Unless you have been living under a rock for the past month, you know that the Republican Party is a mess right now. The corporate media have been covering its problems almost without end. The House Republican Conference removed Liz Cheney as its chairwoman, and even though nine out of 10 commentators have not the foggiest clue what the conference chair actually does, they are eager to explain why this is terrible for the GOP. Additionally, the party has trouble with members such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, whose antics and extreme views are a constant source of embarrassment for the House conference, not to mention clickbait for mainstream websites desperate to retain readers in the post-Trump political environment.
The GOP’s problems are real. Of this, there is no doubt. Like most parties recently consigned to the minority, it is disorganized — uncertain about its future and prone to disagree internally about the best path forward. Worse than most past parties, it is also saddled with Donald Trump (or perhaps better put, the party saddled itself with Trump by nominating him twice for the presidency), a uniquely difficult burden. There has never been a one-term president who maintains the enthusiastic support of the party loyalists while simultaneously alienating the swing voters in the center of the country. And indeed, one can scarcely imagine a “leader” like Trump, who is so intent on pursuing petty grievances rather than actually leading.
But it bears remembering that the GOP is the minority party in the federal government. The voters booted it from power, first from the House in 2018, then from the Senate and White House in 2020, in no small measure because of the former president’s erratic behavior. The Democrats are now in charge, and while the Republicans have plenty of problems, it is fair to inquire into their current situation.
So, what of it? The Democratic Party might not be the spectacular mess that is today’s GOP, but for a coalition that holds a governing trifecta in Washington, there is a lot to wonder about. For starters, Democrats seem to be the party of pursuing moral hazards for the sake of ideology. Shoveling huge cash stipends through coronavirus stimulus, without respect to whether recipients actually need them, seems to have created a huge disincentive to work, not to mention upward pressure on inflation, both of which have shown up in the recent economic data. Regardless of whether one thinks more needed to be done in terms of reviving the economy, the blanket and slapdash way the Democrats passed the latest round of stimulus makes recent news on economic weakness not at all surprising. Additionally, in telegraphing their desire not to enforce immigration laws, the Biden administration and its allies in Congress have encouraged a sharp uptick in migration on the southern border, with border crossings increasing 120% from January to March this year alone. Again, regardless of whether one wants more immigration, this is a haphazard and deeply problematic way to go about it.
Democratic priorities, insofar as they are focused, seem centered primarily on politics — namely, securing their tenuous grasp on federal power. Thus, Democrats have spent an inordinate amount of time debating a massive overhaul of state election laws. Under the guise of “saving” the country from the “anti-democratic” Republicans, the Democrats seek to upend centuries of state control over elections. The massive bills, dubbed H.R. 1 in the House and S. 1 in the Senate, hardly reflect a priority of voters, but rather a priority of Democrats worried about 2022. Democrats have also prioritized admitting Washington, D.C., as the 51st state, despite the constitutional issues (the 23rd Amendment guarantees three electoral votes for the capital district) and the fact that it is massively unpopular with voters, who think Washington has enough power as it is.
Ultimately, neither of these proposals stands much chance of enactment because of the Democrats’ vanishingly small majority in Congress. This is especially the case in the Senate, where their control of the chamber depends on the assent of Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, which has become one of the most pro-Republican states in the union. And that is just to get to a simple majority with Vice President Kamala Harris functioning as tiebreaker. To break the legislative filibuster, Democrats would need 10 Republican defectors, a virtual impossibility on any controversial proposal. As such, Democrats have taken to threatening to blow up the filibuster despite Manchin’s staunch opposition to such a move, the Democratic Party’s frequent use of filibusters during its time in the minority, and the potentially grave consequences such an action could have on the proper functioning of the Senate.
Assuming they cannot get rid of the filibuster, Democrats will ultimately have to work with Republicans, at least if they hope to work beyond the very narrow confines of budget reconciliation (a process that eliminates the filibuster threshold in the Senate). So, what advantage is to be gained from essentially referring to them as a proto-fascist, anti-American, Trumpist cult? There are Republicans in the Senate willing to work with Democrats. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Pat Toomey, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, to name just a few. And there are thoughtful conservatives who are not afraid to break from party orthodoxy if they think an idea is worthwhile, such as Mike Lee. But rather than find points of shared interest in order to cobble such a coalition together, Democrats are aiming for pie-in-the-sky measures that stand little chance of passage while alienating potential allies on the other side with over-the-top rhetoric.
If all of this has an otherworldly quality, it is because Democrats’ agenda seems disengaged from the hard realities of incentive structures, the concerns of average voters, and the political situation in Congress. Even on infrastructure, an issue for which there is a great opportunity for success, Democrats appear to be living in an alternate universe. Republicans generally could agree to an infrastructure package, the country would likely support it, and such a bill could contain all sorts of local goodies to help strengthen the position of vulnerable Democrats heading into next year’s election, all the while proving that the party is capable of governing. Yet party leadership could not resist muddying the waters by including in their proposals a bunch of cradle-to-grave welfare provisions along with physical improvements to roads and bridges. When pressed on this issue, they have taken to ridiculous messaging. As Kirsten Gillibrand’s Twitter account posted last month, “Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure.” Nonsense, and conservatives had a good time mocking such inanities.
At a certain level, all of this can reasonably be answered by “But Trump.” Yes, Trump was and somehow is still more ridiculous than this. But Trump is not president anymore, and his party has been consigned to a minority because of his antics. So, what then should the standard be now? Is it that a governing party has to be only a bit more serious than Donald Trump to hold power? If that is the case, then our country is in a pitiable condition indeed.
Jay Cost is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a visiting scholar at Grove City College.
