The Trouble Securing the GOP Nomination for Senate Republicans

July 19, 2013Danny Vinik Leave a comment

Ed Kilgore, Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum each had posts today basically declaring Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) 2016 presidential aspirations dead after immigration reform has stalled in the house. Marshall says so defiantly. Kilgore believes that, after “settling” for candidates that were too moderate in 2008 and 2012, the Republican base will stay away from Rubio in ’16. Drum agrees, but adds that Rubio is young and has potential in 2020 and 2024.

I agree with all of that, but I want to expand the scope of this beyond just Rubio. Every senator with presidential aspirations – from Rubio to Ted Cruz (R-TX) to Rand Paul (R-KY) – is going to face the same critique from the general public: you haven’t done anything.

Rubio’s 2016 presidential chances are falling.

It’s well known that Americans disapprove of Congress by large numbers. They also blame both sides for the gridlock, although the GOP gets slightly more of the blame in most polls. This presents a big problem for Republican presidential candidates over the next couple of years. How can they continue obstructing the Senate without continuing to seem like they’re the ones to blame? Rubio has seen over the past few weeks what happens when a senator steps across the aisle and tries to accomplish anything. Whatever passes the Senate is unacceptable to House Republicans, who are content to let the legislation die. Now Rubio faces the wrath of the base without anything to show moderates or Hispanics. That’s why Kilgore, Marshall and Drum have dug a grave for his 2016 presidential ambitions.

But Paul and Cruz are going to be expected to do more than shoot down every piece of legislation. Dave Weigel summed up Cruz’s six month in office today and his only accomplishments are disrupting lawmaking:

“That’s the story of Ted Cruz’s strategic acumen in the Senate. The paradox is that the theatrics that completely backfire in D.C. are embraced by activists in the bright world outside.”

We’re only six months into Cruz’s Senate career and it’s easy to rouse the base by refusing to compromise at the beginning. But at some point, most voters are going to want to see Cruz actually try to pass a law. The current Ted Cruz could certainly win the Republican primary, but he wouldn’t have a chance in the general election, because he won’t appeal to independents whatsoever. Three and a half more years of obstruction will just turn them off more.

That’s Republican senators’ problem: anyone in Congress will have trouble winning an election in 2016. It’s a lose-lose proposition for Republican Senators. If you support major legislation, help it get passed with bipartisan support and thus prove to moderates you’re willing to compromise, then the House will kill the bill (preventing you from taking credit), the Tea Party will withdraw their support and you will lose in a Republican primary. If you don’t support any legislation and just spend time arguing against all proposed policies, then independents will see you as an obstructionist who can’t govern. You’ll have Tea Party support, but moderate Republicans will be wary of your electability. If you do survive a primary, the Democratic candidate (likely Hilary Clinton) will beat you in the general election.

Rubio will top the list of 2016 Republican presidential candidates if immigration reform passes, but it’s unlikely it will. He took option one and lost. Cruz and Paul are eventually going to have to make a decision as well. Will they contribute to any policymaking and attempt to endear themselves to independents looking for compromise? Can they find a piece of legislation that is worth risking Tea Party support? Or will they continue to obstruct everything in the Senate, fight for support of the base and worry about pivoting in the future? That’s what makes any Republican congressman’s presidential campaign (pre-campaign in this case) so challenging. Anyone from the Senate faces structural political challenges that are nearly impossible to overcome. Rubio has already been taken down by them. Who will be next?

Libertarian Populism Can Be Popular

July 18, 2013Danny Vinik 1 Comment

There’s been some discussion in the blogosphere recently on “libertarian populism.” AEI’s Tim Carney published a list on Monday of policy solutions that libertarian populists should push towards the general public, including breaking up the big banks, ending corporate welfare, cleaning up the tax code, reducing the payroll tax and a couple other things. Carney writes that the goal is to “turn to the working class as the swing population that can deliver elections” and to do so, conservatives must “[o]ffer populist policies that mesh with free-market principles, and don’t be afraid to admit that the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy and the well-connected.”

I’m not a conservative or a libertarian so I don’t want to jump too deep into this debate which doesn’t involve me, but I’m very partial to Carney’s ideas. I would add in one other major one, that certainly falls under the libertarian mindset: reforming our intellectual property laws. All of these policies are focused on helping the working class. Shouldn’t that be a great way to garner support from them?

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t think so:

I’m sympathetic to most of the items on Carney’s list — and those on the list that fellow populist Conn Carroll has compiled. Taken together, though, they do not seem to amount to a winning political platform. A Republican party that took on the U.S. Export-Import Bank might improve its image a bit, but how many Americans really care enough about the issue to change their votes based on it? Nor does freeing the food trucks seem like it would win many votes, however right it might be as a policy matter.

The libertarian populists sometimes seem to make the same political mistake as left-wing populists: Assuming that because most voters distrust big business and do not believe they share its interests, they are therefore looking for the politician who will most vocally take it on.

Ponnuru is right that most voters don’t care at all about the Export-Import Bank. You can say that about most of Carney’s proposals (with the exception of the payroll tax reduction – which Ponnuru points out). But this isn’t about one specific proposal. It’s about the image of libertarian populism.

Obamacare has been the lead news story for years now, but a fifth of the country still doesn’t know about the individual mandate.. Few know about the regulations in Dodd-Frank or what was in the Stimulus. They hear about policies once in a while, but don’t follow DC closely. Ezra Klein has been preaching this for a while now. Political and policy analysts focus way too much on the political impact of certain policies or proposal. The public doesn’t follow this stuff.

What matters is the general image of the party and right now, Americans believe it caters towards the wealthy. This image won’t change over night and is going to take a concerted effort across the entire policy spectrum. Carney’s ideas are a great start. If libertarians in Congress (ahem – Rand Paul) came out with a major policy platform with these ideas and messaged it as a conservative manifesto to improve the lives of working class Americans, it would be greeted with open arms by huge swaths of people.

Most Americans are not going to hear about the details of how Paul wants to end corporate welfare or break up the big banks. But just hearing that he’s promoting such policies would prove that libertarians are looking out for the interests of main street. It can’t end there though. Libertarian populists must continue to push free-market policies in every facet of policymaking. They must stay on message that these policies are aimed at the working class. Slowly, but surely, people will begin to associate libertarianism with pro-middle class ideas. In fact, over time, libertarian populism could become popular and that would certainly be a positive development for working class Americans, the Republican party and the country as a whole.

Reaction to Obama’s Second Inauguration

January 21, 2013Danny Vinik 1 Comment

Just a quick post on my thoughts on President Obama’s second inaugural address.

Like many liberals, I enjoyed the President’s speech a lot. I loved hearing Obama explicitly say he wants to take on climate change. I loved the explicit comment on LGBT couples and equal rights. I loved the focus on economic inequality and the need to promote free, fair markets.

President Obama is sworn in as President of the United States.

In the end though, the speech did not say much new and it doesn’t change the congressional obstruction the President faces. Republicans aren’t going to agree to cap-and-trade because Obama mentioned climate change in his inaugural address (see his 2009 inaugural address). So, the only thing I’m left with in the end is that the speech doesn’t matter.

How many of the President’s speeches have truly mattered? The bully pulpit is a lot less powerful than people think, especially when you’re facing an opponent (the Tea Party) who won’t be swayed by changes in public opinion. The more Obama promotes ideas the Tea Party doesn’t agree with (even if the public supports those ideas), the more Tea Party Congressmen will attempt to block all legislation. The only thing that works against such an opponent is leverage, as seen in the final fiscal cliff deal and the House Republican’s new willingness to pass a three-month debt ceiling increase.

On the opposite side, liberals were certainly happy with the ideas and values the President outlined. Hearing those ideas in such an important, public address reignites hope they will become the major accomplishments of Obama’s second term. But the political realities are the same and no speech is going to change anything. If anything, it’s only going to anger Republicans more and increase their obstructionism. Thinking of this speech as a major turning point in Obama’s time in office or the moment where Republicans will finally come around to working with the President is naive. Obstructionism will reign once again. In just a few short months, Democrats and Republicans will be bickering over a new continuing resolution to fund the government and we will risk a government shutdown. That was true yesterday and it’s true today. It’s true tomorrow as well and no speech is going to change that. (Image via)