The election where everybody hates the other side

One thing you have to hand the Founders — they sure knew how to keep voters on their toes.

When they decided to hold biennial elections, they intended to keep elected representatives close to the people and not allow them extended terms in office without having to face the ire or the approval of the voting electorate.

They originally gave senators almost total grace and breathing room by allowing legislatures to appoint them, and now they only have to face the electorate every six years instead of two. Presidents they gave the ultimate long leash by not subjecting them to biennial review and examinations — can anyone imagine the turbulence of having presidential campaigns every other year on top of the congressional and Senate races already in play?

This year will be the 23rd congressional election since 1980. There have been 11 presidential elections. Parties have come to power offering the widest range of differences, ranging from the conservative policies of Ronald Reagan to the liberal policies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Somehow, the republic has survived each transition of power and control of the government. GDP was a mere $2.86 trillion in 1980 and is now in excess of $32.4 trillion.

While the two major parties have offered very different views of how much government we should have, the bottom line was that both supported the constitutional free-market capitalist system we have had since the beginning. Neither tried to tear it apart by the seams, no doubt due to the large number of Southern Democrats who used to hold such sway in the national party.

Each off-year congressional election gets overblown as a referendum on the incumbent president because it is easier for a voter to focus on one individual than it is to evaluate the policies of a national party with members from all over the country.

This year might be different because it could be shaping up as an intense campaign of voters deciding to vote against the other side more so than voting for specific policies. Voters typically need solid reasons to vote for one side rather than solely as a protest vote against the other.

It is hard to find an election cycle in recent history when both sides are so diametrically opposed and the winning side in November could be the party that is least hated by the American public instead of being the most loved. Many polls say more than 50% of the public has an unfavorable view of Trump. According to RealClearPolitics, the Democratic Party is viewed unfavorably by more than 54% in the average of its polls. Carrying the banners of higher taxes, more regulation, less freedom, open borders, tolerance of crime in the streets and any number of foreign policy positions — such as ending aid to Israel — hardly seems to be the way to build an attractive, positive landing place for a wave of American voters this fall.

Attacking the Democratic Party in light of such poor ratings is a tempting strategy for Republicans this fall. However, Republican campaign mastermind Lee Atwater, who made a career out of driving up negative unfavorable ratings of an opponent to win many races, always made sure his Republican candidates had positive policies and outlooks for the future to offer voters in return for their rejection of the opposite side.

The question for each voter then becomes which side has enough mature, seasoned and reasonable candidates who can tackle the big problems we want them to face and solve.

Make no mistake about it, if Democrats win majority control of the House, every waking moment under their leadership will be directed toward impeaching Trump yet again. There won’t be one second to consider legislation that will help American families find better jobs at higher salaries and wages. There won’t be any time or inclination to further protect our border or help reduce the burdens on our healthcare system that have been driving up costs far in excess of the rate of inflation since the mid-1970s.

What can Republicans do to attract remaining undecided voters to support their candidates this fall? They might consider acting as if they are the adults in the room who know how to manage things in a crisis and highlight their record of keeping people safe. They can also reassure citizens they can find and keep jobs while raising their children as they see fit and not default parental responsibility to left-leaning school boards or activists who want to do it instead.

They might want to repeat the pro-growth policies and fiscal responsibility at the federal level that led to the U.S. economy expanding tenfold since 1980. They have a story to tell and a governing philosophy to sell if they choose to do it.