Why Don't New Jersey Democrats Fear Republicans Anymore?

This week, New Jersey Democrats passed the largest state budget in state history.

Republicans objected to both the process and the spending. They argued that legislators had less than two hours to review hundreds of pages of budget legislation before late-night committee votes. They offered amendments. They posted on social media. They criticized the record spending. They voted no.

However, two Republicans who represent parts of Ocean and Monmouth Counties, State Sen. Robert Singer (R-Lakewood) and Assemblyman Sean Kean (R-Wall), even voted with the Democrats to approve the budget. Now, the Democrats can claim it was a bi-partisan accomplishment. Others will label it hypocrisy.

But the budget itself is not the real issue.

The real issue is why did the Democratic leaders appeared perfectly comfortable moving forward exactly as they did.

Which raises a far more important question:

Why did they not hesitate even a little?

Most Republicans answer that question by pointing to the Democratic supermajority arguing that they did not have to.

While probably true, that just explains how Democrats passed the budget. It does not explain why they appeared so politically comfortable doing so.

Representative government was never intended to function only through elections every few years. It was designed to function through continuous accountability.

And accountability begins with something rarely discussed anymore:

Hesitation in order to consider the consequences before acting.

Government should hesitate and think twice before exercising power.

It should hesitate and think twice before approving the largest budget in state history.

It should hesitate and think twice before asking taxpayers to finance even more spending.

It should hesitate and think twice before expanding its authority.

It is one of the greatest protections from government that the people possess.

Why?

Because government does not own political power.

It temporarily holds that power in trust for the people.

The purpose of an opposition party is not simply to vote “no” after legislation has already been written. Its purpose is to create enough public scrutiny and enough political consequence that those entrusted with power “hesitate and think twice” before exercising it.

Effective representative democracies rely not only on governing parties but also on effective opposition parties. Several core functions of an opposition include scrutinizing legislation before enactment, developing policy alternatives, informing public debate, coordinating legislative strategy, and increasing accountability through sustained oversight.

Evaluating an opposition therefore involves more than counting seats in a legislature. Questions such as whether it shapes the public agenda, influences legislative outcomes, maintains organizational discipline, or presents coherent alternatives provide one way to assess its institutional effectiveness.

The recent budget process in New Jersey offers a case study to consider these questions and most likely conclude that the NJ GOP engages in little to none of those functions. It has become an irrelevant, impotent shell of an organization that exists in name only at this point.

Looking beyond any single budget or election, these broader institutional questions remain relevant regardless of which party holds power. A healthy democracy depends not only on competitive elections but also on meaningful scrutiny, public debate, and the capacity of governing parties to respond to criticism and alternative proposals.

Without such hesitation or potential consequences, accountability begins to disappear.

Without accountability, government naturally becomes more comfortable exercising power.

The recently adopted budget is simply the latest example.

Every governing majority responds to political incentives.

If there is little political cost to passing another record budget as in this case, why would any governing majority voluntarily restrain itself?

That brings us to the question almost no one in New Jersey is asking.

Who Keeps the Democrats Awake at Night?

Think about it.

Which Republican consistently forces Democrats to hesitate and consider the political consequences about something they consider doing?

Which Republican makes them lose sleep the night before a controversial vote?

Which Republican makes them stop and ask:

“Can we politically afford to do this?”

Can you name one?

If you struggled to answer that question, perhaps you have identified the real problem.

Whether one agreed or disagreed with every decision made by former Governor Chris Christie is beside the point. During his administration, Democratic leaders understood that every major initiative would face relentless public scrutiny and determined political opposition. They had to account for him or discount him at their own peril.

The same principle applied to Governor Tom Kean. While his style differed from Christie’s, he became a political leader whose credibility, effectiveness, and public standing commanded respect across party lines. Democrats understood that ignoring him carried political consequences.

Nationally, former Speaker Newt Gingrich fundamentally changed the political landscape by forcing a governing majority to respond to a disciplined, organized, and unapologetic opposition. Whether one agreed with his agenda or not, Democrats could not afford to dismiss him.

That was not fear of personalities. It was respect for political consequences.

Who fills that role in New Jersey today?

If no one comes to mind, then perhaps the greatest advantage Democrats possess is not their supermajority.

Rather, it is the absence of an opposition capable of creating meaningful political consequences.

Republicans frequently whine about why Democrats continue passing legislation conservatives oppose.

I believe they should consider the question:

What reason have Republicans given Democrats to hesitate and think twice before doing so?

What consequences have the Republicans prepared for such actions?

Until those questions are answered, we should not expect different results in Trenton.

Government rarely restrains itself. It responds to incentives.

The first responsibility of an opposition party is not simply to oppose. It is to ensure that those entrusted with power never become too comfortable exercising it.

Representative government does not depend upon good intentions.

It depends upon accountability.

And accountability begins with hesitation and forcing the other side to think twice about what it is doing or face potential political consequences.