On this segment of Talk Policy, Director of Social Policy Veronica Goodman sits down with University of Pennsylvania Criminology Assistant Professor Aaron Chalfin who researches crime and policing. They discussed the recent spike in violent crime and evidence-based approaches for crime prevention. Be sure to subscribe wherever you listen!
Category: Uncategorized
PPI Statement on the Senate Passage of the Landmark Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal
Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement:
“Today, the Senate passed a $1 trillion infrastructure package that, among other things, will upgrade the nation’s aging transportation systems and waterways, extend high-speed broadband to rural America, and help the United States outcompete China for economic and technological leadership in this century.
“Given the toxic tribalism that has infected Washington since 2016, the infrastructure deal struck by President Biden and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators is a landmark political achievement. If the House does its part and passes this bill, it will be an encouraging sign that Washington is back in the business of governing after a four-year detour into delusion and demagoguery.
“PPI applauds the president as well as Senators Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin and Rob Portman for persevering through the long months of hard bargaining – not to mention carping from ideologues and partisan obstructionists in their own parties – to forge a compromise that serves the interests of all Americans. We also thank the negotiators for including several commonsense reforms PPI had called for to control costs, prioritize the most beneficial projects, and give taxpayers the best bang for their buck. This is the kind of leadership our country needs to make our democracy work again.
“We hope Speaker Pelosi will reconvene the House and take up this vital national investment as soon as possible. We also believe it should not be held hostage to other important priorities that the White House and Democratic leaders have pledged to advance using the reconciliation process.”
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.
###
New Report from PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project Outlines How Pollution is Hurting the American Workforce and Economy
This week, the Innovation Frontier Project, a project of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released a new report from Claudia Persico, an economist and leading environmental and health policy expert, on how exposure to pollution and lead negatively impacts the American workforce and economy.
“Lead and other environmental pollutants are not only causing a public health crisis, but they are hurting the productive capacity of the American people. Children who might otherwise have grown up to invent a new supercomputer or to cure a disease are having their brain function impaired at an early age by these pollutants,” said Caleb Watney, Director of Innovation Policy at PPI.
As outlined in this must-read new report, exposure to pollutants can cause cognitive impairments, behavioral issues, and lower test scores among children. Over a lifetime, these deficits in human capital accrue through lower educational attainment, wages, and productivity. The prevalence of pollution exposure is a significant obstacle to improving health, education, and economic growth in the United States.
Persico argues Congress, the White House, and state governments should use a variety of strategies to target pollution remediation for communities that disproportionately live and attend school near pollution sites, or live near high-risk sites, or live in older homes with pipes and paint that release lead into the air and drinking water. Persico suggests regulators act quickly to:
Raise Clean Air Act standards to close racial gaps in pollution exposure
Change zoning laws to keep children, schools, and daycares away from toxic sites
Accelerate cleanup of Superfund, Toxic Release Inventory, and other toxic sites.
Remediate homes with flaking lead paint to reduce blood lead levels in children
Increase lead screenings for children and use results to target homes for remediation
Use infrastructure spending to replace HVAC systems in schools and lead pipes in homes
Read the report here:
Based in Washington, D.C. and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is managed by Jack Karsten. Learn more by visiting innovationfrontier.org.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
###
Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org
Carolina Postcard: Will Pat McCrory Pop Trump’s Balloon?
Former Governor Pat McCrory is something of a political punching bag in North Carolina. But he could go from chump to champ in 2022 if he shatters the conventional wisdom that the state Republican Party belongs to Donald Trump.
In June, Trump endorsed Congressman Ted Budd in the 2022 Republican Senate primary. Conventional wisdom saw that as a mortal blow to McCrory.
But two Republican strategists in North Carolina – Paul Shumaker and Carter Wrenn – think McCrory, like Toto in The Wizard of Oz, might expose the man behind the curtain.
The Charlotte Observer reported that Shumaker, who is working with McCrory’s campaign, “released polling last month in a memo arguing that (Trump’s) endorsement might actually hurt a Republican’s chances in the general election.”
Noting that “the memo was not paid for or commissioned by the McCrory campaign,” the Observer said:
“Among the unaffiliated voters cited in Shumaker’s poll, 47% said they would prefer a candidate who pledged to help President Joe Biden’s agenda over one who voted against certifying the presidential election results…. Just 30% said they would prefer a candidate who voted against certifying the election, and 23 percent declined to answer.”
Budd voted against election certification, while McCrory said he would have voted to certify Biden as the winner. They’re running to succeed retiring Senator Richard Burr, who was one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump for inciting the January 6 riot at the Capitol.
The poll Shumaker cited said voters prefer a Biden-endorsed candidate over one endorsed by Trump by 49-39%. Shumaker wrote:
“When comparing a Trump endorsed candidate to a Biden endorsed candidate, (Republicans’) advantage with the Unaffiliated voters evaporates. Candidates for state and federal office at any level who are on the wrong side of these issues will alienate suburban voters and jeopardize Republicans’ chances of winning in 2022.”
Shumaker isn’t a disinterested source, of course. And his poll was about the general election, not the primary. But Carter Wrenn isn’t working for anybody, and he wrote in his blog about a national poll that found weakness in Trump’s support among Republicans:
“Half the Republican primary voters…said Trump’s endorsement didn’t matter to them; the rest split, some for Trump’s candidate, some against.”
Wrenn said “Texas’ Special Election confirmed the numbers didn’t lie.” Trump’s candidate lost a special congressional race there last month. Trump’s candidate won a special primary in Ohio, but that’s a safe Democratic seat.
Wrenn and Shumaker are both smart, veteran strategists – from different wings of the party. Shumaker is from the Burr/Jim Martin/Jim Broyhill tradition. Wrenn is from the more ideological Jesse Helms school.
McCrory, like Shumaker, came out of the Charlotte- and Western-based Chamber of Commerce, country-club, big-business wing. He was elected governor in 2012, when nobody imagined a President Trump. He lost reelection in 2016 even though Trump carried North Carolina.
McCrory’s GOP pretty much was the state party until 1972, when Richard Nixon and Jesse Helms began bringing in white voters who didn’t like the Democratic Party’s liberal tilt, especially on civil rights.
The party changed again in the 1980s with an influx of white evangelical Christians, led by Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. They opposed abortion, and they wanted tax subsidies for all-white Christian academies.
Now the GOP has changed again as Trump has brought in displaced and disaffected working-class whites – as well as the neo-Nazi, QAnon, Confederate-flag-waving white supremacists like those who attacked the Capitol.
The Senate primary next year will tell us whether North Carolina Republicans are more at home with the Chamber of Commerce or with the Proud Boys.
Links:
Charlotte Observer story: https://www.charlotteobserver.
Carter Wrenn blog: https://talkingaboutpolitics.
Texas primary: https://www.texastribune.org/
Goodman for Newsweek: The Reconciliation Bill Should Invest in America’s Kids
As Congress makes progress on a bipartisan infrastructure deal, Democrats turn their attention to the sizable $3.5 trillion reconciliation package. The bill includes major pieces of President Biden’s Build Back Better platform and the American Families and Jobs Plans. Some moderate Democrats have voiced concerns about the size and scope of the package—foretelling of difficult negotiations ahead.
As lawmakers begin those discussions, however, we should not forget about a group that doesn’t get a seat at the table for policy debates: the United States’ more than 73 million children. The reconciliation package should prioritize investments in kids, not just to equalize our relatively low rates of spending on youth, but because doing so has huge shared benefits and among the highest rates of return for any social investment.
Ritz for The Hill: The bipartisan infrastructure bill gives taxpayers a good bang for their buck
As senators prepare to vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill they negotiated with President Biden, they should be applauded for incorporating several provisions that would help control costs and give taxpayers the most bang for their buck.
One of the reasons infrastructure projects cost significantly more in the United States than similar ones in other countries is our byzantine permitting process. The bill directs permitting agencies to cut average approval times to less than two years for major projects and includes several provisions to help make that happen without sacrificing important social and environmental protections.
America’s Public Schools Must Open in the Fall — Safely
As the delta variant drives up infection rates in every state in the nation, Americans face an urgent national imperative: Making sure our public schools open and operate safely this fall. We can’t allow our children to suffer another round of large-scale learning losses as they did the previous two school years.
Learning loss is real — and it exacerbates existing inequities in our public education systems. Using the imperfect but best data available, McKinsey & Company translated 2021’s spring in-school test scores of more than 1.6 million elementary school students across 40 states into “months of lost learning.” It found, compared to similar students in previous years, students on average were five months behind in math and four months behind in reading. Students in majority-Black and predominantly low-income schools were even further behind their higher-income and suburban peers, as were younger students. When considering the huge strides first and second graders usually make in learning to read, and the importance of literacy to future school work, recent reports putting those 2021 students’ average two grade levels or more behind schedule are alarming.
To avoid compounding such losses, schools must safely reopen their classrooms for in-person instruction for students of all ages. At the onset of the pandemic, in their haste to slow the spread of the virus, state and local governments too frequently closed public schools for prolonged periods as a first resort, rather than as a last measure. The second back-to-school under COVID must be different.
Read the full post here.
New Report by PPI Finds U.S. Spending on Broadband and Telecom Declining as Share of Economy, With Better High-Speed Internet Coverage than Europe
A new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that the telecom and broadband industry is providing increased coverage and speeds while absorbing a smaller share of consumer and business expenditures. Meanwhile, Americans enjoy better access to high-speed internet than their European counterparts. The report, titled “The State of U.S. and European Broadband Prices and Deployment” is authored by Dr. Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI and Elliott Long, Senior Economic Policy Analyst at PPI.
“The data is clear: America is actually doing much better in deploying broadband to urban and rural areas, compared to our European counterparts. We live in an increasingly digital age, yet the broadband and telecom industry revenues are a smaller share of the economy, which suggests these providers are giving consumers and businesses more services for less money,” said report authors Dr. Michael Mandel and Elliott Long.
While some in the United States claim the broadband industry is performing poorly compared with the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission’s International Digital Economy and Society Connectivity Score, which measures fixed and mobile broadband deployment and adoption, fixed broadband speed, and fixed broadband price, found the U.S. to rank very close to the top EU countries in 2018, and well above the EU average.
Read the report here:
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.
###
Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org
The State of U.S. and European Broadband Prices and Deployment
INTRODUCTION
It’s common for critics to unfavorably compare broadband prices in the U.S. to Europe. The Open Technology Institute’s (OTI) Cost of Connectivity 2020 study reported that “people can still expect to pay more for internet service in the United States than in Asia or Europe.”1 There is often talk of a “broadband affordability crisis,” which presumably Europe is not suffering from.
Indicators of an “affordability crisis” would typically involve consumers getting less for more. An affordability crisis involves price increases outpacing other parts of the economy and the access to the good or service being less attainable to more and more people.
In this paper, we consider a wide range of evidence available and provide our own new analysis to evaluate claims of a “broadband affordability crisis.” First, we review several international comparisons of broadband prices alongside the data on differing deployment. Any consideration of how U.S. broadband prices stack up must take into account such deployment differences as well. Second, we provide a new analysis showing how broadband and telecom industry revenues have significantly declined as a share of the overall economy. This suggests that in an important sense, the broadband and telecom industry is providing far more services to consumers and businesses while absorbing a smaller share of spending.
While some in the United States claim the broadband industry is performing poorly compared with the other side of the Atlantic, Europeans are not so sure that they are leading the broadband race. The European Commission’s International Digital Economy and Society Connectivity Index, which measures fixed and mobile broadband deployment and adoption, fixed broadband speed, and fixed broadband price, found the U.S. to rank very close to the top EU countries in 2018, and well above the EU average (Table 1).2
In particular, data shows U.S. broadband providers provide much better coverage than their European counterparts. Consider France, for example. The typical price for broadband in France — when you can get it — is relatively cheap, both compared to the United States and other European countries. However, as of 2019, 50% of French households did not have access
to broadband speeds of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) or more.3 In the same year, only 8% of the U.S. population did not have access to wired broadband speeds of 100 Mbps or more, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).4 Similarly, as of 2019, 38% of French households did not have access to broadband with download speeds of 30 Mbps
or more. The comparable share of the U.S. population was 4%. Even if the U.S. figures overstate the availability of broadband, as some argue, the gap is enormous.
Indeed, the distribution of broadband service at various speeds is extremely uneven in European countries compared to the U.S. For example, Lyon, France, has 98% coverage at the 100 and 30 Mbps speed tiers.5 Yet in the commune of Dagneux, just 15 miles outside Lyon — with a population of roughly 5,000 — only 4% of residences and businesses were eligible for 100 Mbps speeds and only 13% were connectable at 30 Mbps speeds.
Similarly, Bonn, Germany, enjoys 99% coverage at the 100 Mbps speed tier and 100% coverage at the 30 Mbps speed tier.6 But in the Grafschaft municipality, approximately 15 miles outside Bonn — with a population of roughly 11,000 — speeds of 100 Mbps were available to only 29% of the population and 30 Mbps was available to 71%. By contrast, in Columbia, Illinois, 15 miles outside St. Louis, with a population of roughly 11,000, 95% and 100% of the population had access to 100 and 25 Mbps speeds with two or more providers, respectively.7
The link between low prices and weak deployment shouldn’t be a surprise. European broadband providers have been underspending their U.S. counterparts for years, focusing on dense cities rather than the more-expensive-to cover, low-density areas. A network that serves lower-density areas will inevitably be more expensive for everyone, even if an attempt is
made to keep costs segregated.
Our second piece of analysis is a different but complementary way to see if the cost of broadband is increasing or decreasing. Instead of studying individual prices, which are difficult to track given various fees and differing plans,
we look at total revenues from operation booked by broadband and telecom providers as a share of the overall economy. This measure accounts for all charges and fees being collected from consumers and businesses.
Since 2000, total broadband and telecom revenues have grown much slower than the economy as a whole. As a result, broadband and telecom revenues have shrunk more or less steadily from 2.7% of the economy in 2000 to 2.1% in 2019, imposing less of a burden on consumers and businesses even as they use much more data. By contrast, the revenues
being collected by sectors such as healthcare,
HELP IS HERE: The Child Tax Credit and How It’s Helping Working Families, with Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX)
On this week’s Radically Pragmatic Podcast, Veronica Goodman, Director of Social Policy at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), sits down with Representative Veronica Escobar (TX-16), to discuss the Child Tax Credit.
For context, The American Rescue Plan Act, crafted by the Biden Administration and passed by Congressional Democrats, included a historic expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC). Qualifying families will see an increased tax credit of $3,000 for each child between the ages of six and 17 years old and $3,600 for each child under the age of six. The increased credit funds — $250 for children between six and 17, and $300 for each child under six — will be provided monthly, giving over 36 million eligible families relief as we recover from the pandemic. The expansion of the Child Tax Credit could lift one-half of all children in America out of poverty.
Families who are eligible for the CTC but have not received their monthly payment should visit IRS.gov or whitehouse.gov/child-tax-credit.
Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.
Dental insurance: Plans without protections
INTRODUCTION
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) instituted new regulations on health insurance plans. One of the biggest changes was that large health plans are now required to spend 85% of health insurance premiums on health care services and smaller and individual health plans are required to spend 80%. The remaining 15% – 20% of premium revenues can be used for administrative costs and profits. These so-called Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rules require that plans return excess premium revenues as rebates to beneficiaries.
In a year like we just had, where consumption changed dramatically from what health insurance actuaries predicted, MLR rebates protect consumers. Health insurers are returning $2.1 billion in MLR rebates in 2021 because people used fewer health care services in 2020 than had been anticipated and priced into premiums.1
But dental insurance plans were exempt from ACA reforms and are not subject to these MLR rules. Some dental health plans have spent as little as 4% of premiums on actual dental care.2 Additionally, they typically have annual maximum benefit limitations and high cost-sharing. All and all, patients often get a bad deal on dental health plans.
Last year, spending on dental services dropped 20%.3 But most consumers and employers won’t see that money returned to them through rebates. Instead, it will line the pockets of dental insurance companies as a nice windfall.
But if we wouldn’t let health plans keep the excess premiums, why do we continue to let dental health plans go unchecked? This brief
outlines why it’s important to subject dental health plans to the same regulations as medical health insurance.
BACKGROUND
It’s an accident of history that oral health is treated separately from our medical system. When early dentists wanted to join the Medical College at the University of Maryland, the physicians refused them entry. Dentists set up their own line of study and that divide lives on. Fewer than 1% of health plans include dental benefits — usually dental health plans are purchased separately, often from a different company — to fill in what health plans leave out.4
Roughly 80% of Americans have some form of dental coverage.5 Of those with coverage, roughly two-thirds have private dental coverage, usually offered by an employer, though about 7% of Americans buy stand-alone dental plans through or outside of the ACA exchanges.6 Of those with private coverage, 77 million are in self-insured plans that are governed by the federal government and 88 million are in plans that are regulated by the states7. The remaining third have publicly funded coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, TriCare, or Medicare Advantage.
But even those who have employer-sponsored dental coverage often don’t get a great deal. A typical dental insurance plan offers what is known as”100-80-50″ coverage. This means the plan will pay 100% of the cost of routine preventive cleanings. Then it will cover 80% of the cost of basic services such as fillings or root canals, and 50% of the cost of major procedures such as crowns and bridges. Usually, there is a maximum benefit of $1,000-$2,000 per year. While only 6% of people exceed their maximum benefit per year, requiring one crown can cost over $2,000 — blowing through the maximum benefit.8
Dental costs have been increasing for decades. Between 1996 and 2016, per capita dental care expenditures increased 27%.9 Expenditures for dental services increased from $43 billion in 1996 to $96 billion in 2015 — a 200% increase.10 In 1996, the mean annual expense for a dental visit was $374, or $564 when adjusted for inflation, but by 2015, that had increased to $696. But the average dental plan benefit has not changed in 50 years. In 1970, a $1,000 benefit was worth about $6,909 in 2021 dollars.11 Yet, some plans still have a $1,000 maximum benefit in 2021 which no longer provides the same level of coverage because of inflation.
Download and Read the Full Report Here
PPI Statement on the Senate’s Infrastructure Breakthrough
Governing Breaks Out in Washington
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement by PPI President Will Marshall in reaction to the announcement of a deal on the bipartisan infrastructure framework:
“Bravo to President Biden and the bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who after weeks of hard bargaining reached a deal today on a $550 billion investment in modernizing America’s economic infrastructure.
“Special kudos to Sens. Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman, who persevered in the face of skepticism and harsh criticism from obdurate partisans in their own parties to forge the agreement. The first-term Senator from Arizona and retiring veteran from Ohio showed our fractured country what real leadership and patriotism look like.
“We hope Democrats and pragmatic progressives will rally behind the agreement, which is worth supporting for three solid reasons:
“First, America urgently needs to repair and upgrade our country’s foundations for vibrant economic growth, innovation and competitiveness. The bill is not perfect – no legislative compromise ever is – but it’s what we need to get our country moving again and outcompete China for economic and technological leadership.
“Second, the deal fulfills President Biden’s pledge to govern for the good of all Americans, not just those who voted for him. He’s stood firm not only against the usual right-wing obstructionists, but also left-wing naysayers who confuse the search for political common ground with an abandonment of principle.
“Third, if Congress approves the agreement, it will send a powerful signal at home and abroad about the resilience of American democracy. For more than a decade, both parties have talked about going big on infrastructure to no result. Donald Trump, who fancied himself a master negotiator, got precisely nowhere on the issue over four chaotic years in office. In only six months, Biden and the Senate group have set the stage for bipartisan action to advance a critically important national interest.
“Now it’s up to the Senate and House to show that our democracy can deliver tangible benefits to the American people. We don’t underestimate the political obstacle course that must still be run to turn a promising legislative deal into reality. But that’s no reason not to cheer a long overdue outbreak of governing competence in Washington.”
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.
###
Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org
McDermott for The Hill: Lawmakers can’t reconcile weakening the SALT cap with progressive goals
While President Biden has called for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations to finance a $3.5 trillion budget agreement, some Democrats in Congress are undermining this agenda by demanding that the agreement cut taxes on their affluent constituents. These lawmakers argue that the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction created by the GOP’s 2017 tax law undermines their states’ ability to raise revenue through progressive tax policy.
But in reality, any effort to weaken or repeal the cap would simply be a pointless giveaway to the rich. Democrats should reject this regressive tax cut that would draw critical resources away from needed public investments.
Rep. Joe Courtney and Hon Ed Husic MP of the Australian Labor Party Join Joint PPI and McKell Institute Event on Tech, Civic Integrity, and Democracy
Last night, the Progressive Policy Institute, based in Washington, D.C., and the McKell Institute, based in Sydney, Australia, hosted an event focused on global technology and democracy, featuring U.S. Representative Joe Courtney (CT-02), and the Hon. Ed Husic MP (Australian Labor Party).
The event, titled “Global Tech, Global Democracy: How Has Tech Broken Down International Boundaries?” focused on how the U.S., Australia, and their international partners can develop international solutions to ensure that we benefit from technology’s promise while avoiding its dangers. The lawmakers and an expert panel discussed civic integrity, the importance of combating online misinformation, protecting freedom of speech, and the role tech has played in elections.
Watch the twitter livestream here:
Representative Joe Courtney is a Democrat representing Connecticut’s 2nd Congressional District, and is the Co-Chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus. He serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee.
The Honorable Ed Husic is a member of the Australian House of Representatives for Chifley and a member of the Australian Labor Party. He is the Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation.
They were joined by an expert international panel on technology innovation, including Sunita Bose, Managing Director of DIGI, Damian Kassabgi, Executive Vice President, Public Policy and Communications, of Afterpay, and Mike Masnick, Editor of TechDirt. The event was moderated by Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist at PPI and Michael Buckland, President of the McKell Institute, and featured welcoming remarks by Alec Stapp, Director of Technology Policy at PPI.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.
The McKell Institute is a progressive research institute based in Sydney, Australia, dedicated to providing practical and innovative solutions to contemporary policy challenges. Since its establishment in 2011, the Institute has played an important role in shaping the public policy agenda at both state and federal level. Learn more about the McKell Institute by visiting mckellinstitute.org.au.
Follow the McKell Institute.
###
Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org
Marshall for American Purpose: Can the Democrats Save our Democracy?
The Democratic Party must fend off extremes and hold on to responsible, center-left politics.
Ideologues of all stripes are perennially frustrated with America’s two-party “duopoly.” They say it stifles voices of radical reform, fails to offer voters meaningful choices, and delivers only tepid incrementalism. Many yearn for the doctrinal coherence and discipline shown by parties in Europe, where multiparty systems are the rule.
Whatever the merits of these complaints, it’s true that America’s two-party system seems immutably entrenched. Third parties come and go; but except for the Republicans in the 1850s, none has succeeded in supplanting either of the two major parties—and it took the Civil War to make that happen.
Most U.S. voters reasonably figure that if they want their vote to count, they’d better line up with Democrats or Republicans. As duopoly critics note, that arrangement doesn’t give the public an ideological choice, since both parties normally offer variations on America’s classically liberal creed. But party allegiance isn’t strictly a matter of intellectual conviction; it’s also influenced by sectional, family, ethnic, class, and religious ties.
Historically, the two major parties have been broad, loose, and shifting coalitions. That feature has given them a pragmatic bent, since today’s political foe could become tomorrow’s convert. It’s reinforced by a presidential system designed to diffuse and share power rather than alternate one-party rule.
To prevent untrammeled majority rule, the Founders created structural incentives for compromise so that minority interests get taken into account. But heterogeneous and pragmatic parties don’t suit Americans with more dogmatic dispositions. These Americans demand adherence to fixed principles, typically expressed as moral absolutes. Not for them the tedious drilling of hard boards; they want the romance of revolution.
Lewis for The Hill: Price Controls For Broadband Won’t Work
This piece first ran in The Hill. Read it here.