by Robert Romano
In 2006 and
2008, Republicans were all but annihilated politically, losing both the House
and Senate, and then the White House in very convincing fashion. A combination
of unfavorable political circumstances and then a devastating recession were
enough to sweep Democrats into supermajorities.
Yet, the
victory was short-lived, particularly in the House of Representatives, where
Democrats subsequently lost the majority in 2010 on the heels of a recession
that wasn’t getting any better, a “stimulus” that didn’t work, and a health
care law that nobody wanted.
That victory
was consolidated in 2014, such that today, with 247 members, Republicans have
the largest majority in the House they have ever seen since before the Great
Depression. But will it last?
In
a January 13 piece for the National Journal,
journalist Ron Brownstein looks at a Next America study of U.S. Census Bureau
data to show how the new Republican majority was built. Largely, it was on the
back of 61 seats that were held by Democrats as recently as 2009, in districts
that are predominantly white and “the share of college-educated whites trail
the national average.”
In fact, almost
61 percent of Republican representatives, or 150, hail from districts of this
type, Brownstein writes.
It is fair to
say that without these districts, there is no Republican majority. Writes
Brownstein on January 8, “nothing has
done more to power Republicans’ ascendance in the House since 2010 than their
success in routing Democrats across these working-class, culturally
conservative, often exurban and rural districts — many of which once served as
the strongholds for the moderate House Democratic ‘Blue Dogs.’”
Brownstein
adds, “Republicans have consolidated a crushing hold on 76 percent of the 263
districts where whites exceed their share of the national population, and 72
percent of the 245 districts(many of them overlapping) with a smaller than
average share of white college graduates.”
Yet, two
powerful issues coming up this month in the House may threaten that ascendancy,
and create an opening for Democrats. Those are Obama’s illegal immigration
amnesty and fast track trade authority on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Why?
Personal
economic impact. In short, jobs.
These are
districts that are deeply suspicious of unlimited immigration and trade deals
based on past experience, whether it is the drop of manufacturing employment
nationwide or the prior no-borders amnesty policies that have been implemented
by past administrations.
Couple that
with the
almost 7 million people under the age of 65 still who have left the labor force
since 2009, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and suddenly the GOP could be standing on very dangerous ground.
The so-called
Blue Dogs might return and make a strong case against both issues on the basis
of jobs. It wouldn’t be that hard. Or, perhaps more likely, disaffected base
supporters in these districts might simply stay home in the next election,
ceding ground to Democrats.
Again, 61 of
these seats were held by Democrats as recently as 2009.
So far, the
House has done its jobs on immigration, voting overwhelmingly to prohibit the
administration from implementing its amnesty for up to 4.5 million illegal
immigrants with U.S.-born children, and tying that to funding for the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
But with little
traction being made in the Senate, everyone expects Republican leaders to
ultimately fold on the issue. Eventually, legislation fully funding DHS will
come back up, only this time it will fund the amnesty, too, and enough
Republicans in the House and Senate will vote to pass it. That will be the vote
everyone remembers.
And then
there’s the fast track trade deal. In 2013, 150
House Democrats opposed fast track trade authority on the grounds that “Congress, not the Executive Branch, must determine when an
agreement meets the objectives Congress sets in the exercise of its Article I-8
exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade.”
Similarly, 23
House Republicans opposed fast track in 2013
in a letter to the President, saying, “we do not agree to cede our
constitutional authority to the executive through an approval of a request for
‘Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority.’”
Throw in the 61
other districts Democrats previously controlled, and a vote on fast track could
suddenly become very interesting. But only if Republicans can see what’s at
stake for their constituents, namely, jobs.
Robert Romano
is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.
Source:http://netrightdaily.com/2015/02/gop-risking-majority-immigration-fast-track/
No comments:
Post a Comment