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.