Who Constitutes the Republican Party's Audience?

President Obama gave a rousing speech in Connecticut yesterday designed to put pressure on Congress to get them to advance gun safety laws. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has not taken the lead on this issue, thus forcing the Democrat-controlled Senate to act first. Political pressure from the gun lobby has watered the Senate bill down even though the provisions that were dropped had majority popular support, such as restricting the size of magazine clips and banning certain types of firearms. Weakening this bill, however, has proven not to be enough for Senate Republicans, 14 of whom have pledged to support a filibuster with the goal of not even allowing a vote on the overall bill to take place. The probable political calculation is because these Republicans know they cannot vote "no" on the actual bill (which consists primarily of expanded background checks for firearm purchases) because they would be savaged for voting against what the public views as common sense, they would rather avoid being forced to take a position on the bill altogether by denying an up or down vote while claiming to support the Second Amendment. This rationale seems unwise because it puts the Republican Party in the unenviable position of blocking widely popular gun safety measures for the sake of placing the rights of potentially dangerous people to purchase firearms ahead of the safety of children.

Even though this is likely a political loser for Republicans (even if no bill makes it to President Obama's desk for his signature), this political posturing is the latest in a series of black eyes the GOP has given itself over the past few years. Being a major political party in minority status is one thing; being a major political party that seems more interested in perpetual opposition than in actual governance and a party that seems disinterested in representing the needs of constituencies broad enough to ensure political victory at the national level is an entirely different matter. The Republican Party is already perceived as being the party of rich people, devout Christians, science skeptics, foreign interventionists, and phony deficit hawks. Now it is also positioning itself as the party of gun absolutists who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on anyone to purchase any firearm at any time from any source with minimal government regulation because of their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In its present iteration, the Republican Party is consistently on the wrong side of public opinion regarding the constituencies it represents. And the problem does not lie solely with representing segments of society that may be broadly unpopular. The problem is the extent to which the Republican Party will go to protect these groups even at the expense of the broader electorate. Consider the following segments of the GOP base that I mentioned earlier:

Wealthy people. President Obama has often advocated a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction and job creation. This balance would be a combination of government spending on infrastructure and increased taxes on higher income earners. Republicans have adamantly resisted Obama's plans because of "taxes on the American people" or "taxes on the job creators." The Republican Party's definition of "the American people" is the wealthiest segment of society. Republicans are more inclined to cut funding for food stamps for poor people than they are to raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires. And the "job creators" the Republicans purport to protect are doing fine personally even as they lay off workers or reduce their benefits. Businesses are sitting on billions of dollars in reserve cash, but they are not using that money to hire new workers.

Devout Christians. Public tolerance of gay marriage has increased rapidly in recent years. It now has majority support at the national level, although state-by-state opinion varies. Republicans have stood in near unanimous opposition to gay marriage, with the exceptions of Ohio Senator Rob Portman and Illinois Senator Mark Kirk. There is no constitutional or legal reason why gays should not be allowed to marry. Republicans' opposition to gay marriage is based almost entirely on their religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that applying one person's religious beliefs to a country whose citizens do not universally share these beliefs is a recipe for disaster. Why should an atheist lesbian be denied the right to marry because a legislator's Christian teachings forbid it? Would a devout Christian accept new laws based on Islamic teachings or Buddhist teachings? The answer to that is obvious. So this forces Republicans to realize that when they claim they are protecting "religious liberty," they are really protecting the rights of Christians to use their faith to marginalize others. The same holds true for the Republican Party's position on resisting Obamacare's provisions that employers' health insurance policies cover contraceptives. The GOP would rather make the lives of thousands of workers more difficult by restricting access to contraceptives so that a few dozen employers can exercise their religious freedom not to have to abide by government regulations that they believe violate the teachings of their (Christian) faith.

Science skeptics. The consensus in the scientific community is real. Climate change is happening. Storms are becoming fiercer, temperatures are rising, and climate patterns are shifting. Rather than confronting this reality and using the private sector to solve it, Republicans would rather claim climate change does not exist and then block all reasonable efforts to address it. Increasing funding for alternative and green energy sources? Forget about it--those are Obama's green energy pals who would benefit. Signing onto the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases? Yeah, right--who cares what the elitist international community thinks? Investing in mass transit? No way because that's "more government spending." Placing new regulations on corporations to encourage better stewardship of the environment? Ummmm, no--that's "more government red tape that kills jobs." Does global warming exist? Absolutely not! How could we have global warming if the weather forecast called for snow? The Republican Party's staunch refusal to even acknowledge the validity of nonpartisan data or to think scientifically about the future of the planet positions them as beholden to the old ways society operated. Because new energy sources may take years to develop, there is clearly still a role for carbon-based economies and energy companies that harness fossil fuels. But why does the Republican Party fight harder for oil and gas companies than it does for solar and wind energy companies?

Foreign interventionists. The United States needs to invade or bomb all countries that are hostile or potentially hostile towards it. These are the positions of the people who advocated the war in Iraq despite shaky intelligence. According to these neoconservative voices, President Obama should have sent military troops into Libya and should send them to Syria and Iran. There is no conflict these voices dislike if that means removing threats to the United States or promoting American values. Little is said about how these military operations should be paid for or what the potential consequences of these operations in the realm of international relations may be. Politicians advocating increased prudence or patience were vilified by Republicans during President George W. Bush's term as "anti-American" or "with the terrorists." Now they view cognizance of the international community as a sign of weakness or "leading from behind." There is certainly a time for bombs and missiles, but there is also a time for calmness and restraint. Republicans have marginalized those who seek to use diplomacy or conduct strategic analyses first before committing American troops and weaponry to yet another military conflict. This brands the Republican Party as the party that values brute force and simplicity over careful deliberation and the appreciation of complexity and nuance in the international arena.

Phony deficit hawks. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Without taxes, a government cannot function. Air traffic controllers, soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, meat inspectors, customs agents, and federal investigators are all funded by government taxes. But for Republicans, taxes will always be too high. It is low-hanging political fruit for a politician to say "government should live within its means." But if the government is spending more money than it takes, there are three possible solutions: 1) increase taxes, 2) decrease spending, or 3) some combination of the two. Because the Republican Party is so averse to any tax increases whatsoever, they emphasize the need for government to "cut spending," often at the same time they advocate cutting taxes on high-income earners. Also, not all government spending is equal. Why is it is okay to put federal workers (also derisively known as "bureaucrats") out of work to rein in spending, but not okay for the government to save even more money by canceling unneeded weapons programs? How can Republicans believe government agencies should be eliminated because there is a budget problem, but American troops should remain in Afghanistan indefinitely because "we don't want to give a timeline to our terrorist enemies?" Why are Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers exploding the deficit while military spending and federal subsidies to corporations are not worth discussing? Republicans are good at talking about the need for "cutting spending," but they are curiously less adept at identifying specific meaningful programs to cut. An unsophisticated electorate might be impressed by a politician's ability to rattle off several "wasteful" government programs that cost $1 million each. But $1 million is only 0.1% of $1 billion. And the national debt is over $15 trillion.

(This is not to say that Democrats are not to blame for gimmicky deficit rhetoric as well. However, Democrats have not made deficit reduction one of the centerpieces of their political platform.)

To summarize, it seems that the current Republican Party has little to offer voters who do not already adhere to their rigid views. If you are gay, Republicans want to use their religious views to prevent you from marrying the person you love. If you are a lower-income voter, Republicans want to cut the social programs your family uses to survive. If you believe in reducing greenhouse gases, Republicans consider you a tree hugger who cares more preserving obscure species of birds than about creating American jobs. If you are a government employee, Republicans view you as an overpaid bureaucrat whose salary should be frozen or even cut. If you are not a devout Christian, Republicans consider you an enemy of "pro-family" policies who is also contributing to the cultural decaying of America. And now with this latest political wrangling over gun control, if you believe everyone should be subject to a background check before purchasing a firearm, Republicans now view you with contempt as an enemy of the Second Amendment--even if you own firearms yourself.

Who wants to be a member of this party? Surely there are reasonable Republicans out there, but their voices are either silent or easily drowned out by the cacophony of contempt for all voices outside their ideological bubble. This rigidity might have served Republicans well at the congressional level, especially with gerrymandered districts, but will reasonable Republican voters in these districts deem their own party too unfit to govern in 2014? At present, it seems the Republican Party's true constituents are unpopular corporations and assorted fringe groups. And as an added bonus, Republicans seem more interested in jamming President Obama's agenda (despite his reelection) than in actually solving real problems. That is definitely no way to build a national winning coalition or enhance its brand image in the eyes of a skeptical electorate.

The North Korean Crisis: An Alternate Approach

Even though I typically follow American politics at the national level, I have long maintained an active interest in North Korean affairs.  As a mass communications scholar, North Korea intrigues me because there is no greater threat to the survival of the Kim family's regime than mass communication itself.  North Korea has long been an irritant for the United States, South Korea, and Japan.  But because of the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, North Korea has largely flown under the radar of Americans' consciousness.

That has changed over the past two months in the wake of North Korea's widely condemned nuclear test. This provocative action even drew the ire of China, the North's largest and most important ally. International backlash resulted in new sanctions being placed on the reclusive communist nation. Angered by these sanctions, North Korea began to escalate its rhetoric against the United States. Subsequent joint military exercises involving South Korea and the United States further antagonized the North, which responded with threats of launching a nuclear attack against American military bases in Hawaii, Guam, Japan and the US mainland. The North also cut off its emergency military hotline with the South, voided the terms of the post-Korean War armistice, and said it would restart operations at its Yongbyon nuclear facility.

The United States, unsure of how serious North Korean leader Kim Jong Eun is about actually following through on these threats, has consistently focused its diplomatic efforts on persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The thinking is that by relinquishing its nukes, North Korea could enter the international community and drastically improve the lives of its citizens through trade, economic development, and training. However, I believe the focus on weapons is a gross miscalculation that is unlikely to produce any meaningful results for two reasons: 1) the North will never give up its weapons, and 2) it ignores a variable that is far more likely to lead to positive change. Both of these reasons are addressed below.

The focus on eliminating North Korea's nuclear arsenal is based on two faulty assumptions: 1) that the North Korean dictatorship actually cares enough about its people's wellbeing to abide by the international community's wishes, and 2) that North Korea could even be persuaded to give up these weapons at all. Kim Il Sung, North Korea's founder, created an ideology known as Juche, or self-reliance. According to Kim's Juche, North Korea did not need the international community's help for anything. North Korea would grow its own food, employ its own workers, protect its own people, and manage its own affairs without anyone's help. After the Japanese colonization of the Korean Peninsula and the United States' involvement in the Korean War, Kim was able to popularize Juche by capitalizing on xenophobic sentiment, though this was admittedly easier to accomplish because he had created a police state that ensured the North Korean people would not challenge these views.

After Kim Il Sung's death in 1994, son and new leader Kim Jong Il maintained the Juche ideology, but with an added emphasis on propping up the military. Kim Jong Il's military-first policy saw government coffers being used to procure military weaponry instead of modernizing North Korea's infrastructure. In lean times, state food rations would flow to military brigades far more often than to regular factory workers. The North's food insecurity reached its nadir during the early years of Kim Jong Il's reign, a period known as the March of Tribulation in which hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation. North Korea's isolation, restrictions on travel, and closed borders exacerbated the dire food situation among the country's non-elites. A subsequent currency revaluation also wiped out the savings of many North Korean families, thus making food at the jangmadang (state-sanctioned marketplaces) even less affordable.

Current leader Kim Jong Eun ascended to the top of the regime when Kim Jong Il died in 2011. Because he had been educated in Switzerland as a youth, there were hopes in the international community that he would reform North Korea and open up North Korea's markets and borders. However, he has dissapointingly continued the military-first policies and other restrictive policies of his father and grandfather. In some cases, he has made these policies even worse, such as enhancing border crackdowns by issuing shoot-to-kill orders against would-be defectors. Kim Jong Eun, an inexperienced leader of about 30 years of age, is in charge of a military and political leadership consisting of people who are often twice as old as he is. Some of these officials may have more years of military or political experience than Kim Jong Eun has of being alive. These officials may resent being subordinate to Kim Jong Il's handpicked successor whose sole claim to power is his bloodline.

Kim Jong Eun is likely aware of these perceptions of illegitimacy despite overt expressions of fealty among the leadership towards him. This could explain why he is engaging in such rhetorical bluster and brinksmanship. He may feel the need to portray himself as a strong leader who is not afraid to take the fight to North Korea's imagined enemies. But the irony here is that the very people he is proclaiming to defend, the North Korean laypeople, would be the most likely victims of his own recklessness. That Kim is even willing to risk challenging the United States militarily suggests he is not placing his country's interests first. This supports my notion that the first assumption I listed in this essay is fallacious. Like most dictators, Kim Jong Eun is more concerned with his own political survival than the survival of his people, even if that means his people must suffer because of his behavior. You cannot expect a leader in such circumstances to acquiesce to foreign demands even if they are to his country's benefit.

That North Korea is talking about restarting its operations at the Yongbyon nuclear facility leads to my critique of the second assumption--that the North Korean leadership could ever be persuaded to give up its weapons. The United States has long made the North's abandoning of its nuclear program and the relinquishing of its weapons a precondition for reviving the six-party talks (North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the United States). And yet, the North has not complied even as its own internal situation deteriorates. This means North Korea has made the calculation that maintaining poor infrastructure and food insecurity among its people is a more acceptable risk than giving up its weapons and stopping its nuclear program.

To the North, the nuclear card is its most powerful source of leverage with the international community. In the past, North Korea would provoke its neighbors by launching missiles or testing nuclear weapons. Hoping to rein in the North's erratic behavior, the North's enemies (the United States, Japan and South Korea) would grudgingly come to the negotiating table. If the North would agree to stop launching missiles and testing bombs, the other countries would provide humanitarian assistance or ease sanctions. However, it appears that the Obama administration is not willing to go down this path anymore. Instead of appealing for calm, the American military is deploying radars and interceptors to the Pacific region.

North Korea has made becoming a "nuclear state" a rallying cry for its people. Because it has gone to such lengths to portray its nuclear tests as accomplishments of Kim Jong Eun, there is no way he can surrender these weapons to the international community. And even though the United States has typically ignored North Korea's bellicose rhetoric in the past, one could reasonably expect that threats of using nuclear weapons are more likely to force the United States' hand than threats of using conventional weapons. In other words, if North Korea gave up its weapons, Kim Jong Eun would lose one of the pillars of his propaganda machine and perhaps his most powerful offensive bargaining chip. In addition to this, the North Korean leadership has likely learned from the example of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Iraq had allowed international weapons inspectors to enter its country, but the country was still attacked. So any nuclear weapons in North Korea also serve as a deterrent. Considering these three points, it is easy to see why the assumption that these weapons could even be negotiated at all is so unlikely to happen.

This brings me to the final point of this essay. If hoping that North Korea does the right thing and trying to convince the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions have yielded little in the way of progress, what could possibly work to create positive change? The answer lies in reconsidering the agent that is most likely to produce this change. It will not be the Kim family. And it will not be his lieutenants. It is, possible, however, to foment dissent among the North Korean population. North Koreans may claim loyalty to its leaders, but they also know they are not living well. The state is not providing sufficient rations regularly, its factories often do not have enough materials to function, electricity is only available for a few hours a day, citizens need travel permits to leave their city, and government regulations are making daily survival a challenge.

So what keeps the North Korean people in line? It's the North's secret network of political prison camps. North Koreans accused of political crimes (even as minor as criticizing the regime or trying to cross the border) end up being sent to these camps along with three generations of their extended family. Some of these prisons are lifetime prisons in which the only way out of the camp is death. Others are long-term camps in which a small chance of being released may exist. These camps are rife with torture, starvation, executions, human experimentation, sexual abuse, and disease. Prisoners who are somehow released from these camps are required to sign a statement agreeing never to reveal their experiences at these camps to anyone. Failure to do so will result in being sent back to the camps. North Koreans watch their tongues and monitor each other's behavior to avoid running afoul of the regime and its systems of surveillance. North Korea has denied the existence of these camps. But defector and escapee testimony, such as that of escapee Shin Dong-Hyuk, reveals in vivid detail the horrors that lie within "the Worker's Paradise." Perhaps asking North Korea why these camps exist may constitute a greater threat to the regime because publicizing the horrors of these camps could force the leadership to justify to its people why it treats its citizens so poorly. This could lead to defiance or heightened resentment from the citizenry or perhaps an implosion of the regime itself--and with minimal military engagement from the United States. Even though information from outside North Korea is typically restricted, the presence of DVDs; thumb drives; and North Korean diplomats, nurses, and even secret police abroad could filter information back into the country and get people to at least begin asking questions of each other, if not of the regime itself.

The Republican Party: Victims of Their Own Success

One of the enduring storylines in the wake of President Barack Obama's 332-206 victory over Governor Mitt Romney is assigning blame for what went wrong.

If only Romney had not made that "47%" remark...
If only Romney had not defended his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" column in the New York Times for so long...
If only Romney's campaign had done a better job of reaching out to non-White voters...

Leaving aside Romney's character flaws and gaffes, Republicans believe 2012 was a winnable election for them because of a shaky economy and a president whose approval ratings were close to the danger zone for an incumbent president seeking re-election.

But Romney's defeat is not the only thing that happened on November 6. Republicans in general lost, and they lost even in places where Romney did well. In what was supposed to be a better-than-even shot at wresting control of the Senate from the Democrats this election cycle, the Democrats managed to actually increase their majority. And even though the House remained Republican, Democrats still gained seats and knocked off a few Republican/Tea Party firebrands in the process, such as Rep. Allen West of Florida.

The House of Representatives is arguably why Republicans did so poorly in 2012. It may seem counterintuitive at first because Republicans still have a sizable majority. Romney may be disappointed in his failed presidential campaign and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell may be fuming about failing to become majority leader despite having so many more pick-up opportunities than the Democrats. House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor get to keep their jobs. So where is the problem?

The problem is that Republicans are good at winning elections when they can control what the electorate is. Democrats had two big elections in a row in 2006 and 2008, but Republicans won the more critical 2010 elections that allowed them to redraw congressional districts. State legislatures can redraw congressional districts every 10 years. If a state's governor and legislature are controlled by different parties, the resulting congressional maps are more likely to be competitive or "fair." But if one party controls both the legislature and the governorship, that party can pack as many voters of the "out-party" in as few districts as possible and shore up members of their own party. (In other words, gerrymandering becomes a problem.)

For example, if Republicans have complete control at the state level, they might allow for three Democratic districts where a Democrat will routinely win with 80% of the vote if that allows for seven Republican districts where a Republican will likely win with 55-65% of the vote. A more equitable map may produce a larger number of competitive districts and fewer "safe" districts.

More specifically, gerrymandered districts ensure that politicians have more to fear from a challenge from their political base in a party primary than a challenge from the other party in a general election. This is harmful for three reasons: 1) It forces politicians to become more extreme in their positions to avoid being seen as insufficiently conservative or insufficiently liberal by their respective party bases, 2) It allows politicians to win re-election without being penalized by voters for adopting extremist views or engaging in overheated rhetoric, and 3) It disincentivizes politicians from considering the views of the opposite party because there are so few moderate or swing districts left.

Why is this bad for Republicans in particular? It's bad because a lot of safe Republican districts were and are represented by Republicans who have political views and espouse political rhetoric that makes non-Republicans and non-conservatives recoil in horror. Republicans who had nothing to lose because of their safe congressional districts, such as Iowa's Steve King, could pursue conspiracy theories about President Obama's birth certificate. Todd Akin, the candidate for Senate from Missouri who referenced "legitimate rape," was a veteran congressman. Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota, advocated producing a media documentary investigating whether individual members of Congress were "pro-America" or "anti-America." Paul Broun, a congressman from Georgia, called theories about evolution "lies from the pits of hell." Republicans frequently sounded the alarm about Obama's socialism and communism and Marxism and even engaged in racial codewords about how Obama was plotting to disadvantage Whites in favor of Blacks.

Of course, this rhetoric is absurd. And voters who are more moderate likely looked at this rhetoric and ran to the Democratic Party not out of affinity, but rather out of fear. Republicans could keep getting elected even though they were saying these scary and ridiculous things, and worse yet, few Republicans dared to stand up to this nonsense because any display of "moderation" could result in being primaried in the next election for not being conservative enough. This had the added bonus of making it seem like the Republican Party in general actually supported or condoned this rhetoric and these views.

For what it's worth, Congresswoman Bachmann narrowly won re-election. Congressman King easily won re-election. So did Congressman Broun. Most Republican incumbents won. And the way their congressional districts were drawn ensures that most of them will continue to be re-elected. South Carolina's Joe Wilson, who shouted "you lie" during Obama's State of the Union address, ran unopposed in 2012. But while Republicans continue to do well in the House of Representatives where they can draw districts that are full of voters who think like they do, the bigger prizes of control of the Senate and White House are more likely to elude them. Drawing more competitive districts would keep these extremist elements in check and prevent them from souring the party brand at the national level.

In other words, Mitt Romney did not just lose because Obama ran a better campaign. He also lost because he had two opponents on November 6: President Obama and the Republican brand. And it appears that Republicans have themselves to thank for that by virtue of their own success in the previous 2010 wave election that allowed victorious Republicans to become their party's own worst enemies.