Doug Mastriano is proof the GOP is weak

When I first learned about politics back in the ‘90s, political parties didn’t have a great reputation. Party leaders were generally seen as the enemy of progress and popular government, and the “smoke-filled rooms” of secret deals were responsible for holding back the people’s authentic voice. Powerful interests looked after themselves to the exclusion of the average voter.

That spirit was captured in the campaign finance fights of the early 2000s, resulting in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — better known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Among the changes that law introduced was a strict limitation on the use of so-called “soft money.” Specifically, the law limited how much money the political party could raise for (and spend on) “party-building” activities, including promoting their preferred candidates.

» READ MORE: Is Trump really a ‘kingmaker’? Let’s see what happens from his Oz endorsement. | Opinion

This seemed like a fine idea at the time, designed to increase the power of the average voter and decrease that of the vested interests. In practice, it has led to the decline of thoughtful decision-making and the rise of chaotic primaries like the one Pennsylvania just conducted.

As long as politicians exercise control over money, people who have money will use it to exercise control over politicians. So the money didn’t disappear from politics after McCain-Feingold; instead, it was forced into new channels, such as political action committees that spend private money on campaigns.

That is not bad in itself, but by preventing political parties from doing the same, McCain-Feingold weakened important institutions without creating anything else in their place. Each party is now made up of many voices all saying different things, with no one to moderate and find a consensus.

The result is a party like the Pennsylvania GOP that is so weak and divided, so cowed by the various campaigns’ consultants, that, for the first time in decades, it did not bother to endorse a candidate in 2022.

Parties, it must be said, did not always get things right. Nor were they free of corruption and influence-peddling. But all major political parties are motivated by one goal: to elect their candidates to office. With that end in mind, they will work to produce nominees who are likely to have the support of all or most of the party, and who also can appeal to independents and even (if you’re lucky) some members of the other party.

In this, the Pennsylvania Republican Party has utterly failed in its nomination of Doug Mastriano. Because there are so many reasons to believe that he has no hope of winning.

Popular passion is important in politics, and populism itself is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing phenomenon. But the doubts about Mastriano’s candidacy — despite his attempt to portray them as the work of “the swamp,” “the establishment,” or “dark money” — reflect legitimate concerns of many Republican voters (like me) who want to elect a conservative as governor and who see Mastriano’s association with fringe elements (like QAnon) as deadly to his candidacy.

Hardcore partisans are often content to make a point. That is essentially what voters do when they vote Libertarian or Green, and it is what Mastriano’s supporters have done in selecting a candidate with almost no hope of winning. But many conservative voters don’t just want to make a point — they want to make policy. They want to pass laws they believe will improve the lives of the average Pennsylvanian. And to do this, they want to win.

“We need to give more power back to the party, so they can lead us through the chaos, choose and boost a winning candidate, and further a conservative agenda.”

A stronger party could have prevented this. Come November, Pennsylvanians could have had the choice between two compelling, electable candidates in this swing state, two people competing for the votes and support of the majority. We have, instead, a fit of pique by the voters who elected Mastriano, where we should have an attempt to govern.

We need to give more power back to the party, so it can lead us through the chaos, choose and boost a winning candidate, and further a conservative agenda.

I know I will get some flak for suggesting this. There is nothing more “establishment” than saying “leave it up to the experts,” and Mastriano supporters will see messages like this one as little more than “Republican In Name Only” (RINO) whining. I also know that experts have not had a great run lately, from the war in Iraq to the 2008 credit crunch.

But that does not mean that all experts are wrong on all points, nor does it mean that doing the opposite is necessarily correct. The reason we have political parties is to organize the very chaotic process of electing the people’s representatives. To ask the average voter to learn about every candidate for every office is a heavy lift; to ask people who run the party to do it is not. It is literally their job.

Pennsylvania’s governor will play a crucial role in our day-to-day lives over the next four years. From schools to COVID-19 to abortion, the state legislature is bound to pass laws in the next four years in which conservatives have an interest. The Democratic candidate, Josh Shapiro, will make decisions that most conservatives won’t like. By effectively ensuring Shapiro’s election as governor, Mastriano’s wing of the Republican Party will deny conservatives a meaningful voice on how these issues are decided.

Maybe the smoke-filled room deserves a second look.

Kyle Sammin is editor-at-large at Broad + Liberty.