Mike Lawler Plants His Flag on Common Ground

A “Democrats for Mike Lawler” sign sits in the window of the GOP field office in Pearl River. The two-term incumbent is the indigenous political creature of a district like New York’s 17th, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 80,000. For his third act in one of the most competitive and expensive races in the country, he’ll have to coax over many of these voters while accounting for all the idiosyncrasies in the Republican coalition to retain their support. It’s a game of compromise-and-barter, often featuring prevarication on his relationship with President Donald Trump, as he points to his ranking as the fourth-most bipartisan member of the House and reminds voters that he’s there to legislate and deliver for the district, especially if that means compromise.

“Look, I am a conservative Republican, but I have always looked at the substance of issues and tried to find common ground on them,” he told National Review in a sit-down in his office. “The reality of governing is you’re not going to get everything you want. I think too many people are absolutists and want 100 percent or nothing. And I think nothing is a terrible solution. So, I’d rather get 80 percent of what I want than nothing.”

Lawler has made his reputation by being relentlessly available to his constituents, while burnishing the image of a House workhorse, bringing more than 120 bills to the floor in just four years, seeing 17 signed into law, and cosponsoring 1,258, second to Brian Fitzpatrick’s 1,287, who’s waging an identical reelection campaign in a purple Pennsylvania district.

This productivity, as well as the fact that Lawler has cosponsored hundreds of Democratic-backed initiatives in the House, makes him popular among his coworkers. “I strongly back him, and I hope voters send him back to work,” wrote outgoing Democratic Representative Jared Golden in an endorsement. “If there’s a Republican we want in Congress, it’s Lawler,” an anonymous Democratic staffer whispered to Axios in July. Of course, a representative on the way out and an anonymous staffer who won’t have to answer to Hakeem Jefferies don’t speak for the party at large, but Lawler has undeniably gotten along with House Democrats, who, not incidentally, fret that they “don’t think Lawler is beatable.”

Recent polling puts his Democratic opponent Cait Conley at a two-point lead among likely NY-17 voters, but polls have historically underpredicted Lawler’s performance, and his reputation among Democrats proves a challenge to the 16-year Army veteran.

But in spending so much effort courting Democrats, does Lawler compromise on his “conservative, Republican” principles? Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has repeatedly charged that he’s a “RINO,” or “maybe even a Democrat,” for his bipartisan appeal.

Lawler stands by his conservative bona fides: “I mean, I’m not a Democrat, so I’m not subscribing to socialism and cashless bail and open borders and sanctuary policies and, you know, freeze the rent and . . . seize the means of production.”

He still argues that despite the chasm between the parties, common ground can be found.

Take immigration:

I want the border secure. I don’t want one single person coming through the border illegally. I want criminals deported. I want proof of citizenship in our elections. I want sanctuary cities and states banned. But I also believe that you need to fix the immigration system because deporting everybody is not a solution either. And if you have people who have been in this country ten, 15, 20 years, whose children and grandchildren are American citizens, and they haven’t committed a crime and they’re working in the community, yeah, there should be a path towards legalization, not citizenship, but legalization, so they have legal status to remain here and work. If you’re not working, you’re out. If you commit a crime, you’re out.

With affordability as his “No. 1 issue,” Lawler’s critics on the left have brought attention to his support for Trump’s tariffs and the military operation in Iran, which have increased gas and other living costs ahead of the midterms. His support for the president on these issues creates a clear political risk. But Lawler contends that the affordability problem grows from decades of policy blunders and that other goals, like reviving post-industrial communities and ensuring Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, are worth temporary pains to bring future prosperity.

“When you go in upstate New York and you see the devastation that’s been wrought along the I-90 corridor because these cities have lost their manufacturing base, and now they have no tax base, and their social safety net continues to grow, that’s a problem. And so, what the president effectively tried to do on tariffs is force trade renegotiations, force businesses to bring their investments back to the United States,” he said, acknowledging the administration “erred on the constant volatility” of the tariffs. Lawler said he doesn’t support them as a “long-term policy.”

As for the Middle East, he told NR that a nuclear Iran and the threat it poses to the surrounding commercial waterways represent “a far greater economic impact than an effort to ensure that they do not have a nuclear weapon.”

Broadly speaking, he sees hyperpolarization, exacerbated by gerrymandering, as one of the biggest impediments to “actually getting work done” in Congress. “I think it’s the most destructive force, because I’m one of, like, 20 seats that are actually competitive,” he said, as opposed to elections a few decades prior where far more would be ranked competitive. As a result, he said, the people who work toward cross-party consensus “get whacked,” whether by their own party or the opposition.

“So people on the right call me a RINO. People on the left say I’m MAGA Mike,” he told NR, sounding exasperated. “No. I’m just myself. And I say what I believe.”