Traditional GOP could swing election

Gordon L. Weil

The political guesswork is that the presidential and congressional elections this year will be settled by narrow margins.

Speculation focuses on several swing groups that could play key roles in the races.

Will the abortion issue bring a large turnout of women to support the Democrats?

Will President Biden’s lingering support for Israel in the Gaza War turn off liberal Democrats who will stay home?

Are Black and Hispanic voters drifting toward the GOP, while union members are returning to the Democrats?

Would a Trump criminal conviction lead some of his core backers to stay home or energize them?

One possible swing group may have been overlooked. If loyal Republicans who had previously backed Donald Trump and his handpicked candidates choose to sit out the elections, they could have a major impact on the GOP’s chances.

Traditional Republicans must be added to the list of swing voters. Having taken over the GOP, Trump labels many lifelong party voters as RINOs – Republicans in Name Only. Many obviously resent being pushed aside by a person they may regard as a RINO,

Although she has not backed Trump in the past, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins reflects the new wave of frustration of traditional, establishment party members when she says, “I don’t think it should surprise anyone that I will not support him.” She remains a loyal Republican.

Several other GOP leaders have said they will not support Trump or refuse to say what they might do. Would former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, former candidate Nikki Haley, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Collins accept a Republican defeat to revive the Grand Old Party?

It’s difficult to gauge the strength of most swing groups, but the potential power of non-Trump Republicans can be more easily estimated. Voting in key state races in 2022 and 2024 plus this year’s GOP primaries provide some helpful numbers.

In 2020, Biden won close victories in five swing states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Four years earlier, Trump had carried all of them, also by narrow margins. Biden relied on those states to defeat Trump, though he faced his opponent’s unproven claims of election fraud.

In each of these states, both candidates improved on their party’s past presidential performance. If there are GOP defections from Trump this time for reasons ranging from the Capitol insurrection to his criminal cases, Biden might more easily hold onto all or most of these states. But he might face Democratic defectors in Georgia.

It would take three of these states moving from Biden to Trump for the former president to gain essential support. In 2022, four of them elected or reelected Democratic governors. If Trump really faces more defections by traditional Republicans, any losses in these states could prove costly to him.

Three of these swing states held GOP primaries before former South Carolina Gov. Haley withdrew. In Arizona, she received 110,000 votes. In Georgia, she gained 77,000 and in Michigan she tallied 296,000 votes. If some of these people had voted for Trump in 2020 but won’t back him now, their lack of support could boost Biden’s grip on those states.

At least one additional state could become much closer to helping Biden, if Trump-designated RINOs defect from him.

In North Carolina, Trump defeated Biden in 2020 by 74,000 votes. In this year’s GOP primary for governor, the Trump-favored candidate defeated two anti-Trump Republicans who together received 191,000 votes. A loss of some of these voters could give North Carolina, with as many electoral votes as Georgia, to Biden.

More improbable but still worth attention is Florida. Trump defeated Biden by 372,000 votes in 2020. In this year’s GOP presidential primary, Haley received 155,000 votes. If these were usual Republican voters who would not now stick with Trump, their absence could greatly narrow his lead. Florida was formerly a swing state and could head back in that direction.

Two other electoral votes could be affected by Trump defectors. Maine and Nebraska each choose some presidential electors by congressional district. In 2020, Biden won Nebraska’s second district and could hold onto it. Maine’s second district could flip from Trump to Biden if the former president dropped about 8,000 votes.

The presidential campaign will undoubtedly change in the coming months. Polling predictions likely will vary over time and could turn out to be flat wrong if people are lying to pollsters. Future events may yet influence voters or even turn them against voting at all.

Throughout the process, it will be worth paying attention to swing groups. Not only can a relatively small number of voters determine a close outcome, but collectively they could also produce a wide victory.

Among these swing groups, follow the RINOs. They may not be extinct.

Budget fiasco harms U.S. economy

Decision just another short-term patch

Gordon L. Weil

In the middle of the night recently, while crises whirled around the world, the U.S. made a major policy move.

Not about Ukraine.  Not about immigration.  The Senate simply adopted a new temporary budget bill to keep the federal government running for six more months, setting up a crisis for just before the election. 

During the 1992 presidential election, a Clinton strategist emphasized the campaign’s focus: “It’s the economy, stupid.”  The government impacts the economy even more now through taxes and spending.  The budget matters.

It can’t seem to get the balance between them right, making borrowing money a major business of government.  The problem is that Congress and the American people like spending and hate taxes.  When it comes to Congress, that includes both Democrats and Republicans.

When the Democrats propose increased spending, they promise to pay for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.  When the Republicans propose cutting taxes for the same entities, they would slash non-military spending and boost borrowing.  When the two sides meet, they deadlock and must temporarily patch over their differences with more debt.

National spending falls into four major categories: Social Security, Medicare and similar programs, military, non-military and debt payments. 

Making payments on the federal debt should be beyond debate. The government has made commitments to lenders both in the U.S. and abroad.  They buy U.S. bonds, because the country always pays its debts. That has led to the American dollar serving as the world’s prime currency, contributing to the country’s role as a superpower.

Threats to America’s credit are caused by battles over the debt ceiling, but the dollar’s world role is also affected by the budget games. They raise concerns about the reliability of the U.S.

Social Security and Medicare are the so-called “third rail” of American politics.  Because these programs are so vital to so many, neither party wants to risk touching them.  They are financed by employer-employee contributions, but are nearing the point where those funds won’t cover the cost.

That leaves unpopular choices.  Raise payroll taxes or cut benefits or do both. The conversation about what to do is picking up speed as the shortfall gets closer.

Some Republicans, though not Donald Trump, want to increase the eligibility age for receiving Social Security, which would amount to a benefit cut.  A few Republicans even see these programs as “socialism” and would slash them.

Democrats would raise payroll taxes on higher income people.  That would not be enough, so they are driven toward using income taxes revenues.  If there were more workers, who would contribute to payroll taxes, it’s less likely these general funds would be needed.  That may explain why some Democrats support immigration.

There is another reason why immigration could have a positive, economic effect. China and Japan, with little immigration, are shrinking in population, and their economies suffer.   More people bring an expanded labor force and boost consumer spending.  The U.S. population will shrink without immigration, which could bring economic decline.

Social Security now provides more than half of the retirement income for more than half of its recipients.   The program may have become part of a national pension policy, not the short-term income supplement it once was.  Plus, people are living longer so more funds are needed, while there are fewer workers contributing.

House Republicans are right about the need for separate spending bills so each area of government activity gets needed attention.  But when they refuse to compromise, they leave Congress with a last-minute desperation bill.  Meanwhile, the Senate budget builders came up with separate bills, thanks partly to Sen. Susan Collins, a key Republican player on spending.

Both parties need to get more serious about dealing with the federal budget, both spending and taxes.  President Biden says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and has had some success, but a recent report shows he has actually cut taxes.  The GOP says it dislikes deficits, but beats the Democrats in creating them.  Trump was a top-flight debt producer.

No president in decades has submitted a serious and disciplined budget.  Budgets are usually political documents with no real future.  Many depend on impossible revenues, including Biden’s this year, undoubtedly leading to more debt.  Budgets also almost never review the ongoing need for past spending decisions, partly because cutting them may cost jobs.

The media is no help, having created a permanent political campaign.  With an eye on their reelection, politicians follow the almost daily polls that supposedly transmit the popular will. The trouble is that the polls focus on the short-term.

In the current budget system nothing changes, and last-minute patches are applied to keep the government in operation. Without improved leadership looking beyond the next election, the prospect is for another midnight budget fiasco.

Israel aligns with GOP

Gaza crisis creates wedge issue 

Gordon L. Weil

Israel is part of America’s political culture. 

Since its creation in 1948, support for Israel has been constant and bipartisan.  But that is now changing.

For some, this support might have grown as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust. For evangelical Christians, Israel as the Jewish homeland would be an essential element of their religious beliefs.

Israel’s founding also served the practical need for dealing with the end of the British Empire. The decision to grant Israel independence from British rule came in 1947, the same year that Britain quit India.  In drawing a new world map, the winners could call the shots.  President Harry Truman gave the State of Israel the American seal of approval.

Based on Jewish values and the rejection of totalitarian government in World War II, Israel promised to be a true liberal democracy, making it a rarity in the Middle East and a natural ally. And its existence could go far to reduce the Jewish Diaspora, the worldwide dispersion of the Jews, which had often exposed them to outright hostility.

Surrounded by Arab states intent on its destruction, Israel could count on the steadfast support of the U.S. and many European countries.  In terms of American domestic politics, the unified official position brought the active backing of both parties and the Jewish community.

There were at least two concrete results.  The U.S. provides massive military aid to Israel and has close intelligence ties.  Given its place in American political culture, Israel might rank alongside Britain, Canada or Australia.  This relationship came with assured American acceptance of the policies adopted by the Israeli government.

The relationship began to fray over the issue of dealing with Iran, seeking to develop nuclear weapons, which Israel already possessed. Feeling threatened, Israel wanted tough action to block Iran.  The U.S. and other major powers, including Russia and China, reached an agreement with Iran to slow its nuclear development, while moving toward further limitations.

Republicans continued to adhere to Israeli policy, while Democrats increasingly favored the negotiated approach. In 2015, the partisan break became clear when congressional Republican majority leaders invited Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without either Israel or the GOP informing Democratic President Barack Obama.

Endorsing Israel’s position, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran agreement, and it collapsed.  He aligned with Netanyahu’s policy without serious partisan conflict, thanks to Israel’s many Democratic backers.  Iran increased as a threat and stepped up its nuclear development,

Last October 7, Hamas terrorists attacked Israel and seized hostages. Israel and most of the world community reacted in horror and strong opposition.  Israel understandably retaliated, attempting to eliminate Hamas from its home base in Gaza. It chose to obliterate large parts of Gaza rather than deploying a more surgical approach.

Its response received renewed Republican support, but revealed a growing split among Democrats.  Some believed Israel’s bombing raids were justified, while others thought they were disproportionate and unlikely to eliminate Hamas.  Over time, the opposition has grown among Democrats and also among the broader American public.

Along with the devastating attacks on Gaza, Netanyahu refused to say what he sought as the ultimate objective.  Apparently, it would not be a two-state solution, despite Israel’s previous nominal support for the idea. A single state runs directly counter to American and European positions.  As a prime financial backer of Israel, the U.S. could be worried about this policy shift,

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is America’s highest ranking Jewish elected official.  In a broad review of the Israel-Palestine situation, he said that Netanyahu should go.  GOP leaders immediately attacked Schumer for meddling in another country. The Israeli Prime Minister responded that his country was not a “banana republic,” to be pushed around by the U.S.

When President Biden agreed with Schumer, the partisan lines were firmly drawn. In effect, the American Middle East policy could no longer always follow Israel’s line.  Israel, obviously not a banana republic, has made its own decision to conduct what many see as an anti-humanitarian war.  That policy has moved Israel outside of the select circle of special American friends.

Despite Republican claims, the U.S. has intervened in other countries, including even helping overthrow an elected Iranian government.  Schumer’s statement that the present Israeli government has mistakenly dropped the two-state solution, a critically important element of U.S. policy, falls far short of treating Israel as a mere dependency.

The GOP likes single hot-button policies known as wedge issues, and is now trying to make Israel into one.  Trump, the current owner of the Republican Party, issues this godlike proclamation: “Any Jewish person that votes for the Democrats hates their religion.”

Whether that influences or changes American politics is unclear.  That Israel’s actions are influencing and changing American policy is clear.