It’s Time for Republicans To Adopt the Politics of Palatability
President-elect Donald Trump has wasted no time announcing his Cabinet appointees, and few have drawn more fire than Matt Gaetz. The controversial firebrand recently withdrew his name from attorney general consideration amid sexual misconduct allegations, but Gaetz had been a problematic figure on the American right for years. Hopefully, this latest fiasco can teach Republicans the importance of palatability in politics.
As the American political scene has grown more polarized, the fringe factions that have always existed in American politics have gained traction. Parties have had to walk a fine line between appeasing their increasingly hardline bases and winning over the middle that the vast majority of Americans occupy. Lately, they’ve favored the less palatable hardliners.
Who could blame them? Donald Trump himself was a boorish political outsider at one time, and he won the presidency twice. But Trump’s once-in-a-generation political je ne sais quoi doesn’t translate well to other figures, and if Republicans want to keep winning, respectable and pragmatic proposals are the name of the game. Trump’s first blunder as president-elect was ignoring this rule.
Matt Gaetz is the arch-unpalatable candidate. From his brash rhetoric, storming of House Intelligence Committee meetings, and bizarre vendetta against former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Gaetz has spent his political career trying to be Trump-lite.
Kari Lake, the failed gubernatorial and senatorial candidate heavily backed by Trump, has spent the last few years promoting election interference claims that many Americans find unpalatable. Herschel Walker, Trump’s pick for Georgia Senate, apparently had a baby with every woman in Georgia – again, not a point in his favor to the average American. Both of these candidates lost purple state races that were winnable for Republicans, showing that Trump is really the only provocative candidate with outrageous soundbites and a checkered past that voters can stomach. Besides the Trump anomaly, voters still want productive but realistic policies that don’t move the needle too far or too fast, pushed by upstanding leaders who largely avoid ridiculous virtue signaling or bizarre personal scandals.
The politics of palatability also extends to policies. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the “Value Them Both” Amendment was on the ballot in my home state of Kansas. This amendment could have paved the way for a total abortion ban in the state, and did not explicitly guarantee exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. The ballot initiative failed spectacularly, further indicating that strong abortion restrictions are simply not in line with what most Americans would support. This was not smart politically. By pushing this proposal and losing, pro-lifers failed to prevent any further abortions, when a more moderate restriction might have moved the needle closer to their goal.
The mere suggestion of palatability and pragmatism is often met with disdain from hardliners. They froth and seethe, claiming that you are not sufficiently committed to the “movement” or a “fake conservative.” They don’t understand that one can simultaneously want something and also not take a mile as soon as they are given an inch, so to speak.
Politicians must be pragmatists. Their chief concern shouldn’t be signaling their virtue or demonstrating fealty to a movement, but moving the ball forward as much as possible given the current conditions. Baggage-laden leaders like Gaetz only hobble these efforts with personal scandals.
Border Czar Tom Homan is an excellent example of this incrementalism. Though many Trump hardliners want mass deportations on day one, Homan has repeatedly indicated that his initial focus would be on illegal immigrants who have committed crimes beyond crossing the border. No one would accuse Homan of being insufficiently committed to border security, or a “fake conservative.” Homan doesn’t have a sordid personal past, and hasn’t engaged in any congressional clown shows. He’s a man with clear ideals and a pragmatic approach to achieving those ideals.
Conversely, political appointees don’t have to be Boy Scouts. In a perfect world, our leaders would also be moral exemplars, but that hasn’t been the case in the United States for decades. And why should they be? Our leaders aren’t divine-right monarchs – they’re public servants. I don’t vote for a congressman or a senator to be my best friend – I vote for them because I think they can do a good job in that particular role. But the personal foibles of policy makers can impede their agenda, and that’s where the problem arises.
Thus, Republicans should consider palatability when pushing initiatives or candidates. Many Americans don’t follow politics all that closely, gleaning only a general “flavor” for a party, candidate, or proposal before moving on to football or Netflix. If a party wants to stay in power, and get anything done, that first “taste” has to be palatable – otherwise, the voters will spit it right back out.
Republicans should avoid nominees with a history of engaging in ridiculous conduct and being provocateurs for the sake of being provocative. Instead of going for broke, let’s take things one step at a time and take wins where we can achieve them.