For the first time since 1911, the GOP has lost control of both houses of the New Hampshire legislature.
Over the past several years, an interesting trend has manifested itself in New Hampshire. Electorally it has turned from red to blue, but without any shift in its people's general principles. It is indicative, I think, of a Republican Party that has drifted from the founders' Lockean principles of limited government, and more towards the authoritarianism of Russell Kirk or, say, George Bush. Republican analysts are obviously hoping it's something more practical, such as the coalescence of the state's population with that of Massachusetts'.
An October 28th article in the Wall Street Journal analyzed the transformation, noting that last year, the state got rid of both its Republican Congressmen, and for the first time since 1911, the GOP lost control of both houses of the legislature.
It takes more than an unpopular president to inspire this sort of historical alteration. It takes a president — not just a president, a party — that has utterly abandoned everything that it was for a century.
On a statewide level, Republicans haven't had a problem winning. Republican Sen. John Sununu beat the state's incumbent Republican senator in an endorsement battle in 2002, the first time an incumbent lost such a contest in a decade. Sununu went on to beat three-term governor Jeanne Shaheen.
But now Shaheen is trying again, and he trails her by 54 to 38 percent.
Granted, Clinton won the state twice, and Kerry won in 2004. It only went to Bush in 2000. However, was it because the state's citizens were liberals, or was it because they were disgruntled, independent conservatives? A 1996 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center prioritized the state's voters' concerns this way: 32% of New Hampshire's registered voters said that balancing the budget was "the most important thing" the next president could do. A cluster of other issues were named next — improving the educational system (13% of registered voters), improving the job situation (also 13%), and dealing with the moral breakdown in the country (12%).
A significant plurality cared about balancing the budget more than anything else. It was a conservative candidate's to lose. That's probably why New Hampshire Republicans selected Pat Buchanan to run for the presidency rather than Bob Dole. (Clinton went on to beat Dole in New Hampshire by about ten percentage points.)
I'm also amused by the fact that whenever I've searched for news on "New Hampshire" in this election cycle, three-quarters of the stories that have come up are about Ron Paul. State polls currently show him beating Fred Thompson by three percentage points.
Lest anyone think the problem is as basic as immigrants coming out of Massachusetts, the WSJ article cited a survey conducted by University of New Hampshire Survey Center Director Andy Smith. He asked Massachusetts transplants, in the state less than a year, why they moved. Their reasons were, respectively, cost of living, taxes, and too many liberals in Massachusetts.
It's a fact that needs to be faced — New Hampshire doesn't like big government. The state's Republican Party isn't suffering due to any fault of its own. John Sununu is one of the nation's better senators.
Americans for Better Immigration has given him a lifetime grade of A-; he voted consistently against George Bush and John McCain's plan to give amnesty to twenty million illegal immigrants.
He doesn't believe in funding global warming conspiracy theorists (unlike, say, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee), and he supported drilling in ANWR.
These are all positions that the national Republican Party has failed to provide on in recent years. Sununu embodies conservatism, and it is a conservatism that New Hampshire probably still believes in. The problem is that the failings of national political figures are overshadowing the virtues of local candidates.
Ironically, the national party is aggravating the problem rather than trying to resolve it. National RNC Chair Mike Duncan is trying to take away half the state's national delegates, because he doesn't want their primary to take place before February 5th.
Judd Gregg, the state's other Republican Senator, grumbled, "The best approach would have been to say nothing . . . That would have been the better part of discretion by the leader of the party if he'd been thinking. It doesn't make it any easier for us to win next November."
Sen. Gregg is right. Unfortunately, the national party has been far too delusional for far too long to understand what is taking place on a local level, and we are still at least one presidential election away from a change in party leadership that has been much too long in coming.
Sources
1. WSJ Article:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=11001079
2. Sununu Poll Numbers:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/10/shaheen_continu.html
3. 1996 Poll Numbers:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=430
4. Delegate Conflict:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/FOSTERS05/710260115
RudyTakala@Yahoo.com
Read more articles by Rudy Takala
