There is no doubt that Republicans in Congress are in a bind. Their party base of conservative activists and Tea Party adherents are demanding significant cuts in government spending while almost two-thirds of the public at large is concerned they will cut too much. A recent comprehensive Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that while 62 percent of Americans think President Barack Obama will not cut enough, 51 percent think Republicans will go too far.

House Republican leaders were euphoric when they passed a bill to cut $60 billion in domestic discretionary spending that included reductions in sacred cows like child nutrition and political items like cuts in subsidies for National Public Radio. But when the bill went to the Senate, it was opposed by conservative leaders like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul for not cutting enough. When that bill failed, Senate Democratic leaders offered a mere six billion dollars in mostly meaningless cuts. That failed too. The public split too. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found 41 percent saying large spending cuts would spur job growth and 45 percent saying cuts would result in job losses.

With the two houses deadlocked, the battle shifted to so-called continuing resolutions, to pursue the cuts or close the government if no compromise could be reached. The House GOP leadership proposed a two week extension of appropriations for the current year with an anemic $4 billion cut, although promising $2 billion per week thereafter in succeeding resolutions that would total $40 billion if successful for the remainder of the fiscal year. Speaker John Boehner then promised a budget for the following year with much greater cuts that would include “goals” for bringing sacrosanct Social Security and Medicare under control. The deadline was extended again at $2 billion a week but many conservatives threatened not to do so again unless really large cuts were made.

The problem is that a clear majority of Americans oppose changes in the “third rail” entitlements, which is where the money is. All domestic discretionary spending represents only 16 percent of the Federal total and defense adds only 20 percent more. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment and the other entitlements total 58 percent of national government spending – almost all with majorities of the public against cutting them. Yes, in theory folks want to cut spending but Americans refuse to cut a long list of discretionary policies. The only areas where the poll showed a majority would cut are for nuclear energy, state transfer funds, the Environmental Protection Agency, transportation, public TV and radio, foreign aid and some defense spending. These are good places to start but the amount of money saved would be miniscule.

In any normal year, Republicans should be in the catbird spot. With the election of President Obama, Americans have gone from being mildly positive that the nation was moving in the right direction to months of a majority saying the nation was on the wrong track. Those saying “wrong track” are now up to 60 percent. No president has been reelected with Americans that pessimistic about the future. Yet, 47 percent still have

very positive views of Mr. Obama personally, on top of 21 percent more who have a somewhat favorable view. A slim 49 percent even approve how he is handling his job as chief executive. A plurality of 45 percent say they would vote for him for reelection against 40 percent for a Republican.

It is not all good news for Democrats. The public is still concerned they are too pro-government and Boehner’s $60 billion in cuts put all but the extreme left in a quandary to find something to be cut, with different interests fighting who will bear the burden. When President Obama entered office, 38 percent thought the economy would improve and only 30 percent thought it would get worse or stay the same. Today, with the economy improving, only 29 percent think the economy will get better and a plurality of 41 percent think it will stay the same. If the economy is perceived to be in a recovery but with little growth and few new jobs, does that help the incumbent for improving the economy or the Republican opposition because of stagnation? Remember there was still 7.2 percent unemployment in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was re-elected overwhelmingly.

In some significant ways things have gotten worse for the GOP. When asked if government should do more to help people when President Obama was first elected, a majority rallied to him and supported more government involvement. But as the president overreached with health care, the environment, and economic regulation, a majority shifted against him. But now when Republicans have taken control of the House people have gone back to worrying the GOP will cut too much, and a majority has shifted back to supporting more government involvement. One-third of Americans would now cut spending, another third would raise taxes, and 25 percent would postpone any changes.

The public is split but Republicans simply are not credible without proposing some major spending reductions and even the mainstream media have been criticizing President Obama for not making serious efforts to cut spending, including on entitlements. The polls do show a few places where people might support major cuts. The public says it would accept a five year freeze on discretionary spending. A majority does say that Social Security could be means-tested with future benefits reduced for the wealthy; and people would accept a very gradual raise in the retirement age. They even say they would accept a gradual transfer of Medicare and Medicaid to a voucher program. But talking to pollsters is one thing. Accepting such cuts in the face of media and partisan opposition is quite another.

Clearly, any change will be opposed by Democrats who control the Senate and have the presidential veto – and they want to preserve all benefits for their client supporters. The last time Republicans tried serious spending cuts including entitlements, an embattled President Bill Clinton outmaneuvered a too aggressive GOP Speaker and a Senate Leader who could not control his moderate members, and this cost the Republicans victory in the 1996 presidential election.

The problem today is the same as in 1996. Republicans – especially in the House – think they are in charge and must produce “results;” they must “govern.” A plurality of the public actually believes they are in the leading role. In fact, they are not in charge and if they try to act that way, they will lose once again. All they can do is pass laws in the House and take positions in the Senate that will help or hurt their chances to make real changes after the 2012 election with a GOP president, Senate and House. That means Republican legislators must explain reality to voters over the next two years rather than worry specifically what they pass or do not pass as laws, which they cannot control in any event. They can only control what they say and do.

The power of words is very difficult for legislators to comprehend. They mostly understand buying votes by offering free goodies to gullible constituents who think they can get something for nothing, which is why the nation is facing bankruptcy. But legislators have a pulpit – not as great as the president’s but better than the public at large – and the only way the GOP can survive the difficult dilemma they find themselves in is to explain the facts of life to voters in everything they do. Votes should be seen as messages, for that is all they can be without real power. Congressional voting should aim at changing attitudes rather than governing, which is the president’s problem.

If Congressional Republicans and their presidential nominee can educate the voters over the next two years, this time they might just be able to thread the needle and properly prepare the way for 2012 and a better future beyond.

Donald Devine was the director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management from 1981 to 1985 under Ronald Reagan and is the editor of ConservativeBattleline Online.