The midterm election of 2022 shocked many. I, too, expected different results. That was because I didn’t feel the ground shift as it did beneath all of our feet.
People had suddenly figured out how things work.
The party controlling the Executive Branch historically loses representation in the Legislative Branch during midterm elections, absent some exogenous event. 911, for example, impacted the 2002 midterms and the Republicans did well.
20 years on the Democrats likewise defied history, despite record crime and inflation, the societal and economic backwash from the Plague, and bad international news involving, as usual for the last 100 years, Russia and China, but this time both simultaneously.
What happened?
Republicans did run some poor candidates, but so did Democrats. The Democrats did enjoy a late boost in turnout, when former President Trump reminded them that he existed by campaigning for his favorites, thus driving Democrats to the polls.
However, it was the exogenous event known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization1 that changed everything, in the short term and maybe in the long term.
I am not talking about abortion specifically, except that the issue serves as a vehicle for the matter about which I am concerned. I am neither addressing the morality of choosing to have an abortion, nor whether Roe was “good law” from a living constitutionalist or originalist or textualist perspective. I am not asking the question of which legislative strategy is best: to pursue one’s goals at the state level, at the federal level, or both simultaneously.
Foundationally, I am talking about understanding that these United States are part of a federal system, with a federal government responsible for some rights, and state governments responsible for the rest.2 Since 1973, the Democrats seemed to have forgotten that bit of truth, until Dobbs.
This makes sense, after all. The Democrats gave us the modern welfare state, for all its goods and ills. Predisposed to national solutions that impact the widest swath of the population, Roe v. Wade3 in 1973 was a great victory. Roe also became a judicial act to defend, given its non-unanimous status as a 7-2 decision. Presidents nominate Justices, so presidential elections gained importance on this issue. Roe became something around which to rally. As the psychologist Jonathan Haidt might say,4 Roe became an idea “that binds”.
Roe became an icon.
But, as Haidt would also point out, an idea can blind. This national judicial decision gave the Democrats a national political focus. Suddenly, it was no longer necessary to fight state-level battles on the question of abortion. This mindset bled over into other parts of the political realm as well, whether warranted or not.
Over the last 50 years, Democrats seemed to focus their efforts on the Federal level. It was as if one side, the Democrats, had missed the American government module in social studies class. Democrats didn’t ignore states, but didn’t provide sufficient resources to state elections, either. Election turnout during non-presidential years is always lower, but Democratic turnout was also lower than Republicans, betraying their national bias.5
Some Democrats appeared to forget that states determine who serves in the federal government, and how they are chosen.
The Republicans hadn’t missed class. Also bound by Roe, Republicans took a different tack. Not the “party of Big Government”, their natural bias was a local focus. Over the last 50 years, Republicans created local political farm teams by getting folks elected to school boards, then city councils, then state assembly and senate. “Graduation” meant Washington, D.C.
Some Democrats saw the need to refocus on the states. Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy”6 recognized the political danger. His efforts did improve the situation for the Democrats in 2006.
This was all undone, however, in 2009 by Barack Obama's "Organizing for America”,7 a descendant of the Obama campaign structure, and with a focus remaining on President Obama. Precious Democratic National Committee financial resources to celebrate the winner of the last election were thus diverted from preparing winners for the next one.
Republicans understood the situation well, and smelled blood. They were also completely transparent. Karl Rove penned their exact plans in the Wall Street Journal in March, 2010. His article was titled, “ The GOP Targets State Legislatures: He who controls redistricting can control Congress”.8
The timing was perfect. Here in Wisconsin, in 2008, 1,677,211 voted Democrat, 1,262,393 voted Republican.9In 2010, 1,020,958 voted Democrat, 1,125,999 voted Republican.10 Democratic turnout dropped 39%, compared to a Republican drop-off of 11%...during a census year.
This is what I suspect Dobbs has changed. Bound to support Roe, Democrats focused their attention on national efforts given their biases, blind to the importance of state politics. Bound to oppose Roe, Republicans focused on state efforts given their biases, but, as midterm results have shown, became blind to the variation of support for or against abortion to be found among their own numbers.11
Now, the binding and blinding icon of Roe had been removed.
No longer is there a national focus to the question of abortion, at least not in the short term. The real action is at the state level.
Indeed, to a certain extent, the real action has always been at the state level. The United States is not a unitary nation-state, like some foreign country with a parliament system and a unicameral legislature with national reach. We are a diverse population within a federal system with three branches of government nationally, and 50 powerful states locally.
Roe v. Wade bound and blinded both Republicans and Democrats. Dobbs opened eyes.
It seems both Democrats and Republicans might see things more clearly now. That is better for everyone.