I much dislike sentences that begin “Polls have shown . . .” Still, but, yet, nevertheless and however, polls have shown that the confidence Republicans earlier felt in the forthcoming midterm triumphs may not be justified. The gain in House seats is now predicted to be less than expected and hopes for a Republican Senate majority dimmer than a few months ago. Among the causes of this are the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which is said to have roused many women against the Republicans; the poor quality of the current batch of Republican candidates; and the division within the party between pro- and anti-Trumpers. But I wonder if something deeper isn’t in play.
I wonder if the problem isn’t inherent in our political parties, at least in their current propensities. Here the Democrats feature the particular, the Republicans the general. Democrats are for, among other things, fighting climate change, eliminating student debt, taxing corporations more heavily; the Republicans, among other things, are for entrepreneurship, laissez-faire economics, strict construction of the Constitution. With their specific programs, the Democrats seem always on the political offensive; with their general principles, the Republicans on the defensive, seeing it as their chief task to block costly Democratic bills and other attempts at radical change. The best offense is a good defense, or so it is often said in football and other sports; it is less certain that this is so in politics.
Can one hope to win elections based on general principles instead of particular policies and programs? What the Republicans had going for them in the midterms was opposition to inflation, the obvious madness (and sadness) of our open southern border, the crime openly rampant in big-city streets, the wobbly foreign policy of an American president who in this realm and others seems well over his head. However worthy of attack these things are, they leave the Republicans in the respectable but limited position of loyal opposition. What, apart from this opposition, does the party stand for that American voters can get behind in the passionate way that wins elections?
The lack of positive policies or programs leaves Republicans open to the old argument that the party stands for little more than the defense of rich and the maintenance of the status quo. In this scheme—or, as we say nowadays, narrative—the Democrats stand for progress, they are the party of the people, holding the torch of social justice high, while the Republicans stand for regress, the continual enrichment of the 1%, a deep insensitivity to injustice and suffering.
In time not for the midterms but surely for the 2024 presidential elections, it would be of great aid to the Republicans if they were to formulate and promote some significant policies and programs. This might begin with a sound immigration policy that also dealt justly with the so-called Dreamers, the children born to illegal immigrants and raised in this country. How useful it would be if the party looked into the reasons for the escalating cost of higher education and devised better policies than those that now travel under the wasteful banner of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” Instead of being against all economic regulation, why can’t Republicans stand for sensible regulation? Rather than denying climate change, Republicans might get serious about a solution that doesn’t simultaneously cripple the economy and diminish the general quality of life. The party could also unapologetically take up the law-and-order mantle in a way that Democrats, lest they be thought racist, have obviously been nervous about doing.
If Republicans were to promote policies and programs formed from their principles, it would have the not-trivial benefit of putting give-and-take back at the heart of the two-party system. A politics that encouraged the parties to argue over rivaling ideas would invite the intelligent participation of a great number of Americans. The rancor and division that has been the main feature of our politics over the past decades would fade. This might not, as the man said, make America great again, but it would make our politics a hell of a lot more sensible.
Mr. Epstein is author, most recently, of “Gallimaufry: A Collection of Essays, Reviews, Bits.”
