Scozza-what? You might be forgiven for asking, unless you're from New York. Briefly, the story is that the Republican candidate for Congress in New York's Twenty-Third District (Scozzafava) is a moderate who seemed a good match for the generally moderate voters in this district that Republicans have held for 100 years; but against a challenge by a rabid regressive (Hoffman), running as a Conservative Party candidate, Scozzafava fell badly behind in the polls, and has withdrawn from the race, leaving the field closely split between Hoffman and the Democratic candidate (Owens).
So what might have been an obscure race for Congress has rapidly become the focus of national attention. In fact, this race may actually hold some lessons for politics on the national level (unlike the upcoming Governor race in Virginia, which really has none). So far, the lesson is that Hoffman's success in driving out the moderate candidate demonstrates the degree of voter anger on the right, and disappointment with the GOP's failure to address voter expectations. But this was already evident.
Many analysts seem to be predicting a victory for Hoffman but I wonder what they base that on. We're told that the District has reliably elected moderate Republicans for many years. What we've seen so far is the highjacking of the political process by a group of reactionary activists. Do they really represent the sense of voters in the district? Or might some Republican voters be turned off by Hoffman's lockstep march with the Republican party line, and vote for Owens instead? Did normally big contributors to the GOP sabotage Scozzafava by refusing to contribute to her campaign? We don't know yet.
It's too bad Scozzafava could not have stayed in the race as a spoiler, but apparently funds were lacking. She did apparently avoid endorsing Hoffman as she withdrew. Undoubtedly she was under great pressure from the Republican powers and from a vocal group of activists. Only election results will tell, however, whether voters who are fundamentally moderate will move in large numbers to a candidate who is immoderately fundamental.
I'm not predicting that Hoffman will win, or lose. I don't know enough about the district or its local issues. Let's assume Hoffman wins, though. His victory would certainly reinforce the view of opinionators like Michael Steele and William Kristol that they only need to stick with their current sit-tight, oppose-everything plan and wait for voters to flock to the Republican Party. But the basic question remains, are those pundits right? We'll need more than this one election to tell us that.
Personally, I think the Steele-Kristol-Cheney-etc. (i.e. the Republican establishment) approach is a poor strategy for the long term. In the turmoil of the bad Bush (admit it or not, the GOP is still living down the negative cloud of political gas his 8 years left behind), the still-uncertain economic situation, and yes, even the new President's legislative plans, which definitely cut across the grain of the Republican base -- amidst all that, it may seem wise or at least tempting for Republican leaders to pander to the populist trend. They may even get a bounce from it in the 2010 elections; yet that could add to the confusion about which direction to go, because election gains in midterm elections would be the norm for the "out" party anyway.
As a strategy, a GOP embrace of the populist approach is likely only to prolong their camp-out in the Slough of Despond. The notion that voters will flood back to a party offering principles and dogma without practical solutions is a will-o-the-wisp.
Comments