Cantor’s Defeat and the GOP Establishment’s Dilemma


Ed Hudgins

Recommended Posts

Cantor’s Defeat and the GOP Establishment’s Dilemma

By Edward Hudgins

June 11, 2014 -- Establishment Republicans are in shock over the Virginia primary loss by GOP House majority leader Eric Cantor at the hands of Dave Brat, an economics professor and Tea Party-backed political novice.

Many conservatives chalked up Cantor’s defeat to his support for immigration reform, which they interpret as “amnesty and citizenship for lawbreakers.” And Brat made remarks ciritical of immigration reform. But a survey released by the liberal Public Policy Polling found some 70 percent of voters in Cantor’s district favor reform that includes securing the border, barring businesses from hiring illegals, but also allowing undocumented aliens a way to legally remain in the U.S.

Establishment Republicans must understand the deeper causes for Cantor’s defeat and learn lessons that will better ensure general election victories. And those who back candidates like Brat must understand what errors they must avoid in order to avoid election defeats.

Such an understanding begins with a recognition that the GOP is in a three-way civil war.

The corrupt Republican establishment

The first GOP faction, establishment Republicans, includes Cantor, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. They want to keep the welfare state but tweak it to make it work a little better, perhaps with some free-market reforms. And they would also argue that it’s one thing to talk about abolishing the welfare state, as do many Tea Partiers, but it’s quite another matter to actually pass legislation to pare the state down.

The problem is that these establishment Republicans present no long-term coherent vision or guiding principles for changing a corrupt paternalist and crony-capitalist regime, a system that is rightly seen by many voters as rotten to the core but propped up by Republicans and Democrats alike. Such voters see Cantor and others like him as flip-flopping pragmatists who are not even pragmatic since they’ve been unable to counter the growth of government under President Obama. Such disillusioned voters took their frustration out on Cantor.

Scary social conservatives

A second GOP faction, extreme social conservatives, includes Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. They give priority to an agenda that limits civil liberties and is often even squishy on economic liberty, with government wielding power to support “family values.” Establishment Republicans rightly worry that candidates from this faction will lose elections the way Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock did in running for U.S. Senate from Missouri and Indiana, respectively, in 2012. Both candidates tripped over their foolish statements about abortion, scaring away the growing number of socially-liberal voters. Democrat Party leaders love such easy-target Republicans!

How, establishment Republicans will ask, can the GOP do anything to stop the growth of government if they can’t win the Senate?

Real libertarian radicals

The third GOP faction actually wants to roll back the power of government and begin to dismantle the welfare state. But such economic conservatives come in two flavors. Some are more libertarian, favoring both economic and personal liberty, e.g., the freedom to form same-sex marriages.Others are more socially conservative. But unlike their more extreme comrades, their priority is to fight the policies of Obama and his ilk, which are sinking the economy, reducing living standards, and destroying personal autonomy.

Brat’s formula

Winning candidate Dave Brat might offer a winning paradigm. Brat the economics professor campaigned on the economy, on the problem of the skyrocketing federal debt, and on government direction and regulation. Brat has written about Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, and even about moral foundations based in Ayn Rand. While not an Objectivist, he has been influenced by Atlas Shrugged.

He is also a strong supporter of the Tenth Amendment, which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Wow, a politician who takes the Constitution seriously! And this is an appeal to a principle that voters can appreciate. It is not the usual pandering and the usual mealy-mouthed promising that treats voters like spoiled children who the candidates will offer to spoil even more in return for votes.

Brat has a Master of Divinity in Theology and is no doubt socially conservative. But pushing a religion-based agenda so far has not been his campaign priority. He seems to appreciate that no one’s personal values are safe if the government continues to grow and to control every aspect of our lives.

Will Brat continue to avoid the errors made by so many social conservatives? That has yet to be seen, but he does seem to have a winning paradigm.

Dedicated to liberty

In light of Cantor’s defeat, Establishment Republicans must understand that they are part of the problem, at best slowing the nation’s decline with their support of the current corrupt regime. They should remember that George W. Bush contributed to this regime with expansions of the welfare and regulatory state. They should remember the defeats of their standard-bearers McCain and Romney. And thus they should seek out and support principled candidates like Dave Brat.

Yes, passing—and repealing!—laws takes political skill. Compromises and deals will need to be made. But only if establishment Republicans abandon the establishment and if social conservatives give priority to limiting government, only if all GOP factions dedicate themselves to the principles of liberty can the party triumph and the country be saved.
-----
Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

For further information:

*Edward Hudgins, editor, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? February 2014.

*Edward Hudgins, “Family Values Still Threaten GOP.” May 30, 2014.

*Edward Hudgins, “McConnell Should Unleash Our Inner John Galt.” June 10, 2014.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Many conservatives chalked up Cantor’s defeat to his support for immigration reform, which they interpret as “amnesty and citizenship for lawbreakers.” And Brat made remarks ciritical of immigration reform. But a survey released by the liberal Public Policy Polling found some 70 percent of voters in Cantor’s district favor reform that includes securing the border, barring businesses from hiring illegals, but also allowing undocumented aliens a way to legally remain in the U.S.

The poll, conducted by leftists, was of 78% whites, 22% non-whites. Hudgins’s "some 70 percent" comes from the answer to the third question (my numbers in brackets):

Q3 There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. [1] The bill would secure our borders, [2] block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and [3] make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. [4] If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal?

Strongly support ................. 40%

Somewhat support .............. 32%

Now what is the average Joe supposed to make of the question, which is actually four questions? He wants 1 and 2 and 3, and wants people to know he wants it. Many people would be suckered into a "support" answer even if they opposed "path to citizenship" immigration.

After that trick question comes another asking the same thing (the poll analysis refers to these questions as "Support/Oppose Immigration Reform 1" and "Support/Oppose Immigration Reform 2"):

Q4 Do you support or oppose an immigration reform plan that [1] ensures undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. pay a penalty, [2] learn English, [3] pass a criminal background check, [4] pay taxes, and [5] wait a minimum of 13 years before they can be eligible for citizenship?

Strongly support ................. 32%

Somewhat support .............. 32%

The question wasn't as blatantly rigged so somewhat fewer people were fooled: 72% dropped to 64%. The drop, for essentially the same question, by itself proves that a lot of people were not responding to a lawyerly reading of the questions.

If you take Q4 instead of Q3 as the basis for comment and throw out the "somewhat support" you get 32% support "path to citizenship" immigration, not "some 70%." And that 32% is groping in the dark based on bad data and probably over-estimates the true number. For sure "some 70%" is grossly incorrect.

That’s how phony polls work. Take an issue you want to say most people support yet most people do not, then water it down with side issues that sound good to them, and wrap it in a package.

The liberals who conducted this phony poll took care not to ask the one forthright question that would have meant something definite: "Do you want more Third World immigrants in your city?" The reason is that most natives would answer No, and strongly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is likewise misleading: "an economics professor and Tea Party-backed"

Of the measly $4,805 in political expenditures against Cantor reported to the Federal Election Commission, none came from the big national tea party groups... The fact that Brat took off without the help of those organizations now makes it harder for them to claim his victory as their own. [Washington Post, 6/10/14]

Dave Brat is squarely in the "scary" evangelical wing of the party:

A review of several of Brat's academic papers reveals that he sees free-market economics as being intricately linked to ethics and faith. He's not just a professor who happens to believe in God; he wants to put God at the center of his work. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/06/david-brat-christian-rights-favorite-economist.html

Still waiting for Mr. Hudgins to get something right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolfe references a review (by Kevin Roose, in the New York Magazine) of a paper by David Brat. According to the review Brat says that Adam Smith's economic ideas are grounded in Protestantism, and modern day economists have lost their way trying to do economics without that basis. I read the introductory summary of Brat’s paper and that seems to be accurate.

Rand would agree with the idea that economists make a mistake by being amoral, so to that extent she would agree with Brat. She would disagree about the morality being that of Protestantism, but then again she would agree with a lot of Brat's idea of that morality.

Unfortunately Objectivists tend to think that anything to do with Christianity is automatically evil. (On ARI Watch you'll find a couple of footnotes about why this is wrong.)

It’s a safe bet that Roose thinks most people are as anti-religion as he is. His motivation for emphasizing Brat's religiosity might be to make Brat, and his non-religious positions such as restricting immigration, look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists tend to think that anything to do with Christianity is automatically evil.

 

Starting at 0:42, Brat tells Hannity: "I was blessed, I mean it's a miracle. What do I attribute to? First of all I attribute it to God. I'm utterly humbled and thankful to the Deity. I'm a believer and so I'm humbled that God gave us this win. But right with that, God acts through people and God acted through the People on my behalf ... an unbelievable miracle." He campaigned from the pulpit in churches.

“Dave will protect the rights of the unborn.” This indicates, at a minimum, that Brat believes that the unborn have rights. Brat’s website also states, “Human life is sacred, as proclaimed by our founding documents, and I will always support laws that protect life.” Although this statement does not specifically mention abortion, it seems to be code for support of anti-abortion laws. [The Objective Standard]

DGS5unn.jpg

"Our Rights come from God... Dave will protect the sanctity of marriage and will oppose

any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith." [brat campaign website]

-------------

But that was background to Dave's big win: Shut the border, no amnesty for illegals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now