A Party Divided

Fight for the Republican Party

Congressman Bill Shuster

Small government activists like Matt Kibbe, CEO of FreedomWorks, expect Democrats to freely spend taxpayers’ money on big government solutions to contemporary problems.  They don’t expect, and won’t tolerate, Republican politicians in Washington pushing for passage of money bills that attract Democratic support.  One such Republican is Bill Shuster, a Congressman from the 9^th District in Pennsylvania, now is his seventh term.  Shuster chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is the focus of conservative criticism for working with Democrats to produce HR 3080 – authorizing $8.2 billion over a period of ten years to finance Army Corps of Engineer waterway projects.   According to Shuster the bill actually saves money by cutting red tape and reducing bureaucratic logjams, replacing an antiquated, inefficient process of maintaining the nation’s inland waterways and harbors.  Additionally the bill saves $12 billion, according to its backers, by deauthorizing a number of previous projects.   The measure passed Wednesday in the House by a 417 to 3 vote. 

The most egregious sin for Tea Party types was Bill Shuster’s  voting ‘ yes’ on the bipartisan plan to restart the government and raise the current debt ceiling but plans had already been made to run a more conservative candidate against him in the upcoming 2014 Republican primary.  Art Halvorson, a commercial real estate broker, is the individual with the best chance of unseating Shuster next year.  His views fall in line with Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s beliefs that the Republicans need not have caved to the Democrats had they remained united in both the House and Senate.  Halvorson feels the long-term good of the nation would have been better served by continuing the fight even if it meant breaking through the debt ceiling.  From his perspective there were sufficient funds to continue paying the interest on the nation’s debt.  Former Republican Representative Jim Ryun of Kansas has endorsed Halvorson and his Washington based fund-raising organization, The Madison Project, has already spent money on TV ads in the district, attacking Shuster as a big-spending establishment insider that just doesn't get it.

Anticipating a likely primary challenge next year Congressman Shuster has amassed two million dollars to date in his campaign war chest.  He is not without powerful friends and he continues to be a magnet for large cash donations from trade groups and big business.  The US Chamber of Commerce has continuously supported Shuster’s efforts as chairman of the powerful Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  They are on record as saying he is committed to the best interest of business, encouraging new opportunities for private investment and working to decrease government regulation.  But what seems good enough for companies like Boeing Corporation and US Steel are, to Shuster’s detractors, just more of the same pork-barrel politics Washington has been guilty of ever since Franklin Roosevelt swept into office in 1932.

The coming contest for the Congressional seat representing the conservative countryside around Altoona, Pennsylvania is just one of a number of likely primaries that may well determine the direction of the Republican Party for years to come.  Will it continue as the party of business, whose economic interests sometimes come in conflict with the passionate impulses of grassroots Republicans, or will it purify itself of moderating voices and work vigorously to shift the center of power back, once again, towards the states?  What is clear is that the Republican Party cannot afford to break into two parties, both competing on a national level for the same conservative vote.  This is not the first time a national party has waged a war within its own ranks, between those most concerned with ideology and others who placed greater importance on electability.  It was Bill Clinton’s 1991 campaign for the presidency that forced a fractured, left-leaning Democratic Party back toward the center because party leaders came to recognize that a glass half-full was better than having no glass at all.  It is likely that Republicans, prior to 2016, will come to the same understanding.

John Boehner and the Republican Caucus

State of the Union 2011

There’s a lot of hand-wringing going on right now in the wake of the government shutdown and the crisis of the debt ceiling.  The newly written Senate deal roughly ends in 3 months and there is fear that we will soon be faced, once again, with the kind of experience we just witnessed.  Let me give you my interpretation of events that provides the basis for my reason why I don’t believe Congress will soon repeat this episode.

We all know Speaker Boehner has been dealing with a rowdy caucus that has, on a number of occasions, undermined his preferred strategy to produce legislation.  He is a very experienced politician and he knows a lot can happen in a very short period of time to change the political equation.  Speaker Boehner knew his Tea Party wing of the Republican Party was spoiling for a fight – about the debt, about deficit spending, about Obamacare.  He also fully appreciated the upcoming 2014 elections were still just over a year away.  I suspect Boehner took a calculated risk and determined on a course of action that would cause him great personal pain but could also result in greater discipline and cohesion among his House Republicans – improving their chances of maintaining their current majority.  This certainly seems a real stretch given Republican approval ratings at the moment.  Disastrous Republican results at the polls may still come about if they don’t choose a change in course.  Republican members of the House need to repair their image by presenting a cohesive, disciplined message that highlights achievable solutions while muting tirades of righteous indignation.   How do they accomplish this?

First, Speaker Boehner has vastly improved his standing with his own caucus.  Despite suffering a painful political loss the members of Boehner’s caucus rewarded him Wednesday afternoon with a heartfelt standing ovation.  He has stood with them to the last moment and it has reduced their suspicions of him as to his Conservative credentials.  They respect and admire him for his loyalty to them and for his allowing them to take a course that, he knew all along, would result in this humiliating outcome.  The Republican House Class of 2010 is, for the most part, made up of political novices.  They've shown passion but little political sense.  This was a lesson Boehner felt they needed to learn and, he gambled, they could get away with receiving a real shellacking because there’s plenty of time for new battles to wage and opportunities to win back voter sympathy.  But this would require a Republican caucus stung by defeat and as a result, its members would give Boehner a new-found respect for his judgment.  They would more likely be willing to take his advice in future confrontations with Democrats and the White House.

Second – government funding ends in January and the debt-ceiling will need to be raised in February.  Washington will not likely repeat the experience suffered in October, 2013.  2014 is an election year.  Voters will punish repeat offenders at the polls; so will big money Republican contributors.  This is not to say some Republican Congressmen won’t leave the Reservation and take to the war path.  They can be tolerated.  But they won’t be allowed the keys to the car and steer the Party’s course.  The Republican Caucus will remain just as hard-headed conservative in their instincts as they are now but they hopefully will bring greater reason and discipline to their argument.  They will more carefully choose their battles.  They will more likely consider the advice of legislators experienced in dealing with the Senate, the White House, the media and outside political groups.  If so they could be more persuasive but far less entertaining.

From past experience we can all feel cynical about the upcoming negotiations between House and Senate conferees.  What can they possibly accomplish that any number of past Blue Ribbon committees could not?  Once again, it is likely to end in more gridlock unless both parties find advantage in compromise – or at least appear to give more concern for the nation’s welfare than in energizing their political base.  Previous panels, having distinguished members, have tackled this country’s most difficult issues and their subsequent recommendations have been largely ignored by Washington’s lawmakers.  What's so different now?  Maybe it’s the mood of Washington and the nation.  Following the degrading dust-up we've all just endured may have made us receptive to a reasoned, more cooperative approach to settling our issues.  We've been battling among ourselves as though we view our fellow countrymen as this nation’s enemies.  At some point the anger has to subside if we are ever to accomplish anything constructive.

I see that Paul Ryan will be among the House Republican conferees and Patty Murray will be among those representing Senate Democrats.  These are two, highly regarded, respected legislators.  They are among the best of a new generation of this country’s political leaders.  They don’t grandstand.  They are thoughtful.  They have firm convictions but they are also willing to listen.  They both believe we are a vibrant, dynamic nation with a great future ahead of us.  I like their optimism.  I am hopeful.