The Republican Albatross
I didn’t watch this week’s Republican presidential debate. The clips that I’ve seen make me think that was a pretty good choice.
Vivek Ramaswamy figured prominently in two frequently repeated moments. He went full Putinista (never go full Putinista!) in one monologue filled with alternative facts, calling Ukraine’s President Zelensky a “nazi” and essentially suggesting that Ukraine should hand over its eastern regions to Russia. In another, he called out Nikki Haley’s daughter for having a TikTok account.
After watching Nikki Haley respond by calling Ramaswamy “scum,” I really hope that I am able to vote for her next spring.
Those pugilistic moments aside, one of the most telling moments was from Tim Scott. The other South Carolinian responded to a question about “the path forward” on abortion by saying that he favored a national ban.
“I’m 100 percent pro-life,” Scott answered. “I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record. I would certainly, as president of the United States, have a 15-week national limit. I would not allow states like California, Illinois, and New York, to have abortion up until the day of birth.”
Scott may not have paid attention to the elections earlier this week, but his 15-week plan is a losing proposition. As I discussed on Thursday, Democrats flipped both houses of the Virginia legislature after Gov. Youngkin proposed a [wait for it] 15-week limit, and anti-abortion referendums have failed everywhere they’ve been tried since the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision.
I’m pro-life as well, but even I have to admit that Tim Scott is badly out of step with the national mood on abortion. He’s the wrong man at the wrong time.
But honestly, abortion is only one issue where the Republican Party is out of step with public opinion. Take guns, for example. (Not really, because the Second Amendment won’t allow you to take them. [Insert rimshot here]). Again, I’m a pro-Second Amendment person, but the difficult pill to swallow is that Republicans are out of step with the majority of voters on just about every gun question you can imagine.
Immigration is another such issue. Republicans tend to be hardline on immigration, with many on the far right wanting further limits even on legal immigration, But Americans in general are bullish on immigration by a large margin and majorities have long supported immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship even as voters disapprove of Biden’s handling of the immigration issue.
To be fair, Democrats are out of step on some issues as well. Voters tend to think that Republicans are better on the economy and the segment of the Democratic Party that favors Hamas is a shrill minority. There are others as well, but the issue that is an 800-pound gorilla is the abortion issue.
Tim Scott may be speaking his heart when he calls for a 15-week abortion ban but he is leading his party into an ambush. It’s not going to happen.
Nikki Haley, who is also pro-life, had a much better answer than Scott. I won’t repeat her entire answer, but you can hear the full segment in context here and I definitely recommend listening to it.
“When it comes to the federal law, which is what’s being debated here, be honest,” Haley said. “It’s going to take 60 Senate votes, a majority of the House, and a president to sign it. We haven’t had 60 Senate votes in over 100 years. We might have 45 pro-life senators. So no Republican president can ban abortions any more than a Democrat president can ban these state laws [that restrict abortion].”
“So let’s find consensus,” she continued. “Let’s agree on how we can ban late-term abortions. Let’s make sure we encourage adoptions and good-quality adoptions. Let’s make contraception accessible. Let’s make sure that none of these state laws put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty for getting an abortion. Let’s focus on how to save as many babies as we can and support as many moms as we can. And stop the judgment. We don’t need to divide America on this issue anymore.”
Can I get an amen?
Haley’s answer closely mirrors my own opinions on the issue. I’m pro-life and, in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. We don’t live in a perfect world, however, and math dictates that a hardline stance on an abortion ban is doomed to fail. Tim Scott’s position is the worst of both worlds in that it is an impossible promise to keep and one that most Americans don’t want to be kept.
Accepting that reality, we should work to make abortion unnecessary by resolving the problems that make women feel that they need to get an abortion. The two biggest reasons cited were that a baby would interfere with the mother’s career/education and that the mother could not afford a baby. That means that the pro-life movement needs to start looking at issues like childcare, children’s healthcare, and support for single and poor mothers.
I refuse to believe that it is a pro-life position to ban abortion and simply tell mothers, “Good luck with the rest of your life.” That’s the difference between truly being pro-life and just being anti-abortion.
Nikki Haley’s answer has a chance of defusing the abortion bomb. If recent history is any indication, Tim Scott’s answer would cause the abortion bomb to blow up in Republican faces.
The fundamental error that both parties make is in trying to force their fringe agendas on the entire country. We’ve seen the pattern several times in which one party gains power and goes hog wild. They act like they want to jam through their entire partisan Christmas list quickly before they get kicked out. This angers moderate voters and gets the party promptly kicked out of power.
I’m reminded of Arthur Brooks’s advice that it’s easier to get involved on an issue that people care about than to get them to care about your issues. In other words, the parties need to find issues that meet voters where they are rather than trying to force their opinions on the electorate.
Brooks said that political parties, particularly conservative ones, should be “for people, not against things.” Yet conservative politics is still characterized by railing against abstractions from Obamacare to illegal immigration to Hunter Biden. These aren’t issues that swing voters care deeply about.
The problem with this approach is that the majority party can’t get everything it wants. Of course, the majority can’t get everything it wants anyway because we have checks and balances built into the system that prevent tyranny by the majority. But partisan voters don’t understand this and assume that when their wish list isn’t fulfilled it’s because traitors are in their midst.
A good recent example of this involves Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who just announced his retirement from the Senate. In 2021 and 2022, Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) came into harsh criticism from the left because they didn’t jump on board with a number of popular (to the left) bills. Progressive Democrats got predictable upset and accused them of disloyalty to the party.
My take is different. I think that Manchin and Sinema probably were a major reason that the 2022 midterms weren’t a total disaster for the Democrats. These two courageous senators put the brakes on the partisan train and moderated their party. That paid off in a number of close races including a squeaker of a gubernatorial race in [wait for it] Arizona.
No good deed goes unpunished, however. Kyrsten Sinema, who I’m old enough to remember was attacked by Republicans for being a radical socialist, became an independent and will probably be leaving the Senate. Joe Manchin announced his retirement from the Senate yesterday. The Senate and the Democratic Party will be worse off for having lost these two moderate voices. The Democratic Party will likely lose one or both Senate seats as well as they nominate hardline progressives in a moderate and a red state.
In a more perfect world, Joe Manchin would have been a good candidate for president. He is as close to any politician to the ideological center of the country, but as such, he’s not a good fit for either party. He could never be nominated as either a Democrat or a Republican by fringe primary voters.
The best hope for the Democrats is that Republicans will make the same mistake of overplaying their hand. The GOP has endured a string of embarrassing and unnecessary losses when it nominated bad candidates who repelled swing voters. A candidate like Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, or Kari Lake might help Democrats to retain those vulnerable seats.
And that brings us back to abortion. One of the issues where the Republicans have the worst track record. Will the party’s voters nominate a Tim Scott favoring abortion bans or a Nikki Haley who is ready to move on to other issues? The choice could determine the outcome of these and other races.
As I close, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one other issue where Republicans are out of the mainstream. Donald Trump is popular within the GOP, but his favorability hovers at about 40 percent nationally. The nation is begging Republican voters not to nominate The Former Guy again.
As I write this, Joe Biden’s approval is almost identical to Trump’s at 38 percent, but there are key differences. One is that progressives are unhappy with Biden because he isn’t far enough to the left. These unhappy Democrats are not going to vote for Trump and after 2016 they are unlikely to stay home.
Another difference is that Republicans have options, Democrats don’t. Aside from the fact that Biden is president and heads the party, Democrats don’t really have anyone on the bench who could be nominated and keep the party’s coalition together. A candidate far enough left to please the progressives would hemorrhage moderate voters.
There’s an old saying that something that weighs you down is an “albatross around your neck.” The phrase reportedly goes back to Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem, “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” in which a sailor kills one of the friendly sea birds and is punished by having to wear the carcass around his neck. The phrase isn’t used a lot anymore, but Republicans have not one but two big, smelly albatrosses around their neck that are weighing down their performance and their chances for 2024.
If Republicans want to break their losing streak, my advice is to remove the albatrosses that they have hung around their collective necks. The party needs to moderate its position on abortion (or better yet, just stop talking about it) and it needs to dump Trump and the MAGA radicals. My gut instinct is that they won’t do either.
Okay. Let’s posit that there are 3 groups of voters:
1. People who, if they vote, will vote for your guy no matter what.
2. People who, if they vote, will vote for the other guy no matter what.
3. People who, if they vote, can be persuaded to vote for either guy.
One of the wackiest things about 2016 is how weird it played with the knobs. Trump was able to get a whole bunch of #1s to show up for the first time. #1s who had never shown up before, showed up for Trump. Trump was able to get a whole bunch of #3s who were always assumed to be #2s to demonstrate that that assumption was wrong.
Now, sure, Clinton won the popular vote and, by some measures, that’s the only thing that matters.
But there are other measures that some people think are important and Trump somehow managed to get votes that mattered under those other measures. If he ain’t on the ballot, those people don’t show up, that’s for sure, but 2016 turned a lot of stuff on its head.
And I think that the argument has to be something like “how can we somehow harness his chaotic energy and get those people to vote for us again, even if we’re running Jeb Bush?”
(Note:This assumes that Hillary Clinton was not an awful, awful candidate who somehow energized the Republican #1s, depressed the Democratic #2s, and flipped a whole bunch of #3s in some exceptionally important geographic areas despite winning the popular vote.)Report
One thing to remember when discussing the 2016 election is that a lot of people have made “Hillary Clinton was not a historically-awful candidate” into a load-bearing element of their personality.Report
The other thing to remember is that it caused an entire political party to believe it can nominate the most obviously preposterous people and win competitive races.Report
Their solution so far has been, not to eliminate preposterous nominees but to eliminate competitive races, by violence where necessary,Report
Every party needs to define its boundaries where the big tent ends and political exile begins. In other words, you can have nuts and kooks, you just have to make sure they are marginalized and kept away from the levers of power.
The Republicans have instead, elevated the nuts and kooks to the Presidency and Speakership and almost all positions of power and influence. And as David Frum has observed, when faced with electoral losses they react not by trying to move to where the voters are, but by trying to dismiss the electorate and choose another.
There is no such boundary as “too far” in Republican circles.
Declare that democracy is incompatible with freedom? Sure, welcome to the party!
Insist that America is a Christian nation and should be bound by the laws of God? Howdy friend, have a seat at the table!
Try to overthrow a free and fair election with violence? Lets make this person President!
The problem is not with the party leaders, but with the rank and file. The Mitt Romneys and David Thorntons are the marginalized kooks now, standing outside the tent looking in.Report
one amusing thing has been seeing people take the abortion-rights laws in stride. “conservatives are gonna get abortion banned everywhere in the country? oh, they didn’t? well too bad, I’m angry about it anyway!”Report
Well pro-lifers are generally pretty up front about their being dead set on trying again, if the lose, and pushing further, if they win. So that attitude from pro-choicers is entirely rational.Report
“They repealed Roe! They’re gonna ban abortion!”
(abortion is the exact opposite of banned)
“Ah, well. Nevertheless…”Report
Oh? The exact the exact opposite of banned DD?Report
I mean, except for in broad swathes of the country where it is banned. So yes, millions of women no longer have access to reproductive care because of Dobbs, and I think that is bad.Report
The anti-abortion people have cemented their brand and message solidly in the minds of Americans.
50 years of screaming about dead babies and Holocaust and how life begins at the moment of conception isn’t going to wash away with someone stammering “Uh, no, we don’t want to ban abortions, no sirree, nuh-uh not at all!”
Maybe if they outfitted the Speaker of the House with a muzzle and ball gag it would help.Report
An example of Republicans “taking abortion-rights laws in stride”:
“Issue 1 doesn’t repeal a single Ohio law, in fact, it doesn’t even mention one,” said Representative Bill Dean (R-Xenia). “The amendment’s language is dangerously vague and unconstrained, and can be weaponized to attack parental rights or defend rapists, pedophiles, and human traffickers.”
Melanie Miller (R-Ashland) said, “We will continue to be a voice for every child in their mother’s womb who cannot speak for themselves.”
Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”
To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides. Report
Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”
Not “with which we were conceived”?Report
I am of course pro-choice, in the now very unfashionable, safe, legal, and rare sort of way. But if I were a Republican with a bunch of commitments on this issue, my response would be to say something like ‘the matter was returned to the states where it should have always been, if there is a referendum in my state I will vote pro-life, but now that we have gotten the US constitution completely out of the equation we should not re-insert the federal government.’ I’m pretty sure Chris Christie has in practice taken this kind of position, but I assume the fact that he has an even worse chance at the nomination than the previously thought plausible non-Trump candidates says all anyone needs to know about where the Republican base is on the subject.Report
If someone is a true believer, they probably shouldn’t change their views based on the national mood. Though there are probably ways to modify it or triangulate or what you will. Maybe. Sometimes.
Former OTer Jamelle Bouie has a column in the Times today about voters turning sour on Republican culture war stuff. This may or may not be true. It probably exists on a spectrum. However, Republicans still have a lot of built in advantages because of the number of states with low or middling populations of people that might be a minority but have leveraged advantages from having two Senators just like California has two Senators.
Manchin probably saw the writing on the wall and bowed out. He only won 2018 because of a third party spoiler candidate. I think Brown and Tester have good chances of being reelected but there are very few Democratic pickups in 2020. Arizona can probably get a real Democrat again. Defeating Cruz will be tantalizing but probably not happen.
I suspect Democrats will run a real deal guy like Kunce in MO and he will lose to Hawley, etc.
A Biden victory means the House flips though and the most likely best case scenario for Democrats in Biden reelected, House flips, 50-50 Senate with Harris as a tie-breaker and hopefully no other Senators getting Sinema-Manchin brain.*
*Possible, MN’s state government had great progress with tight margins this year because everyone worked togetherReport
Trump is the mind killer. I think that his presidency combined with covid brought out the weirdest and worst of progressive activism and culture. His absence as president, particularly after being replaced by someone like Biden, has deflated the salience. In a society full of people with attention spans shorter than a goldfish most quickly forget things that seemed important a few days ago much less what the big flashpoints were 3 or 4 years in the last. The Republicans on the other hand have continued to double down on their weirdest and worst, and indeed, that’s really all they have. Which certainly doesn’t mean it’s the end of them. In a two party system it is probably never going to be the end of anyone. But their prospects will be inherently limited if they are perpetually seen as fighting battles the bulk of normie, low info voters have moved on from. It’s sort of like back in the day when Giuliani was mocked for dropping 9/11 into every possible interview and interaction regardless of relevance.Report
At this moment, their prospects are limited to capturing the Presidency and Senate and narrowly losing the House.
Their prospects are further limited to retaining about half of the country’s governorships and state legislatures and holding a 6-3 majority in SCOTUS.Report
Nikki Haley is legit the GOP’s best hope for 2024. Which, of course, is why she’s been mercilessly buried by a media eco-sphere which is more hooked on Trump than the cast of Requiem For A Dream. Haley vs Biden would be a policy-riddled snoozefest. Trump – Biden II: The Brawl For It All, now there’s a ratings and ad rates spectacular!
Of course, the coastal media folk haven’t figured out that with Trump’s energy levels collapsing and 2020 having accelerated the mushening of his brain, they’re looking at less Aloha From Hawaii than Elvis In Concert. Junkies were never known for their foresight, though.Report
No, Haley’s being buried because a majority of the Republican primary electorate have no interest in her as the nominee, when Trump is there. Yes, a lot of well-paid guys in think tanks who appear on TV a lot and a few of the remaining embarassed anti-anti-Trumpers are fans of Haley, but the median Republican wants Trump, and think he was the best President of their lifetime.Report
Polling has Trump leading the entirety of the non-Trump field by a comfortable margin.
And some of the non-Trump supporters are, like, DeSantis fans who think Trump’s problem is he doesn’t hire enough Proud Boys, so they’ll come home once reality sets in.
Or they’re Ramaswamy supporters who think Trump’s problem is he thinks we actually landed on the moon.
Republican voters want 100 kilograms of brain worms stuffed into a human skin suit, not Nikki Haley.Report
Ohio Republicans issue a Fox News rant and mull nullifying their own judiciary to beat back on Ohio Issue 1.Report
https://ohiohouse.gov/news/republican/deceptive-ohio-issue-1-misled-the-public-but-doesnt-repeal-our-laws-117412Report
I think people have not quite internalized that Republican politicians have managed to build a universe where they exist in an endless struggle against the evil abortion lobby, and how badly that is going to fail when it hits the reality that, in actuality, the vast majority of people are not willing to have abortion be illegal.
As I have mentioned before: Republicans like to pretend the electorate is ‘evenly divided’ on abortion, when in reality it’s even divided between ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’, but the majority of people who call themselves pro-life do not actually want it _illegal_ either, they just vaguely disapprove of hypothetical abortions happening for no reason and want people to know that.
This was sorta a deliberate strategic decision on their part, to try to pretend the ‘pro-life position’ had a lot more support than it did. But at this point, Republicans have been misleading everyone so long the ones in office have even managed to be fooled by it. And they literally cannot comprehend why, for example, Ohio would pass a constitutional amendment enshrining it in the constitution.
People who actually try to understand politics need to realize just how easily labels are manipulated, and how often people claim labels that do not actually match the policy position that those labels do not correspond to…or even know what those positions are! When trying to figure out support for laws, you can’t poll people about _labels_. You have to poll them on _the actual things they want to happen_.
…and, of course, Republican in Ohio don’t care what happened anyway. Republicans get to make the rules, not the voters. Just like they get to decide who is elected, not the voters, hence gerrymandering. Once a government has decided that ‘it’ is in charge, instead of representative of the people, you get this. Which people also need to understand.Report
The average pro-choicer also falls short of the militant position. And as we’ve seen, the militants are up in arms about any restrictions. We’ve seen hundreds of trigger laws suddenly become enforceable, laws that even the authors probably never gave much practical thought to. And now each state is finding its way to a new normal. Dobbs didn’t begin or end the fight, just leveled the field.Report
You can pretend all you want that there is some ‘middle ground’ that the ‘militants on both sides’ will settle on, but we’ve literally had a year of legislation, and the two sides have very clearly staked out their positions:
One side is attempting to make abortion illegal, with perhaps maybe vague wording for rape that no one believes would actually ever be usable, and maybe something about allowing removing dead fetuses or save the life of the mother or something if they remember. If they think that’s super-super-unpopular, they might try a con game of setting some literally impossibly short time like ‘six weeks’, but people aren’t falling for it.
The other side is saying ‘fetal viability’. There’s no one over there arguing for ‘no restrictions’, because that has always been made-up nonsense that the forced-birthers invented out of thin air, where people were aborting babies right before they were born. There are no ‘militants’, or at least, none of them are anywhere near the people writing the laws. It’s either fetal viability, or sometimes they just write a number around 22 weeks in the law, roughly the same thing.
And the second side is, simply, winning that position.
Democrats are not going to meet in the middle. They have no need to.
If Republicans would actually be willing to compromise the _slightest_ bit, they could probably pre-emptively enact bans of 16 weeks that Democrats might not be able to get the population angry about, which I guess people could pretend was a compromise instead of just diminishing returns. But the Democrats do not have to do anything…they can keep steamrolling on this issue as long as Republicans do not move.Report
“You can pretend all you want that there is some ‘middle ground’ that the ‘militants on both sides’ will settle on”
Of course I wouldn’t argue that, and you may also notice that I didn’t. Nice job of picking that argument apart though. You picked it apart like it was made of, well, straw. So much for which of us is pretending.
Truth is, there are militants who want every abortion legal, and militants who want every abortion illegal. Under Roe, most abortions were legal; under Casey, even more than that. Under Dobbs, states can implement any policy they want. Ohio passed a law that would have restricted most abortions, then passed an amendment that put the state’s law comparable to Roe.Report