A lot has been written on this site and elsewhere concerning the Pledge to America that the Republicans unveiled on Friday. For the most part, bloggers have been critical. Some have argued that it will not do the Republicans any good in November. Others dismiss it as milquetoast. Emily Esfahani Smith has done a good job collecting the comments.
I think the critics are wrong, quite wrong – and for two reasons. First, those who drafted the Pledge took great care to ground everything that they had to say in first principles. They drew the attention of the nation to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution. Then, they pointed to our departure from these principles in recent years, asserting that the Democrats bear prime responsibility for this, but acknowledging Republican failures as well.
And, finally, they spelled out the corrective measures that are most pressing – a repeal of Obamacare (not a collection of minor adjustments); a reduction of federal expenditures (apart from those devoted to national defense) back to the level of 2008; and an extension of the tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush.
Should they have gone further? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is a document devised for three purposes. It is aimed at winning an election, at preparing a party now in opposition for legislative hegemony, and at initiating an enduring partisan realignment. In such circumstances, two things are necessary. A simple straightforward set of principles needs to be announced, and the most pressing concerns need to be directly addressed.
The document does this. First, it points to fundamental principles, which is no small thing. The last Republican leader to recur repeatedly to the Founding Fathers was Ronald Reagan. Since the 1980s, to a considerable degree, Republicans have operated in such a manner as to suggest that that what the Founders had to say is out-of-date.
Second, the document singles out the three matters of greatest concern to voters who might be tempted to support the Republicans. Moreover, it binds Republican candidates and Senators not up for re-election to do what they have all promised to do. Repealing Obamacare, restoring a semblance of fiscal prudence, and extending the tax cuts would be no small thing – and these are the three items at the top of the Tea-Party list.
Should the Republicans have stressed entitlement reform? I think not. It needs doing without a doubt, and it will figure in debates to come. But had the Republicans at this time made it a major issue, they would have played into the hands of their opponents – who are already putting advertisements on television claiming that the Republicans are going to dump grandma into a ditch.
We must remember that this is 2010, not 2012, and that we must tackle first things first. The extent of our difficulties will become more and more evident to the American people as time goes on, and entitlement reform will be complicated and messy. We must as a nation honor our commitments to those who have for decades and decades paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare. We must gradually wind down these programs. And we must fund the transition. One cannot reduce what needs to be done in this regard to a sound bite suited to an election campaign.
But Repeal Obamacare! No New Taxes! Take a Knife to the Budget! – These are slogans easily understood and the words have a nice ring.
Think about what happens after November – especially if, as I have argued in an analysis posted on Sunday morning, the Republicans take the Senate and, in the House, chalk up a gain of considerably more than 70 seats and perhaps as many as the 101 that the Democrats gained in 1932. Think about the next step, for, if my calculations are anywhere near correct, the Republics will have a resounding mandate for all three measures.
This will put tremendous pressure on the Democrats who survive the onslaught and, of course, on President Obama as well. If repeal passes the House, will the numerous Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2012 and 2014 block it? If it passes the House and the Senate, will the President veto the bill? If the bill is repealed, the Left will turn on the Democratic Party. If it is not, the voters will turn with a vengeance on those who thwarted their will.
After contemplating this prospect, consider what the Republicans will be able to do with taxes and the budget – where, thanks to the rules that govern the Senate, their leverage will be greater still.
If President Obama accepts defeat, the Left will not stick with him as they stuck with Bill Clinton in 1996. If he retains sufficient support in the House and the Senate and makes an effective use of his veto – his party will, in 2012, lose further ground in the House and suffer considerable carnage in the Senate, and he will have set up the Republican nominee for a decisive victory in that year.
The trick is to turn a rebellion into a rout. Our aim must be to put the Democrats on the spot and maneuver them into abandoning the Left or defying the popular will. We have the whip hand, and it is time to use the whip.
But one step at a time, my friends!
Which is not to say that you should not keep the pressure on. Otherwise, you can bet that folks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham will break ranks at the first opportunity, as they have so often done in the past. It is essential that the Tea-Party Movement continue to do what it has done in the course of the last eighteen months: it is essential that it purge the backsliders. The defeat of patronage Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle has an effect on the officeholders whom they leave behind much like that which Samuel Johnson attributed to public hangings: it concentrates the mind wonderfully.