Off to the Races

Voters Want Prudence, Not Politics

Republicans lost the House in part because they spent too much time on partisan witch hunts. Will Democrats make the same mistake?

Outgoing House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (seated) and Rep. Jim Jordan
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
Nov. 26, 2018, 8 p.m.

The late House Speaker Sam Rayburn used to say that “there is no education in the second kick of a mule.” Reading soon-to-be-former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte’s announcement that he and his committee had subpoenaed former FBI Director James Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch to testify in front of closed-door hearings over the investigation of Russian meddling in 2016 and the Hillary Clinton email controversy, I wondered just how many kicks certain House Republicans need before they realize the consequence of some of their actions.

Clearly they have not received the message that antics like this contributed to their 39- or 40-seat loss (depending upon the outcome of GOP Rep. David Valadao’s reelection contest in California’s 21st District) and their soon-to-be minority status in the House. After all, given this current configuration of congressional district boundaries and natural population patterns concentrating the Democratic vote in urban areas, it wasn’t easy for Republicans to lose this majority. Just three or four years ago, many of us thought that the next shot Democrats might get at a House majority would be in the next decade under a new set of lines.

Of course, Goodlatte is retiring as well, so in January he would be the former chairman anyway, as will Rep. Trey Gowdy, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman who similarly abused his gavel playing for the cameras and taking advantage of the tragedy in Benghazi. So neither will be in a position of enjoy the full ambiance of minority status that their remaining colleagues will—though it’s worth noting that Rep. Devin Nunes, whose antics managed to make the House Intelligence Committee an oxymoron, will be back in January to enjoy the fruits of his labors.

The 2018 midterm election certainly was a referendum on President Trump, who had a positive impact for Republicans in small-town and rural America and in much of the South, but not so much in urban and suburban America, where more people live. Yet the hyper-partisanship, score-settling, and witch hunts that so many (but certainly not all) House Republicans engaged in—while their Senate Republican colleagues largely refrained—did not help the GOP any on Nov. 6. Playing to the base works well in the base but doesn’t really help much among the rest of the electorate, which would rather see politicians focus their efforts on addressing real problems in the country and the world, not playing attack dog against members of the opposition party.

Especially in the election’s immediate aftermath, may people suggested it was more of a ripple than a wave. That’s a nice turn of phrase, but this was an 8-point popular-vote win for Democrats, as computed by Cook Political Report House Editor David Wasserman’s real-time updated spreadsheet of House results. Republicans lost more seats (four) in Orange County, California than Democrats lost in 50 states, lost longtime Republican suburban districts outside of Dallas and Houston, and no longer have a single House seat in New England. That is a wave, even if it isn’t a tidal wave or a tsunami as 1994 and 2010 were for Republicans. It’s easy to play games with numbers, and people on both sides engage in it: One TV talk show host was talking about the massive repudiation of Trump and the Republican Party with the biggest Democratic House gains in 44 years, since the 1974 Watergate midterm election, while ignoring the huge Republican gains in 1994 (54 seats) and 2010 (63 seats). This win was big, but some on the Left got a bit carried away with the magnitude of it.

This should be a time for prudent Republicans to contemplate their party’s future, to think about the long-term implications of their policies and rhetoric in light of a rapidly changing country with very different demographics than the one reflected of late by the GOP.

But there is an important lesson for House Democrats and their party’s base in this too. Their animosity toward Trump is no less than what some on the Republican side had for President Obama and Hillary Clinton. In this hyper-partisan environment, blind hatred can often color judgment and make even intelligent and reasonably balanced people engage in irrational and destructive behavior. The new majority could start its own set of fishing expeditions, launching inquisitions and exploiting Benghazi-like tragedies for political gain. For Democrats, the cost could come in the form of soiling their own nest ahead of the 2020 elections, when they really do have a chance of getting their hands back on the presidency and the Senate (though the latter looks to be a bit more difficult than it initially appeared).

Prudence and balance are in increasingly short supply in American politics these days. Both sides should keep that in mind.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Signs Border Deal
6 days ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
6 days ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."

House Will Condemn Emergency Declaration
6 days ago

"House Democrats are gearing up to pass a joint resolution disapproving of President Trump’s emergency declaration to build his U.S.-Mexico border wall, a move that will force Senate Republicans to vote on a contentious issue that divides their party. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday evening in an interview with The Washington Post that the House would take up the resolution in the coming days or weeks. The measure is expected to easily clear the Democratic-led House, and because it would be privileged, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be forced to put the resolution to a vote that he could lose."

Where Will the Emergency Money Come From?
6 days ago

"ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration. A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department's drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon's drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon's military construction budget."

House Passes Funding Deal
1 weeks ago

"The House passed a massive border and budget bill that would avert a shutdown and keep the government funded through the end of September. The Senate passed the measure earlier Thursday. The bill provides $1.375 billion for fences, far short of the $5.7 billion President Trump had demanded to fund steel walls. But the president says he will sign the legislation, and instead seek to fund his border wall by declaring a national emergency."


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.