casualties; a booming stock market; the economy’s upswing; the unemployment
rate’s fractional downward trend; the pratfalls of Republican presidential
hopefuls Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich; and last Tuesday’s stunning result in
the special Congressional election in up-State New York.
In
a fortified Republican stronghold, running against an orthodox and locally
eminent Republican, battered by huge oppositional spending, the Democratic
nominee won the race. Kathy
Hochul, starting as a 20-point underdog, captured 47 per cent of the votes,
while 43 went to Republican Assemblywoman Jane Corwin, 9 to the mis-labeled Tea
Party nominee and one per cent to the Green Party candidate.
More auspicious for Democrats than the
fact of achieving an upset victory is how it was accomplished.
Ms
Hochul pitched her campaign as a call to save Medicare. Loud and long, she
warned that the Republican-backed “Ryan budget” for the Federal government would
kill Medicare, or entitlements for conditional government payments for medical
bills. That warning (factually
correct, though incomplete) proved to be persuasive, especially to higher-aged
voters.
The pitch that worked for Kathy Hochul
could be potent for Democratic candidates all over the country. The Ryan budget
is not just a proposal that can be disavowed. It is a legislative package (also
containing tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy) that was put to a vote in
the Congress. While all Democrats
in the House of Representatives voted against it, all but three Republicans
(including Chris Gibson, GreeneLand’s Representative) voted for it. It then went to the Senate, where all
Democrats voted against, while all but five of the 47 sitting Republicans voted
for it, even after they knew the result of the by-election in up-State New
York. They can’t readily disavow
that position.
It
is a position of vulnerability. “Ryan’s budget may reflect Republican values and approaches,”
says Stuart Rothenberg, the expert elections analyst, “but from a political point of view it is
a serious burden with no possible near-term payoff” (5/27/11).
That burden could prove to be
seriously valuable to the Democrats, at a time of peculiar vulnerability. In the Senate, as it happens, although
Democrats hold a majority of seats, 23 of those seats will be subject to
election in November 2012, while only 10 Republican-held seats will be open. In the House of Representatives, after
majority control swung to the Republicans in 2010, the Democrats must win 25
seats in order to regain control.
Sixty-one seats that are held now by Republicans are in districts where
Barack Obama won in the 2008 presidential elections. Fourteen of those were won too by John Kerry, the Democrats’
presidential candidate in 2004.
They look especially ripe for Democratic takeover. But next year’s Congressional elections
will be preceded by a shuffle of districts and district lines. In the wake of the Census, New York and
other Northern States will be losing seats to Republican-leaning southern and
western States.
Fortunately
for the Republicans, moreover, there is time enough to adapt to the Corwin
disaster. There is time to devise
subject-changing themes, to concoct better rationales for the Ryan budget
(which cable television commentator Rachel Maddow gleefully labels the
“Republicans’ Kill Medicare bill”), to seize on strategic possibilities that
are thrown up by the course of events.
Fortunately
for the Democrats, attempts by Republican operatives to get away from the
Medicare issue, attempts to make competitive adjustments, are likely to meet
internal as well as external resistanceSome top-level Republicans downplay the significance of the
Hochul victory and thus the need for a change of course. Karl Rove pointed out that Ms Hochul
won only one more percentage point of votes than Barack Obama, as the
presidential candidate in 2008, gathered in that district. (Yes, but John McCain won the district
by 56%, while the State went heavily for Obama. And Ms Corwin’s Republican predecessor won the seat in 2010
by 76%).
Another
form of downplaying the Hochul victory consists of noting that electoral
support for the “conservative” candidates, Republican and Tea Party, surpassed
the Democratic candidate’s margin by 51 to 47. (Yes, but the man who put himself on the ballot under the
banner of the Tea Party, Jack Davis, wealthy local industrialist, was nothing
like a “conservative” in the “tea party” vein. His entitlement to that brand was denied, in advertisements
and broadcasts, by all sorts of national “tea party” figures. His favorite issue, apart from
autobiographical effusions, was the evil of “free trade.” His votes would not have gone
overwhelmingly to the Republican nominee).
Other
influential Republicans acknowledge that the Hochul victory demonstrates that
the Ryan/Republican budget is at
present a political liability, while advocating a Stand Fast response. Ryan
himself proudly claims that he draws up measures on the basis of merit not
popularity. “I don’t consult polls
to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be.” He urges his co-partisans to remain
steadfast in support not only of the Medicare-privatizing provision of that
budget package, but also of other key provisions: raising Medicare eligibility
from age 65 to age 67; converting Medicaid to a block-grant program run by the
States, cutting tax rates for corporations and the rich, and a reducing
discretionary spending for domestic programs by more than 20 percent…. In the
same vein, the head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep.
Tom Cole, urges his colleagues to “stay with our argument” while conducting a
“stronger marketing” campaign.
The conservative pro-Republican columnist Jonah
Goldberg anticipates that the Medicare-killing Ryan budget, which enabled a
Democrat to capture a heavily Republican seat in the Congress, “will likely
define both the presidential and congressional elections in 2012.” He urges the
Republicans to stand fast; no retreat, no weaseling. He joins another conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer,
in contending that the best Republican nominee for President in 2012 would be
Paul Ryan.
No comments:
Post a Comment