By Noah Rothman
Thursday, December 01, 2022
The story of the 2022 election isn’t complicated.
Ballasted by a favorable issue set and the tailwinds that traditionally push
the party out of power to victory in midterm years, Republicans with a claim to
conventionality did quite well. Republicans with no such claim—indeed, those
who flamboyantly rejected the orthodoxies of conventional American
politics—didn’t.
It’s a quantifiable proposition. With the data from this
year’s races almost fully in, New York Times analyst Nate Cohen found that so-called “MAGA Candidates”
underperformed their “traditional” Republican colleagues by roughly five
points. “Non-MAGA Republicans in 2022 ran six points better than Mr. Trump did
in 2020,” Cohen wrote. “The MAGA Republicans barely fared better than him at
all.” What he calls the “MAGA penalty” is consistent and observable at the
district and statewide levels. Even the MAGA-friendly candidates who won their
races dramatically underperformed candidates with more
distance from Trump’s movement on the same ballot.
The story of 2022 is pretty much the
story of 2020. Then, Republican candidates beat expectations almost across
the board. The Republican House minority grew by 14 seats. The GOP held on to
five of its seven most imperiled seats in the Senate. Republicans gained state
legislative chambers when they were expected to lose control of up to 19 of
them, upending the conventional wisdom summarized by political analyst David
Wasserman that “toss-ups tend to break disproportionately towards the party on
offense.” The exception to this rule was Trump himself. With providential
accuracy, voters defenestrated the top of the Republican ticket while rewarding
many of the party’s down-ballot candidates. Following a month of drum-banging
over a stolen election, though, the distinctions between the president and his
party blurred to the point that the conditions contributing to the “MAGA
penalty” trickled down.
The signal the electorate has sent the Republican Party
over three consecutive election cycles couldn’t be clearer. As the GOP embarks
on a postmortem analysis of all the opportunities it fumbled in 2022, it would
be insane to allow those with a vested interest in muddying these crystalline
waters to have that opportunity. However, that’s apparently what the GOP
intends to do.
Politico reports this week that the Republican
National Committee is conducting a “review of the party’s performance” in the
midterms, and they’re bringing in a dozen Republicans from across the party’s
ideological spectrum to assist. There’s nothing wrong with that, barring the
axiomatic caveat that a statement drafted by committee will say less in direct
proportion to the number of voices contributing to it. The council will “help
chart a winning course in the years to come.” That suggests, at a minimum, its
members should know something about winning elections. Most of them do, or are,
at least, invested in victorious outcomes. But the bizarre inclusion of Arizona
Senate candidate Blake Masters on the team suggests this enterprise is willing
to entertain losers, too.
At first blush, it makes little sense to include a
candidate who underperformed almost every Republican in a state where Republicans
lost almost every statewide race on this panel. Masters invited voters to adjudicate his darkly
conspiratorial political maturation. He relied on deep-pocketed eccentrics who share his suspicion
of American national interests to bankroll his campaign. He somehow
managed to execute a Mitt Romney-style attempt at a post-primary image makeover with less
aplomb. He adopted Trump’s most unlovely trait by seeking to preemptively discredit his state’s election results.
He devoted himself wholly to the culture wars to the exclusion of the
pocketbook concerns that fueled a Republican resurgence. He made himself a
tribune of the Arizona GOP, which has turned against just about every candidate
who ever won a statewide race in this century. He has, therefore, made a
powerful contribution to Arizona’s rapid transformation into a blue state.
So, what does Masters bring to the table (besides being a
token representative of a very loud albatross around the GOP’s neck)? Excuses.
While the former Senate candidate has conceded that the
GOP’s aversion to voting by mail was a mistake, that seems to be the limit of
his capacity for introspection. The foremost goal for the GOP, Masters said in
a statement, was to ditch the “consultant one-size-fits-all strategies.”
Casting aspersions on a formless cabal of wreckers within
the Republican firmament is an appealing narrative to RNC members, too. In an
appearance on Fox News Channel Wednesday, committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon
conceded that the GOP is on “life support” despite its recapture of the House of
Representatives. To her credit, she gingerly criticized the party’s attachment
to “celebrity candidates” and its appeals to the “emotions” of its base. It is,
however, tough to square that salient observation with her
more forceful claim that the “RNC also needs to have an Elon-style
review of consultants & culture” because there are “a lot of lame
consultants bleeding us dry.”
Republicans with any memory of the Tea Party years will
recognize this familiar refrain. Back when populists were still road-testing
the empty bravado that typifies political discourse today, it was common to
hear the new consultancy malign the old. And how did the old
consultancy fight back? By attacking the populist consultants, whose primary goal was merely to “line the pockets of
consultants” rather than win elections. The party’s “scam artist consultants” had to go, insisted the populist
reformers. They were were “infiltrating and dividing” their insurgency even as they
(including then-game show host Donald Trump) surround themselves with consultants. But
then the critics of the consultancy became consultants themselves—even scam artists—who were contaminating the movement.
Uncharitably and predictably, those who notice this cycle
of advantage-seeking and blame-shifting will be attacked for suggesting the
consultant class is neigh infallible. It’s hard to begrudge anyone who has
recently fallen on their face a modest effort to save some dignity. But the
voters have given Republicans a clear story to tell. Their only job now is to
write it up. The inclusion of unreliable narrators in this exercise only serves
those who want to keep the party from changing course. The insurgent wing of
the GOP used to call that sort of performance art “failure theater.”
Well, look who’s failing now.
No comments:
Post a Comment