Posts Tagged ‘
Public opinion ’
Friday, April 15th, 2011
by Joel Berg
Self-styled conservative pundit Michelle Malkin just published a column on National Review Online that places politics over facts to slam an innovative public/private, faith-based/secular partnership that is effectively fighting domestic hunger across the United States.
She argues that it is wrong to use participants in the AmeriCorps national service program to help low-income families, children, and seniors obtain food stamps benefits, which she derides as “welfare.” Yet Malkin purposely omits key facts that would help the public understand that many components of both the AmeriCorps Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – the current name for what used to be called the Food Stamp Program – advance conservative principles.
Let’s start with the idea of national service, which engages Americans in domestic community service, usually through non-governmental nonprofit groups. Participants receive a small living stipend, but don’t receive a penny unless they work hard. If they successfully complete a full term of service, they receive an educational scholarship, but again, only if they do the work and do it well. It is no wonder then that, in the late 1980’s, when the Democratic Leadership Council and the Progressive Policy Institute (two organizations generally affiliated with the conservative/moderate wing of the Democratic Party and for whom I worked) proposed the idea that would become AmeriCorps, it was traditional liberals who were the staunchest opponents of the program, saying it was wrong to tie government benefits to work requirements.
In 1990, arch-conservative William F. Buckley, the founder of the National Review, wrote an entire book (Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country) promoting a government-funded system of national service, in which most of the money would be controlled by the states and participants would be provided a small living allowance. That’s exactly how AmeriCorps works today. Buckley went as far as to say that Americans who chose not to give back to their country by serving in such a program would be “contemptuous of their heritage and ungrateful.” He predicted that most conservatives would eventually embrace the idea because a “natural conservative sense of duty and of reverence for tradition will gradually win over most conservatives.”
It is ironic indeed that an idea championed by conservatives and derided by liberals is now lambasted as some sort of so-called example of liberalism run amuck.
In reality, most AmeriCorps funding decisions are made by states. Conservatives who are consistent about supporting federalism should embrace this program. All AmeriCorps benefits are made contingent upon work. Conservatives who are consistent in their claim that work should be the centerpiece of social policy should herald AmeriCorps as a best practice.
The most egregious misinformation in the Malkin piece is her implication that the national AmeriCorps benefits outreach program she is slamming is managed directly by the federal government and funded only by the federal government. It is not. In fact, it is run by the organization I manage, the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, a 501(c)3 nonprofit group, in conjunction with nonprofit groups and faith-based organizations around the country. (For the record, I am writing this response using non-governmental funds.) While most of the funding is federal, significant matching funds have been provided by the Walmart Foundation and the Trinity Church Wall Street in New York City. Conservatives who are consistent in their desire to buttress non-government entities should hold up AmeriCorps as a shining example.
Malkin derides religious organizations working with the government on SNAP outreach as “left wing,” but the reality is that our AmeriCorps outreach program is working with mainstream Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish groups. Our partners include the Presbyterian Hunger Program, Baylor University, and the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. Conservatives who are consistent in their support for faith-based partnerships should run to the hilltops to praise this program.
Moreover, it’s absurd to claim that helping our hungry neighbors, including seniors and children, obtain food is somehow “left wing.” Given that mandates to do so are central commandments of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an, I would think that self-proclaimed religious people, such as Malkin, should promote, not deride, such efforts. After all, it was Jesus Christ himself (in Matthew 25) who said that helping the poor and hungry obtain food was just as holy as feeding the Lord.
I must also point out that, in some fundamental ways, the SNAP program is a conservative approach to fighting hunger. SNAP benefits are, first and foremost, wage supports, helping make low-income work a better way to support a family than receiving cash welfare. In fact, people who have left welfare are less likely to return if they receive SNAP. That is why many conservative governors have promoted SNAP access even as they continue to reduce their welfare rolls. Even President George W. Bush’s Administration made it clear that SNAP was a work support, not welfare. In fact, the Bush Administration’s USDA Under Secretary Eric Bost once said, “I assure you, food stamps is not welfare.” Yet because the term “welfare” sounds so much more nefarious than the accurate term “nutrition assistance,” Malkin uses it over and over again to inflame her audience.
SNAP is the ultimate voucher program, allowing families to use government funds to shop at private stores. Unlike truly liberal countries like India or Brazil where government food programs direct low-income families to government-run food warehouses, SNAP is now distributed entirely through the U.S. private enterprise system. Every government dollar spent by taxpayers on SNAP creates 1.8 dollars in private economic activity. Conservatives who are consistent in their support of vouchers should highlight the effectiveness of SNAP.
To be sure, AmeriCorps also bolsters the traditional liberal goals of increasing economic opportunity and expanding educational access. But there is no question that it also supports the traditional conservative goals of rewarding work and strengthening communities.
Likewise, outreach to increase SNAP usage advances the traditional liberal goal of reducing poverty. But there is no doubt that it also reinforces the traditional conservative goal of strengthening families.
If we want to live in a country that exists in a state of perpetual political warfare – in which we automatically denounce anything supported by our political opponents – then it makes sense for some people to reflexively oppose AmeriCorps and SNAP just because their opponents support them.
But if we want to live in country where Americans come together to solve major problems based on shared values – as the vast majority of Americans do – then we should all embrace efforts such as AmeriCorps. Our national service program, fighting hunger with a mix of federal and private funds, working with both secular and religious non-profit groups, represents the best of middle-of-the road American tradition. It deserves all Americans’ consistent support.
cross-posted from New York City Coalition Against Hunger
Tags: AmeriCorps, conservatives, political polarization, Public opinion
Posted in
Daily Fix |
No Comments »
Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
Our top five reads of the day:
- William Galston thinks that Obama can’t ignore the Rust Belt: “Clues suggest that the Obama’s 2012 campaign will focus more on the Democratic periphery—territory newly won in 2008—than on the heartland, where elections have been won and lost for the past half-century. This could turn out to be a mistake of epic proportions. Why? Because the United States looks a lot more like Ohio than like Colorado.”
- Josh Kraushaar is disappointed in the President’s inability to lead on the budget crisis: “Obama said in his State of the Union address that he wants to “win the future,” but his policies remain stuck in a 20th-century mindset defending a strained government entitlement system and public-sector unions.”
- Steven Pearlstein thinks Gov. Walker should have taken labor relations 101 and tried to reach out to the public employees: “Now compare that with how Wisconsin’s new chief executive handled the situation: Impose an across-the-board pay cut and tell employees neither they nor their representative will ever again have a say in how things will be run or get a pay raise in excess of inflation. A great way to start things off with the staff, don’t you think? Remember that the next time you hear some Republican bellyaching at the Rotary lunch about why government should be run more like a business.”
- Leslie Gelb urges America to not get too actively involved in the Middle East: “Many will argue this modest and careful course will place you on the wrong side of history. But, Mr. President, they don’t know where this Arab whirlwind is tossing us any better than you or I. My fear is that an activist and grand strategy will grossly exaggerate America’s power to shape events and will do more harm than good.”
- Ben Wildavsky isn’t so worried about American students’ scores on international assessment tests: “In this coming era of globalized education, there is little place for the Sputnik alarms of the Cold War, the Shanghai panic of today, and the inevitable sequels lurking on the horizon. The international education race worth winning is the one to develop the intellectual capacity the United States and everyone else needs to meet the formidable challenges of the 21st century — and who gets there first won’t matter as much as we once feared.”
Tags: 2012 election, Barack Obama, Education, labor unions, Middle East, Public opinion, Wisconsin
Posted in
Daily Fix, Evening Fix |
No Comments »
Friday, November 19th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
“High risk” seems to be the consensus term for President Obama’s decision to push for ratification of the new START Treaty during this year’s lame-duck session. That’s understandable; hardly any Republicans senators are on board, and Republican senators-elect are complaining that no treaty votes should be taken until they have been sworn in (of course, they are complaining about the very existence of a lame-duck session, so that’s not a terribly distinctive argument). The administration needs 67 votes for ratification, and once Mark Kirk obtains his early swearing-in just after Thanksgiving, there will only be 58 Democratic senators.
But fewer voices are asking if Republican obstruction of START carries any political risks. There is virtually no evidence that foreign policy had a significant partisan impact on the midterm elections, even amongst the Republican-tilted November 2 electorate; no one can credibly claim any conservative mandate on arms control or other defense policy controversies. The President has consistently obtained some of his strongest approval ratings on foreign policy and defense issues. He has a glittering array of distinguished Republican backers for START representing past GOP administrations. And the argument being made for delay on START by the most visible GOP senators—the treaty needs to be held hostage to higher defense spending (for nuclear modernization)–strikes a discordant note with GOP and nonpartisan demands for immediate reductions in federal spending, not to mention the desire for bipartisanship wherever possible.
Moreover, it’s not clear that Republicans have their own internal act together on defense and foreign policy; there are a host of potential rifts, some left over from the Bush administration, some dating back to the Cold War. Perhaps the threat to delay START ratification is more of a bluff, and if the administration doesn’t call it, progress on any other legislation during the lame duck session could prove impossible. The politics of this fight will now become clearer now that the White House has refused to back down.
The big overriding question, of course, is whether bipartisan cooperation will prove possible on any significant issue, with Republicans making full extension of Bush tax cuts and a drive to repeal health reform their top priorities. There’s some interesting new political science data on the extent to which the midterms increased polarization in Congress (or at least in the House). According to Adam Bonica, who is using the standard measurement for the ideological positioning of Members of Congress:
77 percent of freshmen Republicans in the 112th Congress will locate to the right of the party median from the 111th. In other words, nearly 8 in 10 incoming House Republicans would have been on the right wing of the party in the 111th Congress.
The problem for Republicans is that their “conservatism” does not necessarily dictate clear positions on many defense policy issues, or on the larger conflict between deficit reduction and other policy goals. But ideology by no means disposes the GOP to cooperate with Democrats, and particularly with the President whose defeat in 2010 is, according to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, their paramount goal.
On the public opinion front, pollsters are beginning to shift from retrospective looks at 2010 voters towards efforts to measure the likely 2012 electorate, which will be much larger, younger, less white, and less conservative. The shift in perspective can sometimes be dramatic. Public Policy Polling caused a stir by releasing a large batch of state polls of likely 2010 voters showing President Obama trailing a “generic Republican” in all of them, some by big margins. Then PPP released a poll of Virginians who voted in any of the last three elections, and measured Obama against named potential GOP opponents, and the picture was very different: Obama not only had a positive (50/45) job approval rating in the Old Dominion, but led (or in the case of Mitt Romney, was tied with) all the Republicans who might run against him. And this was in a state where on November 2 Republicans knocked off three Democratic House members and nearly beat a fourth. It’s all about who gets asked, and how the questions are framed.
Tags: 112th Congress, Adam Bonica, Bush tax cuts, Cold War, defense issues, defense policy controversies, Democratic Senators, Foreign policy, Generic republican, high-risk, Homeland security, Lame Duck, Mark Kirk, midterm elections, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, PPP, President Obama, Public opinion, Public Policy Polling, republicans, START, Virginians, White House
Posted in
Daily Fix, Issues, Political Memo |
No Comments »
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
President Barack Obama, and Democrats in general, remain dogged by the question of whether they compromised too much and got too little in return.
The critique is familiar: There was no point in reaching out to Republicans; Obama should have come out swinging and browbeat moderates into more sweeping health care reform and a bigger stimulus — exciting the base. Now, the base is depressed, and the resulting enthusiasm gap is likely to spell defeat for Democrats. But this is shortsighted.
Continue reading at Politico
Photo credit: Chris-Harvard Berge
Tags: authority, Barack Obama, bipartisanship, Campaigns and elections, CBS/New York Times, centrist, clean energy, Climate change, communist, compromise, Democrats, economic recovery, Edmund Burke, fascists, GOP, hard-right, health care reform, ideological purity, in-goup/out-group, independents, Infrastructure, long-term trend, Manichean, Mid-Term Elections, moderates, modernization, no-surrender, Pew, polarization, Politico, Politics and politicians, Progressivism, Public opinion, reasonableness, republicans, Senate, sense of the sacred, smart politics, socialism, stimulus, Tea Party, terrorist, U.S. electorate
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues, PPI in the News, Press |
1 Comment »
Tuesday, October 26th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
Virtually every election cycle produces some sort of “lessons learned” debate in both major parties. Big victories invariably generate a scramble for credit among factions and leaders. Big defeats often lead to “struggles for the soul” of this or that party. Such struggles typically reflect old battles and grievances as much as fresh evidence of public opinion or the success or failure of particular strategies and tactics. And that’s why they sometimes begin well before voters actually weigh in.
The first major trumpet blast on the Democratic side was by The Nation’s Ari Berman, who penned a New York Times op-ed with the unsubtle title: “Boot the Blue Dogs.” In fairness to Berman, the Times’ word limits forced him into a CliffsNotes version of his argument, which he has elucidated at greater length in an entire book. But his essay does cover a lot of ground heavily occupied by those on the Left who believe that the willingness of the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership to tolerate moderate-to-conservative Democrats has doomed the party politically and substantively:
With President Obama in office, some notable beneficiaries of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy have been antagonizing the party from within — causing legislative stalemate in Congress, especially in the Senate, and casting doubt on the long-term viability of a Democratic majority….
A smaller majority, minus the intraparty feuding, could benefit Democrats in two ways: first, it could enable them to devise cleaner pieces of legislation, without blatantly trading pork for votes as they did with the deals that helped sour the public on the health care bill. (As a corollary, the narrative of “Democratic infighting” would also diminish.)
Second, in the Senate, having a majority of 52 rather than 59 or 60 would force Democrats to confront the Republicans’ incessant misuse of the filibuster to require that any piece of legislation garner a minimum of 60 votes to become law.
The obvious response to Berman’s argument is that Democrats (particularly in the Senate) have been perfectly free throughout the last two years to pursue this small-majority strategy, but chose not to for one reason or another (often because some left-leaning Democratic senators opposed measures to reduce the power of the filibuster, which they have deployed during periods of Republican ascendancy).
Perhaps “booting” the Blue Dogs will make the caucus more collegial, but it won’t increase the number of progressive House or Senate members. So what’s the harm of having Blue Dog members who will help maintain the majority, and on many occasions, will vote with the caucus as well? As for the idea that a more ideologically consistent caucus will be able to draft “cleaner” legislation, what difference does that make if you don’t have the votes to enact it?
An additional argument that is often heard (but that Berman does not include in his Times piece) is that the power of the Democratic Party’s message is directly proportional to its consistency. It’s pretty easy to go from this line of reasoning down the rabbit hole of cognitive science or “branding” theory, but there are a lot of progressives who seem to believe that intraparty dissent undermines progressive messaging. By the same token, of course, democracy and the First Amendment undermine progressive messaging, but that seems a small price to pay.
A stronger argument, I’d submit, is that some Blue Dogs are fundamentally at odds with other Democrats on politically critical issues involving first principles, such as progressive taxation and economic inequality. If House Democrats with a robust majority cannot implement the longstanding position of the Democratic Party favoring the repeal of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (while maintaining middle-class tax cuts), the majority truly is of limited utility.
Part of the problem with this whole debate, of course, is that all Blue Dogs aren’t the same, and that no one—not Ari Berman, not Nancy Pelosi, not Tim Kaine—has the authority to define the boundaries of dissent for Democrats. Moreover, what are the implications of a tougher party line for dissenting progressives?
What if President Obama strongly promotes a trade agenda, or a deficit reduction compromise, that infuriates the Democratic Left? When President Clinton split with House Democrats over trade and welfare reform measures, who were the good, loyal Democrats in that fight? Maybe that’s obvious to Ari Berman, but maybe not so much to others.
A final planted axiom in Berman’s essay should be noted for purposes of clarity: the idea that Blue Dogs exist because they were “recruited” by Rahm Emanuel. Obviously many leading Blue Dogs have been around for much longer than 2006 or 2008. Others have been political powers in their own districts, and national party financial backing, while helpful, wasn’t necessarily the key factor in their decisions to run for Congress. But in any event, the suggestion that the national party could, if it chose, “recruit” more progressive candidates who could win in tough territory is not supported by much actual evidence. Certainly primary challenges to Blue Dogs this year haven’t gone very well.
None of this is to say that congressional leaders and the White House couldn’t more effectively deploy sticks and carrots to encourage greater party discipline. In the Senate, support for the party on cloture motions ought to become as automatic as it used to be.
But losing seats in, and perhaps control of, the House or Senate this year does not make such disciplinary measures any easier for Democrats, and the idea of deliberately shrinking the House and Senate Caucuses isn’t likely to go over very well with either Members or with the Democratic rank-and-file. In any event, looking at the most vulnerable Democratic seats in the House, plenty of Blue Dogs are going to be “booted” and replaced with right-wing Republicans, so we will soon see if that has any sort of salutary effect on the Democratic Party.
Photo credit: Mahima Hada
Tags: Ari Berman, Blue Dogs, Boot the Blue Dogs, Bush tax cuts, caucus, CliffsNotes, cloture motions, deficit reduction, Democratic, Democratic congressional leadership, Democratic majority, Democratic Party, economic inequality, filibuster, First Amendment, House members, left, New York Times, Obama Administration, party discipline, President Clinton, President Obama, progressive, progressive taxation, Public opinion, Rahm Emanuel, Senate members, The Nation, trade agenda, truggles for the soul, voters, welfare reform, White House
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues, Political Memo |
2 Comments »
Friday, October 22nd, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
The title of this piece might seem a bit counterintuitive given the presumed certainty of Republican gains on November 2, but within that context, there really is a surprising amount of uncertainty about which party is likely to get the late breaks in this cycle.
On the one hand, state polling is showing some good signs for Democrats in Senate and some gubernatorial races. Two left-for-dead candidates, Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, have rebounded into highly competitive positions, according to some polls. Joe Manchin of WV seems to have recovered from a near-fatal swoon. Poll numbers for Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut have stabilized, as they have (at a lower level) for Patty Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California. At least one poll shows Robin Carnahan of Missouri with a mini-surge, and Michael Bennet of Colorado seems to have drawn even with Ken Buck. The brief period of hysteria about a possible Tea Party takeover of New York politics has ended in derision. And at the moment, Democrats are optimistic about winning at least one southern governorship, in Florida, and believe they have an outside shot in Georgia and (surprise, surprise) South Carolina as well (polls are showing Nikki Haley losing support and making the race competitive).
But at the same time, certain meta-indicators are ominous for Democrats. Gallup’s last two generic congressional ballot tracking polls have shown Republicans with double-digit leads among likely voters, an unprecedented phenomenon. Worse yet, in a low-turnout scenario, Gallup has Republicans up by 17 percent, which if accurate would produce House gains well above what most analysts have been talking about. And Gallup’s not alone: another highly respected research firm, Pew, put out its own generic ballot poll this week giving Republicans a ten-point advantage among likely voters.
So how can we explain the macro-micro disconnect in polling at this moment? It’s possible that Gallup and Pew just have it wrong (Alan Abramowitz of Emory University has charged Gallup with making crucial errors), and that other generic polls will soon demonstrate that those results are outliers. Another common theory is that statewide races operate according to different dynamics than overall partisan preferences, and that while Republicans may make big House gains, that doesn’t necessarily translate into victory in close statewide races.
At RealClearPolitics today, Sean Trende suggests it’s the state polls that may be off, thanks to inadequate likely voter screens that are modeling the electorate’s partisan composition too favorably to Democrats. Using a partisan composition model based on the two 2009 gubernatorial contests, Trende hypothesizes that Republicans statewide candidates may on average perform better than their polling by a 3-4 percent margin, which would, of course, throw many close races to the GOP.
Complicating all this analysis of public opinion research, of course, is the fact that the two parties’ ground games are just now really kicking in, which could change turnout patterns, along with the phenomenon of very heavy early voting. On this latter front, the preliminary data indicates that Democrats seem to be doing a relatively good job of early voting mobilization, but don’t have the sort of advantage they enjoyed in 2008, and may not have an advantage at all in certain key states (e.g., Colorado, Nevada and Florida).
Then you get into some really hazy phenomena that may affect particular races. The most discussed is California’s Proposition 19, which would legalize small-scale cultivation and use of marijuana. There is a persistent belief among California Democrats that Prop 19 will turn out younger voters (and perhaps African-Americans and Latinos) at higher levels than in other states, giving Democrats a crucial boost in close contests.
But overall, the varying indicators of late trends (unless unanimity suddenly emerges between now and November 2) are providing some real mystery and drama in this bitter cycle, and plenty of questions to mull over in the post-election rumination period that will ensue.
Photo credit: bjornmeansbear
Tags: 2010 midterm election, African-Americans, Alan Abramowitz, Barbara Boxer, California, California’s Proposition 19, Colorado, Connecticut, Democrats, electorate’s partisan, Emory University, Florida, Gallup, Georgia, GOP, Gubernatorial races, heavy early voting, Joe Manchin, Ken Buck, Latinos, left-for-dead, macro-micro disconnect, marijuana, Michael Bennet, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Nikki Haley, November 2, oe Sestak, partisan preferences, Patty Murray, Pennsylvania, Pew, Public opinion, RealClearPolitics, Republican gains, Richard Blumenthal, Robin Carnahan, Russ Feingold, Sean Trende, Senate, South Carolina, southern governorship, state polls, Tea Party, voting mobilization, Washington, Weatherman, Wisconsin, WV
Posted in
Daily Fix, Political Memo |
1 Comment »
Friday, October 15th, 2010
Ed Kilgore
Ed Kilgore is a PPI senior fellow, as well as managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, an online forum.
by Ed Kilgore
Individual elections have consequences beyond their immediate results, mainly in terms of the strategic lessons that are drawn from them by leaders of the two major parties and the news media. This may be particularly true in this midterm election, given the certainty of Republican gains after two big Democratic cycles. But it is entirely possible to over-interpret elections as well, and I strongly suspect that will happen with this one.
Republicans and their media allies have a vested interest in exaggerating the “swing” that will have occurred from 2008, reinforcing their line that the 2006 and 2008 results were simply a referendum on the Bush administration’s policies—including their alleged heresies from “conservative principles”—and not an indictment of conservatism generally.
We will hear a lot on November 3 about the basic center-right nature of the country, and the punishment of Democrats for trying to implement their own platform without any sort of real mandate to do so. And without question, some Democrats will exaggerate the results as well in order to argue that the Obama administration and congressional Democrats either failed to pay attention to the concerns of swing voters, or (more often) failed to keep the Democratic base engaged by compromising too much with Republicans or worrying too much about Wall Street.
But it’s important to keep in mind two crucial points about the arithmetic of this and other elections: (1) relatively small swings in public opinion can produce pretty big changes in results, particularly in the U.S. House, and (2) there is, and has always been, a different electorate participating in midterm as opposed to presidential elections, with the particular composition of the Democratic base making it particularly vulnerable to a midterm turnout swoon, regardless of any other factor.
On the first point, the current Democratic margin of 39 seats in the House could all but vanish if Republicans simply break even in the national House popular vote, and an advantage of five percent could swing 50 seats. A variety of factors have vastly increased the number of competitive House seats this year (roughly doubling the number as compared to 2008), creating a larger “pool” of potential wins for Republicans.
But it’s the second point that matters most: turnout in midterm elections is inversely related to the age of voters, which is a big deal since the 2008 Obama vote varied very directly with age. The dependence of Democrats in 2008 on Hispanics, another demographic famous for poor midterm voting, is also a problem. But based on turnout patterns alone, it was a virtual certainty the very day after the 2008 elections—long before the Obama administration was in a position to do anything that offended a single voter–that Republicans would make significant midterm gains. This reality is reinforced by current “likely voter” polls showing an electorate that gave a majority of its 2008 votes to John McCain.
Why does this matter in terms of interpreting what happens on November 2? Well, aside from reducing the real “swing” among participating voters, the turnout factor will reverse its effect going into 2012, creating an electorate a lot closer to the one we saw in 2008, and considerably improving Democratic prospects then. Republicans who assume they can behave the same between 2010 and 2012 as they did between 2008 and 2010 may be in for a rude shock. Additionally, Democrats who assume their disadvantage in midterm turnout is attributable to the administration’s failure to “energize the base” with more progressive policies or aggressive political tactics are missing the point that key components of the current base never, ever turn out for midterm elections in numbers matching older white voters.
Another result that is likely to be over-interpreted is the swing in independent voters, which most Republicans and many media pundits will attribute to some sort of swing-to-the-right among Independents or “overreaching” by Democrats. Among the many problems in comparing the views and votes of self-identified independents over time is that this cohort is by definition a function of shifts in the number of people identifying as Democrats and Republicans.
Any “shift-to-the-right” among Independents is at least partially attributable to a profound reduction in the ranks of self-identified Republicans from 2006 on, which has only marginally reversed this year; this has the effect of making a lot of regular Republican voters of conservative outlook “Independents” by assertion. Naturally they are going to vote Republican this year, because they just about always do.
The final area ripe for over-interpretation will be the perceived ideology of the two major parties. Without question, hard-core conservatives will claim any GOP gains this year as final, definitive proof of their longstanding argument that only rigorous, consistent conservatism can create a Republican electoral majority.
There will be a less visible, but still distinct, argument by some progressives that Democrats need to move to the left (or at least move to a “populist” ideology and message) to win, emulating the Republican tactic. Such arguments from either direction almost certainly overestimate the extent to which voters pay close attention to the issue positions and ideological character of candidates, particularly in lower profile House races.
Yes, there will be a few races—notably the Senate races in Nevada and Kentucky—where the extremism of Republican candidates is so clear and notorious that ideology will be impossible to ignore in interpreting the results. But by and large, the main consequence of this year’s lurch to the right in the GOP will be to push the party towards policies in office that will indeed backfire disastrously, both politically and in terms of their real-life effects. That’s actually what happened to the GOP during the Bush years, even though conservatives want to believe it was insufficient conservatism that undid them.
And that gets back to my initial point: many people in politics use election results not to enlighten themselves and others, but to grind old axes. Separating real from disingenuous post-election arguments will be an essential task for the reality-minded in both parties.
Photo credit: randomcuriosity
Tags: 2010 midterm election, age of voters, aggressive political tactics, Bush administration, Campaigns and elections, center-right, conservative principles, Democratic cycles, GOP, hard-core conservatives, Hispanics, ideology, independent voters, issue positions, John McCain, Kentucky, media pundits, Nevada, November 2, November 3, Obama Administration, Obama vote, participating voters, populist, Post-Election, post-election arguments, presidential elections, progressive policies, Public opinion, reality-minded, swing, swing-to-the-right, turnout, turnout factor, U.S. House, Wall Street, “shift-to-the-right”
Posted in
Daily Fix, Political Memo |
1 Comment »
Tuesday, October 12th, 2010
Scott Winship
Scott Winship is research manager of the Pew Economic Mobility Project and a recent graduate of Harvard's doctoral program in social policy. The views he expresses do not represent those of Pew.
by Scott Winship
The night that President Obama won the presidency, I was distracted by a looming deadline for New Republic piece I was already writing warning the left not to misinterpret the election results. Democratic Congressional victories were primarily the result of voters continuing to grow sour on the way Republicans ran the House and Senate. Obama’s victory owed its magnitude to the financial crisis and McCain’s response to it. Essentially, I warned that the 50-50 Nation was alive and well and that moving too aggressively could backfire.
The piece was largely ignored at the time, but it is looking pretty good today. Democrats successfully enacted landmark health care legislation, shepherded the financial system through a harrowing period when fears of another depression were widespread, passed an enormous stimulus package, and pushed through financial reform. In the process, the deficit soared to worrying levels, unemployment continued to rise, the government became the owner of FannieMae and FreddieMac and part owners of the automobile companies, the economy limped along, and public opinion turned against them.
In a sure sign that in its own way, the left is as out of touch as the conservative tea party activists, liberals lamented the supposed timidity and corporate-coziness of the Administration, and the base grew depressed. This despite the unprecedented scale of federal spending and intervention into the workings of the economy, the near death of health care reform (the biggest progressive victory since Medicare’s enactment), and loss of support among independents and moderates. Progressives thought they had a mandate for aggressive change. Apparently they still don’t realize that they didn’t.
Ironically, one of the left’s leading pundits, E. J. Dionne, argued in a sharp book in the 1990s called They Only Look Dead that the way to understand the 1992, 1994, and 1996 elections was to view the first two years as a period of liberal overreach and the second two years as a mirror image on the right. Despite all the evidence that the country is even more closely divided today, liberals such as Dionne cannot see the same dynamic of partisan overreach playing out over the past decade. But it was there during the Bush years on the right, and it has been there over the past two momentous years on the left.
Yes, the economy is surely the driving force behind voter dissatisfaction with Democrats, and Obama was damned if he did (spend hundreds of billions to avoid a depression) and damned if he didn’t. But health care was supposed to be a game changer—if voters were so keen on a massive disruption of the health care sector, as progressives have argued for twenty years now, why hasn’t this trumped the economy? The electorate is fundamentally moderate and as poorly served by liberals who want to circumvent that moderation as by tea-party conservatives who are convinced Obama is a socialist Muslim foreigner. It will be interesting to see which party—if either—gets it between now and 2012.
This article is cross-posted at No Labels.
Photo credit: Hyokano
Tags: 50-50 Nation, Bush, Campaigns and elections, conservative tea party activists, corporate-coziness, deficit, Democratic Congressional, depression, E. J. Dionne, Economy, FannieMae, federal spending, financial crisis, Financial reform, financial system, FreddieMac, Health care, House, independents, left, liberals, McCain, Medicare, moderates, New Republic, President Obama, progressive, Public opinion, republicans, Senate, socialist, stimulus package, They Only Look Dead, unemployment
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fiscal Responsibility, Fixing Our Broken Politics, Issues |
No Comments »
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
Recently, Third Way released an idea brief suggesting something very simple: A Taxpayer Receipt, a simple itemized accounting of what programs your hard-earned tax dollars go to fund. Ethan Porter, writing in Democracy, had the same suggestion earlier this year. This is a genius idea.
To most taxpaying citizens, government is big, sprawling, and impenetrable. Few have a good idea of where their money goes and what kinds of programs it funds. Absent any acknowledgment of where the money goes, it’s not such a stretch to see how some people could start to think of taxes as theft or servitude.
At a basic level, the current system is bad customer relations. Rather than treating taxpayers as valued citizens who deserve to know what they are getting for their money, federal tax collectors simply take Americans for granted. Not even a simple “thank you, your generous contributions makes it possible to preserve the dignity of our aging population, fight wars on two continents, make education affordable, and keep our environment clean.”
Of course, a simple accounting receipt surely wouldn’t put an end to the anti-government hysteria plaguing the country overnight.
But it might lead to a more informed conversation about the size of government. At the very least, conservatives who support our troops might feel better to get a receipt from the government letting them know that almost half of the income taxes that they pay are, in fact, going to support our troops. Would they be so eager to cut taxes if it also meant cutting our military?
This also could be a way for the federal government to make some inroads at restoring legitimacy. Only one in four Americans say they trust the government to do what is right most or all of the time. Maybe this is because the government has never taken the time to explain what it does in a simple, concise, understandable way.
The receipt could also provide customized district-by-district profile of how federal money is spent locally to show people very tangibly what they are getting for their money. Many conservatives might be surprised to learn that more federal money generally goes to red states than blue states. And members of Congress would surely be very happy to share this information with voters to let them know what they are doing for them (and why they should be re-elected).
Porter also suggested giving each citizen a small discretionary amount of their tax money to allocate as they see fit. He proposed $1,000. I would argue for maybe 0.5 percent of an individual’s tax return. But regardless, I think it’s important because it’s a chance to 1) give taxpaying citizens a sense of ownership over their country; and 2) alert the policymakers to what individuals’ spending priorities are.
If certain programs do poorly in garnering citizen funding votes, supporters of those programs might be on alert that they need to do a better job of justifying why such programs are valuable. It could also stimulate a meaningful discussion of what our national funding priorities should be, as different groups would surely begin campaigning and lobbying more publicly for their favorite priorities.
But the big point here is the federal government does a very poor job of communicating what it does, and how it spends taxpayer money. Here is an opportunity. Let citizen-taxpayers know they are valued contributors, tell them what they are getting, and let their voice count. Then see what happens. Things could hardly get worse.
Photo credit: The Consumerist
Tags: citizens, conservatives, contributors, democracy, Ethan Porter, federal government, federal money, funding votes, itemized, legitimacy, Military, policymakers, Progressivism, Public opinion, servitude, tax collectors, Taxpayer Receipt, taxpayers, theft, Third way, troops
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fiscal Responsibility |
1 Comment »
Monday, October 4th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
Recurrent outbursts of public anger against “big government” are a fixture of American politics. Partly, such sentiments are baked into the cake of America’s classically liberal founding ideas. But as Philip Howard points out, the relentless addition (hardly ever subtraction) of new laws, programs and regulations both bloats government and renders it less and less capable of solving new problems. If the machinery of government is all gummed up, it doesn’t much matter which party is at the controls. No wonder voters get mad, and discouraged.
So Philip is onto something here. Mancur Olson, in The Rise and Decline of Nations, and Jonathan Rauch, in Demosclerosis, explored this phenomenon in depth. So why am I not quite ready to sign onto his manifesto?
One reason is that it has a libertarian ring, in my ears anyway. I can imagine it going down much easier among Tea Partiers than, say, netroots lefties, or even pragmatic, center-left types like me. Yet progressives have, if anything, more reason to worry about the incapacitation of government than conservatives. We actually want to use the damn thing, not just disable it.
Read the entire article in the Daily Beast
Tags: big government, center-left, Demosclerosis, Government, Jonathan Rauch, liberal, libertarian, Mancur Olson, Philip Howard, pragmatic, Progressivism, Public opinion, Tea Partiers, The Rise and Decline of Nations, voters
Posted in
Daily Fix, Fixing Our Broken Politics |
1 Comment »
Monday, October 4th, 2010
Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman is a senior fellow and the managing editor for the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Lee Drutman
A National Infrastructure Bank is an idea whose time has come. The politics are tricky, but there is clear recognition from leading public and private sector thinkers that we need to make big investments in infrastructure, and that we need to make those investments in a rational way.
These were the key takeaway points from Friday’s second panel on the question of “Financing Future Growth,” which was part of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Second Annual North American Strategic Leadership Infrastructure Leadership Forum in Washington, DC.
The panelists were: U.S. Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT), Sponsor of National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2009 (H.R. 2521); Chris Bertram, Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and C.F.O., U.S. Department of Transportation; Leo Hindery, Jr., Investor, Managing Partner of InterMedia Partners VII; former President and CEO of AT&T Broadband; former President, Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI); and Everett Ehrlich, Economist, President of ESC Company; former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. PPI President Will Marshall moderated.
Rep. DeLauro set the tone for the panel by underlining the urgency for doing something big. “We need to be serious about a growth strategy,” DeLauro told a packed audience. “This is not stimulus, this is not recovery, this is whether we can grow and create jobs to compete with the economic power centers of the world. China invests nine percent of its GDP in infrastructure. India invests five percent. We invest less than two percent.”
And yet, Rep. DeLauro’s bill to create a National Infrastructure Bank and turn a chaotic ad-hoc infrastructure appropriations process into a rational national strategy has attracted only 60 co-sponsors – and not a single Republican.
“Resistance is internal to Congress,” said Hindery. “They would give up so much grant and earmark authority. Members are hesitant to see that move into an independent entity.”
Hindery argued that the key was leadership, and that the President wasn’t doing enough of it. “It has to be a stated priority,” he said. “It can’t be a proffered idea with tepid support.”
Ehrlich, who wrote a PPI Policy Memo on how an infrastructure bank should operate, was optimistic that this is an idea whose time has come. “This is a remarkable moment in infrastructure,” he said. “We are finally at a place where all the communities know the current programs are brain-dead…Local planners are wondering where the funds are going to come from, private investors are circling around the periphery of the area, looking for a way in.”
Hindery also noted that both the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable – both of whom have been largely resistant to any form of domestic spending – have come out in favor of an infrastructure bank. However, DeLauro said her Republican colleagues in Congress were not hearing this.
DeLauro highlighted that there is strong public support for making big investments in infrastructure: about 80 percent of Americans say they’d be willing to pay extra for more infrastructure.
Hindery also argued that in order for the proposal to pass, it would need to have a buy-American component, so that they unions would be on board. He also thought that making it explicitly a “jobs bill” would be effective. There was general agreement on this point.
Bertram, speaking for the administration, said that the President was serious about pushing an infrastructure bank. “I think the President is very interested in changing how we talk about these issues.”
DeLauro, who has been introducing legislation to create an infrastructure bank since 1994, was optimistic that the moment for it to pass was rapidly coming.
“We’re facing an economic crisis now, and we’re looking for ways to grow our economy,” said DeLauro. “Infrastructure is one of the pieces that makes sense for national growth. I believe it can be done. It’s not easy, but nothing is easy. And I’ll continue with this for as long as it takes.”
Tags: AT&T Broadband, Budget and Programs, Business Roundtable, C.F.O., Chamber of Commerce, China, Chris Bertram, Department of Transportation, domestic spending, ESC Company, Everett Ehrlich, Future Growth, growth strategy, Inc, India, InterMedia Partners VII, jobs bill, leadership, Leo Hindery, National Infrastructure Bank, National Infrastructure Development Bank Act, New Projects, Politics and politicians, PPI, President, private investors, Progressive Policy Institute, Public opinion, public support, Rosa L. DeLauro, Second Annual North American Strategic Leadership Infrastructure Leadership Forum, Tele-Communications, Transportation, Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, Will Marshall
Posted in
A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Clean Energy and Modern Infrastructure, Daily Fix |
2 Comments »
Friday, September 24th, 2010
Will Marshall
Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.
by Will Marshall
It’s only taken six months for President Obama’s landmark health reform bill to go from stupendous historic achievement to political blunder. That anyway is the fast-congealing consensus among pundits who follow the polls.
Count me as skeptical. Even if health care doesn’t poll well now, that doesn’t mean Obama was wrong to make it a top priority. But, in an atmosphere colored by public anger over bailouts and a sluggish economic recovery, there’s no doubt that the bill, for now at least, is more of an albatross for the president than an asset.
According to pollster Douglas Schoen, 81 percent of independents express concern about a federal takeover of health care, and nearly three-quarters say it’s important that candidates back a repeal of the law. He calls health care an “unambiguous disaster” for Obama.
And Bill Galston reports on a new Gallup survey that finds voters by 56-43 disapprove of the health bill.
An AP poll reveals much confusion about health reform. More than half the public wrongly believes the bill will raise taxes this year, and a quarter think it sets up bureaucratic “death panels” to decide who gets or doesn’t get care.
No wonder Obama hit the hustings yesterday to clear the record and remind people of why they wanted health care reform in the first place.
But it’s clear, right, that Obama made a mistake in pushing so hard for health care reform and it distracted him from what most Americans care about, namely, fixing the economy? Actually, I don’t think it’s clear at all.
First, Obama pulled out all the stops to keep the economy from sliding into the abyss, but gets very little credit for it. On the contrary, his steps to rescue financial institutions are even less popular than health care, and his stimulus package doesn’t fare much better.
More fundamentally, presidents have very limited tools for reversing economic downturns. It’s not clear what more Obama could have done — or gotten a deeply polarized Congress to agree to do — even if they spent every waking hour thinking about the economy.
And let’s suppose Obama had followed the pundit’s advice, and put off health care until the economy recovered. Well, that would mean taking up health care in 2011 at the earliest. But how likely is it that the president could pass an historic health care reform after the midterm election, when his party is expected to suffer big losses and maybe even lose control of the House of Representatives?
Maybe the midterm will produce a new crop of GOP moderates, eager to pass universal health care in defiance of the party’s leadership, not to mention the Tea Party’s feral legions, but I doubt it.
The historical record is very clear on one point: the time for presidents to wrack up big legislative accomplishments comes early in their term, when their political and public support is at highest ebb. If Obama had instead waited and tried to husband his political capital for a later push, he would have had a lot less to spend.
Besides, the bad economy overshadows everything else. If we had six percent unemployment, people might feel better about health reform too. And there’s a good chance that once its provisions actually kick in, reform will grow in popularity.
But even if it doesn’t, Obama still did the right thing. America today doesn’t need artful dodgers in the White House; we need leaders willing to take on the hard cases. That inevitably offends powerful interests and voting groups. In fact, presidents who leave office about as popular as when they come in probably haven’t done very much.
So progressives should take heart, and not try to back away from health care reform. It was difficult, it was imperfect, but it was a moral and economic necessity to cover the uninsured and start getting runaway medical costs under control. It was the very rarest thing in contemporary U.S. politics — an authentic act of political leadership – and no amount of second-guessing and poll-driven punditry can change that.
photo credit: apoxapox
Tags: AP, bailouts, Bill Galston, Democratic Party, Douglas Schoen, economic downturns, financial institutions, GOP moderates, Healthcare, historic achievement, House of Representatives, independents, leaders, legislative accomplishments, medical costs, midterm election, Obama, political blunder, popularity, powerful interests, public anger, Public opinion, public support, sluggish economic recovery, stimulus package, Tea Party, unambiguous disaster, voting groups
Posted in
A New Framework for Growth and Equity, Daily Fix, Issues |
2 Comments »
