‘Purifying’ the GOP – by closing primaries? — The Longer View

Napoleon famously said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

No one interrupted him when, in an act of extreme military hubris and political ego, he invaded Russia. We all know how that turned out.
And no one – certainly not a Democrat! – is interrupting Republican Party leaders suing to force closure of Idaho’s primary elections.
What the Republican Party’s most extreme wing wants is obvious: Exclude from voting in Republican primaries any Idahoans unwilling to swear allegiance to the party (i.e., independents, moderates, middle-of-the-roaders) … “purifying the party,” if you will.
Politicians, like anyone else, should be careful what they ask for. They may get it – but it may come with attached, unanticipated consequences.
Republicans have dominated state politics for so long, they’ve come to take for granted their “majority” (compared to Democrats) status – dangerously ignoring the reality that they’re still a minority in the total electorate, stacked against the combination of Democrat and independent voters.
The best historical record of Idaho’s political leanings is in the annual Public Policy surveys conducted by Boise State University’s Social Science Research Center. For a decade, the respected BSU poll has annually asked Idahoans if they are Republicans, Democrats or Independents?
Not surprisingly, the results usually show more than 40 percent count themselves Republicans, 20-some percent admit to being Democrats, and more than 30 percent stubbornly claim “Independent” status.
But the BSU surveys show an interesting trend developing over the past four years.
In 2005, the mix was 47 percent Republican (a historic high), 18 percent Democrat, and 29 percent Independent. Then the relationships became volatile. In 2006, Republicans dropped five points to 42 percent, Democrats dipped to 17 percent, but (hello!) Independents rose seven points to 36 percent – in other words, a number of Republicans and a few Democrats shifted into the political middle. The 2007 poll just marked time – Republicans gaining two points, Democrats one.
But look at the 2008 survey: Republicans dropped to 40 percent (lowest in five years), Democrats gained seven points to 25 percent (the biggest one-year change for either party), and Independents dropped four points to 28 percent. Obviously, some erstwhile Republican voters moved toward Independent status, and some Independents shifted to Democrat.
Granted, any party would relish 40 percent support – but 40 percent won’t get you a victory in a general election. Republicans, in most parts of the state, don’t get elected with Republican votes alone. Despite their numerical advantage, they still need to carve into the Independent bloc to win.
I’ve always felt (subjectively, because there’s no political science to prove it) that roughly two-thirds of the “undecided” in a campaign wind up voting Republican in the general election. In other words, if your late-campaign poll shows the Republican candidate with 40 percent, the Democrat with 30 percent, and undecided at 30 percent, the Republican ultimately comes out with around a 60-40 win.
The point is, the broad middle of the political spectrum is the battleground both parties invade to pick up the votes to win elections – and this is precisely the area being surrendered by attempts to “purify” Republican primaries.
Media coverage of this Republican lawsuit so far has focused on preventing political independents from voting in the primary. That’s a legitimate concern; decreasing the opportunity for political participation is exactly contrary to our wide-open system. It’s already hard enough to get people to go to the polls.
But the long-range major political impacts should concern Republican leaders.
If party registration is required, Independents who normally would vote in a Republican primary will, predictably, do one of three things: Sign on the Republican dotted line, decide to vote in the Democratic primary, or simply drop out of the process – and two of those three things hurt Republicans.
In a primary where only “pure” Republicans (i.e., the most conservative) are allowed to vote, the eventual party nominee will – surprise, surprise – be the most conservative candidate (in place of “conservative,” feel free to substitute “right-wing,” “extremist,” or the pejorative label of your choice).
On the other side, middle-of-the-roaders voting in Democratic primaries will pull that party toward the political center – expanding Democratic access to the center of the political spectrum, where the decisive votes are.
That impacts the general election, which in many cases will then match an unusually conservative (even for Idaho) Republican candidate against a now more-moderate Democrat candidate – multiplying Democrat victory chances.
No wonder Idaho Democrats are excitedly watching Republicans load their 12-gauge shotguns and take careful aim at their big toes.
From the Republican standpoint, in a state where they hold every statewide office and have 75 percent of all the legislative seats, where’s the problem with the system in place for the past 36 years?
In baseball, the “best trade” sometimes is the one you didn’t make. In Idaho politics, all Republicans have to do to continue dominance is … leave well enough alone.

Steve Ahrens is the retired president of the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry and a former political editor of The Idaho Statesman.