Should the GOP Just Mail It In This Year?

It’s a tough time for the Republican Party. GOP purists would argue that the party has lost its way, no longer adhering to the central tenets of “The Reagan Revolution”, particularly with regard to spending. Republicans had simultaneous control of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House from 2002 until 2006, and yet most would agree that the party emerged from that opportunity with very little to show for it. Voters took notice, it seems, and the 2006 Midterm Elections served as something of a comeuppance for Republicans, with Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate.

Going into the 2008 Elections, it’s not looking good. As things stand now, it appears the Republican minorities in both the House and Senate are going to widen. Topping the GOP Ticket this year is John McCain, a nominee for whom enthusiasm is lukewarm at best, and whose chances are not helped by facing Barack Obama, one of the most eloquent, charismatic and well-funded candidates in history. With such a bleak outlook, a controversial school of thought has emerged in certain Republican circles, proponents of which make the case that the GOP should essentially concede this election cycle to the Democrats, allowing them to assume simultaneous control of the executive and legislative branches of government. Then, the theory holds, the country could watch the Democrats make a fine mess of things, paving the way for a triumphant Republican resurgence in 2010 or 2012. It’s a romantic idea, and one whose merits I can understand and even appreciate to a certain extent, but in the end, mark me down as one Republican vehemently opposed to this strategy.

Currently in the House of Representatives, Democrats hold a 236 to 199 seat majority. To make matters worse, all signs point to Democrats increasing their majority in November. The latest generic Congressional poll conducted by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal gives Democrats an edge over Republicans of 48.7% to 37.3% (despite Congressional approval ratings at only 15%, even lower than President Bush who sits at 30%). Republicans are only hurting their prospects more with a near-record number of retirements on the horizon. At least 26 House Members have announced their intentions to call it quits this year, ceding the huge advantage of incumbency to the Democrats by creating open seats in a year in which voters do not hold the GOP in high regard.

The situation is really no better in the Senate, either. While the Democratic majority in the Senate is much narrower (50 seats to 49 seats with 1 Independent), the implications of an increased majority in the Senate are much more significant. Should the Democrats manage to increase their majority to 60 seats – the so-called “Magic 60” – the consequences for the GOP are enormous because the Democrats’ edge would be “filibuster proof”. A filibuster-proof majority gives the Democrats an enormous amount of power, and would be particularly important in several key areas. First and foremost, the agenda of a President Obama would essentially be fast-tracked without the threat of any real Republican challenge or ability to stop it. Secondly, with no threat of a filibuster, Democrats would be able to quickly and easily push through any and all judicial nominations – including, of course, nominations for the Supreme Court. Lastly, assuming an increased majority in the House to boot, the Democrats would quite literally be running the country, with Republicans marginalized to little more than spectators.

For some Republicans and conservatives, this scenario has appeal, providing Democrats, they would contend, just enough rope to hang themselves. And this strategy, it should be noted, has some high profile backers. Among those making this argument over the past few months are Rush Limbaugh, and various writers and editors at The National Review, the preeminent conservative publication in the country. With the Democrats in complete control, Limbaugh has said, “the country would go to hell in a hand basket”. Once that happens, claim those who subscribe to this theory, Americans would be forced to recognize the misguided, erroneous and foolish nature of the Democrats’ policies. The GOP, hitting a cathartic bottom, would have no choice but to return to its best conservative traditions and roots, emerging from its political wilderness as a stronger, more united, and more philosophically pure Republican Party, ready to again earn the Americans’ confidence and return to political superiority.

Not so fast, says this Republican, however. To be sure, like many, I too am disappointed by President Bush and by the Republican Party in general, and by their missteps and the missed opportunities of the last 6 to 8 years. I further agree that the GOP has lost sight of many of its foundational principles – many of which were what attracted me to the party in the first place. I also concur that the party needs a wake-up call, but here is where I begin to diverge from Rush Limbaugh and others. I would argue that the sad state of the Republican Party today should be sufficient in giving the party the slap across the face it clearly needs. And while I also believe that the Democrats would make a mess of things if given unfettered control of the federal government, I am not prepared to simply concede this election and let them wreak havoc purely for long-term political gains. The stakes are simply too high – not only for the country as a whole, but for me personally.

There are three major areas of concern that preclude my signing on to the concession theory. First and foremost, a President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid are going to raise taxes through the roof. At the very least, the top tax rate will go from 35% to 40%, the lowest tax rate from 10% to 15%, the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%, and the tax on dividends from 15% to 40%. The so-called “marriage penalty”, now non-existent for couples making less than $150,000 a year, would under Obama’s plan, be in full effect from the first dollar earned. Under the current law, parents receive a child tax credit of $1000 per child. Obama, Pelosi and Reid would reduce this to $500 per child. For those who have been exposed to the archaic Alternative Minimum Tax in recent years, under Democratic control the AMT will continue to exact its disproportionate toll on taxpayers’ wallets. At a time when the economy is unquestionably hurting, the country cannot afford the massive tax increases that Democratic control would bring. From a personal standpoint, as my wife and I try to save money, work to purchase a home, and hopefully prepare for the financial aspects of raising children, we truly can’t afford to let Obama, Pelosi and Reid have their way when it comes to raising taxes. My financial stability is too important to passively watch the Democrats enjoy an unencumbered taxing and spending spree.

Second, I am not comfortable with the national security or foreign policy ramifications of the potential Democratic trifecta. Obama’s lack of experience is a major source of concern for me, and his stated willingness to meet with Iran and other rogue regimes as president with no preconditions raises concerns for me about his judgment in this area. Does he understand the nature and gravity of the terrorist threat to our country? I am not convinced he does. His continued refusal to acknowledge the success of the so-called “Surge” in Iraq (and his unwillingness to indicate he would have supported it had he known the benefits it would ultimately have) leads me to question his readiness to be the Commander-in-Chief. Pelosi ushered the Democrats into the majority in 2006 with all sorts of reckless promises with regard to Iraq. While thankfully she hasn’t delivered on them – much to the chagrin of the moveon.org wing of her party – with the willing pen of a President Obama in the Oval Office and a compliant partner with an increased majority of his own in Harry Reid, it’s not unrealistic to think she would return to her dangerously dovish plans. Finally – and again from a personal perspective – as a resident of Manhattan incalculably grateful for the job that President Bush, Homeland Security, and the NYC authorities have done in keeping us safe since September 11^th, I am not convinced that Democrats in full control will be willing to make the touch choices required to maintain our national security. I would never put political gains ahead of the safety of my family and me, and so I cannot concede an election with the possible consequences so serious.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Judiciary. With four Supreme Court Justices over the age of 70, the next President will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least two people to the Supreme Court, and likely more. While the Supreme Court currently consists of more Justices appointed by Republican Presidents than by Democratic Presidents, the ideological makeup of the Court is, in reality, rather balanced. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are considered reliably conservative; Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer are thought to be reliably liberal; and Justice Kennedy is considered to be the swing vote. With the possibility of several imminent retirements (or, morbidly, deaths), the next President could have a significant impact on the political leanings of the Court. If Republicans concede this year and allow President Obama to appoint judicial nominees of all levels without a realistic check on that power by the Republican minority in the Senate, the long-term consequences could be dire. Democrats in the Senate did an extremely effective job of reining in President Bush’s judicial nominees through the use of (or threat of) the filibuster. If the Democrats reach the “Magic 60”, the GOP will have no ability to influence the makeup of the Judicial Branch. While the ability to appoint nominees of his or her choosing is a right and privilege afforded to the president – and therefore a right and privilege Obama would rightfully have earned should he be elected – the vital system of checks and balances instituted by our Founding Fathers requires that the opposition party have some parliamentary powers at their disposal to provide that check. The far-reaching and wide-ranging powers of the Judiciary are far too consequential for the GOP to wave the white flag in November. Looking at it personally, the coming judicial nominees and their rulings are likely to affect me for the rest of my life, and I’m not willing to relinquish that advantage to the Democrats by taking a pass this year.

In many respects, frankly, the GOP deserves to be in the position in which we now find ourselves, and I have no doubt that Democrats delight in the current Republican dilemma. (I can’t say that I wouldn’t enjoy it were the tables turned)! I also can’t tell you with sincerity that I am really enthusiastic about John McCain, or about Congressional Republicans in general. It may well be that when I go to the voting booth in November and pull the lever for McCain and other GOP candidates, I’ll be doing so more to voice my opposition to unrestrained Democratic control than to express my wholehearted support for my party’s presidential or congressional candidates. But whatever my motivation ends up being, I can assure you that I will indeed be pulling that lever for McCain, and I encourage my fellow Republicans to do the same. There are different theories on how to extricate the Republican Party from its current predicament, but conceding an election to the Democrats and thereby handing them the keys to the entire federal government, is not the answer. The stakes are too high for the country, and the stakes are too high for me personally.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).