The Geography Of Success

The diversity of GOP-held districts boosts the party's message.

Congress passed a flurry of important legislation just before its August recess, but the breakdown for one vote, in particular, reveals the state of the majority and minority parties in the House. On July 28, when the House passed legislation to implement the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a razor-thin 217-215, 42 members voted against the position taken by their party's leadership-27 Republicans and 15 Democrats. The fact that so many Republicans broke ranks on an issue dear to the Bush administration and House leadership is actually a sign of the GOP majority's vigor. The party might not have a large edge by historical standards, but it now holds congressional seats representing enough geographically and socioeconomically diverse constituencies-232 seats in all-that it has become close to impossible to achieve unanimity on consequential issues.

This is especially obvious when it comes to trade policy. Republicans hold nine of the Top 10 manufacturing districts in the House and 34 of the Top 50, which means the GOP majority now includes both free traders and members from economically hard-hit districts once exclusively held by Democrats. These members are obliged to vote with district interests on trade, as four North Carolina Republicans did when they opposed CAFTA. Likewise, GOP strength in rural America produced Republicans who opposed the agreement over its agriculture provisions.

Trade is only one issue where the broad range of Republican-held congressional districts becomes apparent. Notable intraparty divisions also have surfaced on Amtrak funding, veterans' benefits spending, Social Security and immigration-all reflections of the GOP's disparate constituencies.

This broad collection of districts acts like a brake on the party's impulse to veer to the right. House Democrats, by contrast, are increasingly concentrated in heavily Democratic, big-city and university-oriented districts that lack such a braking mechanism. This has created a politically tin-eared party represented by members whose districts are a vast echo chamber. They return home each weekend and hear only a stream of invective against President Bush and little else. It's only natural for them to presume that the Bush administration or the Iraq war or any number of other GOP initiatives are wildly unpopular, since that is the primary feedback they receive.

There are 20 Democrat-held congressional districts, for example, where Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry won an astonishing 80 percent or more of the vote in 2004. By contrast, there isn't a single district where Bush won 80 percent or more. In 91 Democratic districts, Kerry won 60 percent or more-figures that are well out of proportion to his vote in the rest of the nation.

In one sense, Democrats might be said to suffer from the geography of defeat. The collection of monolithically Democratic districts skews the party's message and sometimes blinds the Democratic Caucus to what constitutes mainstream political thinking. Consider the type of districts represented by both parties' top leaders. Back when Democrats were the House majority, Speaker Tom Foley held a seat that gave Ronald Reagan 60 percent in 1984. His district offered a close approximation of the popular vote. Today, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi represents a California district that gave an 85 percent landslide to Kerry. Compare that with House Speaker Dennis Hastert's Illinois-based seat: There, Bush won just 55 percent, only four points above his national average of 51 percent.

Republicans, of course, hold lots of monolithically partisan districts and elect a fair share of sharp partisans, too. But by necessity, the party is now forced to temper its approach because a growing number of its districts are not enamored of free trade or reduced federal spending or smaller government.