The Curious Case of David Brat

The Curious Case of David Brat

 By Michael Busler and Wendy Bidwell

In a shocking result, newcomer David Brat defeated six term congressman Eric Cantor by a whopping 11% margin. While most analysts blame Cantor's loss on a number of factors from low voter turnout to Cantor's views on immigration, the real reason for his defeat may be simpler to see. And it is very curious.

David Brat spent about $230,000 on his campaign compared to the almost $5.7 million spent by Cantor. With that amount of spending by Cantor and with his savvy election team, he should have easily won. Yet he lost. Maybe the loss was simply because the voters had different views than Cantor.

According to The Week, ". . . perhaps the most telling explanatory anecdote on why Cantor lost is that on the morning of the primary, he was meeting with well-heeled GOP donors at a Capitol Hill Starbucks." Cantor was successful in raising money for his own campaigns as well as for other GOP candidates, with top donors in the financial services sector, real estate industry, and insurance industry. The Week goes on to say...

Cantor is a big supporter and defender of the U.S. federal Export-Import Bank, which, among its subsidies of U.S. exports helps foreign airlines buy Boeing jets. Lots of them — $10 billion worth, Boeing estimated in May.

As soon as Cantor lost, Boeing's share price went down. According to this weekend's New York Times, "The share price of Boeing tumbled, wiping out all the gains it had made this year, a drop analysts attributed to the startling defeat."

 

According to Bloomberg, "As Congress debates reauthorization, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas is being promoted as a possible Cantor successor. He has said the U.S. should 'exit the Ex-Im.'" If the Ex-Im Bank isn't renewed by the end of September, the existing deals can stand, but new ones wouldn't be considered.

 

David Brat had a relatively simple message and vowed to fight to end crony capitalist programs. As an economics professor he understood that America became great and our economy flourished because of the basic concept of freedom. We generally encouraged a free market economy with minimal government intervention. That was primarily the theme until 2008 when the American people elected a president who promised to fundamentally change the country. Maybe the voters don't like the change.

 

Mr. Brat is a highly educated and deeply religious man who has a Masters of Divinity degree, to supplement his Doctorate in Economics. Most people who view economics as a social science believe that ethically those who contribute the most to the economy and therefore earn the most income have a responsibility to provide for those who, for whatever reason, have not earned enough to support themselves in a lifestyle that is deemed appropriate. As a result, these economists favor re-distributing income by taking more from the earners and giving more to the non-earners.

 

For the last five and a half years, the current administration has been able to raise taxes on the largest contributors and increase transfer payments to the others by increasing food stamp payments, increasing welfare payments, increasing unemployment benefit payments and paying subsidies to buy health insurance. To pay for this, the income tax rate was raised for the largest contributors as well as raising taxes on capital gains and dividends. And where has that gotten us?

 

Virtually nowhere. The unemployment rate remains stubbornly high as few jobs are being created. The percentage of adults contributing or willing to contribute to the economy is at a 40 year low. Economic growth barely exceeds population growth. Income inequality is worsening. Poverty rates are increasing. And Americans feel a sense of gloom as there appears to be little opportunity in this, the supposed "Land of Opportunity."

 

David Brat had a simple, easy to understand message that hit a nerve with voters in Virginia and may likely be appealing to voters across the country. He simply said that we should return to the principles that made the U.S. a great country. Although his religious and ethical beliefs are strong and well founded, he believes that to help people improve their plight, the government should provide opportunity not unearned handouts which tend to create a culture of dependency.

 

As we approach the mid-term elections, instead of wondering whether or not Brat's victory emboldened the "Tea Party" or what this will mean for Mississippi, let's consider that the electoral process simply worked as it should. A Virginia district was tired of their congressman and voted him out. Publicly that congressman was a dignified, gracious loser and a complete gentleman, never sulking or casting blame. Now a man with a simpler message will serve those constituents…

 

But if you are looking for some broader takeaway, this election could indicate many Americans are ready to give up on the experiment in social justice and return to the principles that made America great.