2002: A crossroads for the Republican Party

On the night of the midterm elections, the pundits were buzzing with bold new predictions about the consequences of the Republican "landslide." Every voice seemed in agreement that the Republicans had really won a lasting victory, and most were equally convinced that the Democrats had suffered a lasting defeat. One correspondent on MSNBC even compared the current situation of the Democratic Party with the situation of the Whig Party right before they dissolved and remade themselves as the modern Republican Party. Surely, a setback in a midterm election couldn't bring down half of the American political establishment — or could it? It seemed that any crazy assertion was valid in the wake of the "spectacular" results of the election. With the Republican victory in the Senate and House races now two weeks in the past, it is possible to make more coolheaded analysis. While the Republican takeover of the Senate was surprising and definitely significant, it does not guarantee any longstanding Republican majority in power, nor does it prove the Republican Party has any sort of "mandate" from the American people. What the election does guarantee is that the agenda of the Republican Party can now be pursued without any serious opposition from Democrats. Ironically, consultation with the Democrats is exactly what's needed to make the Republican victory last. Depending on what legislation is passed during the coming months, control of the Senate and House could turn into a disaster for the Republicans. The ability of the Republicans to carry out the agenda that America wants (rather than just what conservatives want) will have far more to do with longterm Republican success than any one election.

The first mistake in analyzing the midterm election is declaring that it is indicative of a mandate given to the president by the American people. This is a mistake made by both Republicans and Democrats alike; not just President Bush subscribes to this theory. In fact, the campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign declared to CNN that the Republicans now have a "huge mandate." The Republicans won many of the important races by tiny margins (Campaign 2000, anyone?) and narrowly escaped disaster in several key states. A true mandate reflects overwhelming support from a large (and broad) segment of the population, which the Republicans simply do not have. The fact that the Republican Party was able to squeeze out a small majority in enough states to give them control of the Senate reflects more that Republicans are able to better mobilize their constituency than it reflects an overwhelming agreement in the right-wing agenda. This misperception is extremely dangerous, because a "mandate" from the American people will give credence to those who want to push a radically right-wing agenda. There are many in the Republican Party whose views are so extreme that their adoption would not only be bad for the American people, it could destroy any gains that Republicans have earned from this election.

The misperception of a mandate is damaging to virtually everyone. Left-wing Democrats will have no chance to have their opinions heard (although this might be a good thing). Moderate Democrats have much less leverage on what type of legislation is pursued since their consent is no longer needed to pass any bills. Their only resort is to filibuster Republicans into exhaustion. On the other side of the fence, the situation is almost as dire. Mainstream Republicans are equally powerless to openly oppose extreme elements in their own party, since they cannot hope to stay in power without the support of ultraconservative (including Religious-Right) Republicans, whose agendas are only supported by a tiny fraction of the population. The Republican control of all three elective bodies destroys the necessity for compromise, the best aspect of American government. As a moderate conservative, it is easy to envision a situation where too much power is ceded to extreme elements in the Republican "coalition," much like the Likud faction in pre-Sharon Israel. This could be disastrous for everyone involved (except perhaps Democrats), and even they would be burdened with rolling back Republican legislation after being voted into office.

The Republican Party is now at a crossroads. In the best case, Republicans will continue constructive dialogue with moderate Democrats and ensure that all points of view are taken into account before any bills are passed. It will take a lot of restraint on the part of the Republicans to temper their viewpoints enough to replicate the consensus necessary to pass bills when the House and Senate are split. In the worst case, Republicans will allow the fringe elements of the party to affirm legislation that few people really believe in, and that will ultimately harm the country. In the worst case, the Republican Party will likely lose any majority they have gained during the midterm elections, and perhaps even the Presidency. In the best case, Republicans will still pursue a consensus agenda despite the fact that they have little need of support from moderate Democrats. It is up to the Republicans to make the best of the situation, for even if they do not have a mandate, they unquestionably have the power. David Sillers is a politics major from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at dsillers@princeton.edu.