by David Watkins
A journalism student here at Seattle University recently interviewed me about the Republican party's political strategy as a political minority in era of Obama. She, like many of my students, were surprised that despite Obama's efforts, virtually all Republicans in congress voted against his economic stimulus bill. She was particularly interested in why Republicans would take a such an oppositional stance against Obama's core policy initiatives, at a time when Republicans have suffered substantial electoral losses and Obama is quite popular. (On Obama's popularity see here. Obama's approval rating is more than twice as high as Bush's was throughout the last several years of his presidency. Perhaps even more astonishingly, Obama has a higher approval rating among self-idenfified Republicans than Bush had overall!)
What does the GOP have to gain from not compromising in a bipartisan manner?
Political scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that one of the most accurate indicators of voting behavior is economic performance. While the current economic catastrophe is probably not a "normal" recession and is difficult to project in terms of length and intensity, there is a very good chance we will still be in recession, or recovering weakly and slowly, in time for the 2010 midterm election. If the Republican party opposes Obama/Democratic efforts to protect/create jobs and turn the economy around, and the economy still looks and feels pretty bad to voters in 2010 (and/or 2012), they can put forth the following claim: "Obama/Democratic leadership pursued a failed strategy, we knew it was doomed to fail and that's why we opposed it, now give us a chance and we'll do something that works." However fair this is, it's a message that might work.
However: this is far from guaranteed to be successful. The GOP model, from a strategic perspective must be 1994 (Senate, House), when they made substantial gains and won back the House and Senate from Democratic control. They did so after two years of blocking and opposing Clinton's attempted legislation, including Health Care reform. The nightmare scenario finds a historical example in the midterm election of 1934 (Senate, House) in which the already-dominant Democrats gained nine seats in each house.
So which of these is 2010 more likely to resemble? One important similarity with 1934 is the economy, but also, at least for now, the impression that the Republican party is out of their depth on economic matters. Of course, 1994 is much more recent history and Heath Care reform may be on the agenda again. But: Obama is a much more popular president, who had a much larger share of the national vote than Clinton (because of the 3rd party candidacy of Ross Perot, Clinton won in 1992 with only 43% of the popular vote to Obama's 53%). And if Health Care reform is on the agenda, it is unlikely it will be as useful an issue for the Republican leadership as it was in 1994; health care costs have continued to grow and Democratic solutions are more popular now then they were in the past. Here's a good summary of public opinion on health care issues today.
A final thought on this question: It presumes that the Republican party is pursuing a long term, coordinated political strategy by opposing Obama. But there's another, perhaps simpler explanation. Many Republicans elected from moderate districts have lost their seats in the last two elections, leaving the remaining republicans overwhelmingly from "deep red" districts. As they became a small minority party, they became more conservative. It's quite possible they're opposing Obama's agenda in good faith.
Either way, the Republicans have their work cut out for them if they are to be electorally competitive. Here's the detailed version of a recent New York Times poll. I'm particularly interested in questions 48 and 49. When asked if Obama should stick to his policies of work in a bipartisan way with Republicans, his policies won 56-39. When the same question was asked about Republicans, 79% said they should work in a bipartisan way with Obama, and only 17% said stick with policies. It's possible that frustration with the economy will push people back towards the Republicans, but they've got a long way to be pushed.
Comments