A Way Forward For Republicans

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has brought some of the underlying challenges the Republican Party faces to the fore yet again. The dissent that has been expressed in regard to Sotomayor's nomination has been uncoordinated, often misdirected and sometimes needlessly extreme. The various reactions ranging from sane (i.e. John Cornyn) to insane (cue Newt Gingrich) to the bizarre (cue Rush Limbaugh) to the timid (presenting Mitch McConnell) represent the growing divisions in an already fractured party. There are a number of things that need to happen in order to build bridges over these ideological divides and to become a successful, more unified opposition party.

One of the main goals of the opposition party of course is to find a way back into the majority - to become the governing party yet again. Unfortunately, many Republicans are choosing to employ tactics that are further isolating them from the political center of the country (where elections are won and lost). One such example is Newt Gingrich's commentary that Sonia Sotomayor is a "racist," and the week and half that we have been rehashing it and his subsequent quasi-retraction. Newt plays an odd role in the party - one of currently-unelected-permanent-spokesman, welfare-reform-superstar, and 2012-potential dabbler, but he and others need to refrain from such knee-jerk nonsense.

It is clear that at this point the Republican party leadership - both de facto and de jure - have proven an uncertainty of what it takes to be an effective opposition party in the age of Obama. This is not entirely their fault. Obama represents a new paradigm in American politics. He is an unconventional operator in many ways, and the tired old (two "Obama adjectives") ways of thinking as the opposition will prove useless in the age of Obama.

One of Obama's greatest achievements to date has been the growth and unity he has brought to the Democratic party. Few things breathe life into a political party like a charismatic, studly young politician who orates incredibly well and promises the dawning of a new age in politics. Of course the political context Obama walked into made this narrative fairly easy to create. But Obama's personal appeal and his popularity are huge impediments to the opposition. They are not impossible to overcome, but you can't beat them by resorting to cheap tactics. He'll beat you every time. You need smart strategy, not one that unconditionally disapproves of Obama's proposals/nominations etc. (e.g. Sotomayor). Obama's appeals to the concept of "post-partisan politics", whether you think that it's a mythical idea or not, makes strict party-based opposition a little more difficult. Sotomayor is an example of a judicial nominee that the GOP should ultimately be able to live with (and vote to confirm). The political capital we have for dissent as conservatives needs to be, you guessed it, conserved and spent wisely in the age of Obama.

I certainly had my initial doubts about Sotomayor's nomination. But I think most of those doubts were sparked by one of the stated criteria that Obama said he was looking for in a judge: empathy. I'm not sure why Obama chose to fight that fight (I find it hard to believe that Obama could have stumbled into a debate about the importance or relevance of "empathy" accidentally - I think this is one of his pet ideas and he wanted to make a stand for its importance on the Supreme Court). Had he avoided saying that he was looking for a judge with "empathy" I think he would have saved himself some serious ire. What's important though is that Sotomayor has undergone serious scrutiny by all manner of legal scholars and other relevant officials. And the consensus thus far has been that she has a very strong (and deep) record as a jurist and no serious flaws or red-flags. Her appointment obviously doesn't suit conservatives - but losing an election has costs and this is one of them.

When I look around the conservative universe for examples of relevant opposition I see David Brooks standing tall. Many would-be de facto conservative leaders have lambasted the Times columnist as a hyper-moderate bent on ruining "real" conservatism. But I actually look to him as a representation of the future of the party. His smart column on Sotomayor exhibits the best of Obama-era opposition strategy summed up in one word: restraint. Brooks illustrates that she is an entirely reasonable nominee and that she should be confirmed, despite ideological differences that do exist. Conservatives are going to have some bones with Sotomayor, but we lost the election and that's how it works. Fringe commentary like accusations of racism only serve to make us look desperate and crazy, not exactly selling points when it comes to winning elections.

Conservatives need to reorient themselves to the current political context and find a path to a strong and coherent opposition so that the midterms of 2010 are a true referendum on Obama's achievements (whatever those may or may not be). A continued Republican irrelevance (which in many ways was the plight of the McCain campaign - their increasing irrelevance throughout the later stages of the campaign) would surely deal conservatives a further setback.