Category: Uncategorized

The Perception Puzzle and the Democrats’ Challenge

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Back in June, the Pew Center for People and the Press released a poll that asked voters to place both themselves and the political parties on a scale of very liberal to very conservative. I picked this chart up again over the weekend, and stared at it for a while. Amidst the constant up and down of polling, I haven’t seen anything that better lays out the challenges that Democrats face both in the upcoming election and for the foreseeable future, so I think it’s worth re-visiting.

At first, this chart seems puzzling.  While there is remarkable consistency in where ALL voters place both Republicans and the Tea Party movement, there is a remarkable gap in how Republicans and Democrats differentially view Democrats’ ideology. (Independents come down in the middle, but since many independents tend to be closet partisans, the result makes sense as the average of the two.)

Why should this be the case? Why do Democrats and Republicans perceive the Republican Party about the same, but the Democratic Party so differently? And why does it matter?

One explanation is that Republicans spend a lot more time and energy painting Democrats as too liberal than Democrats spend painting Republicans as too conservative. As a result, the average Republican voter thinks Democrats are far more liberal than they actually are, whereas the average Democrat sees less difference between Democrats and Republicans.

This would explain why Republicans are much more enthusiastic right now about voting. If Republican voters see a larger difference between the two parties than Democrat voters, they are likely to believe that much more is at stake. If they think more is at stake, they are more likely to vote.

The second explanation is that Democrats think that the policies they support are quite sensible and reasonable, and they have a hard time imagining how anybody could not agree with them.  But the polling suggests that the Democrats’ policies might actually not be as moderate as many Democrats think they are, and the political center of gravity is a little bit further right than many Democrats would like to admit.

What this means that Democrats have their work cut out for them, both in the next two months and for the foreseeable future.

First, Democrats need to continue to make clear just how conservative the Republican Party has become, and therefore how much is at stake in these elections. Democratic leaders can’t take it for granted that average Democratic voters see a huge difference between the two parties since apparently, they do not. Certainly, Democrats are working hard to draw lines, but this polling suggests just how much work they have to do to make sure these lines stick.

Second, Democrats need to be much more careful in considering how their policies play. They need to understand that a lot of voters see them as much further to the left then they see themselves. They cannot simply assume that just because that they see their policies and positions as moderate that they are self-evidently so. Democrats also must be more aggressive in making the case that the moderate policies that they do propose are, in fact, moderate, since they are working against prevailing beliefs.

These are the challenges Democrats face, and these are the keys to whether they can maintain control in November and beyond: drawing clearer distinctions with Republicans, and recognizing that the political center of gravity may not be as far to the left as many Democrats instinctively think it is.

The General Election Heats Up

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Four days before the last big batch of primaries for the year, anticipation of the general election is already dominating most political discussions, with President Obama’s press conference yesterday being widely viewed as an effort to “go comparative” (or negative, depending on your perspective).  This tactic is designed to simultaneously energize the flagging Democratic base while convincing swing voters not to treat the election as a referendum on the status quo or on Democratic policies they may not particularly like.  You can expect other Democrats to quickly follow suit.

In the welter of recent polling data, a new Allstate/National Journal survey stands out because it detects deeper and more conflicted senses of discontent that echo the sentiments associated with the Great Depression.  Here’s part of Ron Brownstein’s analysis:

The grim weight of the extended slowdown, the poll suggests, is deepening the public’s divisions  over government’s role in promoting prosperity and the widespread distrust of financial institutions and major companies. The survey also captures the emergence of attitudes that don’t fit easily  into the platform of either political party: a prickly “America First” streak anxious about the   outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and a censorious conviction that Americans summoned hard times on themselves through irresponsibility at all levels. Indeed, the belief that average  Americans must manage their finances more responsibly as the economic storm lingers is one of  the most powerful chords in the poll.

Whether there is some “new normal” that will guide political attitudes for years to come is one of the questions that will become urgent after November 2.

We’ll have a full preview of the September 14 primaries next Tuesday, but there are significant developments today in some of those contests.  Sarah Palin has just endorsed hyper-conservative Senate challenger Christine O’Donnell, who is trying to deny congressman and former governor Mike Castle the Republican nomination in Delaware. Castle is thought to be one of the GOP’s most important recruitment successes. If he loses to O’Donnell, it will be a major triumph for the “true conservative”/Tea Party forces in the Republican Party, and would probably make Democrat Chris Coons the front-runner for a Democratic seat long thought to be lost.

Up in New Hampshire, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte’s once prohibitive lead for the Republican nomination to succeed Sen. Judd Gregg is also in doubt, with conservative Ovide Lamontagne surging in recent polls even as Ayotte’s negatives rise from relentless pounding by a third candidate, self-funder Bill Binnie.  And in the District of Columbia, Washington mayor Adrian Fenty is in dire danger of losing re-election to District Council Chairman Vincent Gray despite generally positive ratings of the direction of the city, in a contest featuring significant racial polarization in Gray’s favor.

The Talented Mr. Goolsbee

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

We were delighted to learn that President Obama has picked Austan Goolsbee to succeed Christine Romer as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. In addition to teaching at the University of Chicago and writing columns for the New York Times, Austan also served as a senior economist at PPI.

He developed several innovative proposals for us, on the changing significance of large budget deficits, and on the need to democratize capitalism by offering working families new opportunities to build personal financial assets. Here are two of his proposals:

Why Deficits Still Matter
Democratizing Capitalism

With the U.S. economy mired in sluggish growth and high unemployment, President Obama certainly needs the kind of rigorous and creative economic perspective that Austan brings. Besides which, he is one seriously funny dude.

So congratulations and good luck to our former colleague.

9/11, Nine Years Later: Election Protection in Afghanistan

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

This Saturday is the 9th anniversary of 9/11. Normally, I’d try to commemorate that horrible, epochal day as best as I can here at home. But this Saturday, I’ll instead be stepping off a plane in Dubai, along with several dozen other Americans, on the way to Kabul for a USAID-sponsored mission to monitor elections for the wolesi jirga, Afghanistan’s lower house of Parliament. Friends and family, equally freaked out by the prospect of me, a lawyer, heading into a war zone, keep asking me how I feel about this mission.

Bittersweet, I tell them. I have too many friends who have served–are serving–in Afghanistan to be either blithe about the mission’s dangers or self-congratulatory about the ultimate significance of election-monitoring. Arthur, a Marine who served in heavy combat in the south two years ago. William, an Army captain on his third tour, working on intelligence in the east. Drew, a soldier who suffered devastating injuries in an IED attack, only to volunteer for a second tour. All helping to get this fledgling democracy out of the nest.

But there’s enthusiasm, as well, for elections and national security have always been mingled for me. On September 11, 2001, I was a student at the University of Virginia School of Law. After classes were canceled, we watched from a lecture room, horrified, as the towers burned. I was an impressionable “1L” law student, reading through classic texts like Oliver Wendell Holmes’ The Common Law. It was terribly clear to me that Al Qaeda was attacking precisely what we were studying–a system that elevated laws above theology, process over power.

Two months later, I traveled to Alexandria, Virginia, to serve as a member of the “election protection” team for the gubernatorial campaign of Mark Warner. I think we all felt, in some small way, that by ensuring that our local election system functioned freely and fairly, we were at least shoring up the mortar between the blocks that mightier men had laid.

In 2000, the nation witnessed gross incompetence, malfeasance, and corruption in Florida’s election system, from the “butterfly ballot” design to illegitimate purging of the voter rolls. National Democratic lawyers vowed never again, and “election protection” programs were born. Along with New Jersey, Virginia had the nation’s only off-year elections the next year, and so hundreds of lawyers and law students were trained in electoral law and farmed out to precincts across Virginia, to help voters and election officials ensure that elections ran smoothly and fairly.

In the Warner campaign’s election day “boiler room,” I handled a regional desk, fielding calls about complaints and helping our staff and volunteers resolve them. The victories were small but certain. A police cruiser was sitting outside an urban precinct in Henrico County, potentially intimidating voters; we called the sheriff’s office and had the car moved. A voter was improperly turned away for lacking ID in a rural county; we got them to go back and cast a provisional ballot.

Ever since then, when Election Day comes around, I always find myself working on election protection in Virginia. In 2004, I coordinated the Kerry campaign’s statewide program in Virginia, helping to recruit and train over 800 lawyers statewide, and resolving hundreds of incidents. In 2008, interest surged, and thousands of lawyers and law students volunteered in Virginia. This year, I’m again on the Democratic Party of Virginia’s election protection steering committee.

Ever since that awful autumn in 2001, election protection has become inextricably entwined in my mind with the broader goal of ensuring our nation’s security. Years after the 2001 experience, I found myself writing a book arguing that we could not promote democracy abroad unless we understood the essential importance of constitutionalism–the culture of civic republican values we all shoulder.

These goals are today lighting our nation’s path through the wilds of Afghanistan. It’s curious that democracy would be the central front in the war on terror. But it is. We are not after only security in Afghanistan. We are not only decapitating Al Qaeda. We partner with plenty of authoritarian regimes around the world that militate against terrorists. In Afghanistan, we have wanted more. We have wanted democracy, and we have plowed blood and treasure into building it.

The key question in Afghanistan is how the last eight years can prove a solid foundation for building democracy. As a lawyer, I frequently counsel clients on the difference between strategy and tactics. Strategy originally was a military term, the notion of using crippling force to deliver commanding victories. But in civilian contexts, strategy often requires a more nuanced and holistic iteration.

Such is the case with civil society and democracy in Afghanistan. Political scientists often describe the “consolidation” of immature democracies into mature ones. Today Afghanistan faces life-threatening expansions of the same questions we encounter in our election protection programs. This year in Afghanistan, almost a thousand precincts out of the 6,500 originally announced have already been closed due to security concerns. And compared with the 2009 parliamentary elections, many precincts will be less democratic. Nangahar, for instance, in the east, will have 128 fewer precincts open. Kandahar will have 32 fewer.

Candidates and their workers are being openly attacked, intimidated, and harassed. Three candidates have been killed by the Taliban. In the west, several workers for one candidate were kidnapped. In recent days, the Taliban has told candidates in Parwan province that they will cut off the fingers of anyone who votes for them. Women candidates are openly threatened.

Yet there are signs of progress. When you look at the photos of candidates available at this USAID website, all of whom have “electoral signs” for the illiterate to vote by, you cannot help but be moved by their bravery, their ordinariness, the hope in their eyes. The famously violent Helmand Province will have 22 more precincts open than last year. Hundreds of female candidates are running for office. In the cities and the rural provinces, candidates are openly campaigning with cell-phone messages, posters, and paid media.

Constitutionalism–a civic culture where ordinary citizens commit to their role in strengthening democracy and the rule of law–is one of America’s proudest gifts to the world. Thomas Jefferson once asserted that America’s republicanism was to be found “Not in the constitution, but merely in the spirit of the people.” The spirit of Afghanistan’s people for their democracy appears to be at a tipping-point: bright, but flickering, like a candle in wind.

The strategic question is how to help them tend their own flame. In a country where three quarters of the citizens are illiterate; where lines of authority usually run through tribes to an elder; where the geography and topography are severely carved up by mountains and valleys, and where both corruption and courage are cultural mores, can Afghans themselves consolidate a constitutional democracy?

The answer, I believe, is yes. But the more important question is how. These are practical questions, not ideological ones, and they’re what we should all be looking to help answer as we observe these elections. After so many years, it’s facts we need, not rhetoric, in service of strategy, not just tactics. Like Henrico County in Virginia, Afghanis must continue to turn the metaphorical police cruisers away from their precincts. As we are still learning, even in the United States, elections must always be protected.

Photo credit: Canada in Afghanistan’s Photostream

9/11, Nine Years Later: The Internet, the Koran, and the Need for Vocal Moderates

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

On September 11, 2001, I had just arrived in Bucharest for dissertation research. I was conducting an interview when the planes hit. As I ran around the city, trying to find a television with news in English to learn what was happening, a Turkish worker noticed my Jewish visage, stopped me in the street, and told me that the Jews had done it. The conspiracy theory only gained ground. A week later, as I walked to Bucharest’s old synagogue for Rosh Hashana services, I was harassed for the terrorist attack multiple times by passers-by.

Again it is Rosh Hashana, and again, September 11 looms – this time, with the backdrop of Koran-burning and anger at plans for a mosque.  As we step into a new year, I wonder what, if anything, has been learned. Prejudice against Muslims has grown in America.  We even have our own bin Laden – a Florida pastor who has decided that God wants him to burn the holy book of the Islamic “infidels.”

Did I just say that – comparing a pastor ekeing out a living selling furniture on e-bay, to the mastermind terrorist?  Yes. The pastor knows that his act will bring about the deaths of scores, if not hundreds or thousands, in sectarian violence from Afghanistan to Africa. The ripple effects will be felt in violence against Christian missionaries who have lived among the Afghan people for decades. It will be seen in violence against Christian communities living along the violent belt that marks the split between Christian and Muslim Africa. And it will be felt by the innocent Muslims who are caught in the inevitable backlash.

Twenty years ago, this would not have happened. A pastor leading a flock of fifty could indeed have decided to burn Korans – but no one would have known, outside, perhaps, of his townspeople. The internet’s ability to super-empower individuals, to spread YouTube videos to millions instantaneously, to fan the flames of a 24 hour news cycle hungry for controversy, has allowed a single man with the tiniest of pulpits to receive direct messages from the President of the United States and the General in charge of a distant theater of war. It is the same phenomenon that allowed Osama bin Laden to gain an international following while camped in Sudan, Afghanistan, and the borderlands of Pakistan.

The new media reality is not something we yet know how to handle. How can a country be responsible for every action of every person within its borders – when a single ideologue can catch fire and affect the deepest fibers of our foreign policy?  How can our leaders communicate when the same words are heard in radically different ways by voters at home and listeners abroad – and yet both listen to the same speeches?

But at least we, as a foreign policy community, are talking about what to do in this new media reality. There are other cultural shifts we are not acknowledging. One of the most significant is that we are living through another period of worldwide religious revival. Across all major religions, numbers are growing, and intensity of belief is deepening. The anomie and confusion of modern life pushes some to slow food and organic gardening, others to deepen their faith and intensify their search for a higher order. The effects of this spiritual revival are being felt in country after country, from America to Turkey. This deepening of faith causes fights within religions as much as between them. Ironically, if there is a clash of civilizations, Jones, the Florida pastor, and bin Laden would actually have more in common than the moderates within both Islam and Christianity.

But there is a crucial difference. Christian pastors from around the world have denounced Jones, loudly. He has received personal calls from the heads of other Christian groups—as well as the head of the former church he founded in Germany —  asking him not to desecrate the Koran. Our countries’ political leaders have spoken against his actions in the most public of fora – and so have those within his faith. There are terrific Muslim organizations that also condemn violence within their religion. They need to be helped by those within their faith. They need to be joined by politicians and others within Islam, who are the only ones with standing to effectively speak against the violence in their own ranks. The difference in tone and denunciation between Jones and bin Laden is striking – and disturbing, nine years after 9/11.

As a Jew, I have my own tribe, my own faith and beliefs. But as a Jew with a particularly Jewish-looking mug, I know enough to be worried by increasing religiosity that is married to increasing intolerance. The internet is super-empowering the world’s most intolerant leaders, and as the current religious revival continues, this trend is only going to get worse. It is going to continue to be a particular problem in Islam, until moderates feel strongly enough to speak out just as unequivocally and publicly as Christians are condemning Jones. It’s time we, as a foreign policy community, look this reality in the eye, and address it directly.

Photo credit: rutty’s photostream

9/11, Nine Years Later: A Day to Rekindle the Better Angels of Our Soul

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tomorrow we pause to remember, as we have for nine September mornings, the lives and memories of those lost on September 11th, 2001.  It is hard to believe that the attacks of that autumn day are now approaching a decade in our past.  It just does not seem that long ago.  And yet, even with the passage of time, the legacy and the impact of the attacks on our national psyche and our national politics have not become much clearer.

If you visit Ground Zero today you see a bustling site of activity with skyscrapers rising, a transportation hub growing, and the National 9/11 Memorial taking shape with deep, cascading pools visible and trees now in the ground.  The portion of the Pentagon damaged in the attacks has been rebuilt, the entire building has been refurbished in the ensuing years, and the memorial park at the site of the impact is one of the most peaceful places in a monument-filled Washington, D.C.  The Flight 93 Memorial in Pennsylvania is being constructed as a national memorial under the care of the National Park Service and will be dedicated on the 10th anniversary of the attacks next year. These are the physical scars healing ever-so-slowly.

But some of the wounds remain raw, as evidenced by the raging battle over the Islamic community center in lower Manhattan and the proposed “Koran-burning” by a Florida pastor.  We have seen a marked increase in the anti-Islamic rhetoric in our national discourse. A recent Time/CNN poll showed that  61 percent of Americans are opposed to the Park 51 Islamic center near Ground Zero. The same poll showed that one in three Americans think Muslims should be banned from running for President and that one in four mistakenly believe that President Obama—a Christian—is a Muslim (I’m still unclear on what the problem is even if he was a Muslim).   Newt Gingrich, a potential Republican presidential candidate, went on Fox News and—breathtakingly—equated Muslims to Nazis.

To our detriment, the politicization of Ground Zero and the demonization of the broader Muslim-American community are seemingly creeping into the mainstream. When General Petraeus, the American/NATO commander of forces in Afghanistan, has to pull his focus from the field of battle to ask a Florida preacher not to endanger American troops already risking their lives in combat, I would hope it would be enough for us to take a collective step back from the slippery slope of demagoguery.

September 11th is the day to take this collective step back from the edge. It is not a day for partisanship and division. It is a day of remembrance, of collective mourning and most importantly, a day of national unity when every American, regardless of religious faith and ethnicity, stops to rekindle the better angels of their soul.  The physical scars of the 9/11 attacks have mostly healed. But we need to do a much better job— both as a nation and as individuals—of healing our emotions as well. The nearly 3,000 men and women who lost their lives nine years ago that morning deserve nothing less.

Sustaining A New Dawn in Iraq

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Iraq War ended on August 31st. Did anyone notice?

You can be forgiven if you didn’t. Wars of the 21st century aren’t really marked with start and end dates. Such are the battlefields of counter-insurgency and of the struggle against terrorism.

But August 31st was still an important day. It did, in fact, begin a New Dawn — the name of the new American operation in Iraq.

The 50,000 US troops that are still in Iraq today, and tens of thousands more embassy staff, civilian officials, and security contractors are, beginning on September 1, 2010, part of Operation New Dawn. That is still quite a presence, but the change in terminology is more than symbolic.

We are still fighting battles in Iraq, and the Iraqi people are still bearing the brunt of the struggle to bring peace and stability to their country. But now U.S. forces are solely trainers and advisors.

But a more important role is not reflected in such titles. Simply having a U.S. presence brings peace to many Iraqis, and causes the more nefarious actors to proceed with caution. This is critical as the various factions continue to develop their ability to work together within the political system, and not outside of it.

But Iraqis are on a deadline. Unless Iraq requests a renegotiation of the Security Framework Agreement, all U.S. forces are required to leave Iraq by December 31, 2011. Yes, the embassy staff and an unknown number of private security contractors will remain, but the calming – and I do mean calming – influence of U.S. military forces will be gone.

Once the Iraqis finally form a new government from the elections that were held in March, our nation must be prepared to consider – at the request of the Iraqi government – a continued presence of U.S. military forces. Somewhere around 15-20,000 will likely be required to continue to help professionalize the Iraqi Army, the Iraqi Police, and the officials that provide guidance and oversight to the Iraqi Security Forces.

Regardless of a potential Iraqi request for a continued U.S. military presence, we must expand the relationships between the American and the Iraqi peoples. It is not the military presence that builds the strongest lasting relationships, it is the person to person contact. That’s why the U.S. State Department must expand cultural and professional exchange programs, as they did to the newly emerging democracies of Eastern Europe following the Cold War. Doing so is not only in the best interests of the Iraqi people, but is also in the best interests of the United States. If Iraq is isolated, among other things, Iran’s influence is likely to increase.

Specifically, the State Department should support independent groups such as Sister Cities International in their efforts to facilitate vibrant cultural and educational programs between U.S. and Iraqi communities. To continue the professionalization of Iraqi Police, the State Department should facilitate the partnership of law enforcement agencies in the United States with those in Iraq.

This is hardly a new concept: Such efforts between the militaries of Eastern Europe and U.S. State National Guards are similar in scope and have been an unqualified success. Similar programs have been successful for nearly 20 years, helping developing countries with technical skills, human rights, and strengthened civilian oversight.

Given the many lives and the amount of money that the United States sacrificed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, we should make these small but crucial investments in Operation New Dawn.

Joe Rice is a Colonel in the US Army Reserve and has served four tours in Iraq. The views reflected are his own.

Hillary Rebuts the Declinists

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Among foreign policy mandarins here and abroad, it’s become axiomatic that America must radically downsize its global ambitions to avoid hubris and to match our straitened economic circumstances. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is having none of it.

In a speech this week to the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton vigorously affirmed the world’s need for, and America’s capacity to provide, strong global leadership. Even in a multipolar world, she argued, no other nation has the unique combination of strengths necessary to organize collective action against common global problems.

And, at a time when moral relativism has crept into U.S. foreign policy discourse in the guise of realism, Clinton was refreshingly unapologetic in pledging U.S. support for the “universal” values of liberal democracy. As she had done in an important speech to the Community of Democracies in Krakow July 3, she noted that authoritarian governments are cracking down on independent civil society organizations, and she pledged U.S. assistance to embattled NGOs.

Clinton’s confident assertion of a “new American moment” is in striking contrast to narrative of U.S. decline now fashionable among global elites. The story goes something like this:

As the Cold War ended, the U.S. found itself the last superpower standing, its system of democratic capitalism triumphant — and quickly succumbed to hubris. It intervened in conflicts all over the globe, rashly plunged into unnecessary wars, drank the elixir of free market ideology, and in general overestimated its ability to shape events and impose its will on others. Now we are overextended and facing a global backlash against U.S. imperialist pretensions.

What’s more, we’re broke and can no longer afford to maintain our old position as global hegemon. Meanwhile, economic dynamism has shifted eastward, and the rapid growth of China, India and others is fundamentally altering the world’s balance of power.

All this Spenglerian gloom points to an inescapable conclusion: America must retrench strategically. This entails defining our interests more narrowly, shrinking our military, ceasing to lecture others about democracy, and shedding the too-costly burdens of global leadership.

Clinton instead argued essentially for updating the liberal internationalist vision for today’s interconnected world. She stressed the need for America to once again be the chief “architect” of cooperative institutions, at both the regional and global level, for providing mutual security and prosperity, tackling underdevelopment and climate change, and defending human rights (with her customary special emphasis on women’s equality). Through such interlacing institutions, she said, the burden of providing “public goods” could be spread more broadly.

She also widened the definition of the Obama administration’s policy of “engagement.” In addition to engaging adversaries and rivals diplomatically, she stressed her determination to engage directly with the people and foreign publics in general.

Less convincing was her account of U.S. efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program. Our engagement with China and Russia, she said, paid real political dividends when the U.S. Security Council last spring passed, “the strongest and most comprehensive set of sanctions ever on Iran. ”

True, but Iran’s continued intransigence suggests the limits of multilateral diplomacy more than its effectiveness. The underlying assumption that Tehran is eager to be welcomed back into the world community overlooks the regime’s self-conception as a revolutionary Islamist theocracy and challenger of the international status quo.

In a curious omission, Clinton had little to say about terrorism amid all the architectural metaphors. While al Qaeda may be holed up in Pakistan, its ideology has spread to affiliates in Iraq and, more recently, in Somalia and Yemen, where the gruesome pattern of suicide attacks and mass murder of civilians is more and more evident.

Containing this ideological contagion is of critical importance to the United States and to its vision of a world order upheld by a growing network of liberal democratic institutions. Let’s hope we hear more from the Administration on this subject soon.

Transparency and the Ground Zero Mosque

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Against the conservatives’ neo-McCarthyist onslaught of faith-baiting innuendo, the progressive position in support of the Cordoba House Islamic center has been, perhaps naturally, largely defensive. Supporters of the Center have emphasized Imam Faisal’s incontestable constitutional right to build the center where planned and warned of the risks to both our principles and national security if the center is stopped. What is missing from these positions, however, is a response that recognizes the emotional component of the continued national skepticism and answers it, while at the same time standing our ground.

Though the eye is narrow, progressives can thread this needle.  By maintaining their full-throated support for the center while at the same time respectfully calling on Imam Faisal to make good on his commitment to be transparent about his sources of funding, progressives can maintain their principled commitment to the Islamic center in lower Manhattan while addressing the concerns that many Americans have about such a center.

Polls show more than 60 percent of Americans opposing the center.  Even if one discounts the almost 30 percent of Americans who support the Tea Party movement, that is still 30 percent of Americans that progressives need to think hard about losing – Americans who do view the scattered seeds of Islamic extremism in this country with understandable concern.

One need not be a paranoid Partier to see it.  As Professor Vali Nasr explains, money from Islamic fundamentalists feeds a vast network of institutions throughout the world (including in the U.S.) dedicated to regressive interpretations of Islam. As a 2005 Freedom House report concluded, “Saudi-connected resources and publications on extremist ideology remain common reading and educational material in some of America’s main mosques.” Such trends should worry progressives no less than Palinistas.

But let there be no doubt that in the internal schism occurring within Islam today, Imam Faisal is these fundamentalists’ greatest adversary. When it comes to the particulars of social and political life—women’s rights, religious freedom and freedom of expression—Imam Faisal has far more in common with even Gingrich and Beck than he does with the likes of Mullah Omar and bin Laden. The moderate Muslim community should take Imam Faisal’s lead and speak out against the fundamentalist’s anti-enlightenment views.

Yet the estimated $100 million needed to build the center is no small sum, and it does not appear that Faisal and his partners know how they will get it. Given the convoluted network of charities that funnel questionable funds, the risk for tainted money to slip in is not negligible, even if the organizers themselves are scrupulous about such things.

For progressives to insist on transparency is the right thing to do both ethically and strategically. And  Imam Faisal, if he wants to neutralize opposition, should make good on his promise of disclosure—a costless good faith gesture that can help neutralize the concerns that many Americans do legitimately have.

Another Stimulus Bill or a Down Payment on a Bold New Infrastructure Plan?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Marking the beginning of an intensive pre-election campaign, President Obama unveiled what he called “a bold new vision to renew and expand America’s investment in transportation infrastructure” — a plan that combines a $50 billion up-front “down payment” on a long-term commitment to improve the nation’s roads, railways and airports, with proposed reform of the federal transportation program. The reforms, as summarized in a White House fact sheet released on September 6 and titled a “Plan to Renew and Expand America’s Roads, Railways and Runways,” mark a break with the past in several respects.

The plan would: (1) abolish modal “silos” by combining roads, transit, railways, airport development and the air traffic control system (NextGen) in a single consolidated transportation infrastructure investment plan; (2) integrate high-speed rail (HSR) into the surface transportation program thus ensuring a sustained commitment to a national HSR program over the next six years; (3) establish an Infrastructure Bank to fund investments of national and regional significance; (4) streamline the surface transportation program by consolidating the many different programs and use analytical measures of performance to identify and prioritize investments of critical importance to the nation’s economy.

As was to be expected, the announcement was greeted with a mixture of praise and skepticism. “A bold course to rebuild America’s infrastructure” said a press release from the Build America’s Future coalition which has been highly influential in shaping the administration’s proposal. Similarly, the Transportation for America (T4 America) coalition applauded the President’s initiative as promising to end “earmark-driven, unaccountable spending of the past.” Not surprisingly,  the proposal also elicited the endorsement of Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) as “consistent” with his committee’s principles. Mr. Oberstar was reportedly consulted by the Administration in the development of the proposal.  However, many industry associations have remained silent, suggesting that they are ambivalent concerning the proposal.

And barely minutes after the White House released details of the plan, congressional Republicans pronounced the idea “dead on arrival.” Both Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Republican leader John Boehner dismissed Obama’s announcement as motivated by a desire to score political points. “A last-minute cobbled-together stimulus bill with more than $50 billion in new tax hikes will not reverse the complete lack of confidence Americans have in the Democrats ability to help this economy” commented McConnell. “More of the same failed ‘stimulus’ spending,” echoed Boehner.

Perhaps the strongest and most significant reaction came from Rep. John Mica (R-FL), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee’s future chairman should his party win control of the House in November. “I will not support another tax-and-spend proposal while billions of transportation and infrastructure funds sit idle” Mica said in a September 7 news release. “While proposing to spend more on infrastructure in another stimulus effort may sound like the Administration is doing something about jobs, in fact only 32 percent of the infrastructure funding approved 18 months ago in the first stimulus has been spent. Projects continue to be bogged down by bureaucracy and red tape,” he continued.  Mica’s views are bound to influence heavily uncommitted members of his committee as well as his colleagues in the the House at large.

Plenty of Unanswered Questions

The announcement has raised a host of questions, suggesting that the plan was put together hastily and without much forethought. For example, precisely how will the $50 billion be allocated among “roads, railways and runways” and how and by whom will these decisions be made? Moreover, while the sum of $50 billion sounds like big money, when it is spread out among different modes it will have a marginal impact and produce little change. The highway sector alone could absorb the entire amount and then some, according to an AASHTO press release issued in response to the President’s announcement (”States Stand Ready to Respond…with $80 Billion in Ready-to-Go Projects.”)

Also unclear is how the $50 billion “down payment” using general revenue is to be offset and how will the rest of the six-year program be funded without driving up the deficit? Should we assume that the initial $50 billion will be followed by similar general fund contributions in the out-years? The announcement states that the Administration will work with Congress “to fully pay for the plan” but is vague as to the source of funds other than mentioning the possibility of cutting existing subsidies to the oil and gas industries. Also left unanswered was the source of funding for the proposed Infrastructure Bank. Would it be funded out of the initial $50 billion or through an independent authorization?

Finally, is this primarily a political gesture or a launching of a genuine long-term infrastructure investment strategy? There have been conflicting signals. One Administration official stressed in a conference call with reporters that the infrastructure investment plan “is not a stimulus, an immediate jobs plan” but rather a front-loaded six-year investment strategy. But he was contradicted by the President himself who said in his Labor Day speech in Milwaukee that “This [plan] will not only create jobs immediately (emphasis added), it’s also going to make our economy hum over the long haul.”

A last intriguing question: if the $50 billion is indeed a down payment on a six-year investment strategy, can we assume that the Administration is planning to consolidate “roads, railways and runways” in a single multi-modal infrastructure program? (that would explain the ambivalence of the transportation industry.)

Legislative Prospects

The prospects of rapid congressional action on such an ambitious proposal are uncertain. Resistance among Republicans and certain Democrats to any additional government spending is growing stronger as the election approaches, in the face of the growing federal deficit and disappointing results from the original stimulus plan.

Administration officials declined to make predictions about the timing for the approval of the upfront investment or the full six-year plan. “Full authorization plans take quite a while and we’re mindful of that” commented one senior administration official. As Jeff Davis, editor of Transportation Weekly, points out, all previous Administrations have submitted full legislative proposals (which typically run into several hundred of pages) before Congress took up the reauthorization legislation. This would suggest that action on the long-term plan will be deferred to the new Congress, with the authorizing committees possibly having Republican majorities and headed by Republican chairmen.

And that could mean a brand new ball game.

This item is cross-posted at InfrastructureUSA

Photo credit: izahorsky’s photostream

It’s Time To Unmask the Republican Agenda

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the arrival of Labor Day, and the end of Vacation Time for Americans lucky enough to have jobs with benefits, the options for changing the dynamics of the midterm elections have gradually but steadily narrowed. Significant external events could still happen, but probably won’t; the economy is not going to turn around between now and November 2.

Moreover, the opportunity to engineer a basic sea change in public opinion on the Obama’s administration’s agenda is probably past for the time being. Much as the White House’s earlier efforts to convince people that the economy would be far worse without unpopular market interventions made sense, basic judgments have been made by most persuadable voters. The same is true of health reform; the legislation’s beneficial effects will have to kick in before it gets a fresh trial in the court of public opinion.

What Democrats can — and must — do more of during the shank of the campaign season is to challenge Republicans to disclose their own agenda for the country, and draw greater attention to the extremist logic of where Republican positions of current events would lead. The vast majority of all Democratic messaging in the next two months needs to relentlessly focus on this single topic.

This is obviously easier in the case of Republican nominees such as Rand Paul, Sharron Angle and Joe Miller, who have called for phasing out Social Security and Medicare. But many other Republicans are demanding elimination of any federal role in education, energy environmental protection or agriculture, and virtually the entire party is reflexively opposing regulations on a wide variety of subjects where corporate misbehavior has had a devastating effect on the national interest and middle-class Americans individually.

Even those GOP elected officials and candidates who have been careful to avoid such specific positions have accepted the party-wide argument that federal budget deficits must be immediately reduced if not eliminated even as new tax cuts for high-earners and corporations are provided and the defense budget is protected (if not expanded via a new war with Iran which many Republicans have been agitating in favor of for years now). By any sort of math, the Republican agenda means massive steps to eliminate regulations and scale back Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other basic safety net programs.

Democrats need to hammer away at these general and particular implications of the GOP agenda every day and in every competitive contest across the country.

To those who argue that this sort of “negative” campaigning would represent an effort to change the subject from its own performance in office, Democrats must respond: it’s Republicans who are trying to change the subject from a proper comparison of the agendas of the two parties and of individual candidates.

There’s no secret about the Democratic agenda; the administration and the congressional Democratic leadership have been trying to implement it since January of 2009, against the active obstruction of the GOP, which is using every dilatory tactic, most notably unprecedented threats to use Senate filibusters. The public deserves to know exactly what the Republican Party will propose if it gains control of either House of Congress.

At this late date, such a “negative” campaign by Democrats is the right thing to do, and perhaps the only thing to do that can simultaneously persuade swing voters and motivate a high turnout by Democrats. Waiting until next year to force the hand of Republicans is both irresponsible and politically feckless.

However much conservatives and many elements of the media insist the midterm elections are a “referendum” on the Obama administration or this or that Democratic initiative, they cannot wish away the fact that every contest that will decide control of Congress or of state and local governments involves a choice between a Democrat and a Republican–with the former being held strictly responsible for every discontent with the status quo, and the latter free to demagogue and make vague or wild promises without immediate consequences.

Every Democrat reading these words knows the sort of extremist and very unpopular agenda the GOP will be forced to advance in the very near future by its own loose rhetoric, the logic of its conflicting promises, and the growing radicalism of its cadre of politicians. It’s time to tell the country about it right now.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist

Photo credit: Tim Bradshaw’s photostream

Why You Shouldn’t Read This Park 51 Post

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I am about to make a circular argument, one that will eventually prove why I shouldn’t be writing this post in the first place.  But bear with me — to explain why shouldn’t apply fingers to keyboard, I must.

Today, we’ve learned that Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, and NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen have both come out strongly against the ironically named Dove World Outreach Center’s plan to burn Korans to commemorate 9/11.  You might remember this Center from such books as “Islam is of the Devil” (seriously) and such blog postings as “Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran” (for a hilarious read, check out author “Fran’s” assault on apostrophes).

Both Petraeus and Rasmussen have correctly surmised that burning a Koran would “inflame public opinion and incite violence… [and] put our troopers and civilians in jeopardy and undermine our efforts to accomplish the critical mission here in Afghanistan” (Petraeus), and stand “strong in contradiction with all of the values we… fight for” (Rasmussen).  Indeed, the damage may have already been done, as ABCNews reports the “Death to America” chants are echoing in Kabul. (The latest indications are that the church is “praying” about this Koran burning business, and appeals to a Deity might provide sufficient political cover to back off. UPDATE: Whoops, maybe not.  Looks like they’re going to burn away.)

Amidst all this, a deeper question remains:  Why is General David Petraeus spending time commenting on the actions of a tiny, extremist church in the first place?

Could it possibly be because during the slow August news cycle, cable news wrapped the country in the “debate” about Park51, the “controversial” mosque located somewhere in the vicinity of 9/11’s Ground Zero?  And we’re looking for the next headline-grabbing story on controversial Islam?

Ratings might sky-rocket, but America suffers.  Despite victims’ families’ legitimate discomfort, it somehow seemed obvious that two centuries of protected speech and open practice religion in America should make this a no brainer.

Extensive coverage of Americans’ discomfort with Islam only serves to promote division and delegitimize America’s core values. Consider this New York Times article, which explains polling numbers behind New Yorkers’ suspicion of Park51.  It includes this gem:

“My granddaughter and I were having this conversation and she said stopping them from building is going against the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Constitution,” said Marilyn Fisher, 71, who lives in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn. “I absolutely agree with her except in this case.”

Nevermind that freedoms of speech and worship exist precisely for these hard cases.

But sadly, as the Sarah Palins and Glenn Becks of the world exploit division for their own gain, Islam is continually projected in a negative light.  This narrative becomes a perpetual motion machine that promotes (and implicitly endorses) extremist views amongst an increasing percentage of Americans.

The only answer, of course, is to ignore non-issues and deny the whack jobs of Dove World Outreach Center their fifteen minutes of ill-gotten fame.  David Petraeus could stop wasting time on otherwise unnecessary press releases, and I could stop typing.

Will Republicans Take Back the House?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the traditional Labor Day launch of the general election campaign now past, national political news is being dominated by predictions of large Republican gains.  This mood is being fed by two major new congressional generic ballot surveys utilizing likely voter screens.  A NBC-Wall Street Journal poll gives Republicans a 49-40 advantage among likely voters (registered voters are tied at 43 percent), while an ABC-Washington Post survey shows a 53-40 GOP preference among likely voters (Republicans lead among registered voters 47-45).  This makes last week’s much-debated Gallup poll showing a ten-point GOP lead (among registered voters, actually) look like less of an outlier.

Unsurprisingly, such numbers are also increasing sentiment that Republicans are in a good position to take control of the House.  At a panel during this weekend’s American Political Science Association annual meeting, five prominent political scientists predicted major GOP gains in the House, with three (Emory’s Alan Abramowitz, Dartmouth’s Joe Bafumi and SUNY Buffalo’s James Campbell) projecting a Republican takeover.

More specifically, Politico published an annotated list today of 75 Democratic House districts that are being targeted by the GOP, ranked in three tiers: “must-win” seats, “majority-makers,” and “landslide” districts that could be won if a Republican wave is really high.   There are also 13 districts considered “on the bubble” for being winnable by the GOP.  The “must-win” contests are largely focused on open seats and those represented by freshman and sophomore Democrats in Republican-leaning districts, but the second and especially third tiers include a lot of relatively senior Democrats who’ve survived tough competition before.

The “majority-makers” list of targets, for example, includes Jim Marshall of GA, Baron Hill of IN, Leonard Boswell of IA, John Spratt of SC and Chet Edwards of TX; while the “landslide” list includes Gabby Giffords of AZ, John Salazar of CO, Ike Skelton of MO, Lincoln Davis of TN, Rick Boucher of VA and Rick Larsen of WA.

Aside from the prediction game, a lot of the talk about the midterms continues to focus on an “enthusiasm gap” between Democrats and Republicans.  This “gap” is often used interchangeably with measurements of likelihood to vote, obscuring the rather important fact that various demographic categories of voters always show a differential likelihood to vote in midterms, with particularly unfortunate consequences for Democrats in 2010.

Most importantly, likelihood to vote in midterms is strongly correlated with age, while support for President Obama is inversely correlated with age (among white voters, at least).  A new Gallup study indicates that young voters are relapsing to their traditional levels of political disengagement in midterms:

The gap between young adults (aged 18 to 29) and older adults (aged 30+) in their election attention levels was relatively narrow in 2008 — 12 percentage points — but the 23-point difference today (42 percent vs. 19 percent) is similar to the average 26-point gap seen in October-November of prior midterms, from 1994 through 2006.

So a lot of the “enthusiasm gap” is sort of baked into the cake, and is not necessarily attributable to anything that’s happened since November of 2008.  That’s cold comfort for Democratic House members in trouble this year, but should point to a much better landscape in 2012.

With the winding-down of the primary season, polling of individual states has wound down a bit, too.  Democrats were alarmed by a set of new Ohio polls from the Columbus Dispatch showing Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman and gubernatorial candidate John Kasich opening up double digit leads over Democrats Lee Fisher and Ted Strickland.  A Magellan poll of New Hampshire Republicans shows long-time front-runner in the Senate race, Kelly Ayotte, holding an uncomfortable lead over a large field, with “true conservative” Ovide Lamontagne not far behind.  The primary in that state is next Tuesday.

Not Just Another Stimulus: Obama Rolls Out Solid Blueprint for Infrastructure Bank

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In his speech in Milwaukee yesterday, President Obama laid out a proposal for smart, responsible investment in economic growth by addressing the urgent need to improve our nation’s infrastructure.  Compared to other economic measures that have been put on the table, economists tell us that infrastructure financing will generate the most bang for our buck, and businesses tell us it will create jobs where we need them now and at the same time produce long-lasting benefits for our economy.  Under normal circumstances, a national infrastructure bank is a great idea. In the current economic environment, it’s a necessity.

The President is sending a strong message this week that his administration’s thinking has moved beyond another round of scattershot stimulus toward a real plan for sustainable growth.  Today’s speech suggests that the mantra for spending has changed from an obsession with injecting federal spending to thinking rationally about actually investing it.  That’s welcome news, and it’s not a moment too soon.

PPI has been hard at work with members of Congress, industry experts, and economists to identify swift and effective steps for fixing our infrastructure problems and putting the country on a better path to economic growth.  We have supported legislation to create a national infrastructure bank, introduced by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, who has taken the lead and been the real champion on this issue in Congress.  She will discuss the bill at PPI’s infrastructure policy event on October 1, in conjunction with the annual CG/LA Infrastructure North American Leadership Forum in Washington, DC.

Rep. DeLauro and other elected officials will join Tom Friedman, Leo Hindery, economist Ev Ehrlich, and top business and labor leaders to discuss the best ways to move forward on infrastructure now.  The conference will also examine CG/LA’s list of the top 100 infrastructure projects that represent the most important and urgent priorities for investment.

At a time when deficits are high and every dollar counts, leveraged infrastructure financing is one of the smartest things the federal government can do for the economy.  When compared to other forms of spending and tax cuts, including the costs for the hotly-debated upper end of the Bush tax cuts, infrastructure spending has a stronger impact on the economy. In fact, it blows most other options out of the water.  Even conservatives who argue against further spending right now would agree that if we’re going to spend, this is a much better use of taxpayer dollars than other less productive programs that simply throw money at short-term problems.

The idea behind the infrastructure bank and the new generation of transportation funding programs is to use public financing as seed money to attract private investment, which adds valuable leverage to every taxpayer dollar.  This potent combination of funding will create jobs that can be counted on for years in the hard-hit construction sector and will result in long-term structural benefits for every sector of our economy, including increased productivity and more efficient transportation for our goods and services.

Make no mistake: the proposals the president spoke about today are not the old-school pork projects that many of us think of when we hear anyone in Washington talk about infrastructure.  Creating an infrastructure bank is not about allocating more money for Congress to build “bridges to nowhere.” Instead, it would help bridge the gap that exists between private-sector capital and the financing needs for modernizing the physical backbone of our economy.  By coordinating and prioritizing public needs and relying in part on the market for investment decisions, we can move private capital off the sidelines and into projects that are strategically important for entire regions and for the nation as a whole, not just for one congressman with the right committee assignment.

President Obama and Rep. DeLauro have their work cut out for them in pushing the proposal for an infrastructure bank and smarter transportation investment through Congress, especially in such a charged political atmosphere.  But the President has picked the right fight at least: the fact is that we badly need to upgrade our infrastructure, and it’s an investment that will create steady job growth and generates long-term value for our country.  It will not be an easy fight, but it’s one worth fighting, and President Obama should be commended for taking it up.

Photo credit: Feuilu’s Photostream

PPI Statement on President Obama’s Infrastructure Initiative

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As longtime proponents of a national infrastructure bank, PPI is delighted by President Obama’s new initiative. His proposal to invest $50 billion in new public investment is potentially an economic game-changer. By choosing projects on economic rather than political grounds, an infrastructure bank could leverage hundreds of billions of private investment in new roads, high-speed rail, new generation air traffic control and other long overdue upgrades of our public infrastructure.

The president’s proposal also shifts the policy debate away from makeshift stimulus responses to more structural fixes for our ailing economy. By embarking on a major program of internal national building, we can generate new jobs now, speed innovation and enhance our ability to win in global competition.

There are reports that some progressive centrists may be reluctant to support this proposal at a time of escalating deficits and debt. We take a back seat to no one when it comes to fiscal discipline. But the president’s proposal is not just another short-term stimulus; it’s a long-term investment in expanding the nation’s productive base. With our economy mired in sluggish growth and high unemployment, America needs a vision for economic regeneration, not penny-wise, pound-foolish politics.

We therefore urge pragmatic progressives to give enthusiastic backing to the president’s plan to get America moving again. And we are particularly glad to see its strong emphasis on high-speed rail, the subject of a series of recent PPI reports and analyses.

PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

A Political Junkie’s Guide to the Midterm Election

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With the traditional general election bell-ringer of Labor Day on tap Monday, for the most part it’s now past time for observers to speak in some sort of future tense about what the two parties might do to position themselves for November. Yes, eight states do still have pending primaries, along with one that still has a runoff; these contests will significantly affect at least two Senate and three gubernatorial races. Yes, national decisions still have to be made about the precise deployment of financial resources in particular races, and there are a scattering of individual candidate decisions that could fundamentally change the landscape in particular races (most notably in Colorado, where doomed-looking Republican gubernatorial nominee Don Maes is under increasing pressure to drop out). And there are, of course, mistakes that can be made on the campaign trail or in debates that could move lots of voters. In most cases, however, campaigns will focus on getting out their vote, and on appealing to a very narrow range of swing voters. This is likely to revolve around negative attacks on opponents, since that is one of the few devices that can serve as both a motivator and a persuader.

To a considerable extent, much of the “political news” you are going to hear between now and November will have as much to do with the measurement of public opinion as with efforts to influence it. This is when most pollsters switch from surveying registered to “likely” voters (though some, notably Rasmussen and Survey USA, have long been deploying “likely voter” screens, which helps account for the relative strong Republican performance in their polls). And this is when various ambitious models for predicting the results will be announced and refined.

So what should the discriminating political junkie watch for during the next two months?

With respect to the fight for control of the House, the most important objective data point will probably be the final Gallup poll generic ballot results in October. Back in 2002, political scientist Alan Abramowitz developed a very reliable model for predicting the overall results from the final Gallup generic. Just yesterday Pollster.com’s Harry Enten released a refinement of the Abramowitz model, which suggests, for example, that a five-percent GOP advantage among likely voters in the final Gallup generic ballot poll would translate into 225 Republican seats.

Senate races are a much tougher nut to crack, since they are less susceptible to national “waves.” The most influential model, by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, currently shows Democrats likely to sustain a net loss of six to seven seats, but with a 20 percent chance of losing ten or more, which would give Republican control of the upper chamber. Nate’s system also supplies a probability rating for any given Senate seat “flipping” from one party to the other; right now the range is from a 100 percent probability in North Dakota and Arkansas to zero percent probability in eleven states.

And governor’s races are even more complex, since non-national issues (including specific economic and fiscal conditions) can be a major factor, and responsibility for an unpopular status quo doesn’t always reside with Democrats. So given the national dynamics and the slow but steady trend towards partisan polarization in state as well as federal politics, it makes sense to watch closely those “red state” gubernatorial contests where Democratic candidates have managed to remain competitive so far—particularly Texas (Bill White), Florida (Alex Sink) and Georgia (Roy Barnes), three states where a Democratic win could have a major impact on congressional redistricting.

Speaking of redistricting, there are also vicious battles being fought for control of state legislative chambers. I won’t go into this in detail today (it will be the subject of a future Political Memo), but the basic situation is that Republicans have significant advantages in the political landscape while Democrats appear to be a bit better focused and financed.

Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that the results of any given election cycle are usually over-emphasized. Obviously the Democratic “wave” elections of 2006 and 2008 have not, at least in the short-term, led to any sort of realignment of our political system. It works both ways, though: after the last redistricting cycle, it was generally thought that Republicans had won a “lock” on control of the House until 2012; it didn’t turn out to be much of a lock. But Democrats do need to relearn the basic problem that our constitutional system builds a conservative bias into the composition of the U.S. Senate, and the balance of control among governorships and state legislatures. But by the same token, Republicans need to understand that the gains they make this year need to be contextualized by their terrible performance in 2006 and 2008, and that the shape of the electorate in the presidential cycle of 2012 will be very different, and much less friendly to the GOP cause.