There is a lot of wonderment among those of us on the left at the conduct of Congressional Republicans in this time of economic emergency. We find it hard to understand how they could oppose government efforts to spend money on much-needed public projects that will also provide jobs for many Americans. This public investment will also substitute much needed economic demand during a time of severe economic contraction and collapsing demand within the private sector.
We note that the conservatives seemed to determined to force this government to repeat the mistakes of Herbert Hoover's Administration. Those mistakes deepened an economic recession which had led to the stock market collapse of 1929. Hoover's policies offered no real relief or safety valve in a time of great economic crisis, and locked in the conditions that produced the worldwide years-long economic ruin that was the Great Depression. We ask are they blind to what is happening in our economy? Do they not see the massive job losses and falling domestic production? Do they not understand the seriousness of this spiral downward?
Are the Republicans in Congress so driven or blinded by ideology that they cannot admit the need for government to intervene massively? Or, are they so partisanly political that they are willing to be "do-nothings", just to see the Obama Administration fail, regardless of what it means for the American people? If it's the latter, how can they think their opposition to economic stimulus will benefit them politically? Won't Americans remember their obstructionism, and turn on them?
I've pondered these questions a lot, and it finally hit me -- I had a flash of insight into what the GOP strategy may be. The answer lies in what happened in the compromise that allowed the three more moderate Republican senators to seemingly break ranks and negotiate certain cuts in exchange for their support.
Of course, these three Republicans succeeded in cutting the support in the bill for their greatest bugaboos: they took out funds for public school construction and severely limited support for state governments contemplating massive deficits and impending layoffs. The Republican threesome struck on ideological blow against their favorite targets: public schools and the size of government. That, however, I believe only tells a portion of the story. To understand why these particular cuts were so important to GOP, you have to understand the politics of the thing.
The polls show vast support for Obama's plan, so why does the GOP think it will benefit politically from its opposition? Well -- in part, it's the old Clinton mantra: "It's the economy, Stupid". Republicans, though, may have their own twist on that: "It's the Governorships, Stupid."
The GOP electoral sweep in 1994 laid the foundations of what they thought would be a permanent majority. For the first time in generations, the GOP gained a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans also grabbed control of many State legislatures. Perhaps most dramatically -- or most significantly -- they reversed more than 2 decades of Democratic control in the nation's State Houses -- the Governorships.
In 1972, despite a taking a pounding at the top of the ticket, Democrats executed a dramatic reversal in party control of the Governorships. A 32-18 split in favor of the GOP was flipped to favor the Democrats, 29-21. The Democratic success in statewide elections that year may have been a factor in the great gains Democrats enjoyed in the '74 Congressional elections -- gains that allowed Democrats to control Congress for most of the next 20 years.
The 'Gubernatorial gap' continued to grow after the '72 election, over the next four years. The Democrats held a 37-12 majority in State Houses, following Jimmy Carter's election as President in 1976. The '78 midterm election produced a reversal in that trend, as Republicans gained 6 Governorships -- a harbinger of Reagan's Presidential victory the next year. Republicans had narrowed the gap to 4 Governorships, by 1982.
The next decade had ebbs and flows in State House control -- and those changes forecasted Presidential fortunes. Democrats began to reverse the Republican trend, following the recession of 1982. Democrats gained 7 Governorships in the 1982 midterms. However, the GOP executed it's own dramatic reversal, picking up 8 Governorships in the '86 midterm election. Democrats held a narrow 2 Governor lead, which was not enough to push Mike Dukakis over the top in 1988. After losing a run-off election in Arizona in February 1991, the GOP held only 19 Governorships, heading into the historic 1992 election which ended twelve years of GOP control at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Despite 1994's dramatic reversal in party fortunes, the personally popular incumbent President Clinton was able to win re-election. The Democratic slide in State House control continued. The GOP gained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the '94 election, and eventually gained control in the U.S. Senate. The GOP held 31 Governorships in 2000, and also controlled the majority of state legislatures. This was what Karl Rove had in mind when he wrote about a permanent Republican majority. He argued that the Republican domination of state politics would produce the rosters of future federal candidates, in a synergistic process that would ensure GOP domination of American politics.
Democrats however, began to punch holes in that GOP majority, In 2001, Democrats won the State Houses in Virginia and New Jersey. The 2002 election was almost unbelievably turbulent. Both parties picked up large numbers of Governorships, gaining those previously held by the opposite party or by independents. The GOP gained 9 Governorships, but the Democratic Party gained 11 Governorships. Although that reflected a net gain for Democrats, the GOP could claim enormous successes, having held many more State Houses than the Democrats. While Democrats gained a net of 2 State Houses, their successes came where the GOP had held the State House, not where Democrats had. Democrats held serve in only 3 state that year, while the GOP held on to 13 Governorships.
Many point to the GOP holds in Florida and Ohio, in 2002, as the seminal events in Pres. Bush's 2004 re-election. Without a Republican Governor and Secretary of State in Ohio, the 2004 election there might have been run so differently as to produce a different outcome. If Kerry could have gained 200,000 votes statewide, he would have been elected President -- and many blame the long lines in Democratic precincts for discouraging enough voters to ensure Bush's re-election. Although the Republicans were hanging on by the skin of their teeth, they were still hanging on.
Democrats did lose 2 Governorships in the '94 elections -- in Missouri and Indiana -- but they also made pick-ups in Montana and New Hampshire, the as the Democrats finally made inroads in Blue-Sky country and the Granite State, which had long been bastions of conservatism. Today, both states have Democratic Senators and Governors. In particular, New Hampshire, which once was a reliable 4 electoral college votes for Republican Presidential candidates, has voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate in each of the last 2 elections.
The 2004 election was also notable, because it put Barack Obama in the national spotlight for the first time, when he gained election in Illinois, taking a seat previously held by the GOP.
As trend-lines moved towards the Democrats, those results were reflected in Gubernatorial elections. In 2005, Democrats held serve in Virginia and New Jersey. In 2006, Democrats picked up 6 State Houses. Democrats also made big gains in wresting away Republican control of election machinery, thanks to the Democratic SOS project.
These factors should not be lightly dismissed in discussing the various inputs that produced Pres. Obama's historic victory last November. Virginia was seen as the key battleground, along with Ohio, in the Democrats' strategy to change the electoral map in their favor. Two consecutive victories in gubernatorial elections had really changed the political dynamics of the Commonwealth, which had been seen as solidly Republican in the years since Doug Wilder's historic term as Governor.
The popularity of Governors Warner and Kaine certainly played a part in Jim Webb's upset over the incumbent Sen. George Allen. And, the 2007 election produced Democratic gains in Virginia's Senate. putting Democrats in the majority there for the first time in many years. The deep bench of Democratic surrogates in Virginia played a big role in Obama's victory there. For the first time in anyone's memory, the Democratic Presidential campaign operation had more Virginia field offices than the GOP.
The Democratic Party's resounding sweep last November was reflected in State House races. Republicans did not gain any contested Governorship, while Democrats regained thw Governorship in Missouri. Jay Nixon's win there, represented a reversal of one of only two GOP State House pick-ups in 2004. In the years since, the GOP has only gained one Governorship, in Louisiana.
Sometimes, it's hard to know whether the Governors races simply reflect voter movement in a certain direction, or whether partisan control of the State House can have a considerable effect on other races, including the Presidential elections. Certainly, Presidential candidates aren't shy about calling upon popular Governors to serve as surrogates.
More importantly, in understanding why the GOP was so opposed to public school financing and stabilization aid to state governments, we have to appreciate that Republicans are convinced of the importance of Governorships. They have long seen the State Houses as a resource in finding candidates for the Senate and the White House. Especially, the White House. Their most successful candidates have been Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, both of whom had no public experience beyond their service as Governors.
Republicans also still haven't given up on the logic or strategy behind Karl Rove's permanent majority concept. While many Republicans are abandoning Washington -- the flood of Republicans that did not seek re-election in '08 is continuing as other incumbents have announced they will not run for re-election. In the wake of the collapse of the federal branch of the GOP, their hope for rebuilding lies within the States. They can also look a the electoral map, to confirm their belief in the importance of Governorships. John McCain won in only two states that had Democratic Governors -- West Virginia, and his home state of Arizona. They have to believe their future Presidential fortunes depend on rebuilding their State parties and regaining State House control.
So, while I think the GOP would love to see Obama's popularity fall during a continuing economic spiral downward, I think their real targets are Democratic Governors and legislators. They hope to weaken Democratic incumbents in the states. They focused on blocking money for school construction and aid that would prevent widespread state cutbacks and layoffs.
Had the Democrats succeeded in sending that money to the states, Democratic incumbents might have had real accomplishments to point to in coming elections. Instead, the problems the states have with aging, outdated schools, will only get worse. And, by forcing state governments to cut back in many areas, the Republicans have prevented the Democrats from having the resources to help the citizens of their state. They have weakened the incumbent Democratic Governors and legislators. And, I think that was all they ever wanted or hoped to accomplish.
After all, 41 of the 50 states will have elections for Governor before the next Presidential election. Virginia, and New Jersey will have elections this year. 34 other states will elect Governors in 2010. Those races may determine the country's future as much as any other. Obviously, Democrats will focus on getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, in 2010. Still, we must not lose sight of the importance of all those Governor's races. The Republicans haven't forgotten. We can't afford to, either.