Zachary Kushel's blog

***Originally published in The Harvard Citizen, 9/30/09***

Nothing has become more ubiquitous in American politics than pundits making baseless predictions about the future. Democratic ‘experts’ determined that the Clinton machine would simply be too much for Barack Obama to overcome. Just over six months before John McCain all but clinched his party’s nomination for president, ‘expert’ Charlie Cook proclaimed that, “…McCain’s campaign is over.” In 2005, ‘expert’ Dick Morris published an entire book entitled, “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”

After November’s election, pundits fell in love with a new fallacy: the election of Barack Obama represented a shift toward a post-partisan America exemplified by his ability to garner support from scores of Independents and Republicans. Commentators contrasted his campaign rhetoric with the divisive last eight years and lauded his Inaugural Address in which he called for “…an end to the petty grievances and false promises…that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Such assertions were laughable. What does it even mean to be post-partisan? Given his position as the leader of the Democratic Party, it was not logically possible for Obama to be post-partisan when, by definition, he was a partisan. He was elected as a Democrat, would continue to lead the Democrats, and would therefore govern as a Democrat.

This point was codified just two days after his election with the appointment of Rahm Emanuel to serve as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel – a feisty, partisan, and effective operative from the Clinton years and respected congressman and Democratic strategist during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives – was a great pick to help the president push his ambitious agenda through the tricky corridors of Capitol Hill. But post-partisan it was not. With a fresh mandate from the American people, President Obama had the ability to select a deputy who would not draw the ire of Republicans. Instead, he chose someone who could ease relations with fellow Democrats, choosing partisan efficiency over bipartisan symbolism.

His first big legislative push, the stimulus bill, was an opportunity to pass legislation without regard to party politics. The handling of this issue would set the tone for his presidency. Yet, to avoid conflict with members of the Democratic caucus, the President deferred to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, allowing party leaders in Congress to write the bill.

As could be expected, the bill did not win Republican support. While both parties recognized the need to pass a stimulus package, the Democratic-written bill contained a large amount of pork for narrow interests of specific members of Congress. A bill stripped of this pork could have won Republican support, but Obama’s desire to avoid antagonizing members of his own party caused him to sign a bill that could have been vastly improved.

Defenders of the President argue that Republicans are obstructionist and are seeking to derail Obama’s agenda for purely political reasons. While this may hold true for a select few members of the party, the vast majority of Republicans take their duty seriously and seek to advocate on behalf of their constituents each and every day. It is not helpful to the debate to impute the motives of the opposition.

The only way to have true post-partisanship in Washington would be to elect an Independent candidate for President, one not beholden to the interests and pressures of either party. Such a scenario could provide the ultimate test of this country’s ingrained two-party system. But would a president without a party be able to govern?

Students of history could cite the difficult terms of Presidents John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, who both struggled to accomplish their goals due to their ambiguous party status. Perhaps, nearly 150 years later, it is time to give it another shot. What could an engaging, charismatic leader such as Barack Obama accomplish as president if he did not have the shackles of the Democratic Party hampering his every move? What could he be advocating if he did not have to worry about earning his party’s nomination again in 2012?

To the President, I would offer this advice: resign from the Democratic Party. Only then will you be able to live up to the rhetoric of your campaign and act as the president of all of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Then, we can fairly judge you on your promise to unite this country and put the politics of old behind.

If you are not willing to do that, then please bring your rhetoric in line with your governance. Acknowledge who got you here and that yes you, like those before you, do what is necessary to accomplish your goals in the partisan political environment that is Washington. Begin to push through your legislative agenda using force, if necessary. Elections have consequences, and it is about time you started using your mandate.

Political observers of all stripes know that Mitt Romney wants to run for President in 2012. He seemed to have a future run in mind the day he quit the 2008 race at CPAC this past February. As the Boston Globe recently reported, Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has barely doled out any cash to preferred candidates and is viewed as likely saving up for a 2012 run.

What then does Romney have planned for the next four years? Here are five reasons why heading the RNC would help him with another run at the presidency:

1) It’s the Economy, Stupid: The Republican Party became the party of big government conservatism and wasteful spending over the past eight years. It needs to reclaim a fiscally conservative message to broaden its base and appeal to working-class Americans. The biggest issue facing the country over the next year is likely to be the continued economic crisis, and unlike traditional party hacks, Romney has real credentials in this arena. He is uniquely positioned to be a party leader on economic issues.

2) Default Opposition to Obama: If he hopes to be successful in a 2012 run, Romney will first have to convince Republicans that he is the best alternative to a President Obama. By assuming the Chairmanship, the media will anoint him as the opposition leader by default four years in advance. Having a steady platform with which to contrast with Obama will give him a significant leg-up heading into the 2012 primaries.

3) Republican Message Control: Rather than having to worry about what the national party is saying and doing in the 2010 election cycle, Romney will be able to control that message (at least that coming from the RNC, Congress is another story). This will allow him to decide on a method of contrast and attack during his tenure that will then flow into his 2012 bid.

4) Re-shape the Party Message: Romney was sharply criticized in the 2008 primary cycle for flip-flopping on various issues, mostly social, to accommodate the Republican base. As Chairman, Romney would have the ability, both subtly and overtly, to re-shape the party message to his liking rather than feel the need to adjust his positions to fit party orthodoxy.

5) Continue to Chip Away at Mormon Issue: Being elected Chairman would not eliminate this as a potential issue for Romney. Ken Mehlman ran the RNC and it would be difficult to argue that a Jewish candidate would still not face significant opposition in certain circles of the party. But by taking on such a visible leadership role, this would allow Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to view him simply as the Republican leader rather than as a member of any specific religious faith.

After serving two-years as Chairman, through the 2010 election cycle, Romney could then announce his intentions to run for President and focus on the buildup of his campaign operation ahead of the primary election.

Critics of a Romney chairmanship would likely argue that assuming such a position would provide little political benefit for him. He would be wasting his time.

Why bog yourself down running day-to-day operations of a national party?

There is no requirement that the RNC Chairman be involved in day-to-day operations of a bureaucracy. Rather, Romney could install a capable, well-respected, and trusted Executive Director for the party while acting largely as a spokesman and big-picture planner. He would immediately become the face of the party. He could only dream of attaining this status over the next two years if he were to continue to stand on the sidelines.

Romney is too high-profile to run the RNC.

Says who? McCain had too little money to win the nomination. Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President. There is no rulebook to this game. The political media is scarcely paying any attention to the race for Chairman, let alone the average American, who does not even know that there is a race. The party has a leadership void and both the party and the media would embrace having someone high-profile at the helm.

Running the RNC may help him get through the primaries, but would be harmful in a general election.

George Bush headed the RNC in the 1970s a decade before becoming President. Given the messiah-like way in which Obama rose to victory in this election, it is hard to argue that 2012 will be anything other than a referendum on the Obama presidency. So why not accept this fact and start drawing contrasts where they exist right away? There is no better vehicle for Romney to articulate his message than by serving as the head of his party.

RNC duties would get in the way of fundraising for his campaign.

This may be true. But Romney’s considerable personal wealth makes this less important of an issue than it would be for most candidates. In addition, the benefits of traveling to all fifty states for the RNC and building up considerable institutional support amongst RNC members and GOP activists far outweigh the costs of reduced fundraising capacity.

Disclosure: This author is not supporting Romney for this position.