Friday, January 11, 2013
Official Washington hailed the deal to
avoid the so-called fiscal cliff as a significant
bipartisan accomplishment. However, voters around the
country viewed the deal in very partisan terms: Seven out of
10 Democrats approved of it, while seven out of 10
Republicans disapproved.
Just a few days after reaching that agreement, an
inside-the-Beltway publication reported another area of
bipartisan agreement. Politico explained that while
Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a
problem, Washington Republicans "in many a post-election
soul-searching session" have come to agree. More precisely,
the article said the party's Election 2012 failures have
"brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment
Republicans: They have a primary problem."
As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that
Republican voters think it's OK to replace incumbent
senators and congressman who don't represent the views of
their constituents. In 2012, for example, Republican voters
in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary
battle.
This infuriated establishment Republicans for two reasons.
First, because they liked Lugar and the way he worked.
Second, because the replacement candidate was flawed and
allowed Democrats to win what should have been a safe
Republican seat.
So, according to Politico, the Washington team is gearing
up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability
of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment
candidates.
That makes sense to those whose sole goal is winning a
majority in Congress rather than changing the course of
government policy. Seen from the outside, though, it sounds
like the professional politicians are saying that the only
way to win is to pick more candidates like the insiders.
Hearing that message, the reaction of many Republican and
conservative voters is, "Why bother?"
That's why more than two-thirds of Republican voters
believe GOP officials in Washington have lost touch with the
party's base.
The Republican establishment has two choices. They can act
as mature party leaders of a national political party, or
they can protect their own self-interest.
Mature party leaders would spend a lot more time listening
to Republican voters rather than further insulating
themselves from those voters. They would try to understand
why just 37 percent of Republicans nationwide believe the
economy is fair. They would give serious thought to why just
half of GOP voters have a favorable opinion of House Speaker
John Boehner, the highest-ranking elected Republican in the
nation. They would acknowledge that government spending in
America has gone up in every year since 1954 regardless of
whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.
Then mature party leaders would chart a realistic course to
address these concerns and share those plans with the
voters. To succeed, this course would have to include some
painful medicine for the establishment, such as giving up
corporate welfare programs that benefit their friends and
allies. It also would require helping Republican voters
identify primary candidates who challenge the establishment
but could be effective on the campaign trail.
This is a much tougher course to follow; one that would
benefit the party and the nation. Unfortunately, by seeking
to protect the insiders from the voters, all indications are
that most establishment Republicans would rather blame the
voters and keep their perks.
