Donald J. Devine

What Does the 2002 Election Mean for Conservatives?
November 27, 2002

ACU-PAC

1. Is America a 49% and a 53% Nation? The brilliant political analyst, Michael Barone, concludes that America has changed from a nation divided 49% to 49% in the 2000 presidential election into a 53% to 47% GOP nation as a result of the 2002 Congressional elections. Democratic poll strategists James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Robert Schrum conclude that it is still 49 to 49. They are both correct. The solution, as old conservative theorist Willmoore Kendall taught us, is that there are (at least) two American popular majorities, the presidential and the Congressional. Since Barone actually reads the real election results, he is on the button that Congress has changed—and five straight elections confirm it. But the polls better measure the presidential electorate and the liberal pollsters report that George W. Bush’s “hard re-elect” is only 48 percent. My conclusion is that conservative nirvana has not arrived and that it will still be a divided nation for the elections of 2004.

2. What Happened On Issues? The Democrat pollsters report the reasons people gave for voting Republican were: war on terrorism and a strong military (34%), support for President Bush (31%), cut taxes (27%), drugs for seniors (24%), protecting Social Security (23%), anti-abortion (19%), homeland security (19%), oppose gun control (13%), etc. (education did not register for either party). Somehow, their liberal ideological blinders lead them to conclude that taxes, right to life and gun rights are not very important for the future—hope against reality, obviously, as their own data dispute them. But they are correct to note the importance of the personal victory for Mr. Bush and support for him on a very volatile anti-terrorism situation, and two liberal issues—expanding drug coverage under Medicare and protecting Social Security (not private accounts, only 8% said they voted to support them). It was a big victory for the Republicans but these two issues prove it was more ambiguous for conservatives. Some conservative issues were important in the election but the other voting issues were either unique to President Bush or not conservative at all.

3. How Did People Vote? If everyone were married or male, Republicans would have a lock on both the presidency and the Congress. Overall, Democrats won a majority of the female vote; but the margin was down from 8-12% in 2000 to a mere 2%. The GOP had a 12% point margin among married women and a 13% edge among men under age 50. The GOP even won a majority of seniors. In sum, self-identified “strong Republicans” now outnumber strong Democrats, 28 to 19 percent—unthinkable two decades ago. While the poll did show the economy to be the biggest issue, Barone believes that the new investor class thinks long term and makes the incumbent party more immune from political retaliation for bad economic news. My guess is that this will be much less true in a presidential election but the news is good for the party of the right, as long as the marriage rate keeps inching up, as it has been doing in recent years.

4. Congress Is Only a Bit More Conservative. The most comprehensive analysis of the Congressional election, by David Freddoso of Human Events, shows that the new House of Representatives will be only marginally more conservative. Of the Republicans leaving Congress, he calculates that 16 were conservative, 5 were center-right and 4 were liberal. Of the Republicans entering Congress, he finds that 24 will be conservative, 7 will be center-right and only 1 liberal. This is a net gain of 8 conservatives, 2 center-right and a loss of 3 liberals—not bad but not a big gain either. In the Senate, nothing can compensate for the loss of Phil Gramm and Jessie Helms, for their enormous influence was not based upon numbers. Jim Talent, Saxby Chambliss and Norm Coleman move the upper chamber to the right but the gain is small. The final total will not be settled until the Louisiana race is decided but the balance of power will continue to rest in the hands a half dozen GOP moderate/liberals.

5. There Is No Conservative Majority. There will be a Republican governmental majority in the United States come January but not a conservative one. A good example in the last Congress of the influence of a few key liberal Republicans was the Homeland Security Act. The whole idea was to reorganize to “respond instantly to threats.” But the final bill still gave the federal unions 30 days notice to object to any change in work rules and 30 additional days to seek mediation. A 60 day delay is hardly instantaneous and allows time for a great deal of work-to-the –rule mischief, to say nothing of delays in responding to acts of terrorism. In another example, last year’s education bill actually increased educational certification requirements for teacher assistants, something every conservative recognizes as simply paper qualifications that benefit education colleges but not better education. Now it is a national requirement. Both of these changes were arranged to mollify wavering GOP moderates and there will be much more of this in the upcoming Congress.

7. The Critical Issues for 2003. Even without a working majority, conservatives must insist upon a few key issues in 2003. (1) The economy: even a patient investor class will not be in a mood to re-elect a president who presided over a sluggish economy his whole term. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent is essential but nothing works better than a capital gains tax cut. President Bush is reluctant to move on this because his father was tagged as “for the rich” because of it; but too many people own stock today to make it stick. He could even index rates for inflation administratively and get almost as big an economic stimulus. He could also ask the Securities and Exchange Commission to reestablish his father’s section 504 rules for small initial stock offerings and bring this dead market back to life. Tort reform would help the market too. (2) Health: the pressure for a drug benefit for seniors will be enormous this year (even National Review has conceded it) but it will be difficult, again, to pass a good bill. The White House realizes that the problem goes beyond seniors and would like to see a universal tax credit replace the whole Medicare-Medicaid-employer tax credit government insurance system. This is not only sound policy but, in providing a context for future reform, could take its place beside Social Security for the GOP to show they have an answer for these bankrupt policies—as many Republicans did effectively in the past election. (3) Social issues: while social conservatives are patient, they will want to see some success this Congress. A partial birth abortion ban has wide support and passed both houses before, only to be vetoed by Bill Clinton. Certainly, this is possible in 2003. And it would be helpful to get a few conservative judges confirmed along the way.

8. Conservative Resources Must Be Built For Victory in 2004. There is no question that conservative support was critical to the Republican successes of 2002. Seven conservative groups that supported candidates in contested elections, including the American Conservative Union PAC, had a cumulative record of 148 victories against only 40 defeats. This is a remarkable record and shows that conservative donors and activists count politically. The sacrifices of funds and time can and did turn into greater conservative muscle in national and state legislatures. ACU and other conservative groups will keep up the pressure on Congress to pass conservative legislation. Yet, the number one priority of conservatives must be to assure that there is a conservative president and majority in Congress after the 2004 election. That will take dedication, resources and time on the part of all conservatives nationally.

9. Conservative Evolution. Conservatives began their modern political march back in 1964--when they gained control of the Republican nomination process, which did not produce success until Ronald Reagan in 1980. While Bill Clinton slipped in between, due to Republican strategic errors over taxes in 1992 and medical care and welfare in 1996, the GOP still has won four of the last six presidential elections. The Senate has been more divided but it, too, has seen more Republican than Democratic control. The House of Representatives was won for the first time in 40 years in 1994 and has stayed under GOP control. In 2002, for the first time since 1952, Republicans gained control of a majority of state legislative houses. It is clear now that there has been a conservative political evolution rather than a revolution. Given President Bush’s popularity, more Democrat than Republican seats at risk in the Senate, and a solid majority of districts in the House from which to expand, 2004 just might be the opportunity for conservatives to end phase one of the revival in a nice round 40 years.