A Momentous Week, and a GOP That Needs to Change

The fight over the Confederate flag and the Supreme Court decisions on Obamacare and same-sex marriage all send the signal that Republicans need to adapt to keep pace with younger voters.

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
June 29, 2015, 4 p.m.

The mo­ment­ous events of the last week can be in­ter­preted in nu­mer­ous ways. But one thing has be­come in­creas­ingly clear: The Re­pub­lic­an Party needs to change.

One of the key or­gan­iz­ing prin­ciples—an ob­ses­sion, even—of Re­pub­lic­ans in re­cent years has been their vehe­ment op­pos­i­tion to the Af­ford­able Care Act. This has been the center­piece of Re­pub­lic­an rhet­or­ic and a fo­cus of the party’s le­gis­lat­ive agenda, with the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives hav­ing voted something like 60 times to re­peal or de­fund all or parts of the law. Obama­care will long be in the GOP stable of ex­amples of what they say are Pres­id­ent Obama’s and con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats’ ex­treme policies, but with the Su­preme Court’s King v. Bur­well de­cision, their fo­cus will need to shift to something else now.

Though Obama­care has been a di­vis­ive sub­ject, it is the con­tro­versy over the Con­fed­er­ate battle flag and the Oberge­fell v. Hodges Su­preme Court de­cision on gay mar­riage that bring to sharp fo­cus the cul­tur­al and gen­er­a­tion­al dis­con­nect between the Re­pub­lic­an Party’s con­ser­vat­ive base and the dir­ec­tion of the coun­try as a whole.

(RE­LATED: If They Were Go­ing to Kill Obama­care, It Would Be Dead By Now)

In the af­ter­math of the tra­gic shoot­ing in a Char­le­ston, South Car­o­lina church and the res­ult­ing fo­cus on the Con­fed­er­ate flag, with the not­able ex­cep­tion of Sen. Lind­say Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina and to a less­er ex­tent, former Flor­ida Gov. Jeb Bush, the GOP con­tenders ini­tially avoided tak­ing a firm stand on the flag. That is fine with many in their base but not with mod­er­ate and/or in­de­pend­ent swing voters, or for that mat­ter, many Re­pub­lic­ans. And the gay-mar­riage de­cision again put GOP pres­id­en­tial con­tenders in a po­s­i­tion of choos­ing between their base and be­ing on the wrong side of his­tory—with all but a couple choos­ing the lat­ter.

Simply put, Re­pub­lic­ans are loaded up in a car, ra­cing to­ward a gen­er­a­tion­al cliff with their eyes fo­cused on the rear­view mir­ror, with many (but not­ably not all) ob­li­vi­ous to the so­ci­et­al changes tak­ing place all around them and the grow­ing wedge build­ing between their com­fort zone and pres­id­en­tial swing voters.

For me as a white South­ern­er, born in Louisi­ana and spend­ing my first 18 years there, the Con­fed­er­ate flag is a com­plic­ated is­sue. I spent much of my child­hood wear­ing a Con­fed­er­ate uni­form with a Johnny Reb cap (with the battle flag on the front) and car­ry­ing a toy rep­lica of a Civil War rifle, crawl­ing across my back­yard in a make-be­lieve battle. From roughly age 7 to 12, I can re­mem­ber my ho­met­own news­pa­per, the Shreve­port Times, car­ry­ing, of­ten on the front page, an “On this day in”¦” fea­ture with whatever not­able Civil War events oc­curred ex­actly 100 years be­fore. I can re­call see­ing the death no­tices of some of the last of the Con­fed­er­ate sol­diers; gen­er­ally they had been the young drum­mers of their ho­met­own units. In the 1960s, the Con­fed­er­ate battle flag rep­res­en­ted our her­it­age and our an­cest­ors—and yes, both my wife and I had re­l­at­ives who fought in the Con­fed­er­ate Army (though none to our know­ledge owned, or could have af­forded to own, slaves).

(RE­LATED: What 2016 Can­did­ates Are Say­ing About the Gay Mar­riage Rul­ing)

But over time, the bal­ance has shif­ted. That flag has come to rep­res­ent something dif­fer­ent, something that should, as Bush pushed for while he was gov­ernor of Flor­ida, move off the flag­poles and in­to the mu­seums, out of re­spect for Amer­ic­ans, many of whom are the des­cend­ants of slaves, who are just as much cit­izens as we are. The sym­bol­ism shif­ted from her­it­age to hate; rather than pay­ing homage to his­tory, the flag came to make the South a pris­on­er of its his­tory. It is time for the South and con­ser­vat­ives in the re­gion to move on, and al­low the Re­pub­lic­an Party to move on as well, not hold it pris­on­er.

For those up­set over the gay-mar­riage de­cision, their views were the ma­jor­ity opin­ion in this coun­try and car­ried the weight of law for a long time, just as bans on in­ter­ra­cial mar­riage and ad­op­tion once were too. Giv­ing wo­men the right to vote once seemed heretic­al to many. But so­ci­ety moves on. Change is of­ten dif­fi­cult to ac­cept ini­tially, but it is in­ev­it­able. I wrote about my own evol­u­tion on this is­sue in Janu­ary of last year; my jour­ney prob­ably wasn’t that dif­fer­ent from that of many oth­er people and from what, I sus­pect, many of the cur­rent op­pon­ents will even­tu­ally have. But polit­ic­ally speak­ing, all Re­pub­lic­ans have to do is to take a peek in­to the fu­ture, look at the polls, at pub­lic at­ti­tudes of Amer­ic­ans—in­clud­ing con­ser­vat­ives—un­der 40 and par­tic­u­larly un­der 30 years of age. There are fights worth fight­ing, but this one, like the one over the Con­fed­er­ate battle flag, is fu­tile and will only con­trib­ute to the per­cep­tion of a Re­pub­lic­an Party with ana­chron­ist­ic views of our so­ci­ety.

An­oth­er in­ter­pret­a­tion of the events of last week, though some in the GOP and in the con­ser­vat­ive move­ment will be re­luct­ant to see and ac­cept this, is that these de­vel­op­ments were a good thing for the Re­pub­lic­an Party. While midterm elec­tions are usu­ally about the past—ref­er­enda on the last two or six years—pres­id­en­tial elec­tions are gen­er­ally for­ward-ori­ented, about the fu­ture. Just as gen­er­als are of­ten said to want to fight the last war, some in polit­ics in­stinct­ively seem to want to de­bate the last de­bate. The 2016 elec­tion will be about the next eight years, not the last. Ad­di­tion­ally, the last thing that Re­pub­lic­ans should want to deal with go­ing in­to 2016 is more than 6 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans in states with no ex­changes sud­denly los­ing their health in­sur­ance sub­sidies and many ef­fect­ively los­ing their health care cov­er­age. Privately, many Re­pub­lic­an elec­ted of­fi­cials and strategists had been very wor­ried about this and are re­lieved that the threat has passed.

(RE­LATED: What Re­pub­lic­ans Would Give Up to Con­tin­ue Their Obama­care-Re­peal Cru­sade)

One can be­lieve that the Af­ford­able Care Act was hur­riedly pushed through at the wrong time, dur­ing the depths of the Great Re­ces­sion, when the fo­cus should have been on job cre­ation. One can be­lieve that while it was well-in­ten­tioned, it was a deeply flawed ap­proach. But it is, now and for the fore­see­able fu­ture, the law, and rather than fight­ing over the past, both parties should now be fo­cused on mak­ing it work, on reach­ing com­prom­ises to ad­dress its short­com­ings.

Re­pub­lic­ans need to do some soul-search­ing about their fu­ture and their re­la­tion­ships with voters of gen­er­a­tions to come. Vi­brant parties change with the times, ad­apt them­selves to chan­ging con­di­tions and cir­cum­stances. Maybe this past week will help the GOP do this.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.