Fiorina suggests that sorting can explain the increasingly polarized nature of elections and recent voting trends. I think he is on to something. Recently people have begun to really sort themselves out and the parties have recognized this sorting and adapted. Despite the recent trend, this is not the first time in U.S. history that this has happened. FDR's New Deal coalition brought rural and urban laborers together with African-Americans. Because of the poor state of the Great Depression he was able to get all of them to recognize their shared economic interests. But even prior to FDR, the country has sorted itself around common interests.
If we think back to the pre-Civil War era when the Democrats were the only truly strong party, they were popular in all parts of the nation. But eventually the sides began to even themselves out geographically. Because the Democrats were Southern in their roots, they naturally allied with the institution of slavery (while the Whigs were stronger in the North). As this issue grew hotter, northerners began to rally in their opposition to slavery. Before the Republican Party was created Southern Whigs and Northern Democrats were forced to make a decision. Were Southern Whigs going to continue to favor larger government involvement in the economy, but continue to support slavery? Or were they going to abandon their party and join the Democratic coalition. While on the other hand, northern Democrats were forced to choose to remain in their party and accept slavery (much to the chagrin of their constituents)? Or were they going to bolt the party and either join the Whigs (which were fading away) or the GOP. It culminated in 1860 when Lincoln put together a dominant northern coalition and the Confederacy supported the Democrat.
In the 1930s FDR was able win in a landslide based on broad support from urban and rural workers who coalesced based on economic issues. This coalition remained largely intact until the 1960s when southerners began to abandon the party because of Lyndon Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Since then people have been sorting themselves out based on contemporary issues. Southerners, who have always adopted a smaller government, lower taxes ideology began to work around those and other conservative issues. On the other hand, the other two significant fragments of the Democratic Party (urban workers and African-Americans) have remained with the party.
Because of the fraction of the New Deal coalition, people with conservative ideologies have abandoned the Democratic Party in favor of the Republican Party and liberals have largely left the GOP for the Dems. Thus there has been a natural shift on behalf of both parties. Because there are fewer liberals in the Republican Party, it has naturally moved to the ideological right. The same is true for the Democratic Party. Since fewer conservatives consider themselves Democrats, the party has naturally moved to the left.
This was clearly demonstrated in 2000 and 2004. In 2000 George W. Bush received 81% of the conservative vote. In 2004 that number jumped to 84%. Not a significant increase, but still a rise. Something similar could be said about the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama received 88% of the votes of those who consider themselves liberals. By contrast, John Kerry received 85% of the votes of liberals. So again, not a significant jump, but it was an increase nonetheless.
Another interesting way to look at sorting is by looking at the religion of the candidates. In 2000 George W. Bush received 56% of the Protestant vote. That number increased to 59% in 2004. But when those are compared to the 2008 election, which was essentially about the economy (especially after the collapse of some major investment firms in October), the number of protestants who voted Republican fell to 54%. In addition to Protestants, Catholics, who based on the church's strong stance on abortion should vote for the Republican candidate, voted for Barack Obama by a 9 point margin 54-45. That was a 7 point drop for the Republican candidate. This could be the result of many contributing factors, but one of them certainly includes them voting based on their economic interests.
The final significant "sort out" I will focus on is based on gender. In 2004 Bush made significant gains with women voters. He won 48% of their votes even though they are supposed to be strong Democrats. This trend reversed itself and sorted out in 2008. John McCain only managed to pick up 43% of the women's vote. This is a significant drop.
The trend among women to go back to voting for the Democrat in Presidential elections actually began in the 2006 Congressional Elections. That year, women voted for Congressional Democrats by similar 8 point margin. In fact Republican candidates received 43% of the vote in that election as well.
In addition to the gender shift back to the Democrats, was the ideological shift. In 2006 87% of liberals voted for Congressional Democrats. Again, that was a precursor to the 2008 election. The same can be said among religions. Protestants favored Republicans by margins similar to 2004 & 2008. But Catholics, much as they did again in 2008, came back to the Democratic Party.
The two parties have evolved out of the New Deal coalition into true ideological centers. This is demonstrated best by the distant defections of southern Democrats to the Republican Party (as a whole and at the elected level, Senator Richard Shelby for instance) and the more recent defections to the Democratic Party (primarily in the Northeast, see Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chaffee). They may be elites who are trying to get re-elected (or in Chaffee's case, elected to something different), but they would not ditch their current parties if their constituents were not evolving. One other point that makes this case is the fact that there are ZERO Republican Congressman from New England. Christopher Shays lost in the 2008 election and he was basically a RINO. So Fiorina is correct, geographically and ideologically the two parties have been and continue to sort themselves out from each other and as a result, they are becoming much more polarizing.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
G.O.P. Résumé, Cabinet Post, Knack for Odd Jobs
Here is an article about Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, 1 of the 2 Republicans in President Obama's cabinet. Beyond his bipartisan role in the administration and his friends on both sides of the isle, I was impressed with how unimpressive this man is (okay, I loosely boosted that line from Joseph Heller's Catch 22). The only actual transportation issue he seems to care about is high speed rail (an issue that is getting more and more attention lately because of its partisan nature).
Enjoy...
Enjoy...
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Frank and Bartels
The debate between Thomas Frank and Larry Bartels about the white-working class vote in America is certainly an interesting one. Frank makes the point that white-working class voters in the United States (at least prior to 2008) are voting against their economic interests, by voting for the Republicans who use emotionally charged social issues such as abortion and guns to win their support. On the other hand Bartels uses statistical analysis to conclude that outside of the South, white-working class voters have not abandoned the Democratic Party, nor do they brush aside their economic interests in favor of social issues. While Bartels argument is persuasive in its use of pure black-and-white numbers, Frank is correct in recognizing that this issue cannot be solved by simply analyzing the numbers from the National Election Survey (NES).
In the early 1930s working class whites were the foundation of the New Deal coalition. This was true not only in what was the "solid South," but also in other parts of the nation, Kansas included. Slowly over the years (particularly after President Johnson passed the Civil Rights legislation) white, working class society (not just in the South, but in predominantly white states such as Kansas) has gravitated to the Republican Party. Frank makes a persuasive argument explaining why this happened. He borrowed a familiar theme from the 2004 Presidential Campaign of John Edwards about "two Americas" (38). However he did use it differently to demonstrate how the GOP has taken everyday issues and turned them into wedges to carve up the Democratic Party during Presidential Elections. Particularly striking to me was when he stated that "a Red Stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler." And he followed that up by quoting a man from a small town in Pennsylvania: "These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." This man bought into the Republican brand of populism that candidates such as former President Bush used during his 2004 re-election campaign to win the support of working class voters. He and the Republican Party painted Senator John Kerry as a "pretentious paper shuffler" and an out-of-touch liberal from Massachusetts. Frank was right, the GOP got away with painting themselves as the populist party while still holding the hands of Wall Street, while the Democrats had no idea how to respond and Kerry looked weak.
Bartels repeatedly used statistical analysis to confront Frank's argument. But unfortunately he does little to explore the numbers further and had a very narrow definition of "working class." Frank confronted him about this directly in his response. Frank correctly argued that by defining "working class" as anyone who makes $35,000 a year or less Bartels was simply missing the point. He repeatedly made the case that individuals who had college degrees (and as a result could not consider themselves working class) were more culturally conservative than their "working class" counterparts who made less than $35,000. However as Frank argued, he does not define who is actually making less than $35,000. Some of those folks could "be struggling but they are not 'working class' by anyone's definition." On the other hand, Frank does not make this case, but some of those who make more than the $35,000 threshold could be making just slightly higher than that and are therefore bumped up into the "middle class." Just because they make $40,000 does not mean that they automatically change their mind about their ideals. Nor does it mean that they think of themselves as part of the middle class.
By setting a maximum income threshold to define a particular segment of society, Bartels is taking a cold look at a nuanced argument. Members of the working class do not define themselves by the amount of money they make. They define themselves as working class based on their lifestyle and profession. His choice to set an arbitrary barrier is radical and certainly not persuasive. Unfortunately this is not an argument that can be made on numbers alone. Prior to 2008, when Democrats learned how to speak the language of the working class again (with an assist by the terrible state of the economy and the nation's collective distaste for the GOP), the Republican Party was able to capitalize on and appeal to the working class by talking about emotional issues that appealed to them.
During the 2006 and 2008 campaigns voters, white working class included, recognized what Frank argued about the GOP, they "talk[ed] Christ, but...walk[ed] corporate" (34). People such as the man from small town Pennsylvania were "tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." The only difference according to Frank is they recognized that they had been had by the GOP and voted for the Democrats. Frank was correct when he discussed the importance of authenticity and how working class people (and all I people, I would argue) search for authenticity in a candidate. In 2004 they thought they had found it in George W. Bush, but they realized that unfortunately he was authentically artificial and according to Frank's logic, in 2008 they followed his advice and voted "right."
In the early 1930s working class whites were the foundation of the New Deal coalition. This was true not only in what was the "solid South," but also in other parts of the nation, Kansas included. Slowly over the years (particularly after President Johnson passed the Civil Rights legislation) white, working class society (not just in the South, but in predominantly white states such as Kansas) has gravitated to the Republican Party. Frank makes a persuasive argument explaining why this happened. He borrowed a familiar theme from the 2004 Presidential Campaign of John Edwards about "two Americas" (38). However he did use it differently to demonstrate how the GOP has taken everyday issues and turned them into wedges to carve up the Democratic Party during Presidential Elections. Particularly striking to me was when he stated that "a Red Stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler." And he followed that up by quoting a man from a small town in Pennsylvania: "These people are tired of moral decay. They're tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." This man bought into the Republican brand of populism that candidates such as former President Bush used during his 2004 re-election campaign to win the support of working class voters. He and the Republican Party painted Senator John Kerry as a "pretentious paper shuffler" and an out-of-touch liberal from Massachusetts. Frank was right, the GOP got away with painting themselves as the populist party while still holding the hands of Wall Street, while the Democrats had no idea how to respond and Kerry looked weak.
Bartels repeatedly used statistical analysis to confront Frank's argument. But unfortunately he does little to explore the numbers further and had a very narrow definition of "working class." Frank confronted him about this directly in his response. Frank correctly argued that by defining "working class" as anyone who makes $35,000 a year or less Bartels was simply missing the point. He repeatedly made the case that individuals who had college degrees (and as a result could not consider themselves working class) were more culturally conservative than their "working class" counterparts who made less than $35,000. However as Frank argued, he does not define who is actually making less than $35,000. Some of those folks could "be struggling but they are not 'working class' by anyone's definition." On the other hand, Frank does not make this case, but some of those who make more than the $35,000 threshold could be making just slightly higher than that and are therefore bumped up into the "middle class." Just because they make $40,000 does not mean that they automatically change their mind about their ideals. Nor does it mean that they think of themselves as part of the middle class.
By setting a maximum income threshold to define a particular segment of society, Bartels is taking a cold look at a nuanced argument. Members of the working class do not define themselves by the amount of money they make. They define themselves as working class based on their lifestyle and profession. His choice to set an arbitrary barrier is radical and certainly not persuasive. Unfortunately this is not an argument that can be made on numbers alone. Prior to 2008, when Democrats learned how to speak the language of the working class again (with an assist by the terrible state of the economy and the nation's collective distaste for the GOP), the Republican Party was able to capitalize on and appeal to the working class by talking about emotional issues that appealed to them.
During the 2006 and 2008 campaigns voters, white working class included, recognized what Frank argued about the GOP, they "talk[ed] Christ, but...walk[ed] corporate" (34). People such as the man from small town Pennsylvania were "tired of everything being wonderful on Wall Street and terrible on Main Street." The only difference according to Frank is they recognized that they had been had by the GOP and voted for the Democrats. Frank was correct when he discussed the importance of authenticity and how working class people (and all I people, I would argue) search for authenticity in a candidate. In 2004 they thought they had found it in George W. Bush, but they realized that unfortunately he was authentically artificial and according to Frank's logic, in 2008 they followed his advice and voted "right."
Specter Joins Democrats; Senate Count May Reach 60
Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat relates to a lot of what we have been reading. The bottom line is he is an ambitious politican who wants to be re-elected. And the best way for him to that is to become a Democrat.
This obviously also helps the Democratic Party and President Obama. Assuming Al Franken is eventually seated, that puts the Democrats at 60 seats in the Senate, a fillibuster proof majority. But there are still many factions to contend with. For instance, the liberals from the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast still have to debate with Senators Nelson (Nebraska), Dorgan, Baucus, Tester, and others from more conservative parts of the country.
This obviously also helps the Democratic Party and President Obama. Assuming Al Franken is eventually seated, that puts the Democrats at 60 seats in the Senate, a fillibuster proof majority. But there are still many factions to contend with. For instance, the liberals from the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast still have to debate with Senators Nelson (Nebraska), Dorgan, Baucus, Tester, and others from more conservative parts of the country.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Conservative Party
If the GOP fell apart, there would be an extraordinarily large void on the right side of the political spectrum in this country. If I were to begin a new Conservative Party in this country it would be modeled after the creation of the Republican Party following the collapse of the Whig Party and the current British Conservative Party. The American version of the Conservative Party would have a similar base and attempt to attract the same voters as the GOP, but it would be more moderate (as the GOP has lost a lot of voters who tend to be socially moderate, while remaining fiscally conservative), ethnically and socially inclusive (I've written this in other posts, but the nation is slowly creeping toward a society that is no longer dominated by whites), and forward thinking (like their British counterparts who are led by David Cameron who is energetic and, as Time Magazine columnist Catherine Mayer describes him, posh, not necessarily a term associated with the GOP).
Specifically the American Conservative Party would do what according to Aldrich, its GOP counterparts were able to do when the Whig Party was shredding itself: "the Republican party had to expand its appeal from its antislavery position to a broader basis," (Aldrich 155). A new conservative party needs to expand its appeal from the roots of moderate homeowners who don't want their taxes increased and the national defense crowd and limit the influence of what James Carville described as the "GGG Party (More god, more guns, less gays)." A successful 21st century conservative party must do what they can to build on the other two parts of the GOP and attempt to mute the GGG's influence.
Specifically the American Conservative Party would do what according to Aldrich, its GOP counterparts were able to do when the Whig Party was shredding itself: "the Republican party had to expand its appeal from its antislavery position to a broader basis," (Aldrich 155). A new conservative party needs to expand its appeal from the roots of moderate homeowners who don't want their taxes increased and the national defense crowd and limit the influence of what James Carville described as the "GGG Party (More god, more guns, less gays)." A successful 21st century conservative party must do what they can to build on the other two parts of the GOP and attempt to mute the GGG's influence.
To get here, the Conservative Party needs to first reconcile some of the issues that the GOP is currently grappling with. Simply they need to cede the following to the Democrats: civil unions/gay marriage, stem cell research, climate change, immigration reform, and health care reform. By foregoing fighting over gay marriage and stem cell research, the Conservative Party would recognize the moderate shift of the electorate toward the middle on certain social issues. In addition the Conservative Party platform would acknowledge the striking damage done to the climate through the emission of greenhouse gases. As a result, they would fall in line with the rest of the country and vociferously support legislation that leads to the reduction of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The GOP stance on immigration reform during the 2005 debate was far from inclusive. Conservatives need to adopt a softer approach or they risk alienating the fastest growing voting bloc in the electorate. Similarly health care reform is an issue that also appears to have gained support recently. Just as the GOP has accepted and acknowledged the success of Social Security as a social program, the Conservative Party would recognize the positives surrounding some sort of universal health care program.
Beyond those five issues which the GOP appears to have taken the wrong track or constructed irrational and scattered viewpoints, the Conservatives would adopt the GOP's advocation for limited government intervention in business and other parts of the economy, their pro-gun stance, and their pro-life beliefs. However, with each, particularly the pro-gun and pro-life stances, the platform would read more pragmatically and be accepting of those who happen to not stand uniformly behind the platform.
Tied to the switch in tone is a new generation of leadership. Fire-brandish members of Congress such as Michelle Bachman and Spencer Bachus would be allowed in the party, but would not be highly visible. Instead the Conservative Party would highlight, younger, moderate leaders who are not only respected by the GOP base (which will eventually be necessary if the American Conservative Party is to survive), but also have strong working relationships with the middle of the electorate. Potential leaders would be similar to what, according to Aldrich, the Republicans did when the Whigs were slowly dissipating (147-148). The party would begin to gain traction at the local, state, and Congressional levels. Then eventually as they moved ahead and attracted conservative voters, the Republican Party would begin to lose it influence and grip on the ideological right. As the GOP began to fall apart, older party leaders would simply retire or join the Conservative Party. But they would likely take a back seat to some younger, more innovative members of Congress or other party members.
The Conservative Party cannot limit itself to a strict region anymore. The country is shrinking as a result of urban sprawl and advances in technology. However the party must be born somewhere other than the Deep South. If the GOP survives at all, and maintains their current ideology, they will remain strong in the Deep South. Recently the increasingly diverse West has been flirting with Democrats (e.g. elections of Ken Salazar and the Udalls to the Senate, not to mention President Obama's gains made in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada). If the party is born in the West they will have popularity and recognition in the newest round of battleground states. Then when the GOP collapses the South will fall into line even if they are not necessarily satisfied with the Conservative Party's willingness to be more socially inclusive (social issues, not racial issues).
As the GOP shrinks, the Conservative Party would begin to fill the void for conservative voters. Because of the magnitude of the current parties, the Conservative Party would need to be patient in its development, but once it began to spread its message, the vacuum will be filled quickly. The time the GOP spends in decline will likely take about 10 years and the Conservative Party will slowly begin to build a national infrastructure by attracting party activists who hold conservative viewpoints, but are dissatisfied with the direction of the GOP. Then once the GOP collapses the Conservatives will rapidly ascend (within 1-2 election cycles) to national prominence. This will happen much quicker than during the period of Jackson when the Democrats went unchallenged for a few election cycles.
The Conservative Party cannot limit itself to a strict region anymore. The country is shrinking as a result of urban sprawl and advances in technology. However the party must be born somewhere other than the Deep South. If the GOP survives at all, and maintains their current ideology, they will remain strong in the Deep South. Recently the increasingly diverse West has been flirting with Democrats (e.g. elections of Ken Salazar and the Udalls to the Senate, not to mention President Obama's gains made in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada). If the party is born in the West they will have popularity and recognition in the newest round of battleground states. Then when the GOP collapses the South will fall into line even if they are not necessarily satisfied with the Conservative Party's willingness to be more socially inclusive (social issues, not racial issues).
As the GOP shrinks, the Conservative Party would begin to fill the void for conservative voters. Because of the magnitude of the current parties, the Conservative Party would need to be patient in its development, but once it began to spread its message, the vacuum will be filled quickly. The time the GOP spends in decline will likely take about 10 years and the Conservative Party will slowly begin to build a national infrastructure by attracting party activists who hold conservative viewpoints, but are dissatisfied with the direction of the GOP. Then once the GOP collapses the Conservatives will rapidly ascend (within 1-2 election cycles) to national prominence. This will happen much quicker than during the period of Jackson when the Democrats went unchallenged for a few election cycles.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama’s Revenue Plans Hit Resistance in Congress
This was an interesting take on a pretty mind-numbing issue. It appears that a significant portion of President Obama's budget has hit a bit of a road block in Congress. Particularly his health care proposal. This is just another example of the President and Congress attempting to work together. Even though Democrats control both branches, it is still a struggle.
One more. According to Politico the GOP is a little late getting to health care party. They have yet to come up with an alternative and there is some concern within Congress that the Dems may be making headway toward universal coverage.
One more. According to Politico the GOP is a little late getting to health care party. They have yet to come up with an alternative and there is some concern within Congress that the Dems may be making headway toward universal coverage.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
GOP: Not Going Anywhere
The modern Republican Party's decline is a product of their unwillingness to adapt to a new world. However, once they begin to find their footing they will continue to be a national party. At this point, it is highly unlikely that they will suffer the same fate as the Whig Party. This is particularly true since they (almost alone) occupy the mainstream conservative ideology. Who on the right is going to do what Aldrich described? The GOP filled a void left by the Whigs in the Northwest and eventually moved into the Northeast? The Libertarian Party has a niche, but it drifts too far out of the mainstream (legalizing drugs is one example). That said, the demographic direction of the nation is skewing away from those people who currently make up the GOP base. However, there are enough innovative people within the party who can rescue them from becoming a regional faction that simply occupies the South and Great Plains. There are just going to be some growing pains.
Currently the GOP is attempting to meld themselves into a 21st century party made up of more than just (as the stereotype would say) crusty white men who continue fighting the 1960s-born culture wars by railing against abortion, gun control, and taxes. They have made some attempts to reach out to minorities (who, by 2050, will outnumber whites) and younger voters. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is an African-American. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered the response to President Obama's address to Congress earlier this year. He is of Indian-American descent. Meghan McCain has recently become somewhat of a spokesperson (and a critic) for young Republicans. In addition, Congressman Aaron Schock, at 27 years old is the youngest member of the House of Representatives. Although his role so far has been more gossipy than substantive (he is frequently mentioned on tmz.com). The problem is that they have not quite figured out how to reach their target audience (other than perhaps McCain).
Steele has received criticism for his verbose personality and unwillingness to acknowledge the evolution of issues. For instance, his declaration that "we are cooling. We are not warming," runs counter to what former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson was quoted as writing in the NY Times article for this blog: “The issues of the moment — income stagnation, climate disruption, massive demographic shifts and health care access — seem strange, unexplored land for many in the movement.” I realize it is the party chair's job to be controversial and partisan, but even Gerson (no pinko) recognizes climate change and the need to explore alternative forms of energy. Steele cooked up the "drill baby, drill" line during the campaign. So while he may represent a symbolic change away from the stereotypical Republican, he has yet to have a serious discussion with some of the more moderate forces (Governors Jon Huntsman, Charlie Crist, and Arnold Schwarzenegger) within the party. The good thing for the Republicans is that I think he wants to have that discussion. Shortly after being elected, he took a swipe at Rush Limbaugh by calling him what he is, "an entertainer." He later apologized. That demonstrates that while he is not publicly comfortable confronting the party heavyweights, he understands that it must be done.
Similar to Steele, Governor Jindal represents a shift away from what has represented the conservative movement. He is young, innovative, and not white. But he has done little to distance himself from base of the party (the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans fell significantly between 2004 and 2008). His decision to oppose the stimulus package was a little shocking and appeared to be in line with the conservative base of his party. Despite this and his lackluster response to President Obama's address to Congress, he has demonstrated leadership by attempting to rebuild a state that has been physically and emotionally destructed. If he can somehow translate that into a coherent message about the successes of the Republican Party, he can help the party rebound.
Perhaps the person speaking most clearly for the Republican Party is Senator John McCain's daughter, Meghan. She speaks a young person's language. She frequently posts a blog on The Daily Beast and has a tendency to be overtly critical of the party's fire brandish members (e.g. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham). If she and others (such as Chairman Steele, Governor Jindal, and Congressman Schock) within the Party can convince party leaders that Ronald Reagan is dead and the battles of the 1960s are over and the issues facing the nation need solutions that are not divisive toward minorities and young people, they can rebound and remain a national party.
To answer the 2nd question, yes I hope a byproduct of living in extraordinary times is that some of the chatter on cable news and in the blogosphere about the direction of the party will cease. Talk about issues is good for a change. Times are too sober to have a public that is more in tune with who got kicked off of Dancing with the Stars than what universal health care can mean for you. But what happens when the economy recovers? Does the GOP become what they were post World War II and we are left with Chris Matthews asking every other guest about the direction of the party GOP?
Currently the GOP is attempting to meld themselves into a 21st century party made up of more than just (as the stereotype would say) crusty white men who continue fighting the 1960s-born culture wars by railing against abortion, gun control, and taxes. They have made some attempts to reach out to minorities (who, by 2050, will outnumber whites) and younger voters. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is an African-American. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered the response to President Obama's address to Congress earlier this year. He is of Indian-American descent. Meghan McCain has recently become somewhat of a spokesperson (and a critic) for young Republicans. In addition, Congressman Aaron Schock, at 27 years old is the youngest member of the House of Representatives. Although his role so far has been more gossipy than substantive (he is frequently mentioned on tmz.com). The problem is that they have not quite figured out how to reach their target audience (other than perhaps McCain).
Steele has received criticism for his verbose personality and unwillingness to acknowledge the evolution of issues. For instance, his declaration that "we are cooling. We are not warming," runs counter to what former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson was quoted as writing in the NY Times article for this blog: “The issues of the moment — income stagnation, climate disruption, massive demographic shifts and health care access — seem strange, unexplored land for many in the movement.” I realize it is the party chair's job to be controversial and partisan, but even Gerson (no pinko) recognizes climate change and the need to explore alternative forms of energy. Steele cooked up the "drill baby, drill" line during the campaign. So while he may represent a symbolic change away from the stereotypical Republican, he has yet to have a serious discussion with some of the more moderate forces (Governors Jon Huntsman, Charlie Crist, and Arnold Schwarzenegger) within the party. The good thing for the Republicans is that I think he wants to have that discussion. Shortly after being elected, he took a swipe at Rush Limbaugh by calling him what he is, "an entertainer." He later apologized. That demonstrates that while he is not publicly comfortable confronting the party heavyweights, he understands that it must be done.
Similar to Steele, Governor Jindal represents a shift away from what has represented the conservative movement. He is young, innovative, and not white. But he has done little to distance himself from base of the party (the number of people who identified themselves as Republicans fell significantly between 2004 and 2008). His decision to oppose the stimulus package was a little shocking and appeared to be in line with the conservative base of his party. Despite this and his lackluster response to President Obama's address to Congress, he has demonstrated leadership by attempting to rebuild a state that has been physically and emotionally destructed. If he can somehow translate that into a coherent message about the successes of the Republican Party, he can help the party rebound.
Perhaps the person speaking most clearly for the Republican Party is Senator John McCain's daughter, Meghan. She speaks a young person's language. She frequently posts a blog on The Daily Beast and has a tendency to be overtly critical of the party's fire brandish members (e.g. Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham). If she and others (such as Chairman Steele, Governor Jindal, and Congressman Schock) within the Party can convince party leaders that Ronald Reagan is dead and the battles of the 1960s are over and the issues facing the nation need solutions that are not divisive toward minorities and young people, they can rebound and remain a national party.
To answer the 2nd question, yes I hope a byproduct of living in extraordinary times is that some of the chatter on cable news and in the blogosphere about the direction of the party will cease. Talk about issues is good for a change. Times are too sober to have a public that is more in tune with who got kicked off of Dancing with the Stars than what universal health care can mean for you. But what happens when the economy recovers? Does the GOP become what they were post World War II and we are left with Chris Matthews asking every other guest about the direction of the party GOP?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Newt: U.S. at greater risk under Obama
So since we are posting about the future of the GOP this week, I thought I would provide some talk from their former (and possibly future) leader, Newt Gingrich. He seems to be everywhere. Every time I turn on a Sunday talk show, there he is. Now he is answering reader questions on Politico. Gee, I wonder if he is considering running for President in 2012?
Along the same lines of Gingrich's comments comes this article about North Korea's missile launch over the weekend. The interesting question is, is North Korea crazy enough to launch a nuclear warhead? Or are they simply doing this for political reasons?
Along the same lines of Gingrich's comments comes this article about North Korea's missile launch over the weekend. The interesting question is, is North Korea crazy enough to launch a nuclear warhead? Or are they simply doing this for political reasons?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obama to shake up GM, Chrysler
This seems to be dominating today's news cycle. The President pretty much told GM and Chrysler they must figure out a business plan soon or risk falling into the bankruptcy abyss. GM has 60 days to reconfigure itself, while Chrysler has 30 days to merge with Fiat. When these loans were handed out at the end of last year I was curious to know when it would end. Now I know.
Here is the view from the Times, the Wall Street Journal, and for fun, the Detroit News.
This is a risk to Obama's political capital and mandate. He has the support of big labor and for GM and Chrysler to reogranize themselves, labor will need to make significant concessions. Something has to give though.
Here is the view from the Times, the Wall Street Journal, and for fun, the Detroit News.
This is a risk to Obama's political capital and mandate. He has the support of big labor and for GM and Chrysler to reogranize themselves, labor will need to make significant concessions. Something has to give though.
Obama's Mandate
In November President Obama won an electoral mandate. If we are to compare his election the previous 4 presidential elections, where the winning candidate either did not receive a majority of the popular votes or squeaked by with a razor thin majority in the electoral college. Also President Obama has significant majorities in Congress and approval ratings that are nearly Kennedyesqe. Therefore, less than 75 days into his Presidency, he maintains his mandate. Evidence of how much he has maintained could be interpreted through the upcoming (tomorrow I believe) special election in New York's 20th Congressional District. But first, let's begin with the past.
Based on recent history (the previous 4 elections), Obama was the first to receive an overwhelming majority in both the electoral college and with the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won significant electoral college victories, but he did not win more than 49% of the popular vote in either election. In fact in 1992 nearly 57% of the country voted for someone other than Bill Clinton, yet he won 370 electoral votes. In each election, 3rd party candidate Ross Perot accounted for a high percentage of votes. Many believe his candidacy was responsible for siphoning off likely Republican voters. In both cases, Clinton likely would have been elected, but he may not have received the electoral college mandate that he won.
In 2000 George W. Bush was elected President by the slimmest of margins in the electoral college, while losing the popular vote. Hardly a mandate. In 2004, he was elected by a wider margin popularly and in the electoral college than in 2000, but if 120,000 or so voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry, Bush would have lost and we would be discussing how shocking it would have been for someone to win the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by 2-3%. As a result of these thin elections, President Bush rarely (at least around election time) governed from a strong, popular position. His Presidency was rocky at the beginning because of the contested election in 2000, while in 2004 he was saddled with an unpopular war. Shortly after being reelected, he wasted his political capital on privatizing social security (can you imagine if that had been passed?) and the questionable response to Hurricane Katrina. Had he had a mandate, perhaps he could have at least made significant progress on social security and/or immigration reform and navigated his way through the Katrina mess.
Granted his mandate is not Reaganesqe or similar to Lyndon Johnson's in 1964. But the parties were much more diverse and less polarizing in 1964 and 1980. Cross party voting was much more common. We learned about this prior to the midterm. A Southern Democrat was likely more conservative than a New England Republican. So when Southern Democrats became Reagan Republicans in the 1980s it demonstrated sweeping change and a large mandate. Today the parties are too polarized and too strong for anyone to receive nearly 500 electoral votes. So as a result, Obama's 365 electoral votes represent a significant electoral mandate.
Enough dwelling on the past. President Obama was elected by carrying states such as Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina--3 solidly Republican states. He nearly won Missouri and was competitive in Montana, while swiping an electoral vote from McCain in Nebraska. In addition Democrats made strong gains in Congressional and Senate races. As a result of the 2006 elections, Democrats gained 32 House seats and 6 Senate seats. In 2008, with Obama at the top of the ticket, they gained another 20 seats in the House, while picking up 7 (or 8) Senate seats. This was despite John McCain's 1-party rule rhetoric during the closing weeks of the campaign.
The first real test for his mandate will be in New York's 20th Congressional District. Democratic candidate Scott Murphy has been using the President in his advertising. This seat is traditionally a Republican seat. It was originally picked up by Kristin Gillibrand in 2006 (she was named to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton earlier this year). Current polling is tight. If Democrats can manage to hang on to the seat, it could be a demonstration of Obama's continuing popularity and thus, mandate. If Murphy loses, it could be an indication of a dwindling mandate and popularity.
However, current public polling demonstrates that the President maintains his popularity and likely his mandate. According to Survey USA, the President's approval ratings are relatively steady in 14 different states. The last time this poll was conducted was 10 days after the inauguration. Other polling has his overall approval rating hovering around 60%.
One final factor that may contribute to his mandate is the state of the country. Given the current economic crisis and the two hot wars to contend with, the President is has been given a mandate by the American people (although you wouldn't know it, he is getting attacked by the likes of 60s radical Tom Hayden for being too hawkish and Karl Rove for being a tax-and-spend liberal). The nation wants him to succeed because if he does, that means the current economic recession will at least slow and we may even begin to recover. As a result, he won and maintains a significant electoral mandate.
Based on recent history (the previous 4 elections), Obama was the first to receive an overwhelming majority in both the electoral college and with the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won significant electoral college victories, but he did not win more than 49% of the popular vote in either election. In fact in 1992 nearly 57% of the country voted for someone other than Bill Clinton, yet he won 370 electoral votes. In each election, 3rd party candidate Ross Perot accounted for a high percentage of votes. Many believe his candidacy was responsible for siphoning off likely Republican voters. In both cases, Clinton likely would have been elected, but he may not have received the electoral college mandate that he won.
In 2000 George W. Bush was elected President by the slimmest of margins in the electoral college, while losing the popular vote. Hardly a mandate. In 2004, he was elected by a wider margin popularly and in the electoral college than in 2000, but if 120,000 or so voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry, Bush would have lost and we would be discussing how shocking it would have been for someone to win the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by 2-3%. As a result of these thin elections, President Bush rarely (at least around election time) governed from a strong, popular position. His Presidency was rocky at the beginning because of the contested election in 2000, while in 2004 he was saddled with an unpopular war. Shortly after being reelected, he wasted his political capital on privatizing social security (can you imagine if that had been passed?) and the questionable response to Hurricane Katrina. Had he had a mandate, perhaps he could have at least made significant progress on social security and/or immigration reform and navigated his way through the Katrina mess.
Granted his mandate is not Reaganesqe or similar to Lyndon Johnson's in 1964. But the parties were much more diverse and less polarizing in 1964 and 1980. Cross party voting was much more common. We learned about this prior to the midterm. A Southern Democrat was likely more conservative than a New England Republican. So when Southern Democrats became Reagan Republicans in the 1980s it demonstrated sweeping change and a large mandate. Today the parties are too polarized and too strong for anyone to receive nearly 500 electoral votes. So as a result, Obama's 365 electoral votes represent a significant electoral mandate.
Enough dwelling on the past. President Obama was elected by carrying states such as Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina--3 solidly Republican states. He nearly won Missouri and was competitive in Montana, while swiping an electoral vote from McCain in Nebraska. In addition Democrats made strong gains in Congressional and Senate races. As a result of the 2006 elections, Democrats gained 32 House seats and 6 Senate seats. In 2008, with Obama at the top of the ticket, they gained another 20 seats in the House, while picking up 7 (or 8) Senate seats. This was despite John McCain's 1-party rule rhetoric during the closing weeks of the campaign.
The first real test for his mandate will be in New York's 20th Congressional District. Democratic candidate Scott Murphy has been using the President in his advertising. This seat is traditionally a Republican seat. It was originally picked up by Kristin Gillibrand in 2006 (she was named to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton earlier this year). Current polling is tight. If Democrats can manage to hang on to the seat, it could be a demonstration of Obama's continuing popularity and thus, mandate. If Murphy loses, it could be an indication of a dwindling mandate and popularity.
However, current public polling demonstrates that the President maintains his popularity and likely his mandate. According to Survey USA, the President's approval ratings are relatively steady in 14 different states. The last time this poll was conducted was 10 days after the inauguration. Other polling has his overall approval rating hovering around 60%.
One final factor that may contribute to his mandate is the state of the country. Given the current economic crisis and the two hot wars to contend with, the President is has been given a mandate by the American people (although you wouldn't know it, he is getting attacked by the likes of 60s radical Tom Hayden for being too hawkish and Karl Rove for being a tax-and-spend liberal). The nation wants him to succeed because if he does, that means the current economic recession will at least slow and we may even begin to recover. As a result, he won and maintains a significant electoral mandate.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama Calls for Overhaul of Education System
As an education guy, I thought I would throw this post up for you to read this week. President Obama is challenging a core constituency with his proposals for education reform. He is calling for merit-based pay, which teacher unions oppose for obvious reasons.
This is a similar article posted on the Times web-site. Also I thought I would include this link if anyone wants to read this article from the Wall Street Journal's perspective.
It is interesting to see the President run to the right on this issue. Merit-pay and charter schools are really unpopular in the education world and he shows some gumption by supporting them.
This is a similar article posted on the Times web-site. Also I thought I would include this link if anyone wants to read this article from the Wall Street Journal's perspective.
It is interesting to see the President run to the right on this issue. Merit-pay and charter schools are really unpopular in the education world and he shows some gumption by supporting them.
2004 vs 2008
After viewing the exit polls from the 2004 and 2008 Presidential elections, President Obama made had the support of women at a rate that is about right for a Democrat. Also striking were the gains he made among men. But what I think made the ultimate difference for Obama were his incredible gains among minorities.
Before we look at the popping numbers among minorities, let's look at some of the modest, yet significant, gains Obama made among men and women. In 2004 John Kerry won 51% of the women's vote. This number was quite low for a Democrat in recent elections (Bush made a 5 point jump from 2000). So in 2008, it should not be surprising that Obama won 56% of the women's vote. What is somewhat shocking is the fact that he won 49% (a plurality) of the men's vote. According to Heatherington and Keefe the percentage of men who identified themselves as Democrats has steadily been falling. In 1976, just over 50% of men considered themselves Dems, while by 2004 that number had fallen to nearly 45% (193). Despite the fact that just under 45% of men (also on H & K, 193) called themselves Republicans, Bush received 53% and 55% of their votes in 2000 and 2004 (two very close elections).
Despite these significant differences, what really put Obama over the edge in 2008 (and left Kerry hanging in 2004) were the gains Obama made with minorities. In 2004 Bush received 62% of the vote among white men and 55% among white women. Kerry received 37% and 44% respectively. Obama's numbers were slightly higher than Kerry's (41% and 46%). The difference was among African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and the ridiculous "Other" category. Together they made up 23% of voters in 2004 and 26% of voters in 2008.
Here is where Obama made gains:
In 2004 Kerry received 88% of the African-American vote. His 2008 counterpart increased that number to 95%, a 7% leap. Among Hispanic-Americans, Kerry received only 53% of the vote, while Obama raked in 67% of the vote, a 14% jump! Asian-Americans, who admittedly made up a very small slice of the electorate in both 2004 and 2008, supported Kerry 56%-44%, while they supported Obama 62%-35% for an 8% increase. Finally "Others," who also are a small fraction of the electorate pulled the lever for Kerry at 54% clip in 2004. That number increased to 66% for Obama in 2008.
Another interesting comparison (and unrelated to my thesis) are the changes among age groups. Obama improved on nearly every age category. 18-29 year olds favor Kerry by 9%, but voted for Obama at a roughly 2-1 rate. 30-44 year olds supported Bush by 7%, but this time Obama won their support. The 44 and older age groups were much closer to 50% in both elections, but Obama improved upon their support (it is hard to compare because the categories are different) except those over 65, where it is clear, he actually dropped 2%.
Obviously the reasons for the shift from a Republican to a Democrat are complicated. The political environment was certainly much friendlier for the Democrats. Obama was a stronger and clearer candidate than Kerry. McCain was a less-disciplined and weaker campaigner than Bush. Just to name a few.
The two elections are fascinating to compare side-by-side (particularly through the gender and racial prisms) because we get to see just how much the country changed its mind between 2004 and 2008. But the results also create several questions: Was the 2008 election simply an anomaly? Or is it the sign of a fundamental shift in our nation's course? Are men going to gravitate back to the Democratic Party, while women continue their push to the left? Are minorities going to continue to make up more and more of the electorate? If so, are they going to vote for Democrats in numbers like 2008, or did they just come out and vote for Obama because he was an electrifying candidate?
Before we look at the popping numbers among minorities, let's look at some of the modest, yet significant, gains Obama made among men and women. In 2004 John Kerry won 51% of the women's vote. This number was quite low for a Democrat in recent elections (Bush made a 5 point jump from 2000). So in 2008, it should not be surprising that Obama won 56% of the women's vote. What is somewhat shocking is the fact that he won 49% (a plurality) of the men's vote. According to Heatherington and Keefe the percentage of men who identified themselves as Democrats has steadily been falling. In 1976, just over 50% of men considered themselves Dems, while by 2004 that number had fallen to nearly 45% (193). Despite the fact that just under 45% of men (also on H & K, 193) called themselves Republicans, Bush received 53% and 55% of their votes in 2000 and 2004 (two very close elections).
Despite these significant differences, what really put Obama over the edge in 2008 (and left Kerry hanging in 2004) were the gains Obama made with minorities. In 2004 Bush received 62% of the vote among white men and 55% among white women. Kerry received 37% and 44% respectively. Obama's numbers were slightly higher than Kerry's (41% and 46%). The difference was among African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and the ridiculous "Other" category. Together they made up 23% of voters in 2004 and 26% of voters in 2008.
Here is where Obama made gains:
In 2004 Kerry received 88% of the African-American vote. His 2008 counterpart increased that number to 95%, a 7% leap. Among Hispanic-Americans, Kerry received only 53% of the vote, while Obama raked in 67% of the vote, a 14% jump! Asian-Americans, who admittedly made up a very small slice of the electorate in both 2004 and 2008, supported Kerry 56%-44%, while they supported Obama 62%-35% for an 8% increase. Finally "Others," who also are a small fraction of the electorate pulled the lever for Kerry at 54% clip in 2004. That number increased to 66% for Obama in 2008.
Another interesting comparison (and unrelated to my thesis) are the changes among age groups. Obama improved on nearly every age category. 18-29 year olds favor Kerry by 9%, but voted for Obama at a roughly 2-1 rate. 30-44 year olds supported Bush by 7%, but this time Obama won their support. The 44 and older age groups were much closer to 50% in both elections, but Obama improved upon their support (it is hard to compare because the categories are different) except those over 65, where it is clear, he actually dropped 2%.
Obviously the reasons for the shift from a Republican to a Democrat are complicated. The political environment was certainly much friendlier for the Democrats. Obama was a stronger and clearer candidate than Kerry. McCain was a less-disciplined and weaker campaigner than Bush. Just to name a few.
The two elections are fascinating to compare side-by-side (particularly through the gender and racial prisms) because we get to see just how much the country changed its mind between 2004 and 2008. But the results also create several questions: Was the 2008 election simply an anomaly? Or is it the sign of a fundamental shift in our nation's course? Are men going to gravitate back to the Democratic Party, while women continue their push to the left? Are minorities going to continue to make up more and more of the electorate? If so, are they going to vote for Democrats in numbers like 2008, or did they just come out and vote for Obama because he was an electrifying candidate?
Monday, March 2, 2009
Steele to Rush: I'm sorry
Thought this was kind of interesting. CPAC just wrapped up over the weekend and Rush Limbaugh key-noted the final night. It appears that the White House and other Democrats are attempting to turn Limbaugh into the face of the Republican Party. They have been somewhat successful because now Republicans have to answer questions about him. Some of them, like Michael Steele and Eric Cantor are not exactly embracing him as their leader. Steele went as far as describing him as "an entertainer" and had to apologize. Although not before feeling Limbaugh's wrath.
Minority Parties in Congress
The initial objective of whomever is the minority party in Congress (particularly the House of Representatives) is to get out of the minority. The primary goal of the Republicans right now (just as it was for the Democrats in 2006) is to take back control of at least one chamber, so they are able to at least stunt the other party's agenda, if not advance their own.
To take back the majority, the minority party in Congress--specifically the 214 Republicans who should still show up for work every week--need to play a largely rhetorical role. This was quite vividly demonstrated during the recent stimulus fight. House Republicans had absolutely no chance of stopping the passage of the bill. So throughout the process they found the closest TV camera and basically screamed about the funds in the bill for contraception (which was eventually removed) and other Democratic-type pet-projects. This was to intentionally demonstrate what they viewed as the frivolousness of the bill. Their message was designed to penetrate the districts of some of the more moderate Democrats. This may led to them picking off some votes which would have embarrassed Democratic leadership or if it were later in the legislative cycle, sunk the entire bill altogether.
Vocal minority opposition in the short term can also help them in some long term battles. Let's take the President's upcoming budget plan. Had Republicans balked at questioning the stimulus package, they would have to start out fresh in their fight against the budget. But since they already attacked the stimulus on spending grounds, they can credibly question the Democrats current budget proposal along the same lines. Then when a health care initiative or another massive spending program is introduced later in the year, they will have already begun to paint the President and Democrats in Congress as drunk on spending. This may make some Blue Dog Democrats a little queasy, which would force them "to," as described by Pearson and Schlickter "cast votes that are tough to defend in their districts" (183). As a result they may join the vocal Republican opposition. Then the plan may lose popularity throughout the country and could force Democrats to risk losing the bill on the House floor or scrap the plan altogether before it even makes it to the floor.
Democrats reacted similarly to proposals made by President Bush when they were in minority. One example was their vociferous opposition to Bush's plan to privatize social security just following the 2004 election. In the House, Rep Earl Pomeroy argued that Democrats were "going to stand and fight to kill the privatizing approach." While in the Senate (where the minority at least has some power, as long as it has at least 41 members, like the current Republican caucus), Minority Leader Harry Reid stated the following: ''The Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform...It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas."
What else can a party that suffers a 75-or-so seat deficit in the House do to stay relevant? I guess they really need to just dig in, get as loud as possible and try to portray the Democrats as out-of-touch, while hoping that their plans fail. If they agree to work with the majority, then they have to try to take credit for it if it works or take some blame if it fails (neither of which is gamble worth taking while in the minority). So it is not surprising to see leaders like Minority WHIP Eric Cantor calling the stimulus package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination,” after it passed.
In the Senate the Republicans can threaten to filibuster, but the way it is currently structured (58-41) they can surrender one member of their caucus during cloture votes and still maintain the filibuster. If they lose the Minnesota seat to Al Franken, the entire caucus must stick with them. So their role may also shift to a largely rhetorical position (particularly with the 3 moderate Republicans from Maine and Pennsylvania). However the good news for minority parties, the next election is always just around the corner and it is another opportunity to turn the minority into a majority.
To take back the majority, the minority party in Congress--specifically the 214 Republicans who should still show up for work every week--need to play a largely rhetorical role. This was quite vividly demonstrated during the recent stimulus fight. House Republicans had absolutely no chance of stopping the passage of the bill. So throughout the process they found the closest TV camera and basically screamed about the funds in the bill for contraception (which was eventually removed) and other Democratic-type pet-projects. This was to intentionally demonstrate what they viewed as the frivolousness of the bill. Their message was designed to penetrate the districts of some of the more moderate Democrats. This may led to them picking off some votes which would have embarrassed Democratic leadership or if it were later in the legislative cycle, sunk the entire bill altogether.
Vocal minority opposition in the short term can also help them in some long term battles. Let's take the President's upcoming budget plan. Had Republicans balked at questioning the stimulus package, they would have to start out fresh in their fight against the budget. But since they already attacked the stimulus on spending grounds, they can credibly question the Democrats current budget proposal along the same lines. Then when a health care initiative or another massive spending program is introduced later in the year, they will have already begun to paint the President and Democrats in Congress as drunk on spending. This may make some Blue Dog Democrats a little queasy, which would force them "to," as described by Pearson and Schlickter "cast votes that are tough to defend in their districts" (183). As a result they may join the vocal Republican opposition. Then the plan may lose popularity throughout the country and could force Democrats to risk losing the bill on the House floor or scrap the plan altogether before it even makes it to the floor.
Democrats reacted similarly to proposals made by President Bush when they were in minority. One example was their vociferous opposition to Bush's plan to privatize social security just following the 2004 election. In the House, Rep Earl Pomeroy argued that Democrats were "going to stand and fight to kill the privatizing approach." While in the Senate (where the minority at least has some power, as long as it has at least 41 members, like the current Republican caucus), Minority Leader Harry Reid stated the following: ''The Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform...It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas."
What else can a party that suffers a 75-or-so seat deficit in the House do to stay relevant? I guess they really need to just dig in, get as loud as possible and try to portray the Democrats as out-of-touch, while hoping that their plans fail. If they agree to work with the majority, then they have to try to take credit for it if it works or take some blame if it fails (neither of which is gamble worth taking while in the minority). So it is not surprising to see leaders like Minority WHIP Eric Cantor calling the stimulus package “a spending bill beyond anyone’s imagination,” after it passed.
In the Senate the Republicans can threaten to filibuster, but the way it is currently structured (58-41) they can surrender one member of their caucus during cloture votes and still maintain the filibuster. If they lose the Minnesota seat to Al Franken, the entire caucus must stick with them. So their role may also shift to a largely rhetorical position (particularly with the 3 moderate Republicans from Maine and Pennsylvania). However the good news for minority parties, the next election is always just around the corner and it is another opportunity to turn the minority into a majority.
Monday, February 23, 2009
2008: Candidate Centeredness, with a Shred of Party Influence
During the 2008 presidential elections, both major general election candidates led particularly ideologically moderate, candidate-centered campaigns with a touch of party influence in their campaign structures and of course their ideologies. Both Barack Obama (hope and change) and John McCain (unconventional maverick) created their own brand that was detached from their respective party's platform and brand. Each candidate took control of their party's message machine and both were burned by new media.
Obama with the help of many party loyalists (e.g. Senior Advisor Anita Dunn) and several candidate loyalists (e.g. Senior Strategist David Axelrod and Advisor Vallerie Jarrett) attempted to portray himself as a "post-partisan" candidate who had keen skill in working through ideological differences. This is a far cry from the modern Democratic Party's "netroots," which is driven by a liberal base of supporters and ideology. I think we are seeing this difference playing itself out as Obama attempts to govern. For example, it is pretty well-known in political junkie circles that Obama delegated the writing of the stimulus package to the House Democrats. Their automatic response was to craft a bill that critics consider somewhat of a liberal catharsis from the last 8 years. But in order for the bill to pass and to live up to his campaign pledge, Obama had to work with and gain the support of a handful of moderate Republicans. As a result some of the spending was removed. Now he has to smooth over some bruised feelings within the Democratic Party, particularly the Congressional Black Caucus.
McCain with the assistance of many of the GOP's loyal partisans (e.g. Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt and Senior Advisor Nicole Wallace) and some of his own core supporters (e.g. Senior Advisor Mark Salter), attempted to paint himself as the same maverick who ran for President in 2000. He was forced to run away from the Republican Party label and "netroots" because of the overwhelming negativity associated with the party name within the electorate. McCain's rhetoric highlighted his many bipartisan successes as a Senator and he regularly articulated instances when he chose to buck the GOP establishment and side with the Democrats in Congress. While this was his M.O., he was caught in a brutal election cycle for Democrats. Obama was pushing a similar message and was more persuasive with both liberal and moderate voters within the electorate.
Technological advances and new methods of communication are driving campaigns toward candidates and away from parties. Because candidates (particularly on the Presidential level) are required to raise a significant chunk of their own money to run their campaigns, they are taking control of the message and are required to provide the vision for harnessing new technologies. The Dean campaign in 2004 and the Obama campaign in 2008 are perfect examples. In neither case had the Democratic Party built a sophisticated technological apparatus that was able to effectively grasp modern technological tools. In addition 24 hour cable news and modern communication tools, such as YouTube are forcing candidates to take more control over their campaign. Because of a hyperactive media's willingness to associate petty statements made by 5 cent advisors and minor supporters, campaigns attempt to script all of the message sent out by the party. Despite the attempts at disciplilned message control, the new media has caused significant political problems for campaigns. Examples include Obama's "bitter" comments and McCain's "fundamentals" quote. Not to belittle the significance of either, but they both received excessive play throughout the campaign and were a product of 21st century media. We can certainly apply parts of this discussion to Congressional Campaigns, but not as much.
George Allen's Maccaca line was certainly an example of a candidate getting burned by new media. On the other hand, they have significant (although not entire) financial support of their respective Congressional Campaign committees, so they are more likely to relinquish some control to the party.
During the 2008 presidential campaign President Obama certainly adopted Teachout's advice for the development of a web-based community. Mybarackobama.com (which has morphed into Organizing for America) was a facebook-type organizing tool that "engage[d] numerous supporters on multiple initiatives." They used the web-site not only for personal fundraising (which they did at unprecedented levels), but also for blogging, listservs, and most importantly, meeting tools. When that infrastructure is transferred over to the Democratic National Committee, they will be technological light years ahead of their Republican counterparts.
Obama with the help of many party loyalists (e.g. Senior Advisor Anita Dunn) and several candidate loyalists (e.g. Senior Strategist David Axelrod and Advisor Vallerie Jarrett) attempted to portray himself as a "post-partisan" candidate who had keen skill in working through ideological differences. This is a far cry from the modern Democratic Party's "netroots," which is driven by a liberal base of supporters and ideology. I think we are seeing this difference playing itself out as Obama attempts to govern. For example, it is pretty well-known in political junkie circles that Obama delegated the writing of the stimulus package to the House Democrats. Their automatic response was to craft a bill that critics consider somewhat of a liberal catharsis from the last 8 years. But in order for the bill to pass and to live up to his campaign pledge, Obama had to work with and gain the support of a handful of moderate Republicans. As a result some of the spending was removed. Now he has to smooth over some bruised feelings within the Democratic Party, particularly the Congressional Black Caucus.
McCain with the assistance of many of the GOP's loyal partisans (e.g. Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt and Senior Advisor Nicole Wallace) and some of his own core supporters (e.g. Senior Advisor Mark Salter), attempted to paint himself as the same maverick who ran for President in 2000. He was forced to run away from the Republican Party label and "netroots" because of the overwhelming negativity associated with the party name within the electorate. McCain's rhetoric highlighted his many bipartisan successes as a Senator and he regularly articulated instances when he chose to buck the GOP establishment and side with the Democrats in Congress. While this was his M.O., he was caught in a brutal election cycle for Democrats. Obama was pushing a similar message and was more persuasive with both liberal and moderate voters within the electorate.
Technological advances and new methods of communication are driving campaigns toward candidates and away from parties. Because candidates (particularly on the Presidential level) are required to raise a significant chunk of their own money to run their campaigns, they are taking control of the message and are required to provide the vision for harnessing new technologies. The Dean campaign in 2004 and the Obama campaign in 2008 are perfect examples. In neither case had the Democratic Party built a sophisticated technological apparatus that was able to effectively grasp modern technological tools. In addition 24 hour cable news and modern communication tools, such as YouTube are forcing candidates to take more control over their campaign. Because of a hyperactive media's willingness to associate petty statements made by 5 cent advisors and minor supporters, campaigns attempt to script all of the message sent out by the party. Despite the attempts at disciplilned message control, the new media has caused significant political problems for campaigns. Examples include Obama's "bitter" comments and McCain's "fundamentals" quote. Not to belittle the significance of either, but they both received excessive play throughout the campaign and were a product of 21st century media. We can certainly apply parts of this discussion to Congressional Campaigns, but not as much.
George Allen's Maccaca line was certainly an example of a candidate getting burned by new media. On the other hand, they have significant (although not entire) financial support of their respective Congressional Campaign committees, so they are more likely to relinquish some control to the party.
During the 2008 presidential campaign President Obama certainly adopted Teachout's advice for the development of a web-based community. Mybarackobama.com (which has morphed into Organizing for America) was a facebook-type organizing tool that "engage[d] numerous supporters on multiple initiatives." They used the web-site not only for personal fundraising (which they did at unprecedented levels), but also for blogging, listservs, and most importantly, meeting tools. When that infrastructure is transferred over to the Democratic National Committee, they will be technological light years ahead of their Republican counterparts.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
For Obama's Political Knots, He's the 'Fixer'
This is a fresh take on President Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff, Jim Messina. The article is a little tabloidy, but does a fair job of describing Messina's predominantly political role within the White House. As the title indicates, his primary responsibility is untangling Obama's political messes.
Along the same lines is this profile of White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. Time not only examines Gibbs' well-publicized close relationship with Obama (a significant departure from the Bush years, when the position of Press Secretary was somewhat isolated from the President) but also briefly describes how the White House shifted strategy on the fight over the recently signed stimulus package.
Related to this weeks readings and the recently completed 2008 Presidential Election, Messina would certainly be characterized as party loyalist, while Gibbs is also a party loyalist, but has a certain level of candidate loyalty too.
This is a lot of biographical candy, but each article offers a splice about how the Obama Administration plans to deal with Congress and other political issues.
**UPDATE** There is one more article that I found. Ryan Lizza from the New Yorker did a piece on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The article is quite long and can be a bit vulgar (just a warning). Like Messina and Gibbs, Emanuel is absolutely a party loyalist. But he also has had a long relationship with Obama.
Along the same lines is this profile of White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs. Time not only examines Gibbs' well-publicized close relationship with Obama (a significant departure from the Bush years, when the position of Press Secretary was somewhat isolated from the President) but also briefly describes how the White House shifted strategy on the fight over the recently signed stimulus package.
Related to this weeks readings and the recently completed 2008 Presidential Election, Messina would certainly be characterized as party loyalist, while Gibbs is also a party loyalist, but has a certain level of candidate loyalty too.
This is a lot of biographical candy, but each article offers a splice about how the Obama Administration plans to deal with Congress and other political issues.
**UPDATE** There is one more article that I found. Ryan Lizza from the New Yorker did a piece on White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The article is quite long and can be a bit vulgar (just a warning). Like Messina and Gibbs, Emanuel is absolutely a party loyalist. But he also has had a long relationship with Obama.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Election Rules and Factionalism
Campaign and electoral reforms have created "unintended consequences" for parties and complicated the nominating and electoral process for voters, but they have made the process more democratic while not diminishing partisanship. If anything, I would argue, partisanship or factionalism has increased as a result of the modernized nominating process (despite the lackluster turnout numbers during primary campaigns). Since it is up to the "people" to nominate candidates, not the men in the smoke filled rooms of the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago (which ironically now has a smoke-free policy), individual voters must become familiar with each serious candidate and their leadership style in order to make an informed decision. It may have been cleaner for party bosses to settle on who they believed was the most electable or able candidate, but it was hardly democratic.
Since abdicating control of the nominating process parties have been forced to contend with several problems. Specifically, they have little (as is the case for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level) or no (for the Republican Party) control over who seeks their nomination for office at any level. For example during the 2008 Republican Primary, non-mainstream candidates such as Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul declared themselves to be Republicans, but their views were either too far to the right so they were out-of-step with the majority of the country or too libertarian, as in Paul's case, so he was not in line with the rest of his party. On the Democratic side, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich called themselves "Democrats" while seeking the Presidential nomination despite their intense "Lakefront Holiday Spice" (see previous post for the reference) beliefs.
Throughout recent history (post-1968) voters within specific parties have occasionally stiffed the party with people that were not their first choice of candidates. Specifically in 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" who did not adhere to the party's typically liberal orthodoxy. This happened again in 2008. Barack Obama was hardly the establishment's choice for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination (remember according to the media Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee). On the Republican side John McCain was a self-proclaimed (or maybe it was a media creation) "maverick" who was notorious for rankling members of his own party. I would argue he won the nomination based largely on support from "moderate," "somewhat conservative," or "independent" voters from New Hampshire and "moderate" or "somewhat conservative" voters from Florida. By winning in both states he gained momentum allowing the media to fixate on that momentum. This according to Heatherington and Keefe is extremely important because of their fascination with covering the "horse race" aspect of the nomination fight. It also allowed him to sew up major donors.
This leads us to the campaign finance portion of the discussion. The current laws that have eliminated soft money donations and limited individual and group contributions to campaigns are successful at evening up or leveling the playing field on the surface. However by doing this, lawmakers have enabled the viral partisanship they devise (unless they are engaging in it) to brew slightly below the surface. By placing limits on campaign contributions, deep-pocketed bundlers who would have normally donated unlimited amounts of money to the candidate or the party, now direct their contributions to independent interest groups with a very narrow policy scope. As a result, these interest groups fill a vacuum that has been vacated by the candidates and their respective parties. According to Heatherington and Keefe, "527" groups are able to play a significant role in election advertising. They cite the most significant "527" group in recent election history--the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who ran a series of negative ads criticizing 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's war record.
By attempting to purify the electoral process, parties relinquish control over their nominees and some of the independent advertising. The system as it is currently structured is imperfect (as was demonstrated during the previous cycle's primary [e.g. superdelegates] and general election [e.g. Obama's abandonment of public financing] campaigns) and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect perfection. As long as countries have had elections and election laws, parties and interest groups have searched for and usually found ways around those laws. Factionalism has been part of our politics since 1788 and will remain as long as we are a nation. Political influence on elections will persist. It does not matter if it is "official" in the case of parties or "unofficial" in the case of 527s. We should not want it eradicated. Instead we should thrive on it and beg for its continued persistence. Strong, vociferous disagreement is the bedrock of a strong democracy. If factions are eliminated, what is the point of having elections?
Since abdicating control of the nominating process parties have been forced to contend with several problems. Specifically, they have little (as is the case for the Democratic Party at the Presidential level) or no (for the Republican Party) control over who seeks their nomination for office at any level. For example during the 2008 Republican Primary, non-mainstream candidates such as Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul declared themselves to be Republicans, but their views were either too far to the right so they were out-of-step with the majority of the country or too libertarian, as in Paul's case, so he was not in line with the rest of his party. On the Democratic side, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich called themselves "Democrats" while seeking the Presidential nomination despite their intense "Lakefront Holiday Spice" (see previous post for the reference) beliefs.
Throughout recent history (post-1968) voters within specific parties have occasionally stiffed the party with people that were not their first choice of candidates. Specifically in 1992, Bill Clinton ran as a "new Democrat" who did not adhere to the party's typically liberal orthodoxy. This happened again in 2008. Barack Obama was hardly the establishment's choice for the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination (remember according to the media Hillary Clinton was the "inevitable" nominee). On the Republican side John McCain was a self-proclaimed (or maybe it was a media creation) "maverick" who was notorious for rankling members of his own party. I would argue he won the nomination based largely on support from "moderate," "somewhat conservative," or "independent" voters from New Hampshire and "moderate" or "somewhat conservative" voters from Florida. By winning in both states he gained momentum allowing the media to fixate on that momentum. This according to Heatherington and Keefe is extremely important because of their fascination with covering the "horse race" aspect of the nomination fight. It also allowed him to sew up major donors.
This leads us to the campaign finance portion of the discussion. The current laws that have eliminated soft money donations and limited individual and group contributions to campaigns are successful at evening up or leveling the playing field on the surface. However by doing this, lawmakers have enabled the viral partisanship they devise (unless they are engaging in it) to brew slightly below the surface. By placing limits on campaign contributions, deep-pocketed bundlers who would have normally donated unlimited amounts of money to the candidate or the party, now direct their contributions to independent interest groups with a very narrow policy scope. As a result, these interest groups fill a vacuum that has been vacated by the candidates and their respective parties. According to Heatherington and Keefe, "527" groups are able to play a significant role in election advertising. They cite the most significant "527" group in recent election history--the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who ran a series of negative ads criticizing 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's war record.
By attempting to purify the electoral process, parties relinquish control over their nominees and some of the independent advertising. The system as it is currently structured is imperfect (as was demonstrated during the previous cycle's primary [e.g. superdelegates] and general election [e.g. Obama's abandonment of public financing] campaigns) and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect perfection. As long as countries have had elections and election laws, parties and interest groups have searched for and usually found ways around those laws. Factionalism has been part of our politics since 1788 and will remain as long as we are a nation. Political influence on elections will persist. It does not matter if it is "official" in the case of parties or "unofficial" in the case of 527s. We should not want it eradicated. Instead we should thrive on it and beg for its continued persistence. Strong, vociferous disagreement is the bedrock of a strong democracy. If factions are eliminated, what is the point of having elections?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
In Gingrich Mold, a New Voice for Solid Republican Resistance
This is yet another article about the leadership and direction of the Republican Party. The media seems to be focusing a great deal of attention on House Minority WHIP Eric Cantor of Virginia. Perhaps this is because he is a fresh face and he holds a news conference every 10 minutes. This article compares his role to Newt Gingrich's in 1993. It also touts his success in keeping House Republicans in line during the recent rounds of voting on the stimulus package.
Despite his successes (if you can call it that) it was not been all smooth sailing for Cantor this past week. He has been the target of pro-stimulus advertising by the labor union AFSCME. As a response, Cantor's press secretary sent an extremely profane 1970s-style spoof of an AFSCME ad to several reporters. He was forced apologize later in the week. Also included in the link is some analysis and AFSCME's original ad targeting Cantor.
Despite his successes (if you can call it that) it was not been all smooth sailing for Cantor this past week. He has been the target of pro-stimulus advertising by the labor union AFSCME. As a response, Cantor's press secretary sent an extremely profane 1970s-style spoof of an AFSCME ad to several reporters. He was forced apologize later in the week. Also included in the link is some analysis and AFSCME's original ad targeting Cantor.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Decentralization and Heterogeneity
Decentralization has serious affects on party structure and party discipline. Discipline is a particular problem for party structure. Because elections are more about candidates getting elected and re-elected, their views are not party-centered. Like Professor Tofias mentioned in lecture, a Republican from Massachusetts will likely have very different views than one from Arkansas. This example is vividly playing itself out right now as it relates to the economic stimulus package. Base Republicans (see below) are arguing against the package because it contains too much government spending (something very unpopular in their states). But some of the moderate Republicans (particularly Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Arlen Spector from Pennsylvania) are willing (or perhaps need) to work with the Democrats in Congress and the President because they represent more liberal states. Because those three have been bipartisan, it has "hinder[ed] effective partisan action." The Senate Republican leadership, which clearly detests the current bill, cannot filibuster it because of those three.
The 2008 primary and general elections best demonstrated factions within and outside of each party. First the Republican Party had a nominating contest that did not have someone that could really appeal to all factions within the party (like George W. Bush was able to). John McCain was/is part of the moderate faction of the GOP. As a result he struggled to win the support of the party's base of social conservatives during the nominating contest. His two main competitors, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee attempted to woo the social conservatives who were reluctant to support McCain. Eventually McCain secured the nomination largely because of moderate Republican support in New Hampshire, Florida, and several middle-of-the road or large Democratic Super Tuesday states. Mike Huckabee carried most of the highly religious, conservative states of the deep south (except South Carolina). Mitt Romney had Michigan and New England roots, did not wear his Mormonism on his sleeve, and had a more pro-business reputation, so he played better among Republicans in New England and the Mountain West.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party's rift was much clearer. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both had strictly defined bases that resulted in outcomes that, through the lens of hindsight, highlight those bases. Obama's supporters were typically younger, more affluent, African-American, and new to the political process. To many Obama represented where America was headed in the 21st century. As a result he was able to sweep the Deep South, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest. Clinton's supporters, on the other hand, were much older, blue collar, white and Hispanic. As a result they were part of the traditional (minus African-Americans) Democratic base. Her supporters were primarily concerned with the economy and longed for a return to 1990s prosperity. This enabled her to win states in the rust belt and places such as the southwest.
During the general election, the Democratic Party was able to unify itself and rally behind Barack Obama's candidacy. With the help of Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden, he was able to convince most of Clinton's rust belt supporters to support him. John McCain spent much of the campaign trying to energize his conservative base. In addition, McCain had trouble prying some of Clinton supporters away from Obama. For example, he was originally popular among Hispanics, an important group that George W. Bush made progress in courting to the Republican Party in 2004. Unfortunately for McCain he was unable to build a coalition that included not only his conservative base, but also Hispanics and other elements of Obama's supporters. This was largely the result of the hard line adopted by the GOP in 2005 immigration debate.
All of this leads to the current state of the parties. The base of the Democratic Party is largely made up people living in the Northeast and along the West Coast. Significantly, but to a lesser extent it consists of people living in the upper Midwest. However over the last 2 election cycles (2006 & 2008) they have made significant inroads with affluent, educated professionals living in places like Virginia, North Carolina, and the Colorado. Adding to their deeply rooted strength among women, African-Americans, and blue collar laborers (particularly in the Mountain and Southwest regions) is the strong Hispanic influence. This could turn out to be a significant factor because the country is becoming more ethnically diverse and educated. As a result Democrats have become competitive in places that have been traditionally dominated by Republicans.
Contrastingly the Republican Party has become dominated by white males and social conservatives living in the Deep South. As a result they have become more ethnically homogeneous and regionalized. Their recent election of Michael Steele as Republican National Committee Chairmen is a demonstration that they are aware of their current deficiency. If they can somehow regain their strength among the educated and become more diverse, they can break free from some of the current perceptions of their party. But if they choose to maintain the same message, just with a different messenger, they could find themselves in the wilderness for a generation.
Sources:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopmap/index.html
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/exit-polls/
The 2008 primary and general elections best demonstrated factions within and outside of each party. First the Republican Party had a nominating contest that did not have someone that could really appeal to all factions within the party (like George W. Bush was able to). John McCain was/is part of the moderate faction of the GOP. As a result he struggled to win the support of the party's base of social conservatives during the nominating contest. His two main competitors, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee attempted to woo the social conservatives who were reluctant to support McCain. Eventually McCain secured the nomination largely because of moderate Republican support in New Hampshire, Florida, and several middle-of-the road or large Democratic Super Tuesday states. Mike Huckabee carried most of the highly religious, conservative states of the deep south (except South Carolina). Mitt Romney had Michigan and New England roots, did not wear his Mormonism on his sleeve, and had a more pro-business reputation, so he played better among Republicans in New England and the Mountain West.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party's rift was much clearer. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both had strictly defined bases that resulted in outcomes that, through the lens of hindsight, highlight those bases. Obama's supporters were typically younger, more affluent, African-American, and new to the political process. To many Obama represented where America was headed in the 21st century. As a result he was able to sweep the Deep South, the Pacific Northwest, and the Midwest. Clinton's supporters, on the other hand, were much older, blue collar, white and Hispanic. As a result they were part of the traditional (minus African-Americans) Democratic base. Her supporters were primarily concerned with the economy and longed for a return to 1990s prosperity. This enabled her to win states in the rust belt and places such as the southwest.
During the general election, the Democratic Party was able to unify itself and rally behind Barack Obama's candidacy. With the help of Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden, he was able to convince most of Clinton's rust belt supporters to support him. John McCain spent much of the campaign trying to energize his conservative base. In addition, McCain had trouble prying some of Clinton supporters away from Obama. For example, he was originally popular among Hispanics, an important group that George W. Bush made progress in courting to the Republican Party in 2004. Unfortunately for McCain he was unable to build a coalition that included not only his conservative base, but also Hispanics and other elements of Obama's supporters. This was largely the result of the hard line adopted by the GOP in 2005 immigration debate.
All of this leads to the current state of the parties. The base of the Democratic Party is largely made up people living in the Northeast and along the West Coast. Significantly, but to a lesser extent it consists of people living in the upper Midwest. However over the last 2 election cycles (2006 & 2008) they have made significant inroads with affluent, educated professionals living in places like Virginia, North Carolina, and the Colorado. Adding to their deeply rooted strength among women, African-Americans, and blue collar laborers (particularly in the Mountain and Southwest regions) is the strong Hispanic influence. This could turn out to be a significant factor because the country is becoming more ethnically diverse and educated. As a result Democrats have become competitive in places that have been traditionally dominated by Republicans.
Contrastingly the Republican Party has become dominated by white males and social conservatives living in the Deep South. As a result they have become more ethnically homogeneous and regionalized. Their recent election of Michael Steele as Republican National Committee Chairmen is a demonstration that they are aware of their current deficiency. If they can somehow regain their strength among the educated and become more diverse, they can break free from some of the current perceptions of their party. But if they choose to maintain the same message, just with a different messenger, they could find themselves in the wilderness for a generation.
Sources:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopmap/index.html
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/exit-polls/
"The Republican Lock" and "The Blue Wall"
This is another article about the direction of the Republican Party. Sorry this fascinates me because my focus as a History major was on the United States during the 20th century. As a result, my studies focused on conservative domination of the beginning and end of the century, while liberals dominated the middle. David Broder wrote in this article about Ron Brownstein's theory that the GOP ran into and continues to face a "Blue Wall." Both make a fair point that Democrats have had more safe electoral votes in recent elections primarily because of the shift in Republican ideology. But I don't believe Democrats were truly able to harness those differences until 2008.
Broder doesn't really touch on this, but I am interested to find out if the pendulum has actually begun to swing back to the left, thus putting conservative ideology on extended leave. Or if Obama's election (like Carter's and Clinton's) is simply a sign of lukewarm moderation and in 4 or 8 years we will revert back to the status quo that began in 1968 and reached its peak during the 1980s. Without laboring over the details, I tend to think liberalism has been revived and we are entering a period of government action and soft power.
Broder doesn't really touch on this, but I am interested to find out if the pendulum has actually begun to swing back to the left, thus putting conservative ideology on extended leave. Or if Obama's election (like Carter's and Clinton's) is simply a sign of lukewarm moderation and in 4 or 8 years we will revert back to the status quo that began in 1968 and reached its peak during the 1980s. Without laboring over the details, I tend to think liberalism has been revived and we are entering a period of government action and soft power.
Friday, January 30, 2009
What is a Political Party?
A political party is a collection of individuals sharing similar interests, values, and worldviews. Included in this definition are "big tent" (what a stupid name) or mainstream parties that are watered down to accommodate a wide collection of individuals. Also included are smaller, narrower parties that exist for the advancement of one or two particular issues. A good metaphor for this is beer. A person with left wing views can drink Miller Lite and join the Democratic Party or s/he could drink Lakefront Holiday Spice (and its 9% ABV) and join the Communist Party USA. Most individuals drink the Miller Lite and associate with the mainstream party to advance their views slowly. Because of their wide reach, the modern Republican and Democratic parties are financially sustainable and do maintain some flexibility by not requiring their members to blindly follow the party platform (that would be impossible). Despite the minor differences most party members possess common ideals and perceptions. For instance the Democratic Party platform officially supports abortion rights, but still accepts members that have pro-life views as long as the rest of her/his beliefs loosely adhere to the platform.
This leads us to the question in the lecture notes about interest groups. They are not considered parties because they lobby major parties for the advancement of their very narrow interest. For example, the Chamber of Commerce does not take an official position on stem cell research. Similarly stem cell advocates do not care about the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Another reason why interest groups are not parties is because they do not directly elect government officials (they may endorse, lobby, and campaign for specific candidates). So unless either group denounces all major parties and starts their own, with their own candidates, they are simply issue advocates.
Completely unrelated to interest groups and my definition of political parties are my thoughts about the readings. Washington was correct when he stated in his farewell address, "common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." Yes parties can be toxic and must--as Washington advocated--be restrained. But on the other hand Madison correctly argued in Federalist 10, "it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency[.]" So basically parties are necessary to maintaining liberty while preventing tyranny.
In addition to agreeing with Madison's call for some faction, I also concur (frighteningly) with Tom DeLay's assessment. I must say I was a bit skeptical when I saw that we were going to be reading Congressman DeLay's farewell address. However after reading his words and not listening to them, they made quite a bit of sense. Particularly striking was when he argued, "You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny. For all its faults...partisanship...clarifies our debates...prevents one party from straying too far... and...constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders." I think this is good. Discussion and disagreement are healthy. Seeking middle, fertile ground can only be reached through significant disagreement by the fringes. DeLay's notion is supported by American politics during the 20th century. A wave of conservative Republicans dominated the early parts of the century, but they were eventually swept away by the failure of their economic ideology and replaced by liberal Democrats that thrived in the middle part of the century until they overreached allowing conservative Republicans to rebound and dominate national politics until (possibly) very recently.
This leads us to the question in the lecture notes about interest groups. They are not considered parties because they lobby major parties for the advancement of their very narrow interest. For example, the Chamber of Commerce does not take an official position on stem cell research. Similarly stem cell advocates do not care about the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Another reason why interest groups are not parties is because they do not directly elect government officials (they may endorse, lobby, and campaign for specific candidates). So unless either group denounces all major parties and starts their own, with their own candidates, they are simply issue advocates.
Completely unrelated to interest groups and my definition of political parties are my thoughts about the readings. Washington was correct when he stated in his farewell address, "common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." Yes parties can be toxic and must--as Washington advocated--be restrained. But on the other hand Madison correctly argued in Federalist 10, "it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency[.]" So basically parties are necessary to maintaining liberty while preventing tyranny.
In addition to agreeing with Madison's call for some faction, I also concur (frighteningly) with Tom DeLay's assessment. I must say I was a bit skeptical when I saw that we were going to be reading Congressman DeLay's farewell address. However after reading his words and not listening to them, they made quite a bit of sense. Particularly striking was when he argued, "You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny. For all its faults...partisanship...clarifies our debates...prevents one party from straying too far... and...constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders." I think this is good. Discussion and disagreement are healthy. Seeking middle, fertile ground can only be reached through significant disagreement by the fringes. DeLay's notion is supported by American politics during the 20th century. A wave of conservative Republicans dominated the early parts of the century, but they were eventually swept away by the failure of their economic ideology and replaced by liberal Democrats that thrived in the middle part of the century until they overreached allowing conservative Republicans to rebound and dominate national politics until (possibly) very recently.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Where the GOP is Headed...
This is an article written for politico.com by House Minority WHIP Eric Cantor. He--like many in his party--is trying to articulate a new vision for the Republican Party. However he is in a tough spot. As someone in the House Republican leadership it is his responsibility to be partisan. But at the same time he must attempt to craft a message that appeals to a nation that widely rejected not only his party's ideology but also its combative recent history.
Interesting read...
Interesting read...
Hopes, Dreams, Fears
Throughout the semester I would like to gain a deeper understanding of how our current political parties started, how they have evolved through some of the major crises we have faced, and how they reached their states. Particularly interesting is how the Republican Party began in the 1850s as a northern, somewhat liberal alternative to the more rural, conservative, slave-driven, southern Democratic Party. And then in just more than 150 years the parties have basically swapped positions. The Republicans are strong in the South and rural parts of the country and certainly adhere to a more conservative ideology (although they have given up on the whole slavery thing) than their predominantly northern, liberal, urban, Democratic counterparts.
I am also interested in learning more about the modern culture war. Is it going to maintain steam during these serious times? Or is this just a product of peacetime and lethargy? I've extensively studied 20th Century American History and noticed that during times of serious crisis (e.g. Great Depression and World War II) cultural issues such as sex, abortion, religion, etc. take a metaphorical back seat on the back pages. Also, with a new president that campaigned on directly ending the "baby boomer psychodrama" will these issues remain prominent? Our previous two presidents (and many of the voices in the various political parties) have staggered through the last several decades fighting the same battles over and over and over again. As someone who finds these arguments stale, I am relieved when I talk to conservative friends that are strictly pro-life, but who's views are shaped by other "moral" issues (e.g. poverty, education, etc.). I also exhale when I talk to liberal friends who care more about economic development and trade and the uses of soft power in foreign affairs rather than what form of sex education should be taught in public schools. It seems to me that society is calling a truce to the a culture war that is now being fought primarily on the vocal fringes of red and blue. For example abortion and other hot-button social issues were barely discussed during this past election, except by some of those crazy commenters that belligerently ramble at the end of blogs and online articles. Maybe I am wrong and in a decade or two after the current issues fade, social issues will forcefully return to the conversation.
Those are my hopes and dreams. I don't really have any fears for this class (except maybe rekindling the culture war).
Now about me. I am a post baccalaureate student seeking a teaching license in broad-field social studies (hence why I am taking this class). I graduated with a degree in History from UW-Oshkosh in 2005. I lived in Chicago and got bored working in the "real world." So my wife and I moved to Kenosha (ick, no offense anyone from Kenosha) and I came to UWM. Baseball (the New York Mets), Books (Studs Terkel's oral histories are some my favorite takes on the 20th Century), Jazz (Miles Davis and John Coltrane), Food (Italian), and Booze (Beer and Wine) are some of my favorite pastimes.
Good luck this semester...
I am also interested in learning more about the modern culture war. Is it going to maintain steam during these serious times? Or is this just a product of peacetime and lethargy? I've extensively studied 20th Century American History and noticed that during times of serious crisis (e.g. Great Depression and World War II) cultural issues such as sex, abortion, religion, etc. take a metaphorical back seat on the back pages. Also, with a new president that campaigned on directly ending the "baby boomer psychodrama" will these issues remain prominent? Our previous two presidents (and many of the voices in the various political parties) have staggered through the last several decades fighting the same battles over and over and over again. As someone who finds these arguments stale, I am relieved when I talk to conservative friends that are strictly pro-life, but who's views are shaped by other "moral" issues (e.g. poverty, education, etc.). I also exhale when I talk to liberal friends who care more about economic development and trade and the uses of soft power in foreign affairs rather than what form of sex education should be taught in public schools. It seems to me that society is calling a truce to the a culture war that is now being fought primarily on the vocal fringes of red and blue. For example abortion and other hot-button social issues were barely discussed during this past election, except by some of those crazy commenters that belligerently ramble at the end of blogs and online articles. Maybe I am wrong and in a decade or two after the current issues fade, social issues will forcefully return to the conversation.
Those are my hopes and dreams. I don't really have any fears for this class (except maybe rekindling the culture war).
Now about me. I am a post baccalaureate student seeking a teaching license in broad-field social studies (hence why I am taking this class). I graduated with a degree in History from UW-Oshkosh in 2005. I lived in Chicago and got bored working in the "real world." So my wife and I moved to Kenosha (ick, no offense anyone from Kenosha) and I came to UWM. Baseball (the New York Mets), Books (Studs Terkel's oral histories are some my favorite takes on the 20th Century), Jazz (Miles Davis and John Coltrane), Food (Italian), and Booze (Beer and Wine) are some of my favorite pastimes.
Good luck this semester...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
