Category: Uncategorized

Energy Efficiency Spurs Economic Growth

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new study from Environment Northeast (ENE), an environmental research organization, offers a rebuke to the notion that energy efficiency can only be achieved at the expense of economic growth. Studying the macroeconomic impact of efficiency policies in the Northeast, ENE finds that efficiency provides not just savings for consumers and a decrease in emissions — the usual benefits of energy efficiency — but a significant economic boost as well.

The study used a forecasting model to project the effect of efficiency programs on the economies of six New England states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It found that efficiency programs led to gains of more than $180 billion in gross state products over 15 years, more than justifying the efficiency investments made by the states.

How exactly does energy efficiency get translated into economic growth? Saving on energy bills, consumers could then redirect that money to the wider economy. Moreover, lower energy costs give regional businesses a boost by strengthening global competitiveness and promoting further growth. So much for the false choice between the environment and the economy that skeptics would have us make.

To read the ENE report, click here.

Unreconciled: The Dangers of the Growing Demand for Using Reconciliation To Enact Health Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The long-running campaign to make inclusion of a “public option” a progressive litmus test for Democrats on health care reform has entered a new and potentially dangerous phase: growing demands that congressional Democrats use the budget “reconciliation” procedure to avoid a Senate filibuster and lower the effective threshold for enactment of a bill to 50 votes.

As Brian Buetler explains at TalkingPointsMemo, two major new grassroots initiatives–one sponsored by Democracy for America (and headed up by Howard Dean) and another by a new group called CREDO Action–are asserting that reconciliation can easily be used for health reform. The clear implication is that any failure to go this route is proof of Democratic irresolution if not betrayal.

The temptation to insist on the reconciliation route is certainly understandable. Aside from making enactment of a bill by the Senate much easier, reconciliation, if successfully pursued, might make Republicans irrelevant to the process, while vastly reducing the influence of those Democrats who are obdurately opposed to the public option. It could also narrow the gap between House and Senate bills, which currently makes approval in either House of the ultimate conference committee report a difficult challenge.

But unfortunately, use of reconciliation isn’t the no-brainer it’s sometimes made out to be.

There are two major risks to the use of reconciliation which have nothing to do with fear of Republican shrieks about “cramming through a bill” or with fading hopes of bipartisanship.

The first involves an arcane budget provision called “the Byrd Rule,” which creates a point of order in the Senate against material in reconciliation bills that is not germane to budgeting. If the Senate parliamentarian (to whom the chair invariably defers on such matters) rules in favor of such a point of order–and Republicans will raise them constantly–it requires 60 votes to override such a ruling, which eliminates the entire advantage of taking this route to begin with. Nobody seems entirely confident that, say, creation of health care exchanges would be judged as germane.

The second problem is that it’s almost impossible to enact permanent changes in law via reconciliation; provisions can only operate within limited-time “windows.” This problem is best illustrated by the consequences of the GOP decision to enact the big Bush administration tax cuts via reconciliation. The “limited window” requirements of the Budget Act explains why there is still a federal estate tax, even though Congress voted in 2001 to phase it out; and why the remainder of the Bush tax cuts haven’t been made permanent. Creating an elaborate new system for health care on a temporary basis could be more than a little hazardous.

There’s a deeper problem, too, which is reflected in the evolution of the “Byrd Rule,” named after the famously imperious appropriator, the senior senator from West Virginia: non-Budget Committee senators in both parties naturally resist the routinization of reconciliation as a way to bypass the authorizing and appropriating committees. This isn’t a matter of party or ideology, but of institutional prerogatives that are zealously defended even by senators who might favor the kind of health reform legislation that reconciliation would be designed to enact.

It’s entirely possible that the potential payoff of using reconciliation is worth all the risks, particularly if hard-core Republican opposition to health reform makes it the only viable option, and/or if Democratic opponents of a public option refuse to vote for cloture to allow an up-or-down vote. But the key point right now is this: this decision isn’t easy, and the White House and congressional leaders may decide against reconciliation for reasons that should not expose them to angry charges of timidity or subservience to the health care industry.

UPDATE: The indispensible Jonathan Cohn has a post up at The New Republic on reconciliation and health care that makes a similar warning about its perils.

Building a Clean Economy on an Old Tobacco Plant

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s hard to imagine many new uses for a shuttered tobacco factory. Thirty-foot tall cranes designed for moving bales, a paper factory, heavy equipment including backhoes, fork-lifts and tractors, and old cement floors stained by tobacco juice made sense for tobacco. But the odds that this plant, situated on 140 acres of land and given up by tobacco company Brown and Williamson in 2006 after its merger with R.J. Reynolds, would find a second life seemed pretty low.

Welcome to the world of sustainability and green entrepreneurs. An enormous tobacco factory in Chester, Virginia, about 20 minutes southeast of Richmond, has become the unlikely but inspiring location for an interdisciplinary group of green companies to work together and create a sustainable—and profitable—economy.

The Sustainability Park was launched in 2006 by Brenda Robinson, a Richmond-area biomass entrepreneur. She founded the Sustainability Park to create a community of businesses sharing a common vision of sustainability and renewable energy advancement.

“The Park is still creating jobs and did throughout the economic downturn,” said Robinson, the Park’s founder. “We are continuing to expand with new manufacturing facilities and equipment.”

The Sustainability Park currently has thirteen tenants, whose services include biomass production; industrial composting for landscapers and gardeners; recycling of massive amounts of debris that would otherwise go to landfills; and even a baseball training facility for Richmond-area youth that uses all-recycled equipment. Tenants in the Park also provide the important new business of LEED¬—Leadership in Environmental Energy and Design—Certification. This important program, created and monitored by the U.S. Green Building Council, provides strict standards for certifying construction as sustainable according to a variety of criteria, including the percentage of post-consumer material used and the impact on the local environment.

The Park and other projects like it across the country, belie the notion that green or sustainable projects are somehow antithetical to the free market or to capitalism; on the contrary. The Park itself is a for-profit company and the tenants are all for-profits. There is a raging market for the services the tenants provide. One company, Ace Recycling, sorts large quantities of construction debris, recovering tons of metal, biomass and other materials, for later post-consumer use, whether as wood pellets or as road surfacing—and at prices often lower than landfills.

Robinson explained that small businesses, like those at the Sustainability Park, are currently constrained by the lack of growth capital and government programs are not structured to aid these types of projects.

“We have been resourceful without government assistance,” said Robinson, “but infusion of government shovel-ready funding would have created many more sustainable jobs and additional tax revenue while helping the environment, promoting creative entrepreneurship and clean energy solutions.”

These businesses do need help from government, whether with improved access to stimulus funds; reducing the red tape often required at the federal or state level to apply for and receive grants; and increased investment in research and development. Recently, the Park considered applying for a federal grant to help increase efficiency of their own energy use, which could have saved $250,000 a year. They stopped the application process when they discovered that the regulations in place—including the requirement to purchase a $30,000 energy audit and a limit of 25% on the company’s savings—would have dramatically reduced their economic impact.

Yet, the profitability and early success of the Park’s tenants reveals the tremendous promise of clean technology as a business model and investment for society. Robinson noted the co-location of such varied “green” businesses has triggered tremendous cooperation, brainstorming, and even business deals within the Park. A recycler, for instance, sold material to another tenant to build a road.

The innovation and entrepreneurial spirit at the Park shows that America can indeed grow its way out of the current economy and into a new clean economy, where we will begin leading the world again. Our policymakers need to open the door and where helpful, provide incentives and ease regulatory burdens. The new generation of green entrepreneurs will do the rest.

For evidence, just see the facts. Less than three years later, $20 million has been invested in the Park, which has created 80 local jobs—including rescuing many employees who lost their jobs when the tobacco factory closed.

Missile Shield Debate Brings Out the Worst in Conservatives

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Conservatives absolutely love European missile defense. Why? My theory is that it brings them to a happy place, one full of stuffed dolls of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and plastic Millennium Falcons. Yup, the European missile defense program was a vestige of the Cold War, when conservatives’ grip on national security strategy was tightest. Why else would the Bush administration have worked so hard to ensure that we had invested so much in the system that it’d be dang near impossible to back away?

So you’ll forgive them if they’re not exactly ready to give it up. Take House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), for example:

The Administration’s misguided action will cause our eastern European allies to question our commitment to their people and security, while heightening concerns in Israel. The European deployment is the only system that can protect both the U.S. and Europe against the common threat of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them.

Doesn’t that sound more like 1989 than 2009? Yet Cantor’s statement is just the latest example of how out-of-touch Republicans are with America’s national security needs in the 21st century.

I know it can be counter-intuitive to claim that we’re making America stronger by removing a missile shield. At first glance, it doesn’t make obvious sense.

But it’s true: we’re actually improving our missile defense capabilities. Instead of the land-based, costly, behind-schedule, outmoded system in Europe, the Obama administration is set to emphasize a more accurate, cheaper, near-term, next wave sea-based system. When comparing the two, think of the choice this way:

If you were going to buy a security system for your house, would you rather spend $1000 on a system that catches 50 percent of the criminals and doesn’t start working until next year, or one that costs $800, catches 80 percent, and starts working next week?

The choice seems easy, right? Though greatly simplified, it isn’t terribly different from the obvious choice the White House just made upon the unanimous recommendation from the Defense establishment.

Diplomatically, the choice is also a win-win for a stronger American security. The conservative cabal doesn’t think so, excessively worrying about upsetting our Eastern European allies while groveling to Russia. Here’s House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH):

“Scrapping the US missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more than empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe,”

Or does it? While it’s true that there may be some bruised egos in Warsaw and Prague, our relationships with our Eastern European allies are steadfast. How can I be so confident? Look no further that the NATO Treaty’s Article 5, which states that an attack on any one NATO member is an attack on all. That’s the very same article that NATO invoked in the wake of 9/11.

Even better, guess who’s a member of NATO? If you said Poland and the Czech Republic, then DING DING, Vanna has some lovely gifts for you.

Furthermore, moving missile defense to a sea-based element removes an unnecessary thorn in the side of US-Russia relations, one that endears Russia to our efforts when negotiating with Iran. Russia’s help isn’t guaranteed, but if it’s possible to generate Russian pressure on Iran while deploying a technically better missile defense system, then it’s a no-brainer.

Just like this entire situation: Conservatives need to wake up to the fact that the Cold War is over and America’s national security needs in 2009 are very different from just twenty years ago.

Crossposted from AllOurMight.com

The Dean-Lieberman Fallback Position?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Suzy Khimm’s post at The Treatment about Howard Dean’s latest remarks on health care reform strategy shows the perils of the obsession with the public option on both sides of the barricades. After a fiery demand that progressives refuse to relent on the public option, the good Doctor allowed as how if we can’t get that, he’d be fine with legislation that just regulated health insurance abuses.

Ironically enough, Dean seems to be embracing the same fallback position as his old adversary Joe Lieberman, who’s said regulate-only legislation is all he’d be willing to support if a public option is included in a comprehensive reform bill. The problem, of course, is that absent an individual mandate to bring healthier people into the risk pool, or significant subsidies to lure them in, imposing a national system of community rating or guaranteed access to insurance on behalf of less robust Americans will likely boost private insurance premiums for everybody–not exactly an ideal outcome.

Now it’s likely that Dean is really just engaged in a tactical effort to keep progressives fired up for the public option in order to keep pressure on Senate Democrats and the White House to insist on some competitive mechanism–perhaps a “triggered” public option, perhaps strong national or regional co-ops–that’s significantly stronger than the weak state co-ops in the Baucus bill. And perhaps the reconciliation route means a “robust” public option can still be passed by the Senate. But at some point, when you keep urging people to say “my way or the highway,” you have to look down that highway to see where it leads. And if the end-point is going to be a regulate-only bill, both Dean and Lieberman need to acknowledge that may actually be no better than the status quo, and could possibly be even worse.

This item is cross-posted from The New Republic

Baucus Delivers Finance Bill

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

After a long and difficult gestation, the Senate Finance Committee has finally given birth to its plan for overhauling the nation’s health care system. Like many newborns, it may not be particularly pretty, but it has potential.

Although it’s the last entry into the health reform sweepstakes, the plan fashioned by Committee Chair Max Baucus is widely seen as the most important. That’s because Baucus, with President Obama’s explicit blessing, tried harder to win Republican backing for comprehensive health care reform. Even if he didn’t immediately succeed, his bill lies nearer the nation’s center of political gravity.

In today’s rancorous climate, that naturally means that Baucus is getting hammered from both ends of the political spectrum. Liberals hate his bill because it embraces (costly) nonprofit health care coops rather than the public option. Senator GOP leader Mitch McConnell wasted no time blasting the bill as partisan and senseless, even though three of his fellow Republicans were part of the “gang of six” who labored with Baucus for months to find common ground.

One of them, Sen. Chuck Grassley, was more circumspect than McConnell. Noting that the “chairman’s mark” is merely the starting point for committee deliberations on the plan, he added, “So if you don’t have the whole thing worked out yet, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to say, you know, I couldn’t vote for it or vote for it. Let’s see what the final package is.”

Whether any Republicans wind up supporting the bill, however, is less important than holding together the coalition of insurance companies and other key players in the health industry who this time around have lined up behind reform. His bill is also calculated to appeal to the moderate Democrats Obama will absolutely have to win in order to pass any reform of consequence.

With a price tag of $856 billion, the Baucus blueprint is cheaper than other Congressional plans. Best of all, it’s paid for — though the particulars will spark fierce debate. The financing package includes $507 billion worth of cuts in public health programs, mainly Medicare and Medicaid. Hospitals will take a big hit, and some providers may stop taking Medicare patients if reimbursements are cut. The bill also envisions $349 billion in new taxes. Most of that would come from taxing the most expensive health insurance policies, though medical device makers would also get nicked.

Complaints about these and other provisions of the bill are piling up thick and fast. Democrats say it doesn’t extend subsidies for buying taxes far enough up the income scale, forcing many families with modest incomes to pay more for coverage or face penalties if they couldn’t. That’s because most people will be required to buy insurance, regardless of how much subsidy they receive.

Republicans don’t like this mandate, or another one on larger businesses that don’t provide their employees with coverage. And with consummate chutzpah, given his party’s ferocious opposition to government-run health care, McConnell has shed crocodile tears over the bill’s Medicare cuts.

The Baucus bill will be, and should be, substantially modified as it runs the gauntlet of the Finance Committee, the full Senate and then a House-Senate conference. But it contains the insurance market changes, subsidies and mandates that are the guts of health reform, and it meets President Obama’s demand that reform seek to restrain health care cost growth while adding nothing to the federal deficit. And conservatives can sleep easy in the knowledge that it contains no death panels, no abortion funding and no insurance for illegal immigrants.

Most important, it moves the arduous legislative process forward, giving critics not only a target to attack, but a mark to beat.

Remember the Costs of 9/11

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 51 percent of Americans believe that the costs of fighting in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits. It’s a staggering number. Once you account for statical error, it’s safe to say that about half of this country has forgotten the reverberating costs of September 11, 2001.

First, it is vital that we remember why we’re in Afghanistan. While President Bush had a grand vision of bringing democracy and prosperity to the Afghan people, President Obama realized that Bush’s vision was impossible to achieve. President Obama has redefined America’s goals in the region, saying during the 2008 campaign that, “Our critical goal should be to make sure that the Taliban and al Qaida are routed and that they cannot project threats against us from that region.” Once he became Commander-in-Chief, Obama reiterated that approach:

I can articulate some very clear, minimal goals in Afghanistan, and that is that we make sure that it’s not a safe haven for al-Qaida, they are not able to launch attacks of the sort that happened on 9/11 against the American homeland or American interest.

In other words, our mission in Afghanistan is clearly linked to preventing the re-occurrence of a similar, massive terrorist attack.

With that in mind, it’s worth reviewing the costs of the 2001 attacks to remind the American people why we’re trying to prevent another one.

First, a few numbers:

  • 2,973 individuals were killed in New York, at the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, PA.
  • In the year following the attacks, the New York City Comptroller’s office estimated that 146,000 jobs were lost.
  • In the year following the attacks, the New York City Comptroller’s office estimated that the total economic impact on the city was $94.8 billion, including personal wealth, lost wages, rebuilding costs, and others.
  • In the three days after the attack, the Federal Reserve injected $300 billion into the economy in various forms. They were actions that were “essential to cushioning the terrorist effects on the economy.”
  • The Congressional Research Service found long-term negative economic effects as per capital real income growth would slow.

It’s well-and-good to break down the attacks’ effect in cold, stark numbers, but it’s also worth remembering the price we paid in other ways:

  • Recall the emotional trauma you – as someone possibly hundreds if not thousands of miles away with no direct connection to the tragedy – experienced to understand what happened and why?
  • Remember how our key aspects of infrastructure were blocked? And that life didn’t return to normal for months?
  • Remember how the Bush administration undertook highly questionable security measures like torture in the name of national security?
  • Remember how the Bush administration quickly turned a moment that should have sponsored national unity into one that leaned heavily on the politics of fear?
  • Or remember how the Bush administration pivoted off military action in Afghanistan to gin up ultimately dubious charges against Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction?

This is not an exhaustive list. Furthermore, I’m hardly saying that all of these outcomes will come to pass should another massive terrorist attack occur on American soil. For one, I believe President Obama owes his election to presenting a decidedly different version of national security from President Bush.

When Americans say that they don’t believe the costs of fighting in Afghanistan outweigh the benefits, I’d say this: Remember that we’re in Afghanistan to prevent another massive terrorist attack, and that the costs of those attacks were enormous to Americans’ lives, our economy, and our national identity.

Crossposted to AllOurMight.com

Mike Signer Joins PPI to Chair Clean Energy Task Force

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON, DC –Mike Signer, former candidate for the 2009 Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, today joins the Progressive Policy Institute to chair the Clean Energy Task Force.

“PPI is delighted to welcome Mike Signer aboard to guide our work on clean energy innovation,” said PPI President Will Marshall. “Modeled on the Institute’s pioneering work during the IT boom, our Clean Energy Task Force under Mike’s leadership will help U.S. policy makers grapple with the implications of the clean energy revolution.”

The task force is dedicated to making the United States the world’s clean energy leader in the twenty-first century. By bridging the gap between policy makers, clean-tech entrepreneurs and innovative energy companies, the task force will provide needed discourse between stakeholders and develop policy recommendations to accelerate the U.S. clean-energy revolution with a special focus on efficiency and renewables.

Signer brings significant expertise to PPI on clean energy from his recent campaign. His platform included promotion of clean energy expansion and environmental protection.

“I am excited to join PPI to help drive this critically needed dialogue to advance our economic and environmental future,” said Signer. “I look forward to helping enable the creation of new public policy framework for economic growth through the clean energy sector.”

Prior to joining PPI, Signer served as deputy counselor to Virginia Governor Mark Warner, chief foreign policy advisor to the 2008 John Edwards presidential campaign, Senior Policy Advisor at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and Senior National Security Policy Fellow at Third Way. He is a Principal of the Truman National Security Project and an adjunct professor at Virginia Tech. He is the author of Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies (Palgrave Macmillan 2009). Signer received a Ph.D. in political science from the University of California at Berkley and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law.

# # #

Contact: Steven Chlapecka

Tel: 202.525.3931

schlapecka@ppionline.org

Marshall Joins NED Board of Directors

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WASHINGTON, D.C. –Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall has joined the Board of Directors of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Marshall was elected to a three-year term on September 11, 2009.

Former U.S. Representative Martin Frost (D-TX), Ambassador Princeton Lyman, and Ambassador Stephen Sestanovich also joined Marshall on the NED Board.

“The Endowment is privileged to welcome these four exceptional members to its Board,” said NED Chairman Richard Gephardt. “Their regional expertise and extensive knowledge of democratic practices will greatly benefit the work of NED and its hundreds of grantees around the world.”

Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), established in 1989 as a center for political innovation in Washington, D.C. In this capacity, he has been one of the chief intellectual architects of the movement to modernize progressive politics for the global age. PPI’s policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the “New Democrat” innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of “Third Way” thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere.

NED was created in 1983 as a private, nonprofit, grant-making foundation with a mission to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts. With an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress, the NED Board, which is independent and bipartisan, makes more than a thousand grants each year to support prodemocracy groups in nearly 90 countries. The Endowment supports projects that promote political and economic freedom and participation, human rights, a strong civil society, independent media and the rule of law. More information about NED can be found on its Web site www.ned.org.

The Progressive Policy Institute is an independent research institution that seeks to define and promote a new progressive politics in the 21st Century. Through research, policy analysis and dialogue, PPI challenges the status quo and advocates for radical policy solutions.

# # #

Contact: Steven Chlapecka

schlapecka@ppionline.org

Tel: 202.525.3931

The Class Action Fairness Act: Curbing Unfairness and Restoring Faith in our Judicial System

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A rapidly growing number of class actions that are being filed in some of our state courts appear to be doing more harm than good. Under the current regime, most participants in those cases—not just the defendants—tend to be losers. The states whose courts have honorably decided not to play class action games are, contrary to fundamental federalism principles, being forced to transfer authority over their citizens’ claims and the interpretation of their own laws to other states whose courts seem to have an insatiable appetite for such lawsuits. Consumers are paying a big price as well. Even though they are supposed to be the beneficiaries of these lawsuits, there is mounting evidence that much (if not most or all) of whatever monetary recoveries are obtained in state court class actions often go to the counsel
who brought the actions, not the persons on whose behalf they supposedly were filed. And consumers are ultimately paying the bill for those recoveries in the form of a “litigation tax” that must be added to the prices they pay everyday for products and services. As The Washington Post recently editorialized, “no component of the legal system is more prone to abuse” than class actions.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution actually foresaw—and tried to prevent—the types of problems that are raised by these class actions when they gave federal courts “diversity jurisdiction” over cases that involve interstate commerce. Unfortunately, the federal statutes exercising that constitutional authority were drafted before the evolution of the modern class action lawsuit and have been interpreted to exclude most interstate class actions from federal court. The upshot is that even multimillion dollar cases, brought on behalf of tens of thousands of class members living in all 50 states, with outcomes that set national policy, are heard in state (not federal) courts. Some members of the bar have seized on this opportunity, searching out and finding state court venues where the judges will readily certify cases for very lucrative treatment as either class actions or their kin, mass joinder actions.

Download “2003.03-Dellinger_The-Class-Action-Fairness-Act_Curbing-Unfairness-and-Restoring-Faith-in-Our-Judicial-System”

The Politics of Evasion: Democrats and the Presidency

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Democratic Party’s 1988 presidential defeat demonstrated that the party’s problems would not disappear, as many had hoped, once Ronald Reagan left the White House. Without a charismatic president to blame for their ills, Democrats must now come face to face with reality: too many Americans have come to see the party as inattentive to their economic interests, indifferent if not hostile to their moral sentiments and ineffective in defense of their national security.

Nor have matters improved for Democrats since the presidential election. On a variety of measures, from party identification to confidence in dealing with the economy and national security, the Democratic Party has experienced a dramatic loss of confidence among voters. A recent survey shows that only 57 percent of Democrats have a favorable image of their own party.

Democrats have ignored their fundamental problems. Instead of facing reality they have embraced the politics of evasion. They have focused on fundraising and technology, media and momentum, personality and tactics. Worse, they have manufactured excuses for their presidential disasters — excuses built on faulty data and false assumptions, excuses designed to avoid tough questions. In place of reality they have offered wishful thinking; in place of analysis, myth.

This systematic denial of reality — the politics of evasion — continues unabated today, years after the collapse of the liberal majority and the New Deal alignment. Its central purpose is the avoidance of meaningful change. It reflects the convictions of groups who believed that it is somehow immoral for a political party to pay attention to public opinion. It reflects the interests of those who would rather be the majority in a minority party than risk being the minority in a majority party.

This paper is an exploration of three pervasive themes in the politics of evasion. The first is the belief that Democrats have failed because they have strayed from the true and pure faith of their ancestors — we call this the myth of Liberal Fundamentalism. The second is the belief that Democrats need not alter public perceptions of their party but can regain the presidency by getting current nonparticipants to vote — we call this the Myth of Mobilization. The third is the belief that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party: there is no realignment going on, and the proof is that Democrats still control the majority of offices below the presidency. We call this the Myth of the Congressional Bastion.

Download The Politics of Evasion.