THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AFTER ROMNEY.

Jay H. Ell stuck his neck out, way back, in declaring Obama the winner of the 2012 Presidential elections. However, there are other burning issues still to be resolved. These include the outcome of the Congressional and State elections and the future of the Republican Party after Romney. In retrospect Romney was the only candidate that could have run this cycle and unless the Republican Party changes, it's chances of winning the Presidency will recede with each election cycle in the future. As the USA demographics change the Grand Old Party needs to reinvent itself to survive. As matters stand, even if Romney wins, we are dealing with a party that has swung far to the right and is split down the middle. 




DEBT LEGISLATION CRISIS



All this is at a time when the country faces its most crucial financial crises. Looming over Congress and the nation is legislation that will result in a compulsory cut back of 9% on all spending that is "discriminatory". This will occur if a debt reduction deal is not reached by January 15, 2013. To avoid this Congress has to agree to a debt reduction bill for an additional $1.2 trillion by 2021. Congress has already agreed to a $900 billion cut so that will mean a cut of $2.1 trillion in the deficit.




An indiscriminate 9% expenditure cut across the Board would be devastating and it includes all Welfare Programs and defense. The Democrats want the new $1.2 trillion to include tax increases for the rich and the Republican dominated by the Tea Party don't. The Republicans don't want defense cuts at all, in fact Romney wants to spend 2 trillion more so it all looks like a recipe for disaster.



Also due for renewal are the so-called Bush tax cuts. Obama and the Democrats want to increase the marginal tax rate from 35% to 39% for those earning above $250,000, some say they will compromise to only introduce the raise for those earning a $1,000,000. The tax cuts for the "middle class" will remain. The Republicans want none of it.




An analysis below of the elections for the legislating bodies reveals a return to almost the status quo in terms of policy standpoints after this election.

CONGRESS AND STATE ELECTIONS.




The general consensus had been that whatever happened in the Presidential elections, the Senate was going to become Republican. With the anti incumbent mood and with the weird Senate election provisions, resulted in the Democrats defending far more seats than the Republicans, it was considered a certainty that the Republicans would regain the Senate. It does not appear as if that is going to happen. The Democrats will still control the Senate albeit with a smaller majority. (This partly thanks to the fact that 15 Republican Senate candidates are taking the Republican Party Platform on Women's rights seriously).


 

The House of Representatives, where the Republicans have a handy majority, is a lot more challenging to the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Leader, is not so secretly, hoping for a Republican defeat. This is unlikely to happen. More likely is a modest gain by the Democrats.


The State legislature elections will not reflect too much change from the current situation. The big Republican financiers have changed the State landscape by throwing money in the State elections some time ago.  




In short this election, as a whole, will be a setback for the Republican Party. But not nearly as much as one might have thought with a party that is leaderless and whose power base, the Tea Party, are out of touch with political reality. (They all want to slash public spending unless it relates to their own constituency needs!).


SEQUALAE




Assuming that this, or something close to this, will happen how will it effect the Republican Party in general and their Congress behavior specifically? The Republican Party can blame their woes on the move to the right as evidenced by the Tea Party takeover. They will try and blame Romney who they reluctantly nominated. But objectively he gave them their best chance by running as two separate candidates. Imagine what would have happened to a Cain, or a Bachmann or a Santorum or a Gingrich, for example. Their "better" candidates did not run for a reason. They did not think they had a ghost of a chance with the Tea Party agenda. Unlike Romney they obviously did not feel like running as two personas.




And it is only going to get worse. The Demographics point that way. If you are anti Latino immigrant and are perceived to be anti African American and anti women your potential voting pool is going to get less and less.




* The Ryan Solution.

This is basically what the Republicans are running on at the moment. While some candidates are distancing themselves from the public articulations of this "extreme" policy on abortion and contraception, this is the official Party Platform - Social and Fiscal conservatism. In fact to a lesser or greater extent the most of the Party field is disavowing themselves of the Social component. Even Ryan concedes that he has to follow the Romney ticket's policy on this. Romney of course in his "moderate" persona is against the extreme platform. However, he has great difficulty in condemning those that articulate the Party Platform that, for example, is against abortion even in rape.

With regard to fiscal conservatism do the Republicans seriously think that they have a future in privatizing Medicare and social security, taxing the wealthy less, getting rid of welfare in all it's forms, sending the Latinos home, not supporting equal pay for women, not allowing contraception to be considered a medicine while Viagra is and on and on?

Assuming that there has to be some modification of their platform what will it be? Whatever happens there is no way either plank in the Ryan solution can survive. It is just a question how and if it can be adjusted and whether those gung ho Tea Party congressional freshmen of 2010, who took over the party, will bow to political reality.

* Fiscally Conservative and Socially more "liberal" - a Goldwater solution

Barry Goldwater the father and party philosopher, who defined the Republican philosophy of fiscal conservatism that Ronald Reagan so successfully ran on, believed that social issues should play no part in a political agenda. (Incidentally Reagan would never have got the Tea Party backing).

 Since Reagan the social issues have just crept in more and more, as Party Policy, over the years. The objective was to get out the party base at election time. Bush 43, under Rove's tutelage, used the social issues as an election issue again and again, and once elected was not terribly much interested in pursuing them. 

It would appear that the Party's Platform without the social issues was not just enough to gain traction with the Republican base but with them the Platform is getting more and more out of touch with the electorate. So maybe they just better sit down and see reality. They cannot rely on social issues to push them over the top any more. The fact that the Democrats, for the first time in decades are bringing up the issue of abortion rights as an electoral issue tells you where the electorate are at. To survive as a Party they had better listen to Goldwater and dump the social issues.

*Fiscal Issues

They can't sign pledges with NorQuist never to raise any taxes and at the same time sort out this country's mess. They cannot allow fiscal policies that allow outsourcing of jobs and capitol. They cannot not have regulations that allow the mortgage and banking crises to occur again. What they can do is create a policy that leans more to their free enterprise philosophy than the Democratic Party does.

The Democratic Party made this adjustment under Clinton reforming some Welfare legislation and increasing taxes with spectacular success. The Democrats moved to the middle. Obama was ready to make to make the compromise again by cutting spending together with a modest tax increase. Boehner, the Republican House Speaker reneged because of Tea Party pressure.

* Immigration

This is key. For the Republican Party to survive they have to come to terms that the Latin American voters are growing by the year. They have to get away from humiliating apartheid like legislation and apply the principles of the Constitution to them as well. Surely the Party of Lincoln who abolished slavery and who were also instrumental in helping to enact Civil Rights Legislation, when the Democratic Party in the South were voting against it, can find a solution. The odd token Latino celebrity is just not enough to convince the Latinos that there concerns are being recognized.

* Medicare, Social Security and Welfare.

Everybody knows that Medicare and Social Security cannot remain as they are at the moment. They were created for retirees who had a 4-year life expectancy not a 20-year life expectancy. Implicit in the Medicare solution is the whole issue of healthcare costs. No country can spend nearly 17% of its Gross National Product on Health Care. Implicit too in the Social Security solution is a means based test an/or possibly a later retiring age. 



SO WHAT HOPE IS THERE FOR A COMPROMISE ON DEBT REDUCTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AFTER THE ELECTION?



Unlike the Westminister Parliamentary model, where winner takes all, the US Constitution was designed for compromise with innumerable checks and balances. If there is no compromise then nothing happens which for practical purposes has been the Republican tactic for the past three years to avoid Obama obtaining too many legislative successes.

In many ways the future of the Republican Party is predicated on whether they are flexible enough to make this compromise. On the face of it they are not. The freshmen Tea Partyers who took over the Party in 2010 support the establishment under protest and believe that any concession is a "sell out". Also Obama has to get his act together. He needs to get into the mix. He elected to run and rerun for the Presidency so he better do what he has to do to get effective and not be aloof from the process.

On its face the solution seems simple enough in broad terms. On debt resolution one could have as a basis no tax cuts for the rich in exchange for more spending cuts. On immigration a combined task force could be put into place and on and on...... 


In all likelihood, however, we are going to see the can kicked further along the road for another year as although the debt sequestration legislation comes into effect in January 2013 the cuts come into effect in January 2014. Also if one reads Robert Draper's book, "Don't Ask Us What Good We Do", on the inner dynamics, paranoia and dysfunction of the House of Representatives, there does not seem like much hope for the moment. This dysfunction will continue till the Republican Party either splits or a big enough chunk of it has the guts to compromise with the Democrats. There are plenty of precedents for two party solutions - Reagan and Tip O'Neill and Clinton and Gingrich to name but a few.



In the final analysis it is the Republicans that have everything to lose. If they don't get their act together the unthinkable will happen and they will split. One outcome is for certain are that the demographics of America will never see a Tea Party agenda become the American position of the 21st century. With non-Caucasians becoming the majority by the middle of the Century and Women unlikely to accept to return to the Middle Ages their social agenda will not fly. Their fiscal agenda cannot survive when no new income revenue is generated, money is allowed to leave the country together with jobs, two trillion is spent more on defense and the protective net is removed from the disadvantaged and the poor.

If Romney does get elected he is most likely to go with the Tea Party agenda. In the short term the need for an internal Republican upheaval is delayed but in the long term the fundamentals remain the same.