The L.A. Times this morning raised a question that's likely to be asked quite a bit in the near future.
A new GOP mandate? That's a question Republicans and Democrats will be debating in coming days, as the GOP makes the case that its election victories add up not only to an electoral wave, but to a mandate -- a genuine endorsement of conservative policies -- while Democrats cast them as something less.
Part of the problem is that we're dealing with terms that have no specific, generally accepted meaning. For example, was this a "wave" election? Maybe, but there is no actual definition of the word, and because it's somewhat subjective, opinions vary.
A "mandate," meanwhile, also seems to mean different things to different people. Traditionally, it's supposed to be part of a democratic model: a candidate or a party presents an agenda to the public, the public then endorses the candidate or party, and the winners claim a popular mandate. That is, by prevailing in an election, the victors believe they've earned the popular support needed to pursue the policy measures they presented during the campaign.
As of this morning, Republicans are predictably claiming just such a mandate, and at the surface, it may seem as if they have a point. The GOP took control of the Senate, expanded their House majority, flipped some state legislative bodies, and fared surprisingly well in gubernatorial races. The result, they say, is an endorsement from the American people that affords them the right to pursue their top priorities.
It's a nice argument, which happens to be wrong.
Right off the bat, perhaps the most glaring flaw with the Republican pitch is that the GOP seems to believe only Republicans are capable of claiming a mandate. Two years ago, President Obama won big, Senate Democrats kept their majority for a fourth-consecutive cycle; and House Democratic candidates earned far more votes than their House Republican counterparts.
Did this mean Dems had a popular mandate for their agenda? GOP leaders replied, "Absolutely not." Indeed, the Republicans said the opposite, concluding that Obama and his agenda may have been endorsed by the nation, but it was the GOP's job to kill the every Democratic priority anyway.
Elections have consequences? Republicans have spent the last two years insisting otherwise. It's laughable for GOP officials to change their mind and declare, "Mandates only exist when we win."
What's more, the obvious question for those arguing that Republicans have a mandate this morning is simple: "A mandate to do what, exactly?"
Think about the policy platform Republicans emphasized over the course of the last several months. Let's see there was ... well, we can't forget about ... but they certainly pushed ... there was a real debate about issues such as ... Ebola-stricken terrorists in Mexico?
Look, it's not exactly a secret that the GOP's priorities, such as they are, do not enjoy broad national support. The party did its best to obscure its unpopular ideas for fear of losing. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went so far as to tell reporters the other day, "This is not the time to lay out an agenda."
Not to put too fine a point on this, but that, in a nutshell, effectively ends the "mandate" debate. A party, no matter how well it does in an election, cannot claim a mandate for a policy agenda that does not exist and was not presented.
Dana Milbank noted accurately that Republicans ran an "agenda-free campaign." Did it produce big wins? Yes. Did it create a mandate? Obviously not.