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.
Monday, February 23, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
