Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 20, 2000 /13 Shevat, 5760

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
David Corn
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports
Weekly Standard



Nationalizing congressional elections -- WHILE REPUBLICANS are investing much energy in the presidential race they may be losing sight of the other half of the equation. Regardless of whether they win the White House, their ability to effect meaningful change will be severely limited unless they also recapture Congress.

Many assume that a strong presidential candidate will usher in congressional majorities on his coattails. I'm afraid it's not going to be that simple. Republicans have a slim 10-member majority in the House, which means that if they lose more than five seats to Democrats, their majority will evaporate.

What's more troubling is that at this point, Democrats are the statistical favorites at least to win back the House. That's because only six Democrats are retiring, compared with 21 Republicans, giving a strong advantage of incumbency to the Democrats. Dick Gephardt is foaming at the mouth to be majority leader.

Though there is no way to completely avoid the nitty-gritty election battles in every congressional district, Republicans have one weapon to neutralize the Democrats' incumbency advantage. They must try to nationalize the congressional elections.

Prior to Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America, congressional elections were largely local elections. But with a unified message (aided by universal horror about Hillary's universal health care), Newt was able to convert those elections to nationwide status.

The landscape is different now. Because of Congress' performance against Bill Clinton, the GOP has lost substantial credibility. Grass-roots cynicism is quite pronounced, with many disenchanted and others considering third parties. And while some may shudder at the prospect of yet another year of gamesmanship between Clinton and Congress, we should look to this year as an opportunity for congressional redemption. If they perform admirably this year, GOP voters will most likely forgive past indiscretions.

Admittedly, the Republican Congress has disappointed many in the last five years, but in their defense, they have not enjoyed a real majority. Their slim numerical majority was more than outweighed by liberals among their ranks. And even when they could muster a majority, they were entirely stalemated by a recalcitrant president. Republicans must be prepared to communicate these facts in this election cycle.

Efforts to nationalize congressional elections will be met with the conventional wisdom of political commentators, who uniformly preach that the American voters consciously choose divided government, i.e., different parties in control of the executive and legislative branches. This assumes that voters factor this in when they vote. With the exception of 1994, I don't believe this for a second.

For Republicans to hold their base, they must project a sharply contrasting message from that of Bill Clinton. For starters, they should anticipate the inevitable budget war that will occur toward the latter half of this year. With surpluses guaranteed to be even greater than earlier expected, Clinton will be unusually ambitious in devising novel uses for federal expenditures.

To Clinton, surpluses are a license for more spending and an excuse to ignore existing problems, such as Social Security and Medicare. Why forge a long-term solution for Social Security solvency when you can just siphon funds from general revenue?

To Republicans, surpluses should represent one simple truth: The American people have been overtaxed and deserve their money back. If the votes don't exist to override a presidential veto of their tax cuts then they should allow the money to be applied to the national debt by default. But they should never accede to new spending initiatives, even as part of some compromise. They must remember that new federal programs, such as Clinton's proposed prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, never end and never diminish.

Congress must not negotiate with Clinton on the budget, especially in this election year, but just pass its bills, and let him exercise his veto power. It will save a great deal of time, effort and agony.

Beyond an improved congressional showing, the surest way for Republicans to succeed in nationalizing the races in their favor is to convey to the voters what a Democratic takeover will mean: full-throttled-liberalism. Charles Rangel will chair Ways and Means, John Conyers the Judiciary Committee and Henry Waxman the Government Reform Committee. That ought to be enough to scare the socks off of capitalists everywhere.

JWR contributor David Limbaugh is an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and a political analyst and commentator. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


01/18/00: Do voters really prefer straight talk?
01/12/00: Media's McCain efforts may backfire
01/10/00: Conservative racism myth
01/05/00: Just one more year of Clintonian politics
01/03/00: McMedia?
12/27/99: Al Gore: Bullish on government
12/22/99: Bradley's full-court press
12/20/99: Bush: Rendering unto Caesar
12/15/99: Beltway media bias
12/13/99: White House ambulance chasing
12/08/99: Clinton's labor pains
12/06/99:The lust for power
12/01/99: In defense of liberty
11/29/99: Are Republicans obsolete?
11/24/99: Say you're sorry, Mr. President
11/22/99: Architects of victory
11/17/99: Trump's tax on freedom
11/15/99: GOP caves again
11/10/99: Triangulation and 'The Third Way'
11/08/99: Sticks and stones
11/03/99: Keyes vs. media lapdogs
11/01/99: Signs of the times
10/27/99: The false charge of isolationism
10/25/99: A matter of freedom
10/20/99: Clinton's mini-meltdown
10/18/99: Senate GOP shows statesmanship
10/13/99: Senate must reject nuclear treaty
10/11/99: Bush bites feeding hand
10/06/99: Jesse accidentally opens door for Pat
10/04/99: Clinton and his media enablers
09/29/99: Reagan: Big-tent conservatism
09/27/99: The Clinton/Gore taint?
09/22/99: Have gun (tragedy), will travel
09/20/99: Hillary's blunders and bloopers
09/15/99: GOP must remain conservative
09/13/99:Time for Bush to take charge, please
09/10/99: Bush's education plan: Dubya confounds again
09/07/99: Pat, savior or spoiler?
09/02/99: Character doesn't matter?
08/30/99: Should we judge?
08/25/99: Dubyah's drug question: Not a hill to die on
08/23/99: Should Dubyah start buying soap ... for all that mud?
08/16/99: 'W' stands for 'winner'
08/11/99: The truth about tax cuts
08/09/99: Hillary: Threading the needle
08/04/99: What would you do?
08/02/99: No appeasement for China
07/30/99: Hate Crimes Bill: Cynical Symbolism
07/26/99: Itís the 'moderates', stupid
07/21/99: JFK Jr. and Diana: the pain of privilege
07/19/99: Smith, Bush and the GOP
07/14/99: GOP must be a party of ideas
07/12/99: Gore's gender gap
07/08/99: Clintonís faustian bargain: our justice
07/06/99: The key to Bush's $36 million
06/30/99: Gore: a soda in every fountain
06/28/99: 'Sacred wall' or religious barrier?
06/23/99: GOP must lead in foreign policy
06/21/99: Crumbs of compassion
06/16/99: Compassionate conservatism: face-lift or body transplant?
06/10/99: Victory in Kosovo? Now What?