Did the last election endorse conservative ideas? James Drader thinks so, and although he is a mere County Republican leader in my area, he echoes a sentiment shared by Republican politicians across the country. It is odd that they think so. After all, Peggy Noonan a couple of weeks before the election criticized the Republicans for telling us what they were against, but projected no vision and had given the electorate no clue as to what they were for. Ironically, in her column she herself offered no suggestions as to the vision or programs the Republicans might recommend. And, of course, she was right. The Republicans made Barack Obama the issue in the 2014 election. And the Democrats ran away from him as well. Were there some conservative arguments made against him? Of course, but it is fantasy to suppose that the last election endorsed a conservative agenda. Despite the results of the election, Congressional Representatives, like the Mafia, are less popular than the President.
On the other hand, it may be a good thing for Democrats and not bad for the country that conservatives feel empowered. Reports of their plans indicate that they hope to cut back on environmental regulation, Wall Street oversight, and otherwise plan to advance the interests of businesses that have supported them. The Supreme Court said in Citizens United that it is an important part of democracy for Representatives to be responsive to their contributors. This, of course, is nonsense. Corruption and bribery are not democracy; they are corruption and bribery. And if the Republicans push the agenda of their wealthy contributors (which they will), they will be seen as corrupt (they already are). Fortunately, the Republicans cannot pass legislation that would overcome a veto, so their ability to help their contributors will be limited.
Alternatively, the Republican have suggested that if the President moves ahead on immigration without their participation, they will not play nice (as if they otherwise would). If the Republicans opt for gridlock when they control both Houses, they will have no record to run on, and in the next election with a broader electorate and a different map, they could have an unpleasant night.
Of course, they will try to run against Obama once more. George Will already has written a column suggesting that Hilary Clinton is really the same as four more years of Obama. But I think the opposition to Obama has been more about his personal qualities and his failures as a politician than it has been about issues. Hilary Clinton, of course, has qualities that are not universally endearing. But the electorate is not so stupid as to think that Hilary is Barack. And, by the way, the last time I looked Hilary Clinton lead all likely Republican candidates by a comfortable margin.
Comments