The dominant narrative of the 2010 Republican/Tea Party
landslide is that the election was all about voter anger at and
fear of the spending initiated by President Obama and the
Democrats. On November 2, 2010, 60 percent of the 30 percent of
Americans who do not identify as Republicans or Democrats voted for
Republican candidates for the House and Senate. That was a dramatic
change from the 2006 off-year election, in which the same
independents voted 60/40 for the Democrats, and a sign of
broad-based concerns about the government’s finances.
This victory raised concerns among some social conservative
leaders that their issues had been or would be ignored or
downplayed. These fears struck most observers as overblown. The
2010 election added a net 38 congressmen and six senators to the
pro-life cause, and the Second Amendment won an additional 32
congressmen and seven senators to the pro-gun cause. How could
social conservatives be uneasy about their place in the universe
with such electoral success?
This paradoxical situation is a result of confusion over total
votes and swing votes.
The Republican base vote is made up of millions of voters who
are voting for the same party and candidate. One candidate. Many
votes. Many reasons for those votes. As Phyllis Schlafly said in
1980, “Everyone is allowed to vote for my candidate for his own
reason.”
When voters elected 87 new Republican congressmen and 12 new
Republican senators they-with exceptions you could count on one
hand-elected candidates who were committed to opposing any tax
increases, supporting spending cuts, opposing taxpayer funding of
abortion, advancing tort reform, opposing labor union abuses, and
supporting the Second Amendment.
And yet the TV ads in 2010 were all about spending and the
economy. Why? Because the target audience was the independent vote.
Swing voters. Those Americans who on Election Day could cheerfully
vote either Republican or Democrat. This year they were motivated
to vote against big spenders in Washington. The pro-life, pro-gun
voters were not ignored. They were largely embedded in the
Republican vote. Tea Party activists were new to politics. If one
was motivated solely by pro-life or pro-gun or pro-tax cut
views-one would have been active and involved (and Republican) a
decade ago. Or two.
Voters know that if they vote for the anti-tax candidate they
have an Ivory soap percentage likelihood of also electing a
pro-life and pro-gun legislator. And vice versa. That is why Rahm
Emanuel’s 2006 strategy of running self-proclaimed pro-life and/or
pro-gun Democrats for congressional seats was so effective. Many
voters saw a candidate claiming to be pro-life and they assumed he
or she was conservative, or at least, not actively leftist across
the board. But with no exceptions they were — behind the false
flag they raised — loyal votes for Pelosi and Reid when needed.
During the four years of Democrat control of the House and Senate
almost all of the phony “Blue Dog Democrats” or “conservative
Democrats” were exposed, and all but 26 were turned out of office
— cutting their numbers in half. Rahm Emanuel’s Trojan horse was a
one-trick pony.
So what about foreign policy and national defense?
If you vote for the Republican you know he won’t favor tax
hikes. But what about his view of U.S.-China relations? How many
carrier groups does he believe America needs?
If you vote for the Republican you know he won’t spend taxpayer
dollars funding Planned Parenthood and abortions. How long does he
think U.S. troops should occupy Iraq and Afghanistan? Does he see a
role for America in deciding who should run Kashmir?
Given the importance of national defense and foreign policy, why
are those issues not as clear in elections as taxes, abortion, and
guns? And now, thanks to the Tea Party, government spending?
ONE REASON FOR THE LACK of definition is because there is no
National Right to Life Committee or Susan B. Anthony List focused
on defense. There is no National Rifle Association or Americans for
Tax Reform drawing clear lines in the foreign policy sand for
candidates and voters. Voters know that on guns, babies, and taxes
the professed position of a candidate will be monitored by national
groups and therefore once elected a candidate is unlikely to shift
his or her position.
This situation developed over time. The Republican Party was not
always the pro-life and anti-tax party. Reagan signed legislation
in California to liberalize abortion laws. Goldwater voted against
the 1964 Kennedy tax cut.
Over the years pro-life groups highlighted which candidates were
pro-life or pro-abortion. Among voters who actually cast their
votes on that issue there was an advantage for the pro-life
position. The issue brought Catholic and evangelical voters across
the aisle from the Democratic Party — tentatively at first, and
then permanently.
Similarly, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge of Americans for Tax
Reform had 100 House members and 20 senators commit in 1986. Today
97.5 percent of Republicans in the House and 85 percent of
Republicans in the Senate sign and keep the Taxpayer Protection
Pledge.
In the past, the Cold War gave American politics a binary focus.
Anti-Soviet or not. Pro-military spending, or not. Millions of
refugees from the captive nations of Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietnam,
and Cambodia brought a strong anti-Soviet strain into American
politics. Chinese immigrants strengthened the “China lobby” that
supported the Republic of China in Taiwan. Many immigrant groups
were spokesmen and advocates for a Reaganite foreign policy.
With Reagan’s victory and the collapse of the Soviet Empire,
this changed. What pressure groups surround a candidate for
Congress or president dealing with defense and foreign policy? A
politician must be aware and respond to the concerns of the
Armenian and Greek lobbies (this usually means annoying Turkey).
And politicians of both parties will listen to the Cuba and Israel
lobbies. But after that a candidate finds himself without
guardrails or guidance. Once elected, a president can support free
trade with or shell the port cities of most nations with political
impunity. Nixon went to China. Clinton passed NAFTA.
And on defense spending? There is no NRA concerning the really
big artillery.
There is a veterans lobby. They wear the VFW hats, but they
focus on spending for pensions and health care and rarely speak to
choices on defense spending or foreign policy.
Liberals imagine a massive defense industry lobby, but mostly
there are front groups that lobby for those weapons systems the
Pentagon doesn’t want, such as the Crusader, or the second engine
for the F-135.
On the left, the “peace movement” has never recovered from the
introduction of the volunteer army. Antiwar rallies lost their
vitality with the end of the draft. Who remembers Code Pink?
All this leaves politicians a great deal of running room on
foreign policy and defense issues. Republicans and Democrats tend
to support their guy, whatever decisions he makes. Reagan refused
to get drawn into the civil war in Lebanon, even after the attack
on our Marines. Bush 41 invaded Iraq and Republicans cheered and
Democrats disapproved. Clinton involved the American military in
Yugoslavia with Democrat support and Republicans warning against
overreach and nation-building. George W. Bush campaigned on the
promise of a more humble foreign policy and against
nation-building. He then switched to interventionism and
nation-building to the applause of Republicans and one Democrat,
Senator Joe Lieberman. Obama campaigned against the occupations of
Iraq and Afghanistan, yet extended Bush’s policies while increasing
troop strength in Afghanistan without provoking pushback from his
supporters who supposedly voted against Bush for initiating those
same policies.
THERE ARE FEW DOMESTIC political pressures guiding or limiting
most foreign policy decisions a president or Congress must
make.
Unless.
Unless a war drags on to the point where independents turn
against the policy. In 2006, Bush’s negatives were driven by a
sense among independents (Republicans stayed loyal and Democrats
were consistently opposed) that the wars and occupations of Iraq
and Afghanistan were unending and unexplained. This shift in
independents could already be seen in the 2004 presidential
election. All those wonderful computer simulations that explain how
a president should win big if there is no primary opposition and
the economy is strong predicted a 58 percent Bush landslide. He
eked by with 51 percent. Iraq had become a boat anchor on an
otherwise successful presidency: when Republicans lost in 2006,
unemployment was only 4.6 percent and the Dow Jones was at
12,000.
So is this Obama’s war now? Who will benefit if Afghanistan and
Iraq are front and center?
Will Republicans vote for Obama if he continues Bush’s
nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not likely. Will Democrats
vote for the Republican to punish Obama for flip-flopping on his
views on wars and occupations? Also unlikely. The swing voters who
call themselves independents are the most likely to punish Obama
for “more of the same” and doubly so if the unrest in northern
Africa make the world look less safe and more hostile to American
interests. One, two, many Irans? The charge of incompetence in
foreign policy is most credible when wrapped around a set of failed
economic policies. (Think Carter.) And the expense of wars is more
deeply felt when added to a dramatic expansion of the welfare
state. (Think LBJ.)
Whatever happens, once the election is over, the president in
2013 will find himself with more freedom of movement in this area.
There is no NRA or AFL-CIO on foreign policy to ensure that the
promises of the candidate become the policies of the next
administration.
