Confronting the reality that the other side won the election, House Republicans are reshaping their political strategy to decide when to offer sharply different alternatives to President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies—and when to compromise.
"We have to explain who we are, what we believe in and fight for those things in a realistic way, making policy better where we can through engagement," Rep. Paul Ryan (R.,Wis.) said Wednesday at a breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal.
"And where we simply agree to disagree ... more than ever before, we need to offer principled alternatives to explain to the country how we would do things differently," said Mr. Ryan, 42 years old, returning to the public arena after his unsuccessful vice-presidential run that left him one of the most prominent Republicans of his generation.
Rep. Paul Ryan talks at an inaugural WSJ breakfast about the Republican agenda for the future and offering the country specific reforms on how the Republican party would do things differently compared to Democrats. (Photo: Getty Images)
Such thinking represents a significant shift in tactics by Republicans. They are gearing up for a longer battle as the opposition, hoping some day to persuade the voters to put them back in power, and they seem to want to avoid fighting an unending series of short-term skirmishes with Democrats, as they did last year.
There is no doubt why they are doing this. The previous approach, in the famous words of Nancy Reagan to "just say no," didn't play well with voters and undermined already low public confidence in Congress.
Republican commentator William Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, has urged the party to stop apologizing for being "an imperfect political party," and to cultivate spokesmen who "come to be feared in our national forums for the truths they might tell" about "our weakness abroad and of our debt at home."
Mr. Ryan is heeding that call, casting himself as the ideological alternative to Mr. Obama's emphatic inaugural declaration of progressive principles by which he intends to govern in his second term.
The House Budget Committee Chairman denied that the election represents a rejection of GOP principles, saying it demonstrated that Republicans need to do better at explaining why "we think our ideas are better."
Republicans, he said, need "more Jack Kemp," a reference to his mentor, the late former quarterback and Republican congressman who styled himself as a champion of the poor and social mobility. Mr. Ryan is clearly prepared to provide just that.
One practical manifestation of what Mr. Ryan termed "principled prudence" is the move by House Republicans to avoid a confrontation with Mr. Obama over raising the federal debt ceiling. Instead, they found a way to put off that fight until May so they can focus on pressing the president to accept more spending cuts.
But internal maneuvering around the debt-ceiling decision highlights the tensions inside the GOP caucus that could hamper efforts to offer a united, coherent position while working with Democrats to produce what Mr. Ryan terms "a down payment" on averting a debt crisis.
As the price for acquiescing on the debt ceiling, House conservatives extracted a promise from House Speaker John Boehner that Mr. Ryan's committee will produce a blueprint showing a path to a balanced budget within 10 years. The last Ryan budget didn't reach a balance until well into the 2030s. "We have our work cut out for us," Mr. Ryan said.
He refused to give details of the new plan—except to say that his budget won't include any tax increases beyond those to which Republicans agreed in the fiscal-cliff deal. That could give Republicans a clear—and familiar—point of difference with Mr. Obama, but it could stand in the way of getting something done.
Keeping that no-tax vow would require even deeper cuts in spending than Mr. Ryan's previous budgets or some gigantic budget gimmicks if it is to show a way to wipe out the deficit within 10 years. Mr. Ryan's earlier plans delayed money-saving changes to Medicare and Social Security for a decade.
It would move House Republicans even further from any deficit-reduction plan that has a chance of getting through the Democratic majority in the Senate—unless it is an opening bid that is eventually abandoned. Mr. Ryan emphasized that his ultimate goal is to change federal health and other benefit programs in ways that reduce spending over time, not necessarily over the next 10 years.
Mr. Obama, arguing that he and Congress agreed to spending cuts in 2011 followed by tax increase in 2012, has said any new deal should marry more spending cuts with more revenue increases. To that, Mr. Ryan replied sharply: "He already got his revenues."
Yet Mr. Ryan suggested a deal on the deficit—perhaps of modest size—remains something he wants to achieve, not just argue about. "We want to try, in installments, to get a down payment, year by year, on preventing a debt crisis ... and getting this debt under control," Mr. Ryan said.
The next four months will reveal whether Republicans deem the budget fight an example of "making policy better through engagement" or a forum for "principled disagreement" with the president.
Write to David Wessel at [email protected]
"We have to explain who we are, what we believe in and fight for those things in a realistic way, making policy better where we can through engagement," Rep. Paul Ryan (R.,Wis.) said Wednesday at a breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal.
"And where we simply agree to disagree ... more than ever before, we need to offer principled alternatives to explain to the country how we would do things differently," said Mr. Ryan, 42 years old, returning to the public arena after his unsuccessful vice-presidential run that left him one of the most prominent Republicans of his generation.
Rep. Paul Ryan talks at an inaugural WSJ breakfast about the Republican agenda for the future and offering the country specific reforms on how the Republican party would do things differently compared to Democrats. (Photo: Getty Images)
Such thinking represents a significant shift in tactics by Republicans. They are gearing up for a longer battle as the opposition, hoping some day to persuade the voters to put them back in power, and they seem to want to avoid fighting an unending series of short-term skirmishes with Democrats, as they did last year.
There is no doubt why they are doing this. The previous approach, in the famous words of Nancy Reagan to "just say no," didn't play well with voters and undermined already low public confidence in Congress.
Republican commentator William Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard, has urged the party to stop apologizing for being "an imperfect political party," and to cultivate spokesmen who "come to be feared in our national forums for the truths they might tell" about "our weakness abroad and of our debt at home."
Mr. Ryan is heeding that call, casting himself as the ideological alternative to Mr. Obama's emphatic inaugural declaration of progressive principles by which he intends to govern in his second term.
The House Budget Committee Chairman denied that the election represents a rejection of GOP principles, saying it demonstrated that Republicans need to do better at explaining why "we think our ideas are better."
Republicans, he said, need "more Jack Kemp," a reference to his mentor, the late former quarterback and Republican congressman who styled himself as a champion of the poor and social mobility. Mr. Ryan is clearly prepared to provide just that.
One practical manifestation of what Mr. Ryan termed "principled prudence" is the move by House Republicans to avoid a confrontation with Mr. Obama over raising the federal debt ceiling. Instead, they found a way to put off that fight until May so they can focus on pressing the president to accept more spending cuts.
But internal maneuvering around the debt-ceiling decision highlights the tensions inside the GOP caucus that could hamper efforts to offer a united, coherent position while working with Democrats to produce what Mr. Ryan terms "a down payment" on averting a debt crisis.
As the price for acquiescing on the debt ceiling, House conservatives extracted a promise from House Speaker John Boehner that Mr. Ryan's committee will produce a blueprint showing a path to a balanced budget within 10 years. The last Ryan budget didn't reach a balance until well into the 2030s. "We have our work cut out for us," Mr. Ryan said.
He refused to give details of the new plan—except to say that his budget won't include any tax increases beyond those to which Republicans agreed in the fiscal-cliff deal. That could give Republicans a clear—and familiar—point of difference with Mr. Obama, but it could stand in the way of getting something done.
Keeping that no-tax vow would require even deeper cuts in spending than Mr. Ryan's previous budgets or some gigantic budget gimmicks if it is to show a way to wipe out the deficit within 10 years. Mr. Ryan's earlier plans delayed money-saving changes to Medicare and Social Security for a decade.
It would move House Republicans even further from any deficit-reduction plan that has a chance of getting through the Democratic majority in the Senate—unless it is an opening bid that is eventually abandoned. Mr. Ryan emphasized that his ultimate goal is to change federal health and other benefit programs in ways that reduce spending over time, not necessarily over the next 10 years.
Mr. Obama, arguing that he and Congress agreed to spending cuts in 2011 followed by tax increase in 2012, has said any new deal should marry more spending cuts with more revenue increases. To that, Mr. Ryan replied sharply: "He already got his revenues."
Yet Mr. Ryan suggested a deal on the deficit—perhaps of modest size—remains something he wants to achieve, not just argue about. "We want to try, in installments, to get a down payment, year by year, on preventing a debt crisis ... and getting this debt under control," Mr. Ryan said.
The next four months will reveal whether Republicans deem the budget fight an example of "making policy better through engagement" or a forum for "principled disagreement" with the president.
Write to David Wessel at [email protected]