Commentary Magazine


Topic: Ben Sasse

After the GOP Wave

Some post-election thoughts in light of the GOPs tidal wave on Tuesday:

Read More

Some post-election thoughts in light of the GOPs tidal wave on Tuesday:

1. The majority of Republicans have reacted to their victories in an impressive fashion. Their rhetoric is restrained, serious, and mature. They know that while they did extremely well in races at every level, they still have a ways to go to earn the trust and loyalty of most Americans (that’s more true of congressional Republicans than those who are governors). Republicans in the Senate and House are signaling a willingness to work with the president if he’s willing to show some flexibility. (The president’s apparent commitment to go forward with an unconstitutional executive amnesty order will be all the evidence we need that Mr. Obama is determined to further polarize our politics and rip apart our political culture.) Speaker Boehner and the next Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, have already put forward their to-do list; so have others. There’s evidence that Republicans–most of them, anyway–have internalized the need to show they’re more serious about putting forward a governing agenda and solving problems facing middle class Americans than “telegenic confrontations” and “volcanic effusions.”  The GOP’s detoxification effort is well under way.

2. What ought to encourage Republicans isn’t simply that their ranks have swollen, but the quality of many of the new arrivals, from Tom Cotton and Ben Sasse in the Senate to Elise Stefanik and Barbara Comstock in the House to many others. The GOP does best when it’s seen as the home of individuals with conservative principles and a governing temperament. A winsome personality doesn’t hurt, either.

3. The GOP’s victory was the result of many things, from President Obama’s unpopularity and the awful political environment Democrats faced to the superior quality of the Republican candidates, their disciplined, gaffe-free campaigns, successful fundraising, and the select intervention by various groups into Republican primaries (ensuring that the most electable conservative was nominated). But not to be overlooked is that Republicans did a much better job than in the past with their Get Out The Vote effort, including turnout of low-propensity voters. As National Journal’s Ron Fournier put it:

A review of the RNC’s targeting operation (including a preelection sample of specific projections) suggests to me that the GOP has made significant advances on targeting and mobilizing voters. While the Democratic Party may still own the best ground game, GOP Chairman Reince Priebus has narrowed, if not closed, the tech gap.

A few Democrats saw this coming. “Our side has underestimated the GOP ground game,” Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told me Tuesday morning. “Their electorate doesn’t look like ours, so we don’t recognize or respect what they’re doing.”

4. The most surprising outcome of the evening may have been how well Republicans did in governor’s races around the nation. They were predicted to lose several seats; instead, they made a net gain of three. Among the most impressive was Ohio’s John Kasich, who won by more than 30 points. He carried heavily Democratic counties like Lucas and Cuyahoga. In fact, in a key purple state, Kasich carried 86 of Ohio’s 88 counties and a quarter of the African-American vote. Mr. Kasich has amassed an impressive record as governor–and a popular one, too. He’s one of America’s most engaging and interesting politicians. If he wants to run for president in 2016, he certainly helped his cause on Tuesday.

5. There are plenty of reasons for Republicans to be buoyed. They have very impressive people, including people in their ’30s and ’40s, at every level. Of the two parties, the GOP seems to be the one of greater energy and ideas. The Democratic Party, and liberalism more broadly, seems stale, aging, and exhausted. And of course the GOP has now strung together massive, back-to-back midterm wins. But it’s still worth keeping in mind that Republicans had spectacular showings in 1994 and 2010–and they were defeated by rather large margins in the presidential races two years after those wins. The danger is that a victory like the one Republicans experienced on Tuesday creates a false dawn, a sense of false confidence. Winning midterms elections is important; but midterm elections are different than presidential elections. The GOP still has repair work to do and things to build on. But progress is being made–and the results of this week’s election are the best evidence of that fact.

Read Less

The Tea Party Comes Into Its Own

The main takeaway from recent GOP primaries, which saw the victories of Nebraska’s Ben Sasse and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, was a continuation of a lesson conservatives have been learning the past few election cycles: the candidate matters. In the past, conservatives have often learned this by losing–see Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, etc. Now they seem to be proving it by winning.

Slate’s John Dickerson is always worth reading, and he has another typically thoughtful piece today, asking “Why Is the GOP’s Civil War So Civil?” He notes, correctly, that the returns in North Carolina and Nebraska mean “the grassroots conservatives of the Tea Party and elites of the GOP establishment can both claim victories.” But I think it’s actually part of a larger trend that includes not just recent nominees but also the successful politicians the Tea Party has already elevated. Dickerson writes:

Read More

The main takeaway from recent GOP primaries, which saw the victories of Nebraska’s Ben Sasse and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, was a continuation of a lesson conservatives have been learning the past few election cycles: the candidate matters. In the past, conservatives have often learned this by losing–see Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, etc. Now they seem to be proving it by winning.

Slate’s John Dickerson is always worth reading, and he has another typically thoughtful piece today, asking “Why Is the GOP’s Civil War So Civil?” He notes, correctly, that the returns in North Carolina and Nebraska mean “the grassroots conservatives of the Tea Party and elites of the GOP establishment can both claim victories.” But I think it’s actually part of a larger trend that includes not just recent nominees but also the successful politicians the Tea Party has already elevated. Dickerson writes:

Nebraska is a safe Republican state. Perhaps the forces of the establishment would have jumped in more heavily if the march to the majority in the Senate were threatened. But that’s not a certainty. Sasse is no Christine O’Donnell or Richard Mourdock, two of the candidates often cited as being substandard. Sasse has political skill, an Ivy League education, and credentials as a Bush administration veteran. He will win the general election in the heavily red state and come to Washington as a Rand Paul or Ron Johnson type of senator—what used to be known as simply a good movement conservative.

The reference to Paul and Johnson (and an earlier one to Marco Rubio) provides a good opportunity to check in with the senators who were part of earlier successful Tea Party grassroots efforts. Johnson is far from a firebrand, and he has settled into the Senate nicely without expressing any interest (at least yet) in using it as a platform for a near-term presidential run. But even the ones considering a run for the presidency have–perhaps for that reason–paid a lot of attention to their tone lately as well.

Rubio’s an obvious one, having pushed for comprehensive immigration reform: “It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth, on tax rates, on healthcare if they think you want to deport their grandmother,” Rubio said after the 2012 election.

More recently, Paul–nobody’s idea of a RINO–did some tapdancing after trying to thread the needle on voter ID. “Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” Paul told the New York Times last week. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.” After a bit of an uproar on the right, Paul explained himself to Sean Hannity (via Hot Air’s Allahpundit):

Like I say, I think both sides have made mistakes in…this issue. But it’s mainly in presentation and perception, not in reality. In the sense that, if Republicans are going to go around the country and this becomes a central theme and issue, you have to realize, rightly or wrongly, it is being perceived by some — and this is the point I was making and I think it’s still a valid point, that I’m trying to go out and say to African Americans ‘I want your vote and the Republican Party wants your vote’. If they perceive, rightly or wrongly, that showing their ID is an attempt to get them not to vote because they perceive it in the lineage of a time when it truly did happen through poll taxes and questioning to try and prevent people, if they perceive it that way, we have to be aware that the perception is out there and be careful about not so overdoing something that we further alienate a block of people we need to attract.

After posting that quote, Allahpundit remarked: “That’s basically the same rationale amnesty fans have used to justify comprehensive immigration reform.”

Perhaps, and it’s interesting to see Paul join Rubio in the group of Tea Party rising stars worrying aloud about perception as much as policy. But I think it’s more analogous to the disastrous town hall meetings congressional Republicans called to rally the base against the comprehensive immigration reform favored by then-President Bush (and John McCain). There are legitimate concerns about seeming to incentivize illegal immigration, but those town halls were an angry and, in some cases, offensive escalation of the party’s rhetoric toward immigrants.

In addition to Paul and Rubio, there’s Mike Lee’s thoughtful call for a renewed effort to fight poverty, and–though he’s in a slightly different category than the Tea Party senators–Scott Walker’s explanation of his governing philosophy in an interview with the Washington Examiner: “It’s a phrase I use often: Austerity is not the answer, reform is.”

The civility of the GOP’s “civil war” is part of a broader trend of the party’s conservatives adjusting to the fact they’re often addressing a national audience. That’s especially true for those planning a run for the presidency. Contrary to the left’s hopefully declarations that it has run its course, a Tea Party that vets its candidates and embraces governing is a political force that’s just warming up.

Read Less

Move the Capital to Nebraska?

Earlier this month, Ben Sasse, a Republican running for senator in Nebraska, briefly made national headlines when he suggested that the U.S. government should move the federal capital from Washington D.C. to Nebraska. His suggestion was clearly tongue-in-cheek:

“That’s it, the way to cure the incredible ineffectiveness and dysfunction of both parties in Washington — we move the capital to Nebraska,” he said in the spot. “Let’s move the capital to Nebraska and leave the lobbyists and influence peddlers back east,” he added.

Perhaps, though, there is some merit to his suggestion—not to move the capital from Washington D.C., but to relocate some branches of the executive out of the region. Once upon a time, critics castigated the late senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) for his unabashed embrace of pork, bringing as much as possible to his home state, not only short-term projects but also federal facilities. As CBS News noted upon his death:

Read More

Earlier this month, Ben Sasse, a Republican running for senator in Nebraska, briefly made national headlines when he suggested that the U.S. government should move the federal capital from Washington D.C. to Nebraska. His suggestion was clearly tongue-in-cheek:

“That’s it, the way to cure the incredible ineffectiveness and dysfunction of both parties in Washington — we move the capital to Nebraska,” he said in the spot. “Let’s move the capital to Nebraska and leave the lobbyists and influence peddlers back east,” he added.

Perhaps, though, there is some merit to his suggestion—not to move the capital from Washington D.C., but to relocate some branches of the executive out of the region. Once upon a time, critics castigated the late senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) for his unabashed embrace of pork, bringing as much as possible to his home state, not only short-term projects but also federal facilities. As CBS News noted upon his death:

He made sure plenty of federal complexes were built in West Virginia, including the FBI’s fingerprint repository in Clarksburg, the Coast Guard’s National Maritime Center in landlocked Kearneysville, and a training center and firing range near Harpers Ferry for customs and border protection officers.

Byrd’s motivations might have been selfish, wasteful, and often ridiculous, but the federal government has grown massively over the decades. Washington D.C. and its immediate suburbs have become a cultural bubble of government servants or those involved in lobbying, policy analysis, defense, or other related fields. As a home owner in the D.C. area, it’s been a blessing as I was inoculated from the bursting housing bubble in a way that I would not have been if I lived anywhere else in the country. The cultural bubble insulates from reality, however. If I did not do occasional lecturing for the U.S. military, I would have no reason to visit places like southwestern Louisiana, far upstate New York, central Wisconsin, or central Texas. Unless I made a real effort, I would not hear the local news, tune into the local radio station, or drive the back roads rather than the highway as I go from airport to base, or from facility to facility.

The cultural bubble and the detachment to which it can lead is one reason so many Americans dislike Washington D.C. At the same time, it can be unhealthy for government bureaucrats to be so detached from the lives of people who are so affected by the minutiae of regulations or the promulgation of decisions. Given the fact that so much, even within Washington D.C. itself, is now conducted by email or secure video teleconference, it really matters little whether one agency is two blocks away or 1,000 miles away when it comes to holding a meeting. Perhaps it makes sense for the Department of the Interior to be based somewhere in the interior, say Nebraska or Kansas. It might make more sense to have the Environmental Protection Agency based somewhere like Oregon or Montana, so that bureaucrats making decisions can interact with those whose lives and jobs might be directly impacted. Given the increasing importance of North Dakota to U.S. energy security, why not move the Department of Energy to Bismark? And wouldn’t the relocation of the Department of Homeland Security already scattered across facilities and states to Texas or Arizona make sense given issues of immigration and border security?

Admittedly, dispersing federal agencies further afield would be unpopular. It would decimate the Washington D.C. economy and be unpopular among those who like living in the nation’s capital. But the federal government doesn’t exist to subsidize indirectly Washington, or to make it into a boom town. And what Washington loses, other cities would gain. Just as military bases have become boons to cities like Fayetteville, North Carolina and Killeen, Texas, transplanting federal agencies might also spread the wealth, albeit in a different way than President Obama has envisioned. And if bureaucrats choose not to make the move to North Dakota, Oregon, Louisiana, South Carolina, or wherever departments might relocate, then that provides an opportunity for much-needed downsizing. Certainly no one would think about moving the White House, Congress, and even Pentagon, but for the remaining departments, perhaps breaking the Washington bubble would do the government some good, narrow the gap between government official and citizen, and improve function all around.

Perhaps Sasse’s “modest proposal” should enable some serious discussion about just what government has become, to what Washington D.C. is entitled, and how government might return to a time when it was far closer to the people whom it claimed to serve.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.