Ro Khanna should run again, but as a Republican

Democrat Ro Khanna has conceded victory to Democrat Mike Honda in the race for the 17th Congressional District. Khanna should run against Honda again in 2 years, but this time Khanna should switch parties and run as a Republican. Here's why.

In this last election, California's new nonpartisan blanket primary prevented a Republican candidate from getting enough votes to appear on the final ballot. So, the race ended up being between the two Democrats, Honda and Khanna. Khanna, although a Democrat, received almost no support from the Democratic Party. Honda, on the other hand, was backed by almost every state and national Democratic leader, by the California Democratic Party, and by the traditional allies of the Democratic Party, namely the public service employee unions (like the teachers unions), Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, and black and Hispanic leaders. (For a more detailed discussion of who the respective supporters of Honda and Khanna were, see here.) It is next to impossible for a Democrat to win an election against another Democrat without the backing of the Democratic Party.

Many of Khanna’s positions are consistent with positions advocated by Republicans. For example:

• Khanna is in favor of reforming budget-busting pensions of public service employees. The leader of the pension reform movement is former Democratic San Jose mayor, Chuck Reed, who endorsed Khanna. (For more background on Chuck Reed's battles with the public service employee unions, see here.) Reed also endorsed Sam Liccardo in the race for mayor of San Jose. Liccardo, another advocate for public employee pension reform, won his race, and this victory was hailed by the Wall Street Journal as a "Reform Breakthrough." The union reform movement in the South Bay, led by Reed, Liccardo, and Khanna, is very similar in spirit to the union reforms that Republican Governor Scott Walker brought about in Wisconsin through the passage of Wisconsin Act 10, for which Walker has been vilified and attacked by the public unions (including through a recall election, which Walker won). Honda, on the other hand, was endorsed by the San Jose Police Officers union, which has opposed Chuck Reed and the pension reform movement at every turn.
• Khanna supports the Vergara vs State of California decision. The Vergara decision rules that California state laws giving tenure, seniority and other job protections to public school teachers deprive students of their constitutional right to an adequate education. The Wall Street Journal editorial page hailed the decision as a "School Reform Landmark." In contrast, Democratic California Governor Jerry Brown, with the support of the teachers unions, immediately appealed the decision. By supporting the Vergara decision, Khanna once again reveals himself as supporting the kind of reform of public employee unions that Republican Scott Walker brought about in Wisconsin. Honda, on the other hand, (like Jerry Brown, who endorsed him) opposed the Vergara decision. For more information on Khanna's support for Vergara and Honda's opposition to it, see here.
• Khanna supports patent reform. Patent reform is an issue that is near and dear to the hearts of Silicon Valley executives. Enormous amounts of money are lost every year by Silicon Valley companies in patent litigation. And yet, last May, when the Senate Judiciary Committee was about to send a patent reform bill for a vote by the full Senate, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked the legislation on orders from the trial lawyers, another major ally of the Democratic Party. Republicans, on the other hand, promise unqualified support for patent reform. This week, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R., Texas) said that lawmakers are “absolutely” going to pass a patent-reform bill next year when Republicans take control. Khanna supports patent reform. Honda has also declared himself in favor of patent reform. But, one must ask oneself: Who would be more likely to be an effective advocate in favor of patent reform, Honda, who is beholden to the mainstream Democratic Party and its ally, the trial lawyers, or Khanna if he switched to the Republican Party?
Khanna opposes SCA-5. SCA-5 was a proposed amendment to the California state constitution that sought to reintroduce affirmative action into the admission process at California public universities. It was passed by the California State Senate on a party-line vote, with Democrats all voting in favor, and Republicans all voting against. It then ran into strong opposition from Indian- and Asian-Americans, who realized that, if affirmative action were introduced to increase the number of black and Hispanic students in California universities, this would inevitably result in a reduction in the number of places for Indian- and Asian-American students. For more information on the controversy surrounding SCA-5 and on the opposition to it in the Indian- and Asian-American communities, see here. Honda has also declared himself opposed to SCA-5. But, one must again ask oneself: Who would would be more likely to be an effective opponent of SCA-5, Honda, who is beholden to the mainstream Democratic Party, which introduced SCA-5 and voted unanimously in favor of it, or Khanna if he switched to the Republican Party?

Khanna has already been vilified as a "Republican-lite." For example, The San Francisco Sentinel reported:

Even Howard Dean, a Honda supporter and founder of Democracy for America, voiced his confusion in a mass email on Wednesday: “As the former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, it’s obvious to me that Ro Khanna is campaigning like a Republican,” Dean wrote. “Real Democrats don’t use ‘liberal’ as an epithet or attack fellow Democrats for standing up for progressive values like making sure the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.”

So, if many of Ro Khanna's positions are consistent with Republican positions and he is already being labeled by Democrats as a Republican and denied any support by the Democratic Party, Khanna might as well take the final step and run as a Republican. That way, he could receive political and financial support from the Republican Party and Republican PAC's.

Of course, the larger point here is that Ro Khanna was also almost universally supported by Silicon Valley high-tech executives and workers for backing the very positions outlined above. What that means is that many of the positions these executives and workers support are supported by the Republican Party and opposed by the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party also attacks Silicon Valley on an almost daily basis for a variety of other reasons, for example, for not having a diverse enough workforce or for not paying enough taxes or for contributing to income inequality. For more information on all the attacks being mounted by the Democratic Party and Progressives in general against Silicon Valley, see here. Maybe it is time for Silicon Valley executives and workers to realize that their traditional close alignment with the Democratic Party is unwarranted and that their interests would be much better served if they aligned themselves more closely with the Republicans.

(As an aside, I must acknowledge that maybe there is a "third way." Yes, many of Ro Khanna's positions are also held by Republicans, but, Ro Khanna, Chuck Reed, and Sam Liccardo hardly resemble mainstream Republicans, either, and could not be elected in the South Bay running on traditional Republican platforms. Perhaps, Khanna, Reed, and Liccardo represent the kernel/vanguard of a third party, neither Republican nor Democrat, but one that adopts various reasonable positions from and avoids the extremes of both parties. Such a third party could likely find abundant support -- including financial support from high-tech billionaires -- in Silicon Valley and begin to expand from there. Perhaps Silicon Valley is on the verge of revolutionizing the political landscape in the same way it has revolutionized the business landscape over the last several decades.)