The House GOP Wants to Win Back the Suburbs

Is fighting climate change the way to do it?

By
13

If you want to catch a wave, you have to bring a surfboard. That, in effect, is what House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and his team are doing in rolling out a series of bills this year to deal with the impact of climate change. That might not sound like an obvious issue for the GOP to tackle, but that is kind of the point. The makeup of the party has shifted since Donald Trump won in 2016 and McCarthy wants to win back some of the voters who have turned away since then.

Democrats took the House in 2018 by securing wins in suburban congressional districts that used to be part of the GOP base. In many cases, these voters are not liberal, or even Democrats. In fact, 30 House Democrats now represent congressional districts that President Trump won in 2016. 

Democrats won these seats by drastically outperforming Republicans among two key demographics: women and younger voters. As the Pew Research Institute noted in its review of the midterms results, “the gender gap in voting preference is not new, but it is at least as wide as at any point over the past two decades … women favored the Democratic candidate in their district by 19 percentage points (59% to 40%) while men voted for the Republican 51% to 47%.” At the same time, Pew found that the “majorities of voters ages 18 to 29 (67%) and 30 to 44 (58%) favored the Democratic candidate.”

The weaknesses in the Republican coalition line up quite well with another Pew data set. According to a survey conducted in October 2019, younger Republicans and women are among the class of voters who think the U.S. government should do more to address the threat of climate change. Among Republicans, “adults in the ages 18 to 38 in 2019—52% think the government is doing too little on climate,” per Pew. By comparison, interest in action to address climate change falls to 41 percent and 31 percent for Generation Xers and Baby Boomers respectively. The results are equally stark across the gender divide: 46 percent of women think the government’s efforts on climate are insufficient, compared with only 34 percent of GOP men.

That is why the legislative proposals House Republicans are introducing to address climate change are critical to winning back key suburban seats. Taken on their own, the first four bills—extending a carbon sequestration tax credit, fostering carbon capture innovation, and planting a trillion trees—are sensible, if relatively modest. McCarthy has announced they will be followed with more robust measures on clean energy and conservation. But they already send a clear signal that climate change denialism is not the position of House Republicans or the new crop of House GOP candidates. 

In the wake of Democrats’ unsuccessful effort to impeach and remove President Trump from office, House Republicans’ 2020 election prospects are looking up. Contrasting the party’s sensible, market-based solutions with Washington Democrats’ and economically disastrous “Green New Deal” will help build on this momentum. 

A poll conducted for the NRCC earlier this month looked at voters in 95 competitive congressional districts (54 are held by Democrats and considered NRCC targets, 41 are held by Republicans and considered Democratic targets) and found 59 percent of voters believe this Democratic House has “accomplished not very much or nothing at all.” 62 percent even “agreed that Democrats’ focus on impeachment has hurt Congress’ ability to get more important things done for the country.”

There are reasons for skepticism, both politically and policy-wise. House Republicans have seen a huge number of retirements. On the policy front, these first bills may seem too small to address a problem as big as climate change. It is also hard to make news from the minority in the House, so it’s difficult to say how many voters will even be aware of the initiative. Plus, President Trump, who is more skeptical on climate change and the need to address it, remains a wild card. 

At this point, though, it is clear that McCarthy and House Republicans are making the politically smart calculation that fighting climate change without devastating our economy will be a core pillar of any successful attempt to win back the suburbs, and, with them, the House majority.

Michael Steel is a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies, adjunct professor at Georgetown University, and longtime Republican strategist.

Photograph of a woman voting with her child in Missouri by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

13
By
Comments (13)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Visibly

    Very simply how to get women to support GOP or conservatives: Argue for fiscal conservatism and for liberalism but at the same time for government to protect our nation and our children also after birth. And make sure that you support women’s rights.

    Collapse
  2. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  3. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    Climates change. There is no denying that fact. And global cooling will definitely kill you. The "science" is indeed settled. The predictive models are not science, they are models. Some may be more accurate than others. But yes, carbon dioxide does retain the energy reflected from the earth's surface, and retains little of the energy directly from the sun (differing wavelengths), and it does release some of that energy back to the earth (and some out to space). So yes, man does have an impact.
    So the answer is that the issue must be worked from a scientific view point. Plant trees? How many of what kind, and how large do they have to be (aka time) before they can offset the CO2 from a 63 Chevy Nova. A typical hardwood tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. This means it will sequester approximately 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. Burning one gallon of gas creates 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, and the average car emits about six tons of carbon dioxide every year. Heck of a lot of trees (14 million, mature). There are currently nearly 300 billion trees at least 1-inch in diameter in the U.S.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ray Salemi

    Really? After all those years of denying the science of climate change in the strongest possible terms the Republicans are just going to turn around and say "Just kidding!"

    And we're all supposed to forget the past ten years?

    They could at least say, "Sorry, just kidding."

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Tele

    I’m not sure if I’m a climate change believer, but let’s just say I’m agnostic. I’m in favor of small achievable steps. My family recycles, we planted a lot of trees around our house (new subdivision, no trees). This feels like Burkean responsible change, as opposed to blowing the economy up to do an “everything” that probably cause more harm than good.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Visibly

      Well, everyone can see that the climate is changing. What is the cause or Who is responsible is a different matter. But what are the solutions? I think we can agree on a number of issues, e.g. flood controls on overflooding rivers, fire control in dry areas, protection against hurricanes etc. So let us seek solutions!!

      Collapse
    2. Ann G

      I'd like to see the residential tax credits for solar extended.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Rick Harlan

    The GOP's stand on climate change is not what changed over the last few years, and I doubt a meaningful number of past GOP voters will be won back without certain other changes that are politically impossible at this time. This may or may not be good policy, but as a political strategy, it's just an attempt to look busy for donors or to fool themselves.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    JDW

    I do wonder at the idea that policy gets decided based on getting votes in battleground districts instead of being based on beliefs and ideology. I'm not saying in this case both are not being considered but why is it even a political calculation if you already believe it. If you don't then it very much is a political calculation and is that not bad?

    Maybe politics is just too slimey for me. I like to think I'm an idealist.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Q. Public

      Politicians have always been and will always be very concerned with getting votes. Does anyone really believe that President Obama "changed his mind "on gay marriage between 2008 and 2012? Of course not, but public opinion shifted such that it wasn't politically risky for him to support it anymore. My general feeling is that a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing (when it comes to public policy anyway). If trying to win back the suburbs is what it takes to break GOP opposition to actions on climate change, then so be it.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dave IL

    Good article, Michael. Republicans need to be more vocal, never missing an opportunity to show how much the costs of renewable energy and energy storage have come down since Al Gore's ridiculous demands in 2006. In 2020, government incentives required for migrating to solar, wind and nuclear are justified when compared to the benefits given to the oil industry in the early twentieth century or the nuclear energy at mid-century.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    bitteroot77

    The GOP needs to take back the suburbs and make serious inroads in urban areas, including minorities. We have to give these voters a reason to vote for the R's. This is a good step in that direction. The concern is keeping GOP efforts at climate change, or any issue, market based and flexible.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Lucas

    Cool read Michael. I worry about how extremism and the need to take maximalist positions could hurt sensible approaches to climate change like the ones gone over here. Just another thing to decry polarization for I guess.

    Collapse