Facing a pandemic with historic health and economic consequences, a rising China, and domestic strife over rapidly changing race and gender norms, voters of all ideological backgrounds are looking for political leaders ready to fight for them.
Despite President Biden’s superficial calls for unity and bipartisan deal-making, his administration is already pushing the nation’s environmental, tax, spending, and regulatory policies sharply to the left. Biden is doing so via executive actions, legislation that can be passed on a party-line vote through the reconciliation process, and liberal appointments. Democratic voters see their party’s control over the White House and Congress and are demanding aggressive action. They have been agitated by a steady diet of grievances fed to them by a media convinced that Donald Trump posed an existential threat to American norms and democracy itself.
In turn, Republican voters are increasingly alarmed by the radical policies coming from Washington and their sudden loss of power. Rising Republican leaders, especially those looking to the next presidential election, must demonstrate to these voters they are ready and willing to fight for them. Unlike elections not so long ago, when George H.W. Bush promised a “kinder, gentler nation,” George W. Bush promised “compassionate conservatism,” and Bill Clinton promised to invest the “peace dividend,” today’s voters are looking for political warriors. America is no longer the world’s sole undisputed superpower. Today, peace abroad and prosperity at home do not seem as assured.
Voters have ironically often turned away from actual military heroes such as John McCain, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush. They want candidates promising to do political battle on their behalf. That means Republican leaders must project their constancy in the face of the expected media onslaught and express their willingness to suffer ridicule and personal sacrifice on behalf of their constituents. Even as they expect to be rewarded by voters with their loyal support. The question thus is not whether to fight but rather whom to fight.
The first option is taking on the establishment in both parties and fighting for conservative values and voters under fire.
Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz have positioned themselves squarely in this lane. They make the explicit argument that Republican officials unwilling to stand up and fight for Trump in his electoral and impeachment challenges cannot be counted on to be there for conservative voters when their interests are similarly under attack by liberal opponents. The more that large donors, corporations, journalists, and other politicians attack them, the more popular they become with small donors and the most conservative and committed base voters. They may not be popular with their Washington colleagues, but they embrace the trade-off that results in intense support from grassroots activists.
The second option is taking on other Republicans for being racist, extremist, or otherwise unwilling to play by the rules.
Sens. Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney have positioned themselves here. They argue that extreme conservatism has embraced white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and other radical elements that have no place in large tent Republicanism. They embrace Trump’s policies to cut taxes and regulations and appoint conservative judges but condemn his personal behavior and trashing of political norms. Evinced by Romney joining a Black Lives Matter protest in Washington, these Republicans express moral indignation at the racism they see threatening to infect mainstream Republican politics. The more they are ridiculed as “Republicans in Name Only” and attacked by local party officials, the more celebrated they are by editorial writers, large donors, and traditional Republican corporate leaders. They see themselves putting country before party and expect history will bend their way sooner than later. Some ambitious Republicans in this group also expect their more populist colleagues to splinter their supporters in competing to be the next Trump. This dynamic, they hope, will leave a plurality of voters up for grabs.
The third option is taking on America’s foreign enemies, and their multinational corporate enablers, even when the establishment cringes.
As Ronald Reagan was criticized by the sophisticated for labeling the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and predicting communism would end up on the “ash heap of history,” Trump also rejected years of bipartisan wishful thinking regarding China. Conservatives worry about the loss of jobs, technological edge, international influence, and military power to a rising China. They also worry about big technology companies, government, and cultural elites in America tolerating and even adopting milder versions of the Chinese surveillance and censoring practices used against dissidents. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Sens. Rick Scott and Tom Cotton have positioned themselves here and have criticized both communist leaders in China as well as American companies they see enabling the theft of intellectual property, loss of American jobs, and violation of human rights.
Even as Democrats and the legacy media rethink their previous positions regarding China, these Republicans push harder for tariffs, bans on Chinese multinational firms like Huawei, and stronger ties with Taiwan. They criticize Disney, Apple, Nike, the NBA, and others for hypocrisy in proudly promoting their social justice efforts at home while ignoring human rights abuses abroad for the sake of profits. The more the foreign policy establishment dismisses them as simple minded and jingoistic, and the more they are condemned abroad, the louder they are cheered at home by people worried about losing good-paying jobs on an uneven playing field.
These political lanes are not mutually exclusive or permanent choices. Hawley also takes swipes at China, Scott stood by Trump, and Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Nikki Haley are shifting from the first to the second lane. Still, it’s clear that Republican voters are looking for leaders willing to fight for them. Those leaders thus must decide whom they want to fight in order to demonstrate their strength based on principle or where they think their voters are going.
