The GOP has problems. Saying "no" too often isn't one of them.

Megan McCardle argues that the inability of House Republicans to elect a Speaker is symptomatic of a deeper problem — the fact that Republicans aren’t in favor of enough things. I think the explanation is much simpler — the GOP majority is tiny and a handful of immature and irresponsible members of its caucus wouldn’t support Kevin McCarthy or Steve Scalise, a rock solid conservative.

McCardle reports that when she asked a “political analyst” to name things Republican voters want, the analyst was able to name only control of our borders and more development of fossil fuels.

McCardle should stop talking to this analyst. As she admits, Republican voters also want big changes in education policy; a roll back of wokeism in corporations and the media; a roll back of DEI; an end to doctors pushing kids into puberty blockers and hormones; and less government spending.

She might have added a ban on men competing in women’s sports; a roll back of government regulations and a general curtailment of the administrative state; and tougher anti-crime policies (although Trump and congressional Republicans betrayed the country on that one).

McCardle points out, however, that most of the items on her list aren’t things that Congress can fix. It can’t, for example, control the policies and views of corporations and media outlets; nor can it do much about the way local schools teach.

McCardle is right. But it’s hardly a scoop to say that Republicans don’t favor lots of new federal legislation. That’s the traditional conservative view. We believe that most legislative initiatives are either (1) attempts to parlay non-problems or vastly exaggerated ones into increased government power or (2) likely to have consequences — intended or unintended — that will make things worse. Many proposed bills are defective in both respects.

Despite this approach, Republicans have, until very recently, been able to elect Speakers easily. They have also been able to win a reasonable share of congressional elections.

McCardle notes that the Democrats’ traditionally liberal desire to pass lots of bills gives them an advantage when it comes to holding their caucus together. The Dems, she says, are willing to set aside differences because they are so eager to legislate.

She’s right. Additional explanations for Democrat unity might include their single-minded lust for power (quite apart from their desire to legislate) and the acumen of Nancy Pelosi.

Even so, it would be interesting to see whether the Democrats, if they had a majority as razor-thin as the GOP’s, could hold their caucus together well enough to back an aid package to Ukraine and Israel. Getting Reps. Tlaib, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. to vote “yes” on that one would pose a test even Pelosi would be unlikely to pass.

In trying to counter McCardle’s case, I don’t mean to suggest that all is well with Republicans. A party that seems poised to nominate Donald Trump for a third time is not a healthy party.

But being the party of “no” isn’t what ails the GOP. America needs a party that tends to say no. And to paraphrase Paul Newman in his best role, given what Democrats are saying yes to, “sometimes no can be a real cool hand.”