Strassell: What Dave Brat Taught Conservatives

"With Washington determined to take a lesson away from Dave Brat's rout of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, let's make sure it's an enduring one," writes Kimberley Strassel at WSJ. "Let's talk 'reform' conservatism."

It happens that Mr. Brat, an economics professor, spent the bulk of his campaign rallying voters to a traditional free-market, pro-growth economic agenda. It centered on a tough criticism of crony capitalism and a clarion call for a flatter and more efficient tax code.

Mr. Brat reprised his themes for Fox News's Sean Hannity the night of his victory, explaining: "We need to take free markets seriously. That means we have to put an end to all these tax credits and tax deductions and loopholes. [Michigan Rep.] Dave Camp had a good bill which simplified the tax code and had a Reagan-esque 10 and 25 percent rate. That made sense and it was going to be pro-growth." This clearly resonated with the 56% of voters who chose to rout a sitting majority leader.

Brat's win, argues Strassel, "is surely awkward for a new wing of the conservative movement that has taken to arguing that the whole free-market, supply-side, Reaganesque agenda is passé." She links Mr. Cantor's "Making Life Work" agenda to the new reformers' manifesto, 'Room to Grow," the central premise of which is that "conservatives need to embrace government to endear themselves to the 'middle class'."

Mr. Cantor never endorsed the more dramatic proposals of the "reformers," though he spoke broadly kind words about "Room to Grow." His "Making Life Work" agenda made him a poster boy of that new GOP impulse to focus on populist initiatives that cater to the middle class.

Mr. Brat openly derided "Making Life Work," referring to its "catchy little phrases to compete with Democrats for votes." As he told Mr. Hannity: "I do not want the federal government trying to make my life work." Mr. Brat also ably tied together the cronyism/complexity/growth arguments to make the case for real tax reform (rather than Democrat-lite tax spending).

The hallmark of conservative policy innovation is the use of markets to limit government and expand citizen freedom and choice. That's reform. The lesson of the Brat-Cantor race is that the traditional reform concept is still popular (and populist). At least when it's delivered with economic understanding and conviction.

Liberals' Inequality Pitch Falls Flat

From WSJ's Kimberley Strassel:

With his disapproval ratings at record highs, his health law flailing, President Obama decided 2014 would be the year for a new agenda. "Inequality has deepened," he warned in the State of the Union. "Upward mobility has stalled." He laid out a roster of populist proposals: more unemployment insurance, raising the federal minimum wage, giving women "equal pay for equal work." The White House and congressional Democrats have since spent every waking minute holding rallies, issuing reports, tweeting and giving interviews on all those issues.

The political calculus is that vulnerable Republicans can be bludgeoned into joining Democrats to support poll-tested and popular pocketbook issues—thereby changing the political subject and rallying the Democratic base. ...

It isn't working this time—at least not yet. The Republican response to date has been a united and calm refusal to fold.

Strassel: Congress's NSA Fail

The subheadline of Kimberly Strassel's lates Potomac Watch column is "politicians demand oversight over intelligence, then make it a point not to know what's going on." Writes Strassel:

One of the jokes of today's call for more intelligence oversight is that no country currently has a greater (or more debilitating) amount of it. No effective intelligence service can disclose its secrets to the public. Democracies handle this by entrusting the peoples' representatives—duly elected—with the solemn task of minding the spies.

Western European countries handle this oversight entirely within the executive branch. The U.S. doles it out to all and sundry: executive, legislative, judicial. If you live in Washington and have a pulse, you too can oversee intelligence.

This system was supposed to legitimize intelligence programs. All it has done is reduce accountability. The existence in particular of a court established in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (and public misperceptions about the FISA court's role) has allowed Congress to pass the buck, freeing politicians from the need to take ownership of intelligence matters.