Needed: A Clear and Convincing
             Vision for New Jersey

Political sages contend that all politics is local; evidence demonstrates that much politics is personal. Many factors produced the late electoral debacle, but the results prove the old poker maxim: something beats nothing every time.

Initially, the GOP could learn something from the Dems about party discipline, or, perhaps, loyalty. Twice in the last two years, Democrat nominees imploded, threatening Party interests. Both candidates expeditiously committed political hari kiri, enabling the Party to choose less problematic candidates, and roll onto victory.

In District 12, John Bennett's "ethics" clearly dominated the campaign. Ellen Karcher presented such a weak alternative that even the Star Ledger could not bring itself to endorse her. But Bennett placed his own ego and self-interest over the good of the Party. The election constituted a referendum on HIM, and the Party suffered the loss. As if his personal defeat were not bad enough, he drew enough fire on his running mates to cost them the election. Had he done a Suliga, and subordinated his own interests to the Party's common good, a close election likely would have gone the other way. With the loss in the 12th, any possibility of Republican legislative victory vanished.

While the overall loss was not as bad as the media contends – 2 Senate seats and 4 Assembly seats (not 6; Friscia and Friguela don't count as GOP losses) – it was bad enough. Much of the blame can be placed on the illegal districts crafted by a flaky professor who couldn't read the constitution, and our New Jersey Supreme Court which, unsurprisingly, can neither read nor count. Some hope exists: the decision was so clearly wacky that the United States Supreme Court – which delights in deflating the NJ Supremes' pretensions – may take the case and right the wrong in time for 2005. But failing that, these illegal districts clearly cripple GOP hopes.

But unconstitutional districts don't totally preclude the possibility of success. To achieve that result – to essentially guarantee losing – the GOP needed three things. First, it needed an indefensible fiscal legacy. Second, it needed to be devoid of alternatives and courage. And, third, it required shameless dishonesty from the Democrats. It got all three, in spades.

Happily for the Democrats, our erstwhile Republican Governor thoughtfully provided a fat target with her record of fiscal irresponsibility. She unconstitutionally borrowed billions without voter consent and spent like a drunken sailor. Worse, the spending did not even go to Republican projects or districts. Her unconstitutional school bonds benefitted primarily Abbott schools in Democrat districts. Her spending was heavily weighted toward the cities. Even her touted property tax rebate gimmick disproportionately funneled benefits into urban areas.

Jim McGreevey roasted Bret Schundler on Whitman's fiscally irresponsible policies and the Democrats – who know a winning argument when they see it – draped this millstone around the necks of Republican candidates. Whitman's legacy of profligacy and of shameless, illegal borrowing, enabled the Democrats to position themselves to the right of their Republican challengers, to pose as the party of fiscal responsibility. Polls show that voters – understandably – rate the parties about even on fiscal issues and blame Whitman more than McGreevey for the budgetary crisis. For the GOP being on par with the Dems on "tax and spend" questions is the kiss of death.

Still, given McGreevey's horrible record of illegal borrowing, massive tax increases, and fiscal irresponsibility, Republicans might have been able to prevail, PROVIDED that they offered a viable alternative. We failed, miserably. Republicans, despite mouthing protests about McGreevy's huge spending increases and gargantuan tax hikes, provided the votes needed to pass the budget and offered no credible alternatives. Faced with the possibility that McGreevey would shut down the government, the GOP backed down. Simply put, they chickened out.

Faced with the perfectly proper question – what would you do differently? – Republicans demurred. Confronted with huge spending increases, they proposed no significant cuts, let alone a comprehensive alternative. Loudly supporting property tax reform, Republicans mostly refused to offer a plan. Republican silence on auto insurance was deafening. Coupled with the fact that the GOP had had eight years to address these issues, but did next to nothing – and certainly nothing bold – the voters rightly dismissed Republican attacks as mere wind.

Leadership was utterly lacking. Not that it's easy to cobble together a coherent strategy acceptable to the mulligatawny stew of Republican candidates, but little effort seems to have been made to offer any unifying message. No leader stepped to the fore to proclaim: "here is what Republicans will do if returned to power".

Oh, and God help anyone who mentioned a "social issue" in "liberal" New Jersey. The message might as well have been, "Republican base: stay home".

Finally, Republicans, for all their faults, tend to be intellectually honest. They approach government as an opportunity to serve. Democrats are not so constrained, and see government as a meal ticket. To Democrats, government is all about power and money, securing the former to direct the latter into the hands of their friends.

Democrats pilloried the GOP for Whitman's borrowing, ignoring the inexcusable, unconstitutional borrowing of the McGreevey administration, which indebts our kids not for capital assets, but for current spending. While attacking Republicans for borrowing, they brazenly took credit for spending the borrowed money. Having increased spending and raised taxes by some $3 billion, they shamelessly donned the mantel of "fiscal responsibility". Pretending to be against sprawl, they support Mount Laurel, the engine which drives it. Even Bill Clinton might blush while uttering whoppers like these.

But, in politics as in life, sometimes what's good is what works. The Dems didn't need much. With gerrymandered districts, oodles of cash, and some message – albeit a fraudulent one – they defeated an underdog party with fewer resources and no defining message.

The lesson, then, is that Republicans must stand for something as a party, not merely be the antis. McGreevey provides a juicy target – it old be difficult for central casting to provide a more politically tone deaf, more inept governor – but simply attacking him for the self evident foolishness of his policies will not suffice.

In order to convincingly oppose the excesses of McGreeveyism, Republicans must admit the mistakes of the Whitman years: we borrowed too much, we spent too much. We failed to abolish Mount Laurel and Abbott. We failed to offer real property tax reform. We didn't slay the spending dragons, or ensure political responsibility.

Some Dems look forward to a "more conservative" Republican Party, which they can caricature and villainize. We should oblige them. Better to lose on principle than to continue to lose without it. Steering a "moderate" course has produced an unbroken strong of legislative electoral defeats for the GOP. We must draw a distinction between Us and Them and provide the people with clear and convincing arguments why We offer the better vision for New Jersey then They do.

The people are not dumb; they understand that McGreevey is inept. But they INSIST upon knowing the alternative. Republicans cannot win unless they present a different vision for a better New Jersey. This entails risk: any proposal will certainly tick off powerful special interests. Any proposal can be castigated, caricatured, demagogued. But doing nothing ensures another four years in political Siberia.