Wall Street Journal: Sullen Voters Set to Deliver Another Demand for Change

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article on public dissatisfaction facing both parties, examining how the trend of “change elections” reflects growing discontent among American voters.

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic research group, predicts that public frustration with politics will only intensify after the midterms, and will be a central issue for both parties in 2016.

“There will be tremendous pressure on the presidential candidates,” said Mr. Marshall, “to say how they are going to get out of this impasse and break the stalemate.”

Read the rest of the article at Wall Street Journal.

The Hill: Midterms confirm political stalemate

Although Republicans won a more sweeping victory than expected in yesterday’s midterm elections, the results tell us surprisingly little about what Americans expect of their political leaders.

Instead, the outcome confirms a new pattern of alternating partisan victories every two years, as Republicans dominate midterm elections and Democrats marshal superior electoral strength in presidential elections. The pressing political question today is how to break that pattern, which otherwise augurs deepening polarization and paralysis in Washington.

Exultant Republicans, of course, are hailing their sweep as a repudiation of President Obama. That’s true, up to a point. Midterm elections always are partly a barometer of public attitudes toward the sitting president, and there was no mistaking yesterday’s thumbs down verdict.

But if voters are dissatisfied with Obama’s performance, there’s little evidence they have fallen for Republicans or want the country to take a sharp right turn. On the contrary, exit polls found that voters disapprove of the Republican Party even more than Obama. Strikingly, 61 percent said they are dissatisfied or even angry with Republican leaders in Congress, even as they propelled GOP victories across the board.

Continue reading at The Hill.

The Hill: Why Red-State Democrats Matter

Washington’s political handicappers have spoken: Tonight will be a massacre—a Night of the Long Knives for red-state Democrats.

Let’s hope they are wrong, and not just for partisan reasons. It’s always a small but delectable victory for democracy when the voters humble the political seers and entrail-readers. We’re reminded that running for office is more art than science, and that the people really are in charge after all.

What’s more, a Republican Senate takeover would almost certainly harden the political stalemate that has brought the U.S. government to a screeching halt. It would purge states that voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 of high-profile Democrats, more perfectly aligning ideological and party allegiances across the widening chasm between red and blue America.

The problem is, while such ideological and partisan “cleansing” might be making our politics more homogenous from a philosophical and regional point of view, it is also making our country ungovernable.

Democrats would be doubly damaged by the lopping off of a major part of their pragmatic wing. They’d lose not only control of the Senate, but also political figures who know how to appeal to moderate and independent voters and thus help keep the party centered. Without such talented pragmatists as Mary Landrieu (La.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), and Mark Pryor (Ark.), and Mark Udall (Colo.), Democrats would be a more orthodox—and less interesting—party.

And, most galling of all, a GOP sweep tonight would reward conservative Obama-haters and put firebrands like Sens. Ted Cruz in the driver’s seat.

It’s a progressive nightmare, and Democrats are searching for explanations. The media is serving up a simple story-line: It’s all Obama’s fault.

That’s not entirely wrong. With his job approval scraping rock bottom (40 percent), the president has become something of a millstone around the necks of red- and purple-state Democrats. That’s why we’ve seen more of Bill and Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama on the hustings in the battleground states. Six years into his presidency, and despite a rebounding economy, 70 percent of the public believe the country is on the wrong track. Some key voter groups that swooned over Obama in 2008 have soured on his cool and disengaged approach to leadership.

So the president will have to take his lumps, but let’s not go overboard. Congressional Democrats are even less popular, and Republicans even less so. This suggests that deeper structural forces are also at work.

Continue reading at the Hill.

 

Marshall: Making America Work Again

As the midterm election draws near, Democrats and Republicans are locked in a race to the bottom of the public’s esteem. A majority of voters (51%) take an unfavorable view of Democrats – the party’s lowest rating since 1984, according to a new ABC News poll. Meanwhile, President Obama’s job approval has fallen to a nadir of 40%.

Republicans are even less popular, but their midterm prospects look better because their voters – older, white and married – seem more motivated to turn out on election day. The poll shows that likely voters give GOP the edge on key issues like the economy, immigration, the deficit and security. Since Republicans have done little to earn such confidence, it seems reasonable to conclude that the voters’ mood is more anti-incumbent – i.e., President Obama — than pro-GOP.

That’s usually the case six years into any President’s tenure, and the media has called the poll bad news for Obama and the Democrats.

No doubt, but what really stands out is growing public revulsion with the nation’s political leadership, regardless of party. Despite an improving economy, 71% of voters say the country is on the wrong track. And a whopping 83% are dissatisfied with the way the U.S. political system is working. Here again the Republicans get an undeserved pass, as likely midterm voters divide about equally when asked which party is more to blame for political deadlock.

In any case, the poll’s big takeaway is the public’s profound antipathy toward the hyper-partisan and dogmatic approach to politics that has come to characterize what I’ve called the Polarized States of America. The politics of polarization has been good for ideologues, uber-rich activists and narrowly focused pressure groups, but it’s been a colossal bust with the American people.

Republicans have led the charge toward ideological purity and extremism, but some Democrats seem anxious to follow suit. They want the party to embrace a polarizing populism centered on top-down redistribution, knee-jerk hostility to the private sector and class grievance. But matching the GOP’s right-wing populism with a left-wing populism is a dead end for Democrats. It would repel the moderate voters Democrats must have to build electoral majorities, and perpetuate the partisan stalemate in Washington.

As I argued recently in an essay for Politico Magazine, what today’s partisan holy warriors don’t understand is that the U.S. political system is biased toward pragmatism. By creating a government of separated and divided powers, the Constitution’s architects made it exceedingly difficult for one faction or party to dominate national politics. Unlike a parliamentary system, where the victorious side wins all the marbles and can enact its agenda, America’s political operating system is geared power-sharing and compromise. Our country is best governed from the pragmatic center, not the polar extremes.

For all their frustration with Washington, Americans ultimately are pragmatists — they want a government that works. The party that can make the most convincing case for restoring our political system’s ability to solve problems will have the upper hand going into 2016. And that’s why progressives should spend the next two years crafting a strategy for breaking the paralyzing grip of polarization and getting America moving forward again.

Politico Magazine: How to Seize Back the Political Center

For all the roller coaster drama of the battle to control the Senate, the midterm elections won’t really change much. No matter which party ends up with a majority, Americans will still wake up on Nov. 5 to a seemingly immutable stalemate in Washington. But pragmatic progressives should take heart. Over the next two years they have an historic opportunity: to build a broad center-left majority that can break the paralyzing grip of polarization and get America moving forward again.

Not so long ago, U.S. politicians who robotically toed the party line were considered shameless hacks. And ideologues were seen as wingnuts—self-righteous cranks unable to cope with life’s complexities. Today, such people dominate our national politics. How are they doing? If the measure is simplifying and sharpening dueling political narratives, they are doing a fine job. If it is governing, they are failing miserably.

The more polarized our politics, it seems, the less productive our government. In this sense, polarization serves conservative rather than progressive ends. If you hate government, you probably don’t mind that Washington has degenerated into Fight Club. Conservatives come to fight liberal schemes to enlarge government; liberals come to fight conservative schemes to succor the rich and screw everyone else. And the fight is what matters, not getting things done, because the fight is how you raise money, energize supporters and get media attention. Compared with the give and take of governing, partisan combat is easy, because you never have to think independently, face inconvenient facts or accomplish anything more than keep the other side down. Plus, you get to pose as a paragon of deep conviction.

 In this Manichean hothouse, the battle lines are clear and everyone knows their place. To break ranks on any major issue is treason, to see merit in the other side’s point of view is heresy, to compromise is to sell out and to engage in political horse-trading is corrupt. Finding common ground? That’s so 20th century. Don’t bore us with intellectual honesty, nuance or shades of grey—just pick a side, slug it out and let the best team win.

Such are the new rules of political competition in the Polarized States of America. There’s just one hitch: They clash with the basic design of our democracy. Winner-take-all outcomes are better suited to parliamentary systems. When a party wins a parliamentary majority, it is expected to enact its platform unilaterally or with minor party partners. America’s political operating system is different: With three separate and distinct branches of government, our constitutional frame is rife with divided powers, checks and balances and constraints on majority rule.

Our system is intended, in other words, to thwart just what today’s polarizers dream of: imposing their philosophy in all its undiluted glory on the nation. The Founders, who really were wise in these matters, didn’t trust what they called political “factions” to wield that much power. “Great innovations,” warned Thomas Jefferson, “should not be forced on slender majorities.” Our political system isn’t supposed to produce ideological coherence; it’s geared to yield outcomes that balance competing values and interests, and in consequence are broadly accepted as fair and legitimate. Our system is built for pragmatists. And absent the pragmatist’s values—power-sharing, the willingness to compromise, regard for minority rights and some measure of comity between the branches and parties—our democracy doesn’t work very well.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an exception that proves the rule. In 2010, Democrats resorted to an unusual legislative tactic, budget reconciliation, to pass the law without a single Republican vote. Since then the GOP has waged an obsessive campaign to demonize “Obamacare” as a naked partisan power grab—even though their mean-spirited refusal to offer a serious alternative for covering the uninsured forced the majority’s hand. So while the ACA is a landmark achievement, as a strictly partisan one it rests on a wobbly political foundation. Most voters say they oppose the law, and conservative legal challenges are working their way through the courts. Should they win a Senate majority this year, Republicans say they’ll exact payback by using reconciliation to kill or nullify the law.

The GOP’s implacable hatred of Obamacare also underscores an oft-noted fact about polarization: It is asymmetrical. Surveys confirm what impartial observers of U.S. politics can readily observe: Republicans are more ideologically extreme and more stridently partisan than Democrats. Conservatives also are significantly less interested than liberals in political compromise. Under the sway of a new breed of anti-government zealots, the GOP is chiefly responsible for blocking action on some of the most pressing issues we face, from tax and fiscal reform to immigration and climate change.

The Democrats aren’t blameless. Many liberals, for example, are just as theologically opposed to modernizing entitlements as conservatives are to raising taxes. The result of this demagogic stance is anything but progressive. It means Washington will continue to direct a growing share of the country’s resources to seniors while starving investment in children and families and future growth.

In any case, Democrats have been moving steadily to the left, about as fast but not nearly as far as Republicans have shifted rightwards. The share of Democrats holding consistently liberal views, for example, has quadrupled from 5 percent in 1994 to 23 percent today. This leftward movement is a big problem for the party. If Democrats follow the GOP into the fever swamps of ideological purity, the nation’s political crisis will only grow deeper. Absent a fundamental and highly improbable revamping of our constitutional system, America can’t be governed from either ideological pole. Only by leading from the pragmatic center can Democrats capitalize on GOP extremism and rally broad public support behind new ideas for breaking the partisan log jam in Washington.

Continue reading at Politico Magazine.

New York Daily News: Hong Kong screams, America is silent

Listening to our government’s weaselly evasions on the protests in Hong Kong makes me wish America had an Aaron Neville Doctrine. Neville is the New Orleans crooner whose soul classic, “Tell It Like It Is,” topped the charts in 1966 and has been covered more than a dozen times since.

White House and State Department officials seem unfamiliar with the concept.

Hong Kong’s students and thousands of others have taken to the streets to protest the Chinese government’s plan to curtail their democratic rights. It began more than a week ago with class boycotts. By this Wednesday, the 65th anniversary of Communist rule in China, more than 100,000 people flooded the city, many of them toting now-symbolic umbrellas.

What they want is simple and universal: the right to genuine self-determination.

Beijing says it is perfectly willing to let Hong Kong residents continue to vote to choose their own leaders — but only for its pre-approved slate of candidates. That’s a blatant violation of the 1984 agreement between China and Britain under which the British colony would revert to Beijing’s control when its 100-year lease expired in 1997.

For its part, China agreed to permit “universal suffrage” in Hong Kong under a new policy of “one country, two systems.” The United States stood as a guarantor of that agreement, which preserved Hong Kong as a little island of political freedom within a vast communist monolith.

Continue reading at the New York Daily News.

Surprising New Data on Young College Graduates

Despite falling unemployment and a recovering labor market, young college graduates continue to struggle in today’s economy.

Analysis of new data reveals the real wages of young college graduates surprisingly fell in 2013, by 1.3 percent. The decline reverses a slight uptick in 2012, and continues along a ten-year trend in which real average earnings for young college graduates has fallen by a sizeable 12 percent since 2003. The chart below shows real average annual earnings for college graduates aged 25-34 working full-time with a Bachelor’s degree only.

realearningsfallchart

This troubling trend presents significant political and economic challenges that policymakers can no longer afford to ignore. As consumers and taxpayers in their prime earning years, young college graduates represent one of the most important segments of the working population.

Politically, the continued struggle of well-educated Millennials sends a clear warning to progressives to support a more convincing growth agenda. A pro-growth agenda must be based on investment and innovation, instead of redistribution and more of the same debt-driven consumption of the last decade. Otherwise, young Americans, the vast majority of which voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and 2012, may change parties or stay home on Election Day.

Economically, falling real wages for young college graduates is resulting from what I call The Great Squeeze. That is, more young college graduates are finding themselves underemployed – taking lower skill jobs for less pay at the expense of their less educated peers. The continuation of this trend, five years after the Great Recession, suggests this problem is more than just temporary. (While this is for BA only, the trend is the same for those with a BA or higher.)

The Great Squeeze is rooted in demand-side and supply-side factors. On the demand-side, the high underemployment plaguing young college graduates is connected back to the slow-growth economy. Our education, tax, and regulatory policies have failed to adapt to the realities of a data-driven world, keeping investment and high-wage job creation on the sidelines. Here simply having a college degree is not enough to guarantee success. In fact, a recent study from the Federal Reserve found that one-quarter of college graduates earned the same amount as those with a high school diploma or GED.

And on the supply-side, colleges are failing to adequately prepare college graduates for the high-skill, high-wage jobs that are being created in fields like data analytics and tech. For example, although far more women were awarded degrees in 2013 than men, most majored in business, health-related disciplines, education, and psychology.* It is hardly surprising that more data and tech employers are turning to alternative training models to meet their workforce needs. Yet in spite of the mismatch, if anything, our federal student aid system is exacerbating the imbalance.

In short, there are two main takeaways here for policymakers: (1) we need better policies in place to encourage employers to invest and create jobs domestically, and (2) young Americans need a postsecondary education system that is better aligned with the shifting nature of the labor force.

*Author’s tabulation of 2013 IPEDS data.

Obama Goes Back to War

It’s no small irony that President Obama, who had hoped to earn his Nobel Peace Prize after the fact by ending America’s wars, will speak to the nation tonight about his plans to escalate one.

At first, Obama dismissed the Islamic State as the “JV team” of terrorism. Now, he vows to “degrade and destroy” this rampaging army of Sunni fanatics. Tonight, he’ll explain why he’s decided that crushing the Islamic State “caliphate” is essential to U.S. security and how he intends to do it.

But that’s not enough. Tomorrow, Sept. 11, marks the 13th year of America’s confrontation with Islamist extremism. Our country needs a long-term strategy for victory in this longest of wars. Six years into his presidency, however, the president has yet to devise one. Instead of steeling Americans for the struggles that lie ahead, he’s assured them that “the tide of war is receding.”

This has turned out to be an illusion. Americans can’t end wars unilaterally—our enemies get a say, too. And though it’s difficult for him, the president also should admit tonight to having made another big mistake. This was to assume that smashing al Qaeda—presumably the jihadists’ Varsity team—would close the book on the “war on terror.” By focusing narrowly on “the group that attacked us on 9/11,” the United States could settle accounts with al Qaeda without fanning the flames of Islamist extremism.

Continue reading at the Hill.

MSNBC: Hillary Clinton’s hard choices on energy

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted by MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald on the Democratic Party’s divide on energy policy.

One salutary effect of Republican radicalism is to unify Democrats,” said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate Democratic think tank that helped feed Bill Clinton’s White House with new policy ideas. “Having said that, there are some important fault lines that will become apparent as we move into the next presidential election cycle.”

Both sides are members in good standing of the Democratic coalition, and have legitimate claims, so it may require some Clintonian triangulation. “Anybody who wants to be the Democratic nominee will have to strike a balance between the needs of the economy and concerns about the environmental impact of energy production,” Marshall told msnbc. “It’s a fault line, so you’ve got to walk a line.”

Read the entire article at MSNBC.

POLITICO: Can Hillary Fix Obama’s Mess?

On Barack Obama’s watch, Democrats have defined their international outlook largely in reactive and negative terms. The president has focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes, leaving unclear what positive role he envisions for America in the 21st century. “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine.

Where George W. Bush reached too quickly for the blunt instrument of military force, Obama stresses its limited utility for solving complex political problems. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” had a utopian and triumphalist ring; Obama eschews moralizing and puts human rights and democracy on the diplomatic backburner. Bush’s unilateralism strained ties with key U.S. allies, Obama is only too happy to lead from behind and shift responsibility for solving global problems to multilateral coalitions.

And, given the economic mess he inherited, and the need to repair the domestic foundations of U.S. strength, it’s understandable that Obama has sought to limit America’s exposure to foreign conflicts.

Six years into his tenure, however, the world doesn’t seem to be cooperating with Obama’s policy of risk-averse retrenchment. Russia has reverted to its bad old ways, resurrecting a Soviet-style police state and menacing its neighbors. Europe’s inability to respond effectively has forced Obama to put America back in the business of checking Moscow’s aggression. Washington also is getting sucked back into Iraq, dashing the president’s hopes of extricating the United States from a Middle East convulsed by jihadist and sectarian violence.

Continue reading at Politico.

The Hill: Looking Beyond the Minimum Wage

The conversation surrounding economic inequality in the United States has risen from its usual steady drone to a headline-grabbing roar in recent weeks. Unlike in 2011, when protest movements such as Occupy Wall Street acted as the main catalysts of the discussion, today the debate erupts from all sides of the issue.

Billboards in San Francisco decry the efforts to raise the minimum wage as a job-killer, while many around the country begin their “live the wage campaign”. Nick Hanauer, self-proclaimed plutocrat, warns his fellow .01%ers that unless economic inequality is reduced soon, the proverbial pitchforks will come for them. Sen. Ted Cruz continues to predictably denounce “job-killing minimum wage legislation,” while the Obama administration continues its equally predictable relentless barrage of advertising insisting that the current minimum wage is not a living wage.

Read the full article at The Hill.

Time: Obama Can Ignore Public Opinion on Foreign Policy

National security works differently than domestic issues, and actually leaves the White House broad latitude to act and lead abroad–as long as its efforts produce results.

Last August, as President Obama considered military action against the Assad regime in Syria after it almost certainly used chemical weapons against its own people, ABC News argued that a lack of public and congressional support would constitute “a major obstacle” to the President launching such a strike.

In June, John Judis wrote in the New Republic about the Administration’s deployment of advisers to Iraq: “[Obama] is suffering from political cross pressures…there is next to zero public support for any military intervention in Iraq or anywhere else.”

This conventional wisdom shapes the thinking of elected officials, policy makers, outside experts and the media—and therefore ends up constricting the policy options the White House, Pentagon and State Department view as viable.

It is true that the polls have shifted, with the public expressing less support for ventures abroad. A Pew Research Center poll last year found that 52% now agree the United States should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” That’s the highest level ever, in 50 years of asking that question.

The public also seems less confident about our global power. A 53% majority now says the United States is less important and powerful than 10 years ago.

But on national security, we should all pay less attention to the polls.

Continue reading at Time.

National Journal: World of Hurt

PPI President Will Marshall was quoted in “World of Hurt” written by Ronald Brownstein for the National Journal. In this article Brownstein contrasts the way in which the past two presidents have approached foreign policy: Bush being too aggressive, and Obama being too passive. Brownstein argues that the 2016 presidential candidates are going to have to fall somewhere in between Bush and Obama in order to have a successful election bid. Marshall was quoted on this issue:

The iron fist failed. Then the velvet glove failed.  That’s undoubtedly a simplistic verdict on the foreign policy records of the past two presidents, George W. (“iron fist”) Bush and Barack (“velvet glove”) Obama. But it now appears inevitable that the 2016 foreign policy debate will unfold against a widespread sense that America’s world position eroded under both Bush’s go-it-alone assertiveness and Obama’s deliberative multilateralism. “There will be a groping on both sides toward a new synthesis,” says Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute.

Read the rest of the article at National Journal.

Reclaiming the most powerful tool of reform: Constitutional amendments

At a time when observers across the political spectrum agree that the machinery of American government is broken, the single most powerful mechanism for repair appears to be effectively off the table: the passage of new amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Yet this might be the only solution that could bring about sustained change and reform.

Indeed, the amending process could be used to authoritatively address a range of persistent institutional challenges. Amendments could clarify ambiguities in presidential war powers and the use of recess appointments. They could reform or abolish the electoral college, allow naturalized citizens to run for president, enhance voting rights, and create a framework for campaign finance reform. They might enact congressional term limits, or curb lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices at a time of ever-lengthening lifespans. The amending process could also be used to address thorny subjects such as the scope of social and economic rights and the nature of separation of church and state.

Of course, the immediate objection to the idea of amending the Constitution is that it is simply too hard to achieve in times of political division. And it’s true that the Framers did insulate their handiwork from quick or easy change. The most commonly used formula for amendment requires the support of two-thirds of each House of Congress and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. This high hurdle demands consensus that is both broad and deep, including bipartisan supermajorities in both Houses as well as the agreement at least 38 states. Continue reading “Reclaiming the most powerful tool of reform: Constitutional amendments”