Republican Divisions Dissipate Now That They’re In Charge

Meanwhile, out of power, Democrats seem as divided as they’ve been in over a decade.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas gestures while speaking at the Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, in Washington, Friday, Nov. 18, 2016.
AP Photo/Cliff Owen
Josh Kraushaar
Add to Briefcase
Josh Kraushaar
Dec. 4, 2016, 6 a.m.

It’s a time­less max­im of polit­ics: Hold­ing power masks a party’s in­tern­al di­vi­sions and con­flicts. It’s a les­son that Re­pub­lic­ans learned all too well dur­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, with rest­less tea-party act­iv­ists chal­len­ging the scler­ot­ic party es­tab­lish­ment—capped by sev­er­al high-pro­file mem­bers fall­ing in primar­ies to un­likely in­sur­gents. And it’s a les­son that Demo­crats are learn­ing all too pain­fully now, as the party is splin­ter­ing, with pro­gress­ive of­fi­cials (such as Bernie Sanders, Eliza­beth War­ren, and Keith El­lis­on) ur­ging the party to move even fur­ther left, while more-prag­mat­ic voices (such as Tim Ry­an) beg the party to re­tool its mes­sage so it can bet­ter ap­peal to work­ing-class whites.

What’s re­mark­able is that the es­tab­lish­ment-vs.-tea-party fights that di­vided the GOP for the past sev­en years have dis­sip­ated since the po­lar­iz­ing Don­ald Trump was elec­ted pres­id­ent. Even in­transigent con­ser­vat­ive mem­bers are in­clined to fall in line be­hind the pres­id­ent-elect. The Free­dom Caucus, which routinely held es­tab­lish­ment Re­pub­lic­ans to task for com­prom­ising con­ser­vat­ive prin­ciples, now sounds will­ing to em­brace Trump’s big-spend­ing pro­pos­als for in­fra­struc­ture. After threat­en­ing Paul Ry­an with a lead­er­ship chal­lenge be­fore the elec­tion, Free­dom Caucus mem­bers quickly ral­lied be­hind the House speak­er after Trump’s vic­tory. The pop­u­list en­ergy they channeled when out of power is now in Trump’s hands, and if they chal­lenged the pres­id­ent-elect, it would turn against them.

Con­sider Sen. Or­rin Hatch’s re­newed in­terest in seek­ing reelec­tion. Con­ser­vat­ive groups tried to chal­lenge Hatch in the 2012 primary, and to pla­cate the op­pos­i­tion, he sug­ges­ted that he would re­tire at the end of his term. Now, Hatch is spe­cific­ally cit­ing Trump’s vic­tory as reas­on why he should seek an eighth term in of­fice.

And it’s not just Hatch. Ted Cruz can breathe easi­er. Rep. Mike Mc­Caul, who con­sidered chal­len­ging him in a primary, is now fo­cused on the pos­sib­il­ity of join­ing the Trump cab­in­et. Sen. Bob Cork­er, as es­tab­lish­ment as Re­pub­lic­ans come, has got­ten a polit­ic­al boost back home in Ten­ness­ee after be­ing men­tioned as a pos­sible sec­ret­ary of State.

Demo­crats will now be ex­per­i­en­cing the in­tra­party hos­til­ity that dogged Re­pub­lic­ans. House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi re­ceived an early warn­ing sign when 63 of her col­leagues voted against her in a sur­pris­ingly com­pet­it­ive lead­er­ship fight against Tim Ry­an. The battle for the Demo­crat­ic Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee chair­man­ship is already di­vis­ive, with the early front-run­ner (El­lis­on) turn­ing off Jew­ish groups and some labor uni­ons with his far-left re­cord.

There’s one big dif­fer­ence between the two parties’ pre­dic­a­ments, however. Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers have al­ways been more prag­mat­ic and less con­ser­vat­ive than their voters, a dy­nam­ic that made it dif­fi­cult to re­solve their in­tern­al dif­fer­ences. As the post-2012 Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee autopsy re­port showed, party of­fi­cials truly wanted to move to the middle on is­sues such as im­mig­ra­tion, but their core voters held them to a hard line. By con­trast, most Demo­crat­ic lead­ers —from the White House on down—bought in­to the be­lief that lib­er­als were as­cend­ant thanks to the grow­ing in­flu­ence of the Obama co­ali­tion. Now Demo­crats are in deni­al, hav­ing trouble even re­cog­niz­ing how far out­side the main­stream they’ve moved in the first place.


1. Two red-state Sen­ate Demo­crats have been rumored as pos­sible Trump Cab­in­et se­lec­tions: North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and West Vir­gin­ia’s Joe Manchin. Heitkamp is the more ser­i­ous pos­sib­il­ity, giv­en that she vis­ited Trump Tower on Fri­day and was con­spicu­ously low-key dur­ing the pres­id­en­tial cam­paign. Manchin holds the most con­ser­vat­ive vot­ing re­cord among Sen­ate Demo­crats, and has been rumored as a party-switch­ing pos­sib­il­ity in the past.

From a strictly polit­ic­al per­spect­ive, Heitkamp makes more sense. If she is chosen, GOP gov­ernor Jack Dalrymple would pick a tem­por­ary Re­pub­lic­an re­place­ment. That would give the GOP an ad­di­tion­al Sen­ate seat, for a total of 53 (as­sum­ing they win a Louisi­ana run­off this month). In ad­di­tion, Heitkamp would add di­versity, both gender and ideo­lo­gic­al.

If Manchin were chosen, newly-elec­ted Demo­crat­ic Gov. Jim Justice would pick his re­place­ment—who would likely be an­oth­er con­ser­vat­ive-minded Demo­crat. That would not only al­low Demo­crats to hang onto the red-state Sen­ate seat, but also give them a fight­ing chance to win in an up­com­ing 2018 spe­cial elec­tion.

2. There’s been a lot of Monday-morn­ing quar­ter­back­ing lately, dis­sect­ing the reas­ons why Clin­ton lost the pres­id­en­tial elec­tion. The im­pact of Green Party nom­in­ee Jill Stein can’t be over­looked. Clin­ton’s mar­gin of de­feat in all three “blue wall” states—Michigan, Wis­con­sin, and Pennsylvania—was smal­ler than the num­ber of votes Stein re­ceived.

To be sure, that’s a con­sequence of Trump’s very nar­row statewide vic­tor­ies more than Stein’s polit­ic­al stand­ing. Stein only won 1 per­cent of the vote in Wis­con­sin and Michigan, and less than that in Pennsylvania. But you can bet that as Clin­ton op­er­at­ives play the blame game as the nar­row­ness of their de­feat sets in, Stein will be on the re­ceiv­ing end of some Demo­crat­ic blow­back.

What We're Following See More »
House Committee Calls Mark Zuckerberg To Testify
19 minutes ago

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee will summon Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify, following recent revelations that Trump-linked Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained information on some 50 million Facebook users. 'We believe, as CEO of Facebook, he is the right witness to provide answers to the American people,'" said Reps. Greg Walden and Frank Pallone. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg told CNN that he was open to testifying. "The House panel said it plans to send a formal letter to Facebook in the days ahead."

Tillerson Receives Applause for Farewell Remarks
30 minutes ago
House Passes Omnibus Spending Bill
32 minutes ago
House Intel Officially Votes to End Probe
2 hours ago
"The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday voted in a party-line vote to release its controversial, Republican-authored report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, bringing to a close a contentious chapter defined by committee infighting. The report will not immediately be made public. It must first be sent to the intelligence community for a declassification review."
Trump’s Top Lawyer Resigns
2 hours ago

"The president’s lead lawyer for the special counsel investigation, John Dowd, resigned on Thursday." Dowd, who took over Trump's legal defense last summer, "ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was increasingly ignoring his advice." Trump has expressed willingness to "sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office, even though Mr. Dowd believed it was a bad idea."


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.