The Senate's debate of health care reform legislation has exposed its internal dynamics like no other legislative proceedings in memory.
And what voters have seen, they do not like.
Democrats, with a supermajority for the last year, alienated their base by failing to enact any legislation, let alone a strong Democratic bill. Republicans, on the other hand, were able to use their minority status to create an environment of doubt and mistrust -- not about the legislation under debate (although hyperbole about Medicare cuts and outright lies about "death panels" didn't hurt) - but about the process.
Despite taking a year to draft and making a point of including GOP members in the debate (remember the Gang of Six?), Republicans were able to portray the process as being unfair, completed behind closed doors, and "railroaded through" without bipartisan debate. They followed this argument to the limit: with a supermajority Democrats would implement the most liberal agenda (socialism!) that they could. 60 > 40 became the metric against which both parties planned their political strategies and their supporters measured the party's success or failure.
This metric is what led to the wild celebrations and proclamations after the victory of "Mr. 41," Sen. Scott Brown in the Massachusetts' special election (conservative commentator Michael Graham called it a "once-in-a-generation, never-saw-it-coming, dance-in-the-streets victory for democracy.") The same metric also changed math forever (41 is now greater than 59), or as the Village Voice put it on January 20th, "Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate."
So, where do we go from here? If you listen to the conventional wisdom (generally not a good idea), Sen. Brown's victory was just the start of voters taking out their anger on incumbents generally, and Democrats specifically. There's a tidal wave coming! It's 1994 all over again! However, what this analysis ignores is the widespread and growing disorder within the Republican ranks - a factor that could seriously impact the 2010 midterms.
There is growing division within the Republican Party and it threatens to fracture the party and impede their gains in the mid-terms. With the rise of the "tea party" movement, sitting Republicans are being forced to make a fateful decision: kowtow to the far-right "populists" in the hopes of currying favor, or maintain their established positions. For some it may already be too late. As we saw in the NY-23 special election, the tea party movement is all too happy to topple a so-called "RINO" (Republican-in-name-only) in favor of their own, genuinely "conservative," candidate, even if it means a Democrat winning the seat in a historically Republican district.
In another example, Marco Rubio, in his Florida Senate primary challenge against Governor Charlie Crist, has rocketed himself from a position of obscurity to being the projected winner on the back of the tea party movement. Rubio is a rock star to the far-right, he was the most anticipated speaker at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
The question that GOP leaders are now facing is whether candidates backed in primaries by the tea party movement and their ilk are electable in a general election. Will Marco Rubio stand a better chance in a general election than Gov. Crist, a man who is beloved statewide? Or will it become another NY-23 debacle for the GOP? Rumors have started spreading faster that Gov. Crist will follow the lead of other moderate Republicans and switch parties to become a Democrat or an Independent - having failed the "conservative" litmus test instituted by the Republican primary voters.
What national Republicans are finding is that the political environment they created over the last year - intended to foster complete gridlock in Congress and an anti-incumbent mood among the electorate - has empowered the tea party wing and resulted in a fracture within their own party. We will have to wait until the midterms to see, but their legislative victory on health care (as it now stands) may have been pyrrhic for the GOP.
The current projections of Republicans taking back the majority in the House and severely cutting the Democrat majority in the Senate may be overlooking this political dynamic. My guess is that the NRSC, the NRCC and the RNC would like the tea party movement to keep fighting the good fight, but go to the polls on Election Day and vote for their "establishment" candidate.
Good analysis. An interesting question along these lines is how Sarah Palin will manage this division. She has tried on several occasions to persuade the tea partiers to join the GOP. Is there a chance she will come to be seen by this movement as too much of an establishment figure? Or will they heed her advice, and continue their insurrection within established corridors of power?