fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Party Establishments and Political Independence

Confirming the observation I was making earlier today about the unpopularity of the GOP and PA-12, Tom Jensen writes: Barack Obama’s mid-30s approval rating in the district got more ink, but the number that may have ended up being even more relevant to last night’s outcome was the putrid 22% approval rating for Congressional Republicans […]

Confirming the observation I was making earlier today about the unpopularity of the GOP and PA-12, Tom Jensen writes:

Barack Obama’s mid-30s approval rating in the district got more ink, but the number that may have ended up being even more relevant to last night’s outcome was the putrid 22% approval rating for Congressional Republicans with 60% disapproving of them [bold mine-DL]. Given that our final survey overestimated GOP performance in the district it’s entirely possible that actual support for the Republican leadership in Washington is under 20%.

This helps to clarify that the GOP as a whole remains wildly unpopular in PA-12 despite the district’s nominally pro-Republican PVI rating after McCain won it. That is an important qualification when discussing how plausible Republican success really was in this district. It also shows that it is not enough for the GOP to find districts where voters reject Obama and his agenda. One has to find districts where voters also are not still even more strongly anti-Republican. Whatever else we might say about Republican strategy, vulnerable Democrats in traditionally Republican districts, and all the rest of it, as long as Congressional Republican approval ratings and GOP favorability are even worse than the Democrats’ ratings it may not make much difference what Republicans do or what districts they target. Nonetheless, this does underscore how important it is for Republican candidates to differentiate themselves from the Congressional GOP if they are going to prevail. In many parts of the country, the Republican brand is still toxic and being tied to it is a political disaster, and so far every House special election candidate that has identified himself with it has lost. One reason why Scott Brown was successful in the Massachusetts Senate race was his emphasis on his independence and his repeated efforts to keep distance between himself and Republicans in Washington.

Glen Bolger declares that the recent election results represent the “death of independence,” but that’s very wrong. Critz flourished by running as a candidate not tied to his party leaders, Sestak ran against the party machine’s preferred candidate, and obviously Rand Paul did much the same. For that matter, Lincoln hasn’t lost yet, and Specter became an extremely reliable vote for Reid once Sestak declared for the primary. As far as I can see, there were no independent-minded politicians being voted down in recent weeks. Even Bob Bennett did not really lose because he “strayed from the party line.” Bennett perceived errors were committed at a time when making those errors was considered evidence of being an effective partisan (i.e., crafting a Republican alternative on health care) and, in the case of the TARP, a loyal supporter of the party line. Bennett’s biggest problem was that the party line moved after Obama’s election. Two years ago, support for the TARP was virtually mandatory for any leading Republican officeholder, and all “serious” Republicans had to vote for it. Whether it was popular or not, the Republican Senate leadership lined up three-quarters of their members behind it. Pro-TARP Republicans can defend their support if they want, but they can’t claim that it was because of their willingness to break party ranks. The only way that the TARP eventually passed in the teeth of so much popular outrage was the willingness of most members of Congress in both parties to do as they were told and vote for it.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here