Tag: Republican

Time for the Tea Party

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

Why It’s Time for the Tea Party (excerpt) – Peggy Noonan – WSJ -9/17/2010

I see two central reasons for the tea party’s rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you’ve got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you’ve got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.

But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they’re dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It’s always grown! It’s as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.

Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: “Hey, it coulda been 29!” But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They’d like eight. Instead it’s 28.

For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, “We should spend a trillion dollars,” and the Republican Party would respond, “No, too costly. How about $700 billion?” Conservatives on the ground are thinking, “How about nothing? How about we don’t spend more money but finally start cutting.”

What they want is representatives who’ll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward five inches. And they believe tea party candidates will do that..

Things Fall Apart

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

California voters in every county except far left San Francisco County and far right Orange County approved Proposition 14 which changes the state constitution to require the primary election to select the two highest vote recipients, without respect to their political party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(2010)

California may once again be on the leading edge of American history.  This change seems to be a rejection of the current primary system where candidates in both parties are required to pander to the extremists and activists before tacking back to the center to win in general elections.  Ironically, the Tea Party movement seems to be tapping some of this frustration by the average centrist voter, while at the same time pulling the Republican Party even further to the right.

In the shadow of “The Great War”, William Butler Yeats wrote:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

http://www.online-literature.com/donne/780/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Coming_(poem)

The optimistic progressive consensus of 1880-1910 among the leading classes had been severely weakened by the war.  World War II shattered the last idealistic sentiments in Europe, leading to the post-war time of European community, skepticism and limited idealism.  The United States picked up the progressive banner with the New Deal, WWII, post-war global organizations and economic recovery, the cold war, New Frontier and Great Society.  Temporarily derailed by the Vietnam War, Energy Crisis and Japanese competition, the U.S. once again embraced the optimistic progressive spirit in the 1980’s, but with a distinctively right-wing flavor following the Reagan revolution.  Twenty years of economic and geopolitical progress delivered a new sense of American exceptionalism, leading to the Bush administration’s overreach in Iraq in response to the perceived terrorist threats after 9/11.   Most commentators agree that we now face a more uncertain multi-polar future (see 2/1/2010).

How did the American public reach this point where most voters clearly see that the political system does not work (see 1/26/2010)? 

Congressional and state legislator gerrymandering has played a major role.  The average voter can see that many legislators are simply incompetent party hacks with extremist, populist rhetoric, but no sense of responsibility for governing on behalf of the citizens.  The advantages of incumbents have lead to their re-election and increased voter cynicism (see 12/12/2009).    This year, unprepared voters elected Alvin Greene as the Democratic SC senate candidate and nominal Democrat, 29 year-old Tim Crawford to oppose Dan Burton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

As the financial and volunteer resources required for election have grown, the power of extremist/activist groups in both political parties has grown significantly.   As the country’s population and standard of living have grown, narrow economically rational voters have reduced their participation, thereby increasing the power of those with strong ideological views.

Citizens of all political views have become more independent, decreasing the role of many individual and institutional influencers who once promoted the center (think US News & World Report in the 1960’s).   Politicians and political parties have become far more sophisticated in identifying and capturing the resources of those with the strongest beliefs.

After the break-up of the Democratic Party’s “solid south” position following passage of the 1960’s civil rights legislation, the Republican Party developed a more philosophically consistent right wing position on all economic, military and cultural issues.  The Democrats have tried to move towards the center, but the left-right and Democratic-Republican dimensions of American politics have become synonymous for almost 40 years.  The Republicans have effectively attracted millions of Catholic, Baptist, working and middle class voters from Democratic strongholds, while the Democrats have rode demographic trends and recaptured some socially moderate and upper middle class voters on the coasts.

The modern media has returned to its 19th century roots, adopting explicit political and populist positions in order to sell advertising.  This promotes partisan posturing and coverage.

Politics no longer attracts citizen legislators with moderate views.  Political positions have very low compensation compared with other options for highly competent citizens.  The price of entering a campaign is so high that only individuals with hopes for a 20 year political career, radical idealists or the very wealthy rationally pursue elected office.

Non-party primaries, campaign finance reform, independent districting commissions and grass-roots political participation can all help to return our political system to the center, where reasonable compromises can be found for the benefit of all.  Without some structural changes, we run the risk of having the divisive and unproductive political results seen in Italy, Greece, Mexico, Venezuela, Japan and Germany.  A solid majority of the American people desire centrist solutions to our challenges.  Structural changes can help to ensure that we have a self-improving system, or at least that we do not see “things fall apart”.

2010 Elections

tomkapostasy1 Comment

The 2010 election campaign is about to begin in earnest.  The events of the last three months have certainly swung the Republicans’ way.  Even the “health reform” victory is likely to have a mostly negative impact on short-run Democratic prospects.  Opposing parties always make progress in midterm elections.  The real question is “how much?”  Eight months from the elections, I give a strong edge to the Republicans, but believe that the “Tea Party” movement may backfire on the right.

Politicians are experts at getting elected and re-elected.  They know that winners occupy enough of the middle to attract swing voters and enough of their edge to motivate the party faithful.  In the 1968 election, George Wallace highlighted the role that socially conservative and economically moderate voters could play.  Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew capitalized on the interests of the silent and moral majority, realigning politics for two generations.  Ronald Reagan clarified the pitch and a more coherent philosophy, solidifying the right-wing strategy.  Subsequent moderate Republicans like the Bushes proclaimed the new message, adopted the tax cut strategy, courted the religious right and increased expectations of their new supporters. 

During this time the Republican Party has successfully shifted the definition of left and right on the critical economic scale, forcing Clinton and Obama to adopt economically conservative means, programs and terminology, while continuing to pursue their leftward goals.  The Republicans have also undercut the Democrats’ classic appeal to the economic interests of the working and middle classes by touting growth, entrepreneurship and economic freedom as higher ideals.  They have increased the weight of social issues and courted a populist libertarian strain in America through fringe candidates such as Ron Paul and Sara Palin.  The Republicans have mastered the tactical dimensions of politics, beating the Dem’s at fundraising, participation, communications and media influence.  Although taunted as “the party of ‘no’”, the Republicans have effectively avoided major responsibility for the weak economy, ongoing terrorist threats, the banking meltdown, immigration gridlock, increasing healthcare costs, wider income distribution and the coming retirement cliff.  Now that Obama has a year under his belt, they are effectively painting him with responsibility for these and other situations.

The Democrats have responded to this shift in the playing field by sending three southerners to the White House (Johnson, Carter and Clinton) positioned as moderates.  The Democrats have maintained their hold on a growing minority and shrinking union base.  They have improved their posturing skills and election tactics, especially in social media.  They have adopted some centrist programs and begun to fight for key terms such as “accountability” and “economic progress”.  The Democrats have taken care of their base through laws and funding.  President Obama has provided a message of bipartisanship, hope and change which deflects attention from controversial specific programs.  He and his colleagues have not hesitated to blame George Bush and the Republicans for a variety of “messes” and dodged their responsibility. 

It is no surprise that a weak economy (it’s the economy stupid) would catch up with Obama, especially given his pursuit of so many distracting goals.  However, the impact of “Tea Party” is something of a surprise.  Sara Palin was clearly chosen as a VP candidate by John McCain to appeal to part of the party faithful.  Her candidacy, the stirrings of Ron Paul, the unfulfilled promises to social conservatives by the Bushes and the demonization of national Democratic leaders and programs for two decades have crystallized into a true populist backlash against the evils of “big government” and its mostly Democratic supporters.

Will the “Tea Party” help or harm the Republicans?  In the short-run, it has clearly scared moderate Democrats, especially those in conservative districts.  On the other hand, it has also scared moderate Republicans, including John McCain.  In some cases, the more conservative primary winners will be defeated due to their extreme positions.

I think that there is an even greater risk that the Republican Party has unintentionally moved so far right in its rhetoric, positions, legislation and new affiliation with the “Tea Party” that it will lose touch with classic moderates and swing voters.  In 1968, Hubert Humphrey wanted nothing more than growth of New Deal and Great Society programs.  He was not seeking a social revolution or a counterculture.  However, the activists painted a picture of revolution that frightened most of the country to embrace the solid posture of twice-defeated Richard Nixon as the safest choice in an emotional time.

If the “Tea Party” continues to gain publicity and become affiliated with the Republican Party, the same kind of social distancing may take place in 2010 or 2012.  By belief or by framing, the ”Tea Party” appears to hold extremist views on the economy (radical self-sufficiency), the role of government (none, including popular entitlement programs), banking (gold standard), religion (one fundamentalist, end of times, withdrawal from society) and security (gun rights and military adventurism).  The “true believer” statements are passionate, direct and uncompromising.  They may provide the Democrats with an “extremist” straw man to replace the current “banker” straw man.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Indiana Redistricting Proposal Adds Value

tomkapostasyLeave a comment

“For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail.”  —  Benjamin Franklin

 Now, more than ever, society must rely on real economic growth to make the pie larger and allow us to choose how to divide the pie.  In the hot policy areas – global warming, health care, unemployment, alternate energy, retirement security, national security, adequate food – all solutions depend upon our ability to grow the economy.

 The private sector, especially in the last 30 years, has demonstrated its nearly unlimited ability to create value.  The contrast between productivity growth in the competitive sectors (ag, manufacturing, distribution, communications, mining, transportation, media, banking, IT, services) and the others (government, social services, utilities, education, health care) is instructive.  About 60% of the economy delivers 3-5% annual productivity improvements, while the other 40% is stuck at 0-1%.

 The slow growth sectors are all in areas where market failure is the rule – sometimes because services are natural public goods and sometimes due to natural monopolies, externalities, or unequal information.  In each case, there is a key role to be played by the government in shaping these industries to pursue continuous improvement as happens naturally in other sectors.

 Unfortunately, our political system does not produce “philosopher kings” who cooperate to find optimal solutions.  In a two-party democratic system, the best that can be hoped for is that the two parties will define contrasting, yet centrist policies and employ politicians who can seek re-election by solving some problems rather than merely demonizing the other side.

 The gerrymandering of Indiana congressional, senate and representative districts every 10 years encourages a polarized political environment.  The party in power draws districts to maximize their representation by creating as many 55-60% safe districts as possible, while consolidating their opponents into as few 80-90% majority districts as possible.

 This process results in extreme left and extreme right candidates winning nearly all races.  Centrist candidates have no chance in stacked districts.  Centrist voters have no influence in stacked districts.  The political parties attract extremist candidates.  They attract extremist supporters.  Only in a small minority of districts do voters have a choice between two qualified centrist candidates who mainly differ by a modest degree on the political spectrum. 

 The Indiana Senate’s Republican Caucus, Secretary of State Todd Rokita and Carmel representative Mike Delph have floated various proposals to turn redistricting over to some form of non-partisan commission, required to take advantage of the computer software which can define boundaries to maximize the compactness of each district, without considering socio-economic, religious, racial or political factors. 

 A visual example of the current skewed districts versus neutral districts is shown at http://bolson.org/dist/IN/.

 Members of both political parties should be able to see that the skillful use of gerrymandering today is a recipe for failure.  Even California voters are now seeing that structures that lead to polarization can bankrupt a state.  Indiana voters who care about the future should pursue this “good government” initiative.