Category: Uncategorized

Inequality and Government

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s one of the great ironies of this political era of discontent that some of the most exceptional indicia of economic inequality in recent American history are being accompanied by a populist backlash against income redistribution, even in its most time-honored forms.

Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, who wrote an important analysis of latter-day conservatism and it impact on political discourse in Off Center, have returned with a book on the politics of inequality: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer–And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.

I’ve done a full review of this book for the Washington Monthly, and you can check that out at your leisure. But the book is useful in two major respects: (1) It focuses not just on the ever-growing divide in wealth and income between the top and everyone else, but between the top-of-the-top and everyone else, a process that has been largely immune to the economic vicissitudes of the last decade. (2) It makes a very strong case against the assumption that this sort of inequality is the “natural” product of market forces, rather than the artificial results of government policies deliberately promoted for that purpose.

I tend to think that Hacker and Pierson underestimate the deep-seated, non-contrived extent of anti-government sentiments among Americans, and the contributions of poor public-sector performance in abetting them, but all in all, their book is a very valuable contribution to our understanding of the politics of the economy today and yesterday. It’s a book that will probably make you mad–but in a constructive way. It’s certainly an appropriate read for the upcoming Labor Day weekend.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Public Power Goes Nuclear

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Opposition to nuclear energy seems to be melting fast, especially in the South. The Tennessee Valley Authority voted last week to complete a nuclear reactor in Alabama it stopped working on in 1988.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration awarded loan guarantees to Southern Company and two partners to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia – the first new generating plants to be approved since the 1970s. Others are in the works for South Carolina, southern Maryland, and Texas.

TVA’s decision to revive its long-shelved reactor at the Bellefonte site was the latest sign that a “nuclear renaissance” in America isn’t just hype. Work began on the plant in 1974 but was stopped in 1988 because of falling energy demand, as well rising anti-nuclear sentiment following the 1979 Three Mile Island incident.

The $4.3 billion project is part of the venerable public power company’s strategic plan for meeting future energy demand in the seven states it serves: Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, George, North Carolina, and Virginia. It envisions reducing carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions, by switching from coal-burning units to natural gas and nuclear energy. “We want to be one of the nation’s leading providers of low-cost and clean energy by 2020,” TVA CEO Tom Kilgore told the Associated Press.

Will other regions emulate the South and learn to love nuclear power again? It’s hard to say. The South is not as well endowed in wind, hydro and even solar energy as other regions, though it could become a major biofuels producer. But other regions, notably the Midwest and Mountain West, are even more dependent on coal than the South. They may also turn to nuclear energy, along with natural gas and, if it pans out, clean coal technology as attractive alternatives for meeting rising energy demand with low-carbon fuels.

And since President Obama isn’t getting much love these days, it’s worth pointing out that his administration has given the nuclear revival a big boost by dramatically increasing nuclear loan guarantees. He’s absolutely right: at a time when America’s ability to generate good jobs is in question, we cannot afford to cede global leadership in the fast-growing market for nuclear energy to France and China.

Photo credit: Scrunchleface’s photostream

The case for “smart regulation”

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Michael Mandel has an op-ed explaining his plan for “smart regulation” up over at CNN.com today.

Mandel starts by noting that the one sector of the economy where there has been real growth of late is the digital communications sector. And given how hard new jobs are to come by in this current economy, Mandel figures we ought to keep growth going where we can by limiting the temptation to write too many new rules in the telecom sector:

What’s needed from regulators now is some creativity and humility – in the form of “countercyclical regulatory policy.” This gives innovators a bit of breathing space at the start of an economic recovery, but sets the stage to tighten regulations later on if excesses develop.

For example, Mandel argues that now is not the time for any new net neutrality rules:

For that reason, I suggest a two-year pause in new broadband regulation, keeping the current balance among the different players, which seems to be generating growth. At the same time, the knowledge that the regulator remains on duty, ready to intervene, would provide an essential check.

However, Mandel is clear that counter-cyclical regulation is not the equivalent of no regulation:

This approach does not mean regulators can go to sleep nor does it mean they can raise the flag of laissez-faire. What’s needed is the nuanced judgment of sentries posted at a tense border spot. With watchful eyes, regulators must practice thoughtful restraint that allows space for job leaders to innovate and hire, while remaining ready to aggressively confront violations of law or abuses of consumer rights if they take place.

It’s a compelling argument, and if you still want to learn more after reading the op-ed, you’ll definitely want to read Mandel’s recently released PPI Policy Memo, “The Coming Communications Boom? Jobs, Innovation and Countercyclical Regulatory Policy.”

Back to Jaw Jaw in the Middle East

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It took a lot of arm-twisting, but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced last week that Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to return to the bargaining table. The Obama administration’s faith in the power of diplomacy, which some consider misplaced, is about to face its sternest test.

It’s not hard to find grounds for pessimism. For one thing, Palestinian President President Mahmoud Abbas agreed to participate only under heavy U.S. pressure. He had to give up his demand that Israel continue the freeze on settlements as a precondition for talks, though the “Quartet” (the U.S., Europe, Russia and the United Nations) cooked up a face-saving declaration last Friday.

The agenda for negotiations has been left intentionally vague, so as to give neither side a pretext for refusing to participate. Somehow, the dynamic of face-to-face talks itself is supposed to lead to a peace deal over the next 12 months. Yet there’s been little change in the internal political realities – the West Bank/Gaza split and Netanyahu’s dependence on right-wing coalition partners to govern – that have made this such an unpropitious time for a comprehensive peace settlement.

The operative theory here seems to be that U.S. can more effectively pressure both sides to make concessions – through “bridging proposals” – in the context of direct negotiations. For example, Netanyahu will more likely extend the moratorium on new settlements, lest he be accused of scuttling the talks. U.S. officials also believe that Netanyahu’s hard-liner credentials will make it easier for him to sell a skeptical Israeli public on any deal reached with the Palestinians.

It’s also widely assumed that Abbas needs to demonstrate that his relative moderation and support for a two-state solution can deliver concrete benefits to Palestinians. But if Yassir Arafat, who presided over a more unified Palestinian authority couldn’t bring himself to embrace a two-state deal, its hard to see how a far weaker Abbas can, especially with Hamas looking over his shoulder.

Nonetheless, it’s axiomatic in U.S. diplomatic circles that it’s always better to have the two sides talking than not. The absence of hope for a political solution leaves the field to the radical rejectionists: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

Maybe so, but two large doubts hang over the coming talks. First, it’s not clear, for either Netanyahu or Abbas, that perpetuating the status quo, for all its frustrations, is a riskier course than making difficult concessions on territory, refugees, the status of Jerusalem and other traditional sticking points. Second, it’s not evident that either leader, even if he thought such risks worth taking, could forge a domestic consensus for a peace deal. So why shove them together now?

The answer may have more to do with America’s efforts to combat radicalism and violent extremism in the region than any profound yearning for peace among Israelis and Palestinians. If so, it’s going to be a long year.

Photo credit: bulletsburning’s photostream

The Washington and Wyoming Wrap-Up

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tuesday’s primaries in Washington and Wyoming didn’t produce a lot of drama, other than a close three-way race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in the Cowboy State.  But political junkies have been staring at the results of Washington’s “Top 2 blanket primary” (in which all candidates appear on the same primary ballot, with the top two finishers, regardless of percentage, advancing to the general election) for auguries of what will happen in congressional races in November.

That’s particularly true of the U.S. Senate race, where a victory by Republican Dino Rossi over incumbent Patty Murray (D) is generally considered essential to the GOP’s chances of winning control of the upper chamber.

Washington

Thanks to Washington’s practice of accepting mail ballots postmarked by Election Day, the results still aren’t final.  As of the moment, with about 86 percent of ballots counted, Murray has 46.41 percent of the vote, with another 2.3 percent being cast for an assortment of minor Democratic candidates.  Rossi has 33.4 percent, while former Washington Redskins tight end and Tea Party zealot Clint Didier drew an underwhelming 12.5 percent.   Another 3.8 percent went to minor Republicans, so the bottom line is very close to a tie between the two parties (and may get even closer as the final vote, which includes a lot of ballots from staunchly Democratic King County, come in).  Since most of the campaign activity was on the GOP side, Murray may be in better shape than the numbers suggest, but this will definitely be one of the races to watch in November.

In House races in Washington, most of the national attention was focused on the open 3rd district seat of retiring Democrat Brian Baird.  As generally expected, Democrat Denny Heck and Republican Jaime Herrera won the general election spots, but the combined Republican vote of 53 percent is a bit troubling for Democrats.  The same is true in the competitive 8th district, where Republican incumbent Dave Riechert won 47 percent and the total GOP vote rose to 58 percent (Susan DelBene won a general election spot with 27 percent).  On the other hand, in the 2nd district, Democrat Rick Larson won 43 percent and the combined Democratic vote reached 54 percent.  In the 9th district, New Democrat Coalition co-chair Adam Smith pulled 52 percent, and with a Green Party candidate in the field, the combined Republican vote was only 45 percent.

Wyoming

In Wyoming, where Democrats are waging an uphill battle to hang onto the governorship (currently held by the very popular but term-limited Dave Freudenthal), state party chair Leslie Peterson eased past former Wyoming Cowboys football star Pete Gosar in a genial Democratic primary.  But Wyoming voters were denied an all-female general election when former U.S. Attorney Matt Mead edged State Auditor Rita Meyer by 714 votes.  Mead, whose grandfather was former Wyoming Sen. Cliff Hansen, heavily self-financed his campaign, and survived constant RINO accusations by “true conservative” candidate Ron Micheli, who finished a very strong third.  Meyer was endorsed by Sarah Palin and boasted an extensive military record.  Meanwhile, another Wyoming political scion, Colin Simpson (son of Alan), finished a relatively poor fourth.

Speaking of Sarah Palin, St. Joan of the Tundra had another not-so-great night, endorsing not only Meyer but Washington Senate candidate Clint Didier.  She did get a win in WA-2 with Republican leader John Koster, but he was the prohibitive GOP favorite all along.

Next up

Next up on the primary calendar are Alaska, Arizona and Florida (and a runoff in Oklahoma) on August 24, and then Louisiana on August 28.  With John McCain blowing away J.D. Hayworth in Arizona, most of the national attention next week will be on Florida, where the Democratic Senate primary and the Republican gubernatorial primary are hanging fire.  Most polls indicate that the gazillionaires in those races, Democrat Jeff Greene and Republican Rick Scott, have been losing steam of late.  The latest poll, by Quinnipiac, shows Kendrick Meek leading Greene in the Democratic Senate race 35 percent to 28 percent, but with a very large 32 percent of voters still undecided.  Publicity surrounding Greene’s relationship with Mike Tyson and his drug habit have not helped the now-underdog.    Meanwhile, the Q-poll shows McCollum leading Scott 44-35 in the exceptionally nasty GOP gubernatorial primary. It also confirms a variety of recent surveys giving Democrat Alex Sink a narrow lead in a three-way contest involving independent Bud Chiles and either Republican candidate.

Lobbying Yields Nothing?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today’s New York Times “Idea of the Day Blog” features this sensationalist headline: “Lobbying Often Yields Nothing” — followed by this provocative summary

The real outcome of most Washington lobbying is … nothing. Until the right party or person comes to power. So finds a 10-year study.

Actually…  according to Lobbying and Policy Change (the landmark book by five political scientists that the post references), 40 percent of the time, lobbyists succeeded.   So yes, technically, 60 percent of the time is most of the time and so it is correct to say that most of the time lobbying yields nothing.

But, to me, 40 percent is actually an astonishing success rate.

Sure, this may not look like much if your starting assumption is that special interests own Washington, and that all a clever lobbyist needs to do is approach a Congressman with the promise of a campaign check and that poor helpless Congressman will practically be begging to fete that lobbyist with most indefensible corporate giveaway.

But, on the other hand, if you’ve spent any time in Washington, and you know how hard it is to get just about anything done, 40 percent is definite batting champion territory.

And the big point of the study is actually about the difficulty of change: the status quo is really, really sticky in Washington, in good part because on most important issues there are forces mobilized on both sides, and every action on one side provokes an equal but opposite reaction on the other side. Forces fight each other to stalemate for years. But then then, suddenly, there is movement – and whoever has won the war of positioning is likely to win the war of motion.

But the problem is that nobody – not even the cleverest of lobbyists – really knows which ideas and issues are likely to break and when. Which means the keys to success in the Washington wars of influence are a long-term strategy and the patience and resources to carry it out. One must build a compelling case, nurture allies, and be in position to take advantage of the rare windows of opportunity when they do arise.

Still, the more one works at it, the more likely the success. As the authors of this study note: “The passage of time increases the odds of policy change among our cases. We observer policy changes on significantly more issues after four years than after just two years” (237)  (This study only covered a four-year period (1999-2002). Had it looked at a longer period of time, perhaps the success rate would have topped 50 percent. Would the headline then have been “Lobbying Often Yields Something”?)

Interestingly, the study finds that having more resources is no guarantee of success, partly because there are often large resources on both sides of an issue. But that doesn’t mean that money doesn’t matter – it just suggests the price of entry to even get in the fight is quite high. Overall, lobbying is now a $3.5 billion industry, with corporations and business associations accounting for about two-thirds of the expenditures.

Ultimately, any attempt to simplify lobbying as either fundamentally influential or not influential misses a very basic point: lobbying is a process, a conversation, a multi-dimensional chess game that sometimes never ends. Nobody in Washington carries a magic wand that can make policy happen with a mere wave. Not even lobbyists. Influence happens in more subtle and patient ways, something that anybody who might be concerned about the role of lobbyists needs to understand.

Photo Credit:   PaDumBumPsh’s photo stream

4419

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

4,419. That’s the number of Americans who have died in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, according to the Pentagon. Tens of thousands more have been wounded, maimed, or traumatized in various ways. And although it’s hard to get an accurate count, it’s likely that more than 100,000 Iraqis have perished.

As U.S. troops head home ahead of President Obama’s Sept. 1 deadline for ending major combat operations in Iraq, it’s worth asking: What did all this sacrifice achieve?

No dispassionate observer can doubt that Iraq, the United States, and the rest of the world are well to be rid of Saddam Hussein, one of history’s worst tyrants. He continually menaced his neighbors, invading two of them (Iran and Kuwait) and launching missiles at a third (Israel). At home, the paranoid dictator presided over a nightmarish police state in which anyone suspected of disloyalty – including school children – were abducted, tortured and murdered by the regime’s vast security apparatus. All told, the Iraqi dictator was responsible for the death of nearly two million people. He was Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction.

It took U.S. troops to free Iraqis from Saddam’s sadistic grip. Despite the many blunders the Bush administration committed following the invasion, that act of liberation is to America’s everlasting credit.

Now it remains to be seen what Iraqis will make of it. It’s easy to be pessimistic. Terrorist acts, though down, are still almost a daily occurrence. Sectarian rivalries have abated somewhat, but still seethe under the surface and could yet fracture the country. Five months after its last elections, Iraqi politicians seem paralyzed, unable to agree on a new government.

But if Iraqi democracy is a mess, even a messy politics is preferable to no democracy at all, as James Traub has argued Slowly, fitfully, a brutalized people have begun to take control of their own destiny. The United States, which will keep an “overwatch” force of 50,000 in the country for another year, still has considerable influence. There’s a reasonable chance that Iraq could continue to evolve into the Arab world’s first functioning democracy.

But even if you grant that the United States has accomplished much in Iraq, many Americans, and not just critics of the war, still wonder whether it was worth the cost. That’s a very different question, and one we’re likely to be debating long after the last U.S. soldier has left Iraq.

Mike Konczal versus the Middle Class

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Mike Konczal returned from vacation and promptly put up a post criticizing my take-down of Edward Luce’s horrible Financial Times piece on “the crisis of the middle class”.  It’s become apparent to me over the past few years that I’ve been in D.C. that you can’t refute a specific empirical question about the situation of the poor or middle class (e.g., is it in crisis? as in much worse off than in the past?) without being attacked on much broader grounds than you staked out and being called an opponent of these groups or an insensitive jerk. I actually don’t disagree with much that Mike writes “against” my “views”.

What I do disagree with is the contention that the middle class is in crisis.  And I think that it’s bad to believe (and assert for mass audiences) that that’s true because it hurts consumer sentiment, prolonging high unemployment, and diverts attention from the truly disadvantaged who really are in crisis.  Mike can say that that pits me against the middle class (his post was titled, “Scott Winship versus the Middle Class”), but then let me ask Mike and others who would disagree with me a simple question:  Why do you think Americans are deluded about their economic conditions, since in June, 7 in 10 American adults said their “current household financial situation” is better than “most” Americans’ (Q.25, disclosure: the poll was commissioned by my old employer)?  Why are you against the middle class?

Mike says that when I say some problem affects a tiny fraction of the population, that’s like a hit man saying that he doesn’t kill that many people as a fraction of the population – the “Marty Blank gambit” as he calls it.  But look, that’s not an apt analogy.  If I were saying that we shouldn’t give a rat’s ass about the tiny share of the population that experiences a bankruptcy, that would be using the Marty Blank gambit.  I never said that, and I wouldn’t.  But if you convince everyone in the middle class that they are just one bad break away from bankruptcy, then you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t spend their money and the recovery continues to stall.  It’s important to convey the facts correctly.  Mike is stalling the recovery!  Why are you against the middle class, Mike??

Finally, I think the best chart I’ve seen that puts all of this into perspective (which I made myself) is the following showing health insurance trends:

Anyone who wants the data can email me at scott@scottwinship.com.

And contrary to Mike’s assertion, the fraction of under-insured has not increased.  You can read the conclusion of my dissertation if you want to see what the facts show.

I’ll keep being concerned about the people who are in crisis, but I’m not going to buy in to the conventional wisdom among progressives that the middle class is in crisis.

*added note: Mike informs me that I missed the joke in his title, a Scott-Pilgrim-Versus-The-World nod.  I like to think I’m clever and witty, but clearly my lack of sleep from parenting a newborn has left me not so quick on the uptake…)

This item is cross-posted at ScottWinshipWeb.

Beware the JetBlue Election

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

That the mood in this country is sour seems beyond debate. Ronald Brownstein sums up the sentiment nicely in this week’s National Journal: “If polls existed just before the French Revolution, they might have returned results such as these.” One pollster has (appropriately, I think) called this the “JetBlue Election” – a reference to our newest rebel folk hero, Steven Slater.

No doubt, campaign consultants across the country are at this very moment scheming on the ways that challenger candidates can tap into same great ur-fantasy that Steven Slater embodied: that each of us has the courage to lash out at the forces of oppression stifling our creativity and genius and, in so doing, be rewarded as heroes. (Get government off our backs! Stop the corruption in Washington!).

Still, these candidates ought to be careful: they are playing with fire.

No doubt many voters out there, feeling great personal frustration for any number of reasons, are increasingly receptive to the too-good-to-be-true secret that lashing out in anger may actually be the best way to solve things.  Hence, the great success of the Tea Party.  It offers the same seductive solution as Steven Slater: salvation through anger. (Never mind that under normal circumstances, Mr. Slater would now be facing a the rather unpleasant reality of being unemployed and unemployable, as opposed to reality of a possible reality show.)

The temptation for challenger candidates, of course, will be to stoke such sentiment in hopes that they will be the ones to profit from it. But such challengers ought to be careful what they stir up and what they promise. Those who come to Washington on the bold premise that they will be the ones to shake the place out of its alleged abominations are likely to face a sorely disappointed electorate when things don’t, in fact, change immediately (see Obama, Barack).

After all, when the challenger becomes the incumbent, the blame Washington meme isn’t so helpful anymore. (And remember, even if Republicans do manage to regain some control in Congress, it’s not like they are much beloved either. The latest WSJ/NBC poll finds positive feelings about the Republican Party at a new 21-year low: just 24 percent.)

So then, a word to candidates, especially challengers: Be careful. Take succor from the sour mood at your own peril. Teaching voters that lashing out in anger is the best way to solve problems is a lesson they will not forget as easily as you might wish.

Photo Credit: Spackletoe’s photostream

More Clarity on Uncertainty

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I wrote last week about the political rhetoric of “uncertainty,” both real and imagined.  My thinking was that Republicans should be called out for their recent talking points that attribute our continued economic woes to fears and uncertainties created by the Democrats’  agenda, but that we should be careful not to dismiss legitimate problems of uncertainty that actually do exist in the economy.

In the Times today, Tom Friedman makes a more eloquent case for the need to recognize the real uncertainties we face.  His analysis is from a higher altitude, as one might expect, and it is dead right.  Friedman attributes broad economic uncertainties to three structural problems: (1) a decade of U.S. growth fueled by deficits and borrowing rather than investment and innovation, (2) a wave of new technology that is destroying lower-skilled jobs in favor of those requiring more education and training, and (3) the “existential crisis” of the European Union as German discipline is exported to Greece and elsewhere.   But these real uncertainties are not on anyone’s political agenda:

America’s two big parties still cling to their core religious beliefs as if nothing has changed. Republicans try to undermine the president at every turn and offer their nostrum of tax-cuts-will-solve-everything — without ever specifying what services they’ll give up to pay for them. Mr. Obama gave us expanded health care before expanding the economic pie to sustain it.

Friedman does not get very deep into specifics for structural solutions, but he doesn’t need to.  As is often true of Friedman’s perspective, the real value of today’s piece lies in the diagnosis.  We are facing real economic uncertainties, and the fact that Republicans are mischaracterizing them so shamelessly does not relieve the president and Democrats from the obligation to show more leadership.  As I wrote last week, Democrats need to stop sticking their fingers in the dike and come up with a more comprehensive plan built on a long-term vision of investment and sustainable growth.  Or as Friedman puts it:

The president needs to take America’s labor, business and Congressional leadership up to Camp David and not come back without a grand bargain for taxes, trade promotion, energy, stimulus and budget cutting that offers the market some certainty that we are moving together — not just on a bailout but on an economic rebirth for the 21st century.

I couldn’t agree more.

Kabuki Conference Buys Time on Fannie and Freddie

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The GSE conference at Treasury today included plenty of big names and good thoughts about the lingering question of how to restructure Fannie and Freddie before releasing them back into the wild.  But one thing missing from the agenda was a sense of urgency.  The conference wasn’t intended to move GSEs up on the agenda right now; it was simply a bit of theater to defuse the issue for a few more months, giving the Administration more time to kick some hard choices down the road.

Everyone knows we still need to do something about Fannie and Freddie.  The problem for Geithner is that everyone keeps talking about it.  The editorial chatter about GSEs is gaining momentum (after all, there’s only so much Steven Slater coverage even August can handle).  The New York Times ran two op-eds last weekend (good and not-so-good), former Treasury Secretary Paulson weighed in on the Post’s opinion page, and think-tank proposals are popping up all over, especially from folks like Don Marron who want to shrink or privatize the role of Fannie and Freddie in lending markets.

So Secretary Geithner did what any good politician would do. He co-opted the debate to keep it from growing beyond his control.  By inviting differing voices to vent their opinions in front of the cameras, Geithner got to look like he was on top of the situation and neutralize the situation for now with a concluding pleasantry that “it’s safe to say there’s no clear consensus yet on how best to design a new system.”  Thanks for that, Tim.  I guess we shouldn’t hold our breaths for “consensus” anytime soon, huh?

With elections weeks away and the crippled housing market still relying on the dual crutches of Fannie and Freddie to move forward at all, it’s no surprise the Administration and Congress are not falling over themselves to begin the fight for a specific reform plan.  Geithner has said the Administration plans to release and administration proposal in January (well after the elections), and the tone of today’s conference was consistent with that schedule.  For anyone who bothered to tune in today (and managed to stay awake), the message from the Administration was this: we know it’s important, and we’ll get around to it eventually . . . maybe once we get back from that Gulf-coast beach trip the President wants us all to take.

Primary Day in Washington and Wyoming

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s a relatively quiet Tuesday on the electoral front, with just two states, Washington and Wyoming, holding primaries today, and no one expecting any dramatic results of national import.

Washington

Washington has an unusual “Top 2” primary system, in which candidates from all parties compete on a single ballot with the top two finishers advancing to the general election (this is the system recently adopted for future elections in California via a successful initiative). It’s important to note that a majority vote does not (as in Louisiana’s “jungle primary”) obviate the need for a “runoff” in the general election.

The big contest in WA is the Republican challenge to Sen. Patty Murray (D). Almost all of the scenarios for a Republican takeover of the Senate this year require a Republican upset over Murray.  And though it took a while, national Republicans were able to recruit the candidate they wanted in real estate developer Dino Rossi, who lost two close gubernatorial races to Christine Gregoire (D) in 2004 and 2008 and thus enjoys near-universal name ID.

But Rossi’s late entry, and his decision to steer clear of Tea Party gatherings, guaranteed him Republican competition in the primary.  Former Washington Redskins tight end Clint Didier is the strongest of the True Conservative pack.  Didier has drawn an endorsement from Sarah Palin, and should do well in central Washington, but barely reached double digits in a recent PPP poll showing Murray at 47 percent and Rossi at 33 percent.  The buzz tonight will likely be about the relative positioning of Murray and Rossi.

The main event in Washington congressional primaries is in the open 3rd district, where Democrat Brian Baird is retiring.  Former state legislator Denny Heck has largely cleared the field of other Democrats, and should finish first. The national GOP heart-throb for the race is state representative Jaime Herrera, a 31-year-old Latina who has shown a mild (for this year) moderate streak.  Former state legislative staffer and federal appointee David Castillo has run to the right of Herrera, and has won the FreedomWorks endorsement that signifies Tea Party backing. Herrera is favored to make the general election, but an upset is possible.

In the other Washington congressional districts, incumbents are all favored, though in the very competitive 8th district, former Microsoft executive Suzan DelBane (D) is picking up where 2006-2008 Democratic nominee Darcy Burner left off in challenging Republican Dave Riechert.  In the 9th district, two relatively viable Republicans, county commissioner Dick Muri and 2008 nominee James Postma, are battling for a spot opposite New Democrat Coalition co-chair Adam Smith, who will be pretty heavily favored in November.

Wyoming

In Wyoming, that rarest of beasts, a very popular Democratic governor in a very red state, David Freudenthal, decided relatively late this year against a legal challenge to term limits that probably would have enabled him to run for a third term.  Democrats are holding a low-key gubernatorial primary dominated by former state party chair Leslie Peterson and former University of Wyoming football star Pete Gosar, who are both campaigning as political heirs of Freudenthal (Gosar once piloted the governor’s state plane). Peterson is the modest favorite due to high name ID.

The GOP gubernatorial primary in WY has turned into a four-way brawl involving former U.S. Attorney Matt Mead, considered the “establishment” candidate; State Auditor Rita Meyer, who can boast of an elaborate military background and a late endorsement from Sarah Palin; House Speaker Colin Simpson, son of former Sen. Alan Simpson (whose old friend George H.W. Bush has given Simpson the Younger an endorsement); and hard-core conservative Ron Micheli, who’s won the endorsement of Wyoming anti-abortion activists and is challenging his opponents to take no-new-tax pledges.

A Mason-Dixon poll at the end of July showed Meyer at 27 percent, Mead at 24 percent, Simpson at 17 percent, and Micheli at 12 percent.  Simpson’s undertaken a late media blit, and Micheli seems to have the True Conservative mojo going for him, so anything could happen.

Next Week: Florida

Looking ahead a week, the extremely unstable political situation in Florida going into the August 24 primary remains unclear.  In the toxic GOP gubernatorial race, three recent polls (Mason-Dixon, Tarrance and McGlaughlin) show Attorney General Bill McCollum retaking the lead from heavy-spending Rick Scott, but an Ipsos survey shows Scott still well ahead.  But Mason-Dixon and Ipsos agree in giving Democrat Alex Sink a lead over either Republican in a three-way race involving independent Bud Chiles.

In the Democratic Senate race, Mason-Dixon and Susquehanna show congressman Kendrick Meek taking advantage of bad publicity involving billionaire Jeff Greene to retake a double-digit lead in that contest.  But again, Ipsos cuts against the grain with a survey showing Greene still up 40-32.

Since incumbent Gov. and independent Senate candidate Charlie Crist is very dependent on Democratic votes to remain viable, he has a big stake in the outcome of the Democratic primary.  But given all the dramatics of the race, it’s unclear which candidate would help Crist, and which candidate could give Crist and Marco Rubio a run for their money.

Robert Gates, Progressive Conservative

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Secretary of Defense Robert GatesDefense Secretary Robert Gates makes an unlikely progressive hero. A holdover from the Bush administration, Gates is an ex-spy and button-down conservative who keeps a portrait of President Eisenhower behind his desk. Yet he’s also warned against the “militarization” of U.S. foreign policy, forced the armed services to adapt to untraditional modes of warfare, and axed major weapons programs.

Republicans like to posture as the scourge of big government, but they’ve long been AWOL in the battle to discipline the biggest, most bloated bureaucracy of them all: the Pentagon. Not so with Gates, who has taken Ike’s farewell warning about “the military-industrial complex” to heart.

Even as he’s presided over America’s wars, Gates has sought to restrain military spending. He has canceled dozens of non-essential programs, saving taxpayers over $300 billion, and has ordered his department to find another $100 billion in administrative savings over the next five years. Going where others have feared to tread, Gates has targeted soaring military health-care cuts. And he’s promised to thin the ranks of top military commanders, whose numbers have mushroomed all out of proportion to recent increases in troop strength.

All this has drawn predictable fire from conservative hawks, for whom any cut in defense spending apparently signals an ominous weakening of national will. However, they’ve found it hard to make the usual “soft on defense” charge stick to George W. Bush’s tough-minded former Pentagon chief.

Some liberals, apprehensive over the possibility of deep cuts in domestic and entitlement programs once unemployment rates fall, want Gates to go a lot further. But until the United States is in a position to withdraw most of its troops from the Middle East and Central Asia, that’s not likely to happen. As PPI’s Jim Arkedis has documented, the truly big driver of Pentagon costs is manpower. To get the kind of military spending reductions many doves would like to see would require major changes in U.S. foreign policy – not just nips and tucks in this weapons system or that, or administrative reforms. That’s hard to do in the middle of two wars and a global counterinsurgency campaign against Salafist extremists.

But as Gates recognizes, defense will have to make a substantial contribution to America’s coming fiscal retrenchment. He’s offering credible reforms that will promote efficiency and reduce needless redundancy and waste, and, frankly, provide the administration with political cover against the GOP’s ritual claims that Democrats want to eviscerate the nation’s defenses.

All that may not win Gates many cheers at the next netroots convention. But this is a clear instance in which Obama’s “post-partisan” penchant for reaching across political divides has served him, and the nation, well.

On Gibbs v. the Professional Left

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

I returned yesterday from an overseas vacation to find Washington embroiled in furious controversy over Robert Gibbs’s gibes at the “professional left.” Somehow, the shock waves from this momentous development had failed to register in Corsica, which may be a gorgeous, sun-splashed rock in the Mediterranean, but is hopelessly apathetic about U.S. politics.

Fortunately for slackers like me, Washington’s chattering class is too busy for vacations. And cable TV never rests, keeping the vital discourse of democracy going even as Americans frolic heedlessly on beaches, lakes and mountains. Well, the fun’s over for me, so I might as well wade into the fray between the frazzled White House Press Secretary and his netroots tormentors.

For starters, it’s hard not to feel some sympathy to Gibbs, for whom watching cable TV is an occupational hazard. Too much of a bad thing, is, well, bad and it’s only human for Gibbs to vent about the ideological purism of talk show anchors and lefty bloggers who imagine that most Americans are pining for a full-throated liberal avenger in the White House. Real-life politics is nothing like The West Wing.

And Democrats might as well have it out now, the summer of their economic discontent, rather than, say, in October on the eve of the midterm. One truly silly argument is that Gibb’s criticisms of the administration’s “base” could alienate them and cause them to stay home on election day. In the first place, netroots types aren’t really the Democratic Party’s base.

They are a subset of liberals, who are themselves outnumbered by moderates and conservatives in the party. And they love to be attacked, because it validates their rather inflated sense of political self-importance. The worst thing you can do to the netroots is to ignore them.

In fact, every Democratic President in recent memory has been flayed by the hard left for lapses from orthodoxy. That is especially true of Franklin Roosevelt, the President many of today’s disappointed liberals say they wish Obama would be more like.

Like Obama, FDR was called a tool of Wall Street, a trimmer, an opportunist. He was bitterly assailed for trying to rescue and restore the free enterprise system rather than replacing it with central economic planning.

This drove leading liberal New Dealers like Rexford Tugwell and Harold Ickes to distraction. Here’s Tugwell:

 

“They [FDR’s liberal critics] are like Chinese warriors who decide battles, not by fighting, but by desertion…They rush to the aid of any liberal victor, and then proceed to stab him in the back when he fails to perform the mental impossibility of subscribing unconditionally to their dozen or more conflicting principles.” (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 414)

And Ickes had some equally choice words for the perfectabilian demands of his fellow liberals:

“That so-called liberals spend so much time trying to expose fellow liberals to the sneering scorn of those who delight to have their attention called to clay feet…I get very tired of the smug self-satisfaction, the holier-than-thou attitude, the sneering meticulousness of men and women with whose outlook on economic and social questions I often regretfully find myself in accord. It seems to be a fact that a reformer would rather hold up to ridicule another reformer because of some newly discovered fly speck than he would to clean out Tammany Hall. Sometimes even the fly speck is imaginary.” (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 413-414)

Gibbs has a point when he says that liberals undervalue Obama’s major political achievements. On the big matters that really count – the breakthrough on universal health care, the financial regulatory bill, getting out of Iraq on time, and placing liberal women on the Supreme Court (including the Court’s first Hispanic member) – Obama unquestionably has moved the needle in a progressive direction. But if history is any guide, it won’t matter – he’s still going to get pilloried by the congenitally insatiable left for something (For failing to close Gitmo, or embrace gay marriage, or demand amnesty for immigrants, etc.)

The fundamental problem with the left’s carping about Obama is the underlying assumption that their views are shared by a majority of the country: If only he would fight harder for structural transformations in American life, the latent progressive majority would spring into being and rally behind him!

This is sheer fantasy. If the country has moved in any direction over the past two years, it is to the center, and perhaps even the center right (excepting Republicans, who have surged lemming-like off the ideological cliff). What liberals see as overly tepid moves to restructure and stimulate the economy a healthy chunk of the increasingly cranky electorate, especially independences, see as overweening government intrusion.

The party’s leftists are obviously within their rights to criticize Obama when they think he deviates from the true path, just as centrists and conservatives are. And the dialectic between the President’s essential political pragmatism and left-wing fundamentalists is probably a healthy thing. It could force Obama to articulate more clearly the overarching philosophical framework that informs a Presidency that otherwise seems to proceed on the logic of serial pragmatism.

But ultimately, left leaning Democrats aren’t going to find a better horse to ride. And the more they flog Obama, the worse Democrats are likely to do this November.

Why Tuesday’s primaries are good news for Dems

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

When you add it all up, Tuesday produced four gubernatorial general election contests—three in states currently controlled by Republicans—in which the Democratic candidate is, at the moment anyway, the front-runner. Quite a tonic for distressed donkeys everywhere.

In Colorado, The Republican gubernatorial primary was a messy affair in which the “winner” – little-known, underfinanced, and rather kooky Tea Party activist Dan Maes – will now come under sustained pressure to fold his campaign and allow the state party to pick a more suitable candidate (possibly Jane Norton), in hopes of also squeezing Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo out of the race.  If GOPers don’t pull off this gymnastic series of maneuvers, Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper will be a heavy favorite in November.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic senatorial primary, appointed Senator Michael Bennet survived what was beginning to look like a political death spiral. He dispatched former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff by an eight-point margin, with especially robust performance in the Denver suburbs in what will be perceived as a victory for the White House.  He will now face district attorney and Tea Party favorite Ken Buck (R), who has shown a distinct proclivity for self-inflicted verbal wounds.  Buck defeated former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in the Republican primary mainly by piling up large margins in his home turf near Ft. Collins.

In Connecticut, an odd role reversal occurred in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. Former netroots idol Ned Lamont ran a campaign focused on imposing fiscal discipline and improving the business climate and lost rather dramatically to former Stamford mayor Dan Malloy, who has a “centrist” background but ran as something of a populist.  Malloy will face former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, a conventional conservative who held off Lt. Gov. Michele Fedele.

These two contests were also something of a test for Connecticut’s strong system of public financing of campaigns: Malloy and Fedele received public financing, while Lamont and Foley self-funded.  Unfortunately for Malloy, the portion of the Connecticut law that provided for “triggering” larger grants for candidates facing self-funders has been invalidated for the general election.  But according to the polls, Malloy will be the favorite in November.

In Minnesota, former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton continued his political comeback by narrowly winning the gubernatorial nomination against party-endorsed State House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher.  Dayton is the early favorite over Republican nominee Tom Emmer, who is probably too conservative for the state, and will also likely lose votes to Independence Party nominee Tom Horner.

And in Georgia, the vicious GOP gubernatorial runoff, in a mild upset, went to former congressman Nathan Deal, who is both a conservative ideologue and the candidate of the state’s GOP establishment. Deal defeated self-styled “conservative reformer” Karen Handel, by just an eyelash.

This contest featured a lot of national intervention, with Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee campaigning for Deal and Sarah Palin campaigning for Handel (Mitt Romney also did robocalls for the loser).  Handel’s quick concession and endorsement of Deal provided some hope among Republicans that the party would unite after the bitter primary and runoff, in the face of a challenge from former Gov. Roy Barnes, who’s been running more or less even with the various Republican candidates in the polls.

Next Tuesday, Washington State (with its unusual system in which the top two primary candidates regardless of party proceed to the general election) and Wyoming are holding primaries. The much-higher-profile Florida and Arizona primaries follow on August 24.

In the Florida, the initial appeal of the two hugely self-funded candidates, Democrat billionaire Bob Greene and Republican billionaire Rick Scott, seems to be fading as the primary approaches.

In the Democratic Senatorial primary, a Feldman poll taken for congressman Kendrick Meek shows him edging ahead of Greene after a week or so of very bad publicity about the billionaire’s personal life.

Meanwhile, in the Republican gubernatorial primary, both Mason-Dixon and the Tarrance Group have new polls showing previously left-for-dead Attorney General Bob McCollum moving ahead of Rick Scott, a former hospital chain executive. Mason-Dixon also shows that the savage competition between the Republicans has lifted Democrat Alex Sink into the lead in the general election.

Ed Kilgore’s PPI Political Memo runs every Tuesday and Friday.

Why Progressives Must Embrace the Robust Optimism of American Exceptionalism

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute
The Hacketts Gospel Singing Shed
The Shed -- Dermott, Arkansas

Alexis de Tocqueville would understand “The Hacketts Gospel Singing Shed.”

Located in Dermott, Arkansas on the edge of a small cotton farm, “The Shed,” as locals call it, is a venue for gospel singers and fans to gather for song, worship, and fellowship. In the 1830s, Tocqueville toured America and witnessed the very sort of religiosity and voluntarism that motivated the Hackett family to transform a tractor shed into what has become a local community hub. The young Frenchman’s resulting sociological masterpiece, Democracy in America, explains “The Shed” and offers some timeless lessons about America’s uniquely ambitious political culture –
lessons Democrats looking for keys to ending the Great Recession ought to consider.

During his travels, Tocqueville recognized how republican ideals and cheap plentiful land had produced a profoundly optimistic, democratic, individualistic, entrepreneurial, and decidedly populist people. His shorthand for the differences between the U.S. and Western European political cultures – “American Exceptionalism”— remains a handy and useful concept progressives should both heed and employ.

“Exceptionalism” is not a Limbagh-esqe a priori verification of America’s supreme awesomeness. Rather, exceptionalism cuts both ways. The very populist impulses both bred the civil rights movement and spawned the Tea Party.

In the same way, American individualism is responsible for both a vibrant economic growth, a broad middle class, technological innovation, AND an anemic welfare state, concomitant high poverty and comparatively crime rates.

In sum, exceptionalism is not chest-thumpin’ We-Will-Rock-You, rah-rah USA cornpone; Tocqueville would recognize “The Hacketts Gospel Singing Shed” by echoing Denny Green’s infamous postgame rant, “They are who we thought they were!”

American Exceptionalism not only explains “The Shed.” It should also inform Democratic policy responses, both in substance and style, to the Great Recession.

Progressives understandably shy away from a term that seemingly reeks of parochialism and sounds like a potential first and middle name for one of Sarah Palin’s children. Instead of “exceptional” substitute “difference” and then wonder how and why Germans accept 8 percent unemployment as normal, middle class Danes ride bikes to work instead of drive cars, or Canadian cities are so neat-and-tidy. For better or for worse, the American “difference” is real.

Economic recoveries are like snowflakes—no two are ever the same. This should remind us that the “dismal science” is no hard science at all. To hear Paul Krugman or the Cato Institute’s certitude, however, one would hardly realize economists are making little more than highly educated guesses.

Ironically, even as partisan economists claim all-knowing prescience their field is thankfully moving away from technocratic certainty and toward ambiguity. While it is humbling (and quite a bit scary) to accept mysterious, unpredictable, and ultimately unknowable economic forces control our material fates, this is exactly why the American difference matters.

Modern progressive economic policy should combine short-term fiscal stimulus and long-term deficit reduction with rhetorical and policy faith in the American character. While sound policy matters, more and more economists realize that intangibles and emotions often spell the difference between recovery and double dip recessions.

The American difference really matters. Four hundred years of history (including the colonial era) proves that American optimism, individualism, entrepreneurial spirit, and waves of eager immigrants will eventually lead to robust economic recovery. Talk of decline, power moving east, and a new “normal” are reminiscent of the early 1990s when observers claimed Japan and Germany would overtake American economic leadership. If memory serves, the 1990s were fairly good economic times.

President Obama has provided such leadership. Time and again he has extolled the American work ethic and unique character; it is Congressional leaders and the liberal punditocracy, however, who are out of tune with the great resilience of the American tradition., Congressional leaders – who too often dwell myopically on technocratic details, medium versus big stimulus or extending unemployment benefits – fail to convey the most important ingredient for economic policy success: sunny optimism and a profound belief in an American difference.

All peoples in all lands hope, innovate, and work for a better future. Americans do so in their own unique, different, and yes even “exceptional” way. The route of this mess takes good policy but requires bold, optimistic, and a quintessentially American leadership. It is the sort of simple yet profound wisdom that a Frenchman; the folks of Dermott, Arkansas; and skinny kid with big ears and a funny name all know in their bones.

photo credit: Jeff Bloodworth