« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Federal Losses, Local Victories?

By: Chris Myers (Diary)  |  February 1st, 2013 at 04:09 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Last week, I mentioned Willmoore Kendall’s observation that, for some reason, conservative ideas tend to do better in smaller constituencies (giving us an advantage in congressional races), while liberal ideas tend to do better when put to a nation-wide vote (giving them the advantage in presidential races). Therefore, I argued, maybe it’d be smarter for us to prioritize and focus first on gaining and maintaining control of Congress, with winning the presidency coming in at priority number two. Well, I just read a piece by Mr. Jonah Goldberg at NRO, and I wonder if perhaps it might be a little vindication of Kendall’s insight (and, I ever-so-humbly submit, my own argument). Here’s an excerpt:

…The GOP has its troubles. Long-term demographic trends; often-irrational animosity from Hollywood, the media, and academia; a thumbless grasp of the culture on the part of many Republicans: All of these things create a headwind for the party and the broader conservative movement.

But here’s the weird part. That’s all true of presidential politics, but less so when it comes to state politics or even other federal races. In 2010, the GOP had its best performance in congressional races since 1938.

In North Carolina, a state that is supposed to represent the trends benefitting Democrats — it’s attracting liberal northern transplants, immigrants, high-tech workers, etc. — the GOP now has veto-proof majorities in the state house and senate. Last November, North Carolina became the 30th state with a GOP governor.

What gives?

Excellent question, indeed. By the way, you can check out the whole thing here.

(I’ve been quite short on time this week–two kids with the flu–so, if I may be so bold, I ask you to forgive the lack of commentary.)

Tags: , , , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • DerKrieger

    I’ve LONG advocated that we need to focus on our strengths, especially at the state level via federalism. See my diary. We cannot count on the GOP in DC to “save” us from socialism. We can only accomplish that by turning red states deep red, enacting conservative policy at the state level, and demanding that our state governments nullify or ignore unconstitutional federal legislation.

    It’s time for some resistance.

    • Chris Myers

      Agreed on all counts. Top-down change is unlikely, and probably wouldn’t hold for long anyway; we need to hone some sort of bottom-up approach.

  • http://www.bohnetlaw.com rightappeal

    Worth noting that the situation was roughly reversed 30 years ago, with the GOP in the midst of a 5 for 6 run in Presidential contests while the Dems had held the House for over 30 years along with a consistent majority of governorships and domination of state legislative seats. In hindsight, it’s easy to see that two huge factors in the federal/state split back in the 1980′s were that the GOP held a huge policy advantage on foreign policy that later evaporated with the end of the Cold War; and that the Dems’ post-Civil War advantage in the South melted from the top-down so that they continued to dominate state and local elections in that region well after the GOP was able to start carrying the region at the Presidential level.

    Today I suggest that a big problem for the GOP at the federal level is that its foreign policy isn’t trusted in the wake of Iraq.

    • Chris Myers

      I think you’re right about the GOP foreign policy being considered untrustworthy by a lot of people. Heck, I’m about as die-hard a conservative as you’re likely to meet, and I have MAJOR problems with their foreign policy proposals (not that I think the Dems are any better). I’d like to the GOP go toward a more Reagan-esque form of realism, and back off the neocon democracy promotion quite a bit. I’d be willing to bet that a move like that would win over some moderates who might otherwise vote Democrat or for a third party.

      • streiff

        Reagan’s foreign policy… rolling back communism, nation building in El Salvador, sponsoring insurgencies in Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, and Eritrea, invading Grenada, and intervening in Lebanon would be condemned by those who rail against “neo-cons” or Jews or whatever.

        • commonsenseobserver

          It’s a little dangerous to be sponsoring insurgencies in this day and age.

        • Chris Myers

          Well, I didn’t really mean to open a foreign policy can of worms, but I do want to point out a couple of things:

          1. Who here is railing against Jews? Granted, there are (unfortunately, as I see it) plenty of people who equate “neoconservatism” with “Jews” and then oppose the former on what basically amounts to anti-Semitic grounds. Still, there are plenty of people who disagree with neoconservatism for OTHER reasons, one example being Daniel Larison at the The American Conservative. Also, you’ve got the Ron Paul libertarian non-interventionist crowd. I’m closer to Larison and the TAC bunch than the non-interventionists, but you’ve got to at least acknowledge that their reasons for opposing neoconservatism are not borne of anti-Semitism.

          2. I think neoconservative foreign policy creates a false dichotomy: Either we’re rolling back the enemy tide AND creating democratic governments wherever we go OR we’re in the process of being defeated by the enemy. Realism would deny that false dichotomy and posit that it’s possible to roll back the enemy tide without NECESSARILY promoting democratic government. Said another way, Reagan’s foreign policy was more about defeating world Communism than about making the world “safe for democracy.” And insofar as Reagan’s ACTUAL foreign policy departed from that principle, I think there’d be room for criticism. But the overall trajectory of Reagan’s foreign policy was different than that of, e.g., the Bush II administration.

          3. In today’s environment, I think a Reagan-esque foreign policy would be focused more on defeating the Islamist ideology than on imposing Western-style liberal democracy when and where possible. There’s a middle ground here that often gets lost in the shuffle, I believe.

          • streiff

            neocon routinely used by anti-semites to object to Jews in foreign policy position. Outside of “former liberal Jew who is now a conservative foreign policy wonk”: I don’t think “neo con” has any meaning whatsoever.

            2 and 3. Shorter: I don’;t know what Reagan’s foreign policy was so I’ll just make something up and call it Reagan’s foreign policy.

          • Chris Myers

            Hmmm. Two questions:

            1. What exactly is in dispute here? The word itself (“neocon”), or the notion that there is such a thing as a “neoconservative foreign policy” approach? If the former, I just won’t use the word anymore; if the latter, I’d say that you’re wrong. And, just to reiterate what I said above, there are plenty of people who AREN’T anti-Semites who criticize neoconservatism.

            2. Are you saying that I’m the one who’s ignorant of Reagan’s foreign policy and that I just “made stuff up”? If so, I beg to differ. Do you disagree with this assessment of Reagan’s foreign policy:

            “…Reagan undoubtedly believed in the virtues of democracy, but he also believed that there could hardly be any worse outcome than the international spread of communism — especially if it was unintentionally assisted by ham-handed U.S. pressures on autocratic yet allied regimes.

            His basic inclination was therefore to bolster and reassure anti-Communist allies rather than to hector them on domestic affairs, albeit with increased attention to the democracy agenda over time…”

            That vindicates what I said above, about the difference between Reagan’s more realist foreign policy and Bush II’s more idealistic (more specifically, neoconservative) approach. Also, Reagan apparently rejected another key tenet of the foreign policy approach now dominant within the GOP: Preventive war.

            Here’s a link to the source of my information, so you can check it out for yourself if you feel inclined to do so:

            http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43426

            Reagan’s foreign policy was nuanced, to be sure, but I still maintain that his overall thrust was far different than today’s Republican Party.

      • Kyle-MI

        I am not sure how long trust for Dem foreign policy is going to last with the condition the Middle East is in, especially Egypt and Iran. Voters in the US may not want to get involved in Syria, but either way that country turns out it will be much more hostile to our interests.

        I think the voters, egged on by the Dems, are being very short-sighted. Sadly we are back to 9-10 thinking that could set up the conditions for something even nastier that 9-11.

      • Kyle-MI

        By the way, neocon is not a term used in polite company on this site.

  • thirdeblue3639

    1. Republicans are more consistent voters, so the GOP has a natural advantage in non-presidential election years.

    2. Democratic voters are more concentrated in urban areas, which means that the GOP can comfortably keep the House, but lose the number of votes cast by over a million (at the House level). In 2012, the GOP had greater GEOGRAPHIC support, but lost the actual POPULAR support.

    3. Redistricting has benefited Republicans of late and will continue to benefit Republicans at least until the next redistricting. Probably longer than that.

    The circular firing squad already starting in regards to immigration and Marco Rubio is highly unfortunate. If Hillary runs in 2016, she might bring states like Arkansas (likely) and West Virginia (less likely) back into play. A united GOP will be a major underdog to beat Hillary Clinton for President. With a divided party it will be no contest.

    The good news is that the average GOP House member outperformed Obama meaning there were several million ballots cast where somebody voted for Obama, but voted for the GOP House Rep too.

    • Chris Myers

      I hadn’t even really considered what might happen if Hillary decides to run in 2016. Do you really think she is considering/would consider it?

    • commonsenseobserver

      Did you see the polls in Kentucky and Texas?

      God knows if the results will end up looking like the exit polls W saw in ’04.

  • lastgopinillinois

    It all depends on where you live.
    After the 2012 election was over, I dived into the county clerks office election results and found that here in my county (which is the second most liberal democrat county in southern Illinois), the democrats had won almost all of the local offices, but the majority voted to send Romney to the White House. This is the first time that I can recall the majority in my county voting for a Republican President.

    • Chris Myers

      Interesting. That’s almost the reverse of what I argued above. Food for thought, nonetheless.

      Let me ask this question, though: Do you think that would indicate that what I suggest (priority one should be Congress, priority two the executive) is the wrong approach? I’m not trying to be sarcastic (unlike below); just a genuine question. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

      • ww2nd95

        Well it’s all interesting at the state level. I mean WV is a perfect example. They have a democratic gov, democratic control in both houses, 2 democratic Senators, yet Romney won the state by 30 points. Tennessee has a very moderate GOP Gov and Phil Bredeson was a very popular Democratic Gov before Haslim took office in 2010. And I honestly think if Bredeson decided to run against Lamar Alexander in 2014, he could win.. So state level politics are totally different and sometimes do not make a whole lot of sense to me.

        • Kyle-MI

          WV has been Democrat territory for a long time, but it has supported more conservative type Dems. There are people there who vote Dem (at the local level) out of tradition, but their principles are more aligned with conservative Republicans.

  • dfwlibrarian

    Willmoore Kendall was right. Conservative ideas tend to do better in smaller communities where most everyone in those communities is a rich quasi-aristocrat like the late William F Buckley. Conservatism is not a majoritarian philosophy. Real Conservatives would prefer to be in the minority but hold power over others due to their innate aristocratic excellence. Just saying…

    • Chris Myers

      Have you ever even read the essay by Kendall I was referring to? (Or anything else by him, for that matter?) If so, then you’d know better than to make a comment like that; if not, go away and don’t come back until you have something constructive to say. Just saying…

    • Chris Myers

      By the way, I have liberal friends (and relatives) who are articulate and sophisticated individuals, and whose opinions I therefore respect, even while disagreeing with them. But people like you…Well, if you wanted to pick a fight, you’ve got one. I dare you to come at me, you arrogant punk. Call me overly-confident if you will, but I’m pretty sure I can make mincemeat out of you, and am chomping at the bit to do so.

  • commonsenseobserver

    All politics is local.

  • checkmate2012

    Humans resist change when it comes to politics from my observations, even after all the complaints about Congress, it mostly stayed the same. You’re right that we do better on local and statewide races and have done pretty well in national races over time, just not the president. Here are some really telling stats from the 2012 election that support my observation (my source is wikipedia, not the best I know but it’s hard to mess up election result numbers).
    .
    I think we really missed opportunities in the newly created seats, especially in AZ, FL and TX. Lastly, in OK, UT and WV , 100% of the counties voted for Romney, yet Manchin still won in WV.
    .
    Senate Results
    * 21 of the 33 seats were won by imcumbents (about 64%),
    * Of the 12 seat changes, 7 of those stayed within the same Party
    .
    House Results
    *409 of the 435 seats were won by incumbents (about 94% !!!)
    *Of the 26 incumbent seats lost, 10 D seats were lost and 16 R seats were lost

    Newly Created Seats in the House (all stats are directly from below wikipedia link)
    *12 Democrats were elected in open seats, 11 in new seats and 1 retirement.
    *11 Republicans were elected in open seats, 6 in new seats and 5 retirements.
    .
    Democrat Gains in Newly created seats:
    1.Arizona’s 1st congressional district: Newly created seat won by Ann Kirkpatrick
    2.Arizona’s 9th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Kyrsten Sinema
    3.California’s 29th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Tony Cardenas
    4.California’s 41st congressional district: Newly created seat won by Mark Takano
    5.California’s 47th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Alan Lowenthal
    6.Florida’s 9th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Alan Grayson
    7.Florida’s 22nd congressional district: Newly created seat won by Lois Frankel
    8.Nevada’s 4th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Steven Horsford
    9.Texas’s 33rd congressional district: Newly created seat won by Marc Veasey
    10.Texas’s 34th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Filemon Vela
    11.Washington’s 10th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Dennis Heck

    Retirements that led to a party switch
    1.California’s 26th congressional district: Retiring Elton Gallegly (R) succeeded by Julia Brownley (D)
    .
    .
    *11 Republicans were elected in open seats, 6 in new seats and 5 retirements.
    .
    Republican Gains in Newly created seats:
    1.California’s 21st congressional district: Newly created seat won by David Valadao
    2.Florida’s 6th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Ron DeSantis
    3.Georgia’s 9th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Doug Collins
    4.South Carolina’s 7th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Tom Rice
    5.Texas’s 25th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Roger Williams
    6.Texas’s 36th congressional district: Newly created seat won by Steve Stockman

    Retirements that led to a party switch:
    1.Arkansas’s 4th congressional district: Retiring Mike Ross (D) succeeded by Tom Cotton (R)
    2.Indiana’s 2nd congressional district: Retiring Joe Donnelly (D) succeeded by Jackie Walorski (R)
    3.North Carolina’s 11th congressional district: Retiring Heath Shuler (D) succeeded by Mark Meadows (R)
    4.North Carolina’s 13th congressional district: Retiring Brad Miller (D) succeeded by George Holding (R)
    5.Oklahoma’s 2nd congressional district: Retiring Dan Boren (D) succeeded by Markwayne Mullin (R)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2012