![]("http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DAbzLAvNHFk/UmiEZNxgtuI/AAAAAAAAAHI/L2ZNmEcRrhU/s1600/krauthammer.jpg") |
| Charles Krauthammer |
In January 2013, conservative columnists lamented the poor showing of the Republican Party in the 2012 election. The Democrats had to defend twice as many Senate seats, yet they lost easy pickups in the Midwest, and even lost ground in two places (Maine and Massachusetts). They retained the House, in part because of redistricting. Obama won reelection, not because the American People like Obama, Obamacare, or Obamanomics (double-digit unemployment over five years, but rather because 1) incumbents are difficult to unseat 2) Romney was a poor alternative 3) conservatives were disaffected by the overlong primary process, a shifting weak front runner and 4) President Obama's ground game was better than Romney's.
Rather than recapping why Romney lost, I want to focus on what Republicans have been doing since then, and what they should continue considering, with Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer January 2013 insights in mind.
Recently, Krauthammer has enraged conservatives because of his criticism of US Senator Ted Cruz' filibuster in name only, his acquiescence on amnesty for illegal immigrants and Republican gubernatorial accommodation of Obamacare's Medicare exchanges. Yet his advice on GOP tactics at the beginning of the year bears some reviewing, because he highlighted not only the current split within the National GOP, but also the best means for making the most of this unexpected setback.
The Republicans hold the House, and they cannot govern from one half of one branch of the federal government. "[Y]ou can resist but you cannot impose", Krauthammer explains. Granted, but to what extent should the Republicans oppose the President's oppositional negotiation tactics and officious policies?
Contrary to the definitions from nationalists and liberals, the Republican Party is no longer divided between liberals and conservatives, but rather by establishment figures and grassroots/groundswell activists. The former recognize that they cannot govern with only the House, while the latter came to Congress precisely to end business as usual in Washington.
Krauthammer identified this distinction early.
Can the Republican Party play by the rules while upending the majority's plays?
Krauthammer argues "No."
Instead, he approved piecemeal continuing resolutions have funded the government until the shut-down showdown, which House Republicans provided. The Democratically-controlled US Senate finally produced a budget (which would raise taxes, again) and passed a reform to curtail Congressmen's pay for failing to pass a budget.
Yet Obamacare remains a train wreck, and the remains of the United States' health care system may not maintain enough talent and resources to provide adequate care in the face of failing Medicare exchanges, unworkable websites, and an apathetic country which refuses to participate. Thus, the shutdown had more merit than Krauthammer would have claimed. A government forced stop seemed like the best way to get the US Senate and the President's attention. "The American people do not want a shutdown, and they do not want Obamacare.," declared House Speaker John Boehner, with warm huzzahs from his conservative peers surrounding. In an attempt to force defunding of Obamacare, Senator Cruz tied the unpopular and increasingly dysfunctional law around every Democrat, then reminded the nation that people are struggling to feed their families and find meaningful employment because of an insurance mandate which has all but mandated part-time employment for the foreseeable future.
Yet as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell shared in preliminary remarks following Cruz' filibuster, 100% American Conservative Union-rated Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) reminded voters, and even California House Rep Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) argued following the last-minute crisis compromise, the Republicans in Congress do not have the math to effect radical change of Obamacare or to reverse the spending curse of liberals in Washington. Republicans need to win elections in 2014 to change the course of Obama's crash course in non-governing negotiations and oppressive progressivism.
The Republicans won very little from the shutdown: another committee to discuss making cuts, but the demand to delay Obamacare's individual mandate has not disappeared, either. They can still force this issue. Liberalism runs out of other people's money, and the current liberal in the White House is running out of excuses for why his programs are failing.
Krauthammer was correct on this point months before: Republicans cannot govern, let alone force their policies, through only one chamber of Congress. Yet the PR stunt of forcing Democrats to stand by the monstrous legislation passed in the late Sunday hours of March 2010 and furthered by the same in October 2013 can further burden the Democrats' failing policies, thus hurting their brand.
The Republicans have held onto the sequester. Red-state Democrats have forced their hand to their own peril. President Obama has wasted declining political capital not leading from crisis to crisis. He will not negotiate, and will not enforce key parts of his signature health care law. Republicans are resisting immigration reform. Forget about climate change or any other part of President Obama's grand vision for restructuring America.
More Democrats are feeling pretty uneasy about the Obamacare rolloutKrauthammer was correct to a point about Republicans' options until 2014, but they can play by the rules yet play hard at the same time.