issue: Politics

Theories For the 2009 Turnout Calamity

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Now that the results from NJ and VA have been masticated for a few days, it´s pretty obvious that the most ominous–but potentially reversible–factor in the dual Democratic defeats was a massive change in the composition of the electorate. According to exit polls, under-30 voters represented 21 percent of the Virginia electorate in 2008, and only 10 percent last Tuesday. And in NJ, the under-30 share of the vote dropped from 17 percent in 2008 to 8 percent in 2009.

African-American turnout didn´t drop so much; in VA, it declined from 20% of the electorate in 2009 to 16 percent this year, and in NJ, it actually went up marginally as a share of the electorate. But since turnout generally dropped, it´s clear that 2008´s massive African-American turnout for the Democratic ticket was not replicated.

With Democratic fears about 2010 already heavily focused on the typically older and whiter composition of midterm electorates, the NJ-VA results simply confirm what we already knew, but at a level of intensity that is surprisiing (though Corzine´s general unpopularity and Deeds´ questionable campaign tactics are responsible for some of the problem).

The question going forward, of course, is why the Obama Coalition turnout was so weak, and what, if anything, Demcrats can do to reverse this trend during the next year.

And that´s where the relative clarity over the numbers breaks down into varying interpretations over the implications.

Unsurprisingly, many self-conscious Democratic progressives think that Obama´s “centrism” has “discouraged the Democratic base,” much as, they believe, Bill Clinton did so in his first two years, leading to the Republican landslide of 1994. In this view, the administration and congressional Democrats need to forget once and for all about “bipartisanship,” congressional compromises, Blue-Dog-coddling, or deficit worries, and plunge ahead with a boldly progressive agenda that revitalizes the 2008 coalition. This interpretation, of course, collides with the counsel of those focused on the disastrous performance of 2009 Democratic gubernatorial candidates among independents, who are (often falsely) assumed to be “centrist” in orientation.

Others focus on the mechanics of voter mobilization, and suggest that what most needs to happen in the next year is a rebuilding of the Obama ¨”machine” that helped boost minority and youth turnout to historic levels in 2008.

And a third theory is simply that conditions in the country, and the enduring unpopularity of both political parties, has eroded the Democratic vote in those segments of the electorate least likely to vote (young voters being most conspicious in that category). According to this theory, a record of forward momentum in Congress (on health care and climate change) and on the economy is most crucial in reducing the fallloff in pro-Obama turnout and the carnage among independents.

The first and third theories point in different directions, since a ¨”bold progressive¨ direction may not be consistent with congressional accomplishments (aiming instead at a Trumanesque placement of blame on Republican obstruction and extremism). And both theories may not sufficiently account for the difficulty in transferring Obama´s relatively strong approval ratings in the potential electorate as a whole to actual voters deciding between actual Democratic and Republican candidates competing across the country in individual races. As Jonathan Singer pointed out this week at MyDD, one scenario going forward is that Barack Obama could become a latter-day Ike, incapable of transferring personal popularity to his party (though split-ticket voting has vastly declined since the 1950s).

Democrats need to debate and sort out these theories of last week´s turnout calamity. But one this is clear: a continuing focus on the dangerous extremism of the GOP is consistent with every theory, particularly if, as is likely, Republicans go into 2010 hoping to reclaim control of the House, and head towards 2012 with a presidential field tilting to the crazy Right. You can argue all day about whether Obama or congressional Democrats have dashed the hopes of many 2008 voters for dramatic change in Washington. But 2008 Obama voters who are made abundantly aware that today´s Republicans want to govern from a position well to the Right of that of George W. Bush and Tom DeLay are a lot more likely to go to the polls next November no matter how sanguine they are about the administration´s record.

The Electric Car Ecosystem

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The second coming of the electric car — particularly in the guise of the highly anticipated Chevy Volt — has certainly received a fair amount of publicity in recent months. No wonder: the electric car represents America’s best bet to rejuvenate its auto manufacturing industry.

But while it’s exciting enough to dream of factories humming again and assembly lines pumping out the next generation of autos, the promise of the electric car goes beyond its immediate boost to the American car industry. A fascinating article by Bernard Avishai in Inc. details what exactly the rise of the electric car could mean to our economy:

Actually, here is where the dots connect and the news turns good. For the technical challenge of greening electric cars means entering a commercial landscape that mirrors the transformative industries of the 1980s and ’90s: computers and software, switching and networking, consumer electronics converging with cellular technology. This landscape is full of start-ups and medium-size supplier businesses that play to American strengths: entrepreneurship, originality, comfort with the virtual. We ought to stop thinking about the auto industry as a handful of great manufacturing companies superintending large, dependent suppliers — or, for that matter, cars as standalone objects. Rather, the electric car will be a kind of ultimate mobile device, produced in expanding networks for expanding networks; a piece of hardware manufactured by a burgeoning supplier grid and nested in an information grid interlacing the electrical grid. Building out these three networks will be more profitable, and a greater engine of economic growth, than building the cars themselves.

A word that pops up frequently in Avishai’s piece is “ecosystem.” Not in the environmental-ecological sense — though that obviously matters, too — but rather in the sense that a new complex of entrepreneurs, innovators, and manufacturers will likely spring up in response to the mainstreaming of the electric car. Reforming the grid, constructing a new electric-car-recharging infrastructure, making the next generation of batteries, building hardware and software for the smart cars: these and other ancillary industries have already been jump-started by the promise of the carbon-free car.

Where does government fit in? The Obama administration has already shown its commitment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $500 million for producers of electric drive components, $400 million for grants promoting plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, and $4 billion toward the development of the smart grid. Avishai points out that when Obama signed the stimulus package, he was introduced by the head of Namaste Solar, a company of 60 employees — a subtle nod toward the idea that the green economy will be driven by thousands of new, smart companies that spring up to compete in the clean tech ecosystem. The players in the nascent industry also believe that the government has a role in establishing standards early on to bring stability to a free-for-all environment and remove some uncertainty for start-ups to jump into the fray.

And this doesn’t even get to the other obvious benefit of our car transformation: the reduction of carbon emissions as millions of gasoline-powered cars are replaced by the new breed of automobile. It all seems like a vision out of science fiction. What’s thrilling is, as Avishai reports, it’s already happening.

More Election Day Thoughts

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

After a second day of analysis and reflection, key implications of Tuesday’s elections seem clearer.

The election was a referendum, all right, but on the state of the U.S. economy, not President Obama. In exit polls, most voters (over 80 percent) said the economy was their top concern. Those who professed to be “very worried” backed the Republican candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey by wide margins. If high unemployment persists well into next year, as White House economists forecast, it will spell serious trouble for Congressional Democrats.

Republicans were more motivated to vote Tuesday. Democrats suffered a big drop-off of voting by the young and minorities compared to 2008. But the pivotal factor was the dramatic swing of independents, whom Obama won last year. This time, independents voted 2-1 for Republican candidates.

There was an ideological subtext to the independents’ defection. In addition to worries about jobs and the economy, many of them seem fixated on the nexus of “big government,” spending and debt. There’s no doubt that growing distrust of government is complicating President Obama’s ability to forge majorities in Congress for his big, and costly, initiatives, especially health reform.

Many progressives worry that the election results will send moderate Democrats running for the tall grass. Certainly, the outcome should concentrate the minds of Congressional negotiators who are struggling to get 60 votes in the Senate for health reform. Too much time has been wasted on the public option, which already has been watered down and which in any case isn’t worth jeopardizing prospects for an historic breakthrough on universal coverage.

The way for Democrats to hold their moderates in line is to 1) make sure the bill’s cost doesn’t balloon, and that it meets Obama’s demand to add “not one penny” to the federal deficit; and, 2) take tougher steps to reduce medical cost inflation.

The election also may fuel Congressional demands to put on hold President Obama’s other ambitious goals – regulatory reform, a carbon cap-and-trade scheme, immigration reform – so that lawmakers can concentrate instead on the economy. That may make sense, if they can find practical ways to relieve economic distress without aggravating public anxiety about government overreach and profligacy.

But one thing Tuesday didn’t produce was evidence of an electorate turning hard right. The only movement conservative running – Doug Hoffman – lost his race for Congress in upstate New York, flipping a traditionally Republican seat to the Democrats. Will the Palin-Beck wing nevertheless continue their crusade to drive moderates out of the Republican Party? We can only hope.

The GOP’s Failed Stab at Health Reform

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Congressional Budget Office has now weighed in on the House Republicans’ proposed substitute to the House health reform legislation. The results aren’t pretty.

According to the CBO, the GOP plan does little to expand coverage: 52 million Americans would remain uninsured by 2019, up from 50 million in 2010. Nor does the plan do anything to end insurers’ practice of denying health coverage because of pre-existing conditions. And forget about subsidies to help working-class Americans afford health insurance.

Ezra Klein sums up the CBO’s findings nicely:

CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that …17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won’t have health-care insurance….

But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP’s alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.

The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.

But the plan does lower premiums, which is no surprise since sick people who need heath coverage the most will be left out of the system. So Republicans have that going for them.

Cap-and-Trade: Neither a Job Killer Nor a Free Ride

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Cap-and-trade legislation in Congress has come under fire from both left and right. Some on the left claim that the distribution of free emissions allowances to industry amounts to a “free ride.” Meanwhile, many on the right slam the bill as a job and economy killer.

But a new study (PDF) by PointCarbon Research, a carbon market research firm, rebuts both sides’ claims. The study focuses on the impact that climate change legislation would have on the largest emitters in the power and oil industries, which represent about 40 percent of the covered emissions in the U.S.

Contrary to right-wing forecasts of widespread economic collapse, PointCarbon found that a cap-and-trade market would, in fact, yield winners and losers among industry players. “Some companies will actually be considerably better off with a U.S. cap-and-trade program than without,” the study found, noting that companies like Exelon (the largest American utility), FirstEnergy, NRG, and PG&E stand to gain the most. Firms with a diversified fleet of non-emitting (hydro, nuclear, and renewables) and low-emitting plants are more competitively positioned and will likely see benefits.

Meanwhile, firms that rely heavily on high-emissions plants (Southern Co., AEP, Duke) would see the biggest exposure. That finding debunks the idea that industry receiving free allowances would be getting a “free ride” under cap-and-trade. As the study points out, “in reality the bulk of free allowances destined for [the power] sector will not help large power companies exposed on the generation side.”

But even as some firms do see more of a negative impact on the bottom line, the study notes that as the carbon market matures, “companies will be able to mitigate their exposure through internal reductions and offset investments” – meaning that the incentive to innovate and modernize that a carbon price brings will eventually help these companies adjust to the new low-emissions economy.

The study raises a fundamental point: “[P]utting a cost on emissions means giving a value to reductions.” In other words, a price on carbon will mean a cost burden to some – but a revenue opportunity for others. Letting actors compete in this new market is the most efficient and effective way to address the looming climate crisis.  That is precisely what the Senate cap-and-trade legislation hopes to achieve.

A Backlash Against the Rich-Man Candidate?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

One of the more surprising results from last night was Michael Bloomberg’s win for a third term as New York City mayor. The surprise wasn’t the win but the margin — a mere five-point spread over his opponent despite spending $90 million of his own money.

That performance somewhat mirrored Jon Corzine’s in New Jersey, where the incumbent Democrat spent $24 million, much of it his own money, compared to Republican Chris Christie’s $9 million. For his troubles, Corzine lost the election.

The New Republic‘s Richard Just makes an interesting reading, finding “a repudiation of the rich man’s politics” as practiced by both men. Just notes:

Pundits have made much of the fact that the country is in a populist mood these days. The populism they are referring to is generally understood to be more right than left. But if an upshot of this mood is declining tolerance for the practice of people buying political office with their own money, then that’s one (minor) thing for liberals to celebrate on an otherwise lousy night.

Bloomberg has, in fact, been a popular mayor, with high approval ratings leading up to the vote, but his successful effort to have term limits scrapped to allow a third term did not sit well with voters. Corzine, meanwhile, has been unpopular for a while, and his funding advantage may have been the only thing that gave him a fighting chance. Both men tried to outspend the other side to overcome voter skepticism. One failed, the other succeeded — barely. Money helps in elections, but if the voters think you’re spending too much of it to buy their vote, they can make you pay.

Election Day Lessons for Progressives

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Tuesday’s election results should be a warning to progressives. In Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won the governorship, proving that there’s still life in the GOP’s bones. In NY-23, where conservative darling Doug Hoffman lost to Democrat Bill Owens — making Owens the first Dem to be elected to that seat since the 19th century — the upshot might be less favorable than you think.

Never mind that McDonnell won by hiding the fact that he was a Republican. (Dems were guilty of obscuring their affiliations, too.) As the Washington Post‘s Dan Balz writes, “McDonnell pitched his campaign toward the center of the electorate, offering Republicans a model for how to reach independents.” The lesson: some Republicans still know how to play this game, and the Palinization of the party is, in fact, not yet complete.

In New Jersey, Jon Corzine’s tremendous unpopularity for the last 18 months — New Jerseyans really don’t like him — probably had as much to do with his defeat as his opponent’s efforts. The lesson: even in a Democratic state (registered Dems outnumber Republicans by 700,000), voters will oust a Democratic leader if they think he’s done a poor job.

Meanwhile, in New York, the Owens win is certainly a pleasant surprise for Democrats. But it could also be a wake-up call to the Republican establishment that the Beck-Palin faction can make a lot of noise but still fail to deliver the goods, even in a predominantly conservative district. If the Republican Party draws that moral from this race, then the McDonnell model becomes likelier for next year’s round of elections. The lesson: progressives can’t rely on an accelerated conservative crack-up and the GOP’s self-destructive tendencies to help them out in the midterms.

That all said, last night’s elections are hardly indicative of any larger trends in our national politics. Indeed, if exit polls are anything to go by, we know for sure what these elections weren’t about: Barack Obama. Exit polls showed that voters in Virginia and New Jersey did not consider the president a factor in their vote, and gave him OK-to-good approval ratings to boot (48 percent in VA, 57 percent in NJ). The polls also showed that the economy and jobs were at the top of the voters’ minds when they stepped into the booth. Which brings us to the last and oldest lesson of all: it’s still the economy, stupid.

Party in 2009 and 2010, Hangover in 2012

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

There are three big elections that pundits and politicos are looking at today: New Jersey and Virginia’s gubernatorial races, and New York’s 23rd congressional seat, which opened up when the administration tapped Republican John McHugh to be the Secretary of the Navy.

As Mark Halperin put it, analysts are turning the usual dictum on its head: “[T]oday, they’ll try to convince you, all politics is national.” Buckets of virtual ink have already been spilled prognosticating the results and explaining What It All Means. Everyone is pretty sure that it will be a big day for Republicans. Polls going into Election Day showed Republican Bob McDonnell heading for a big win in Virginia, while Republican Chris Christie held a slim lead over incumbent Jon Corzine in New Jersey.

But the race that’s been getting the lion’s share of attention is in New York. Doug Hoffman, a third-party candidate under the Conservative Party banner, looks poised to win over Democrat Bill Owens. The Republican candidate, moderate Dede Scozzafava, pulled out of the race a few days ago after it became clear that the party’s conservative base would not be voting for her. Underscoring how out of step she was with the Republican mainstream, Scozzafava then went on to endorse Owens.

Pundits and partisans have gone gaga trying to game out what a Hoffman victory, along with wins for McDonnell and Christie, spells for the GOP. While some conservatives have cautioned against overinterpreting the results, many have gone on to do so anyway. Jonah Goldberg, always a reliable fount of conservative CW, says, “Hoffman and McDonnell owe their success to the support of independents (the independents all of these people said wanted moderate, Democrat-lite policies) and to Republicans determined to stay true to conservative principles.”

But if that’s the lesson that conservatives draw from any GOP successes today, then that’s actually not a bad upside for progressives. Goldberg’s views underscore the delusion prevalent among many conservatives that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh — and the values that they espouse — are embraced by the vast majority of Americans. True, there are signs of a conservative stirring, but two undeniable facts remain: moderates and liberals outnumber conservatives, and the Republican Party brand is still pretty toxic. If conservatives really want to bet that a hard-right turn is the best move to build a lasting majority, then progressives have no choice but to let them keep thinking it — and to make sure not to repeat the same mistake on their side.

In off-year and off-off-year elections, turnout is traditionally low and the edge normally goes to the more energized segment of the electorate. Hardcore conservatives have been frothing at the mouth for the last year, and this is the first time many of them get to vent their frustrations at the ballot box since Obama’s win. For that same reason, next year is looking promising for Republicans as well. But conservatives will learn the wrong lessons. They will see GOP gains in 2009 and 2010 as a referendum on a party that’s not conservative enough. They will continue to demand that the party veer further to the right, embrace the freak show, and throw more moderates like Scozzafava overboard. Then, when 2012 rolls around, a larger electorate will show up at the polls and find a Republican Party that’s painted itself into an ideological corner, snarling at anyone to the left of Sean Hannity.

According to The Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder, this is exactly how the White House sees the state of play. Ambinder writes, “The more Republicans find their voice on the right, on what White House officials call the ‘Palin-Beck’ axis, the better Democrats will fare after 2010, when they still should have their majorities, when they should have a sleeve of accomplishments, when it becomes clear that Republicans are unwilling or unable to build a genuine coalition.”

Think of today and next year’s midterms as one big party for the Republican right. The hangover will hit in 2012.

Could Nuclear Be the Key to Passing a Climate Bill?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Washington Post reports today that prospects for passing climate change legislation in the Senate — coming up for committee debate on Tuesday — look increasingly dicey as Democrats remain deeply divided on the issue. Democratic senators from the South, Midwest, and Rocky Mountains are balking at the bill’s impact on industry and consumers, while few Republicans are willing to stick out their necks for a bipartisan vote on climate change. But slim hopes for an across-the-aisle deal still exist:

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

Many people have long viewed nuclear energy with suspicion, with cost, safety, and nuclear waste at the top of the list of objections. But the fact is that it will take a long time to scale up the production of renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. It will take just as long to rebuild our transmission grid to deliver that power to all parts of the country. And efficiency alone is not enough to address the climate issue — we need a source of clean power even as we try to develop our renewable energy industry and modernize our grid.

Nuclear is, of course, not the sole answer to our energy needs. But it’s looking like it might be the answer to our political deadlock on climate change legislation. Progressives might not like it, but they should keep in mind that the key is the cap. Getting that cap is the hardest part. Embracing nuclear energy to get one seems not just good policy but smart politics as well.

Health Reform Differences Narrow

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

At the beginning of this week on the health care front, one thing clear is that the differences between what the House and Senate are likely to vote on are not as large as everyone expected a few weeks ago. Harry Reid’s advancing a public option bill with (it appears) a state opt-out, and the House is going with a public option that will negotiate rates instead of pegging payments to Medicare. Had the Senate gone with a weak trigger or something like co-ops, or the House had insisted on the Medicare peg, it could have caused some very serious problems down the road.

However you happen to feel about the substance of these nuances, anything that steadily narrows the gaps between Senate and House Democrats is a step towards enactment of health reform this year. Or at least that’s how it looks to me from an internet cafe a very long way from Washington.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.

Final Score in Honduras: Obama 1, Republicans 0

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

News this morning is that after simmering for four months, the political crisis that has paralyzed Honduras is drawing to a close. In an agreement (English translation) between deposed President Mel Zelaya and de facto leader Roberto Micheletti’s representatives, Zelaya’s fate will be thrown to Congress. With the legislative body’s approval, Zelaya would be lame duck president in a government of national unity. Elections would go forward as planned at the end of November, with neither of the dueling presidents as candidate. To ensure the army doesn’t get involved in politics for the remainder of the campaign, control of the Armed Forces will be transferred to the national elections supervisor, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.

Now comes the follow through — making sure Zelaya serves out his term and steps down in favor of whomever the Honduran people elect in a month in a free and fair election, one in which neither side is pushing their thumb down on the scales. Then the new government should turn to the real matter at hand. Not pushing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s agenda, not trying to suck up to the U.S., but bettering the lot of the people in the hemisphere’s fourth poorest country.

While both sides are claiming to be vindicated by the agreement, the real winners are obviously the Honduran people. The embargo of aid and disruption of relations with its neighbors had put the already poor country at a disadvantage, and the stubbornness of both sides was evidence that they were looking out for their own interests and not those of the Honduran people.

Another winner was the measured, responsible foreign policy of the Obama administration. Throughout the crisis, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and their team have been seen as the steady hands at the tiller. They looked to resolve the situation and respect the rule of law. The Obama team used political and economic pressure to bring both sides to the negotiating table; threat of continued ostracism kept them talking.

By contrast, Zelaya’s ostensible patron, Hugo Chávez, was proven to be ineffectual. Chávez threatened to invade, thinking that two wrongs would make a right in supporting Zelaya. But Chávez was all helpless bluster, eventually calling on Obama to solve the problem.

U.S. conservatives also did not do themselves any favors, with South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint and the editorial team at the Wall Street Journal standing out in particular. DeMint, who should have learned that South Carolina Republicans shouldn’t get involved in Latin American escapades, flew down to Tegucigalpa earlier this month and endorsed the coup government as “working hard to follow the rule of law” when it overthrew the democratically elected leader of Honduras at gunpoint.

But while it’s easy (and fun) to point out how conservatives were on the wrong side of the coup, there are deeper issues at stake. Writing last week in the Los Angeles Times, respected Latin America academic Abraham Lowenthal said:

What brings Honduras, and Central America more generally, back again and again to center stage in Washington debates on Latin America is not the strategic, security or economic importance of the region to the United States. On the contrary, it is precisely the minimal tangible significance of Central America to the United States in economic, political and military terms that allows U.S. policymakers of conflicting tendencies to indulge in grandstanding in framing policies toward that nearby and vulnerable region.

He’s right. The US needs to focus on Central America at a policy level. Crime is up significantly in the region, and — more alarmingly — is getting organized. Maras — originally street gangs started by El Savadorans both there and in the U.S. — have been evolving into regional cartels transporting drugs and flaunting the rule of law. Governments in Central America aren’t strong enough to face this threat, and there are troubling signs they are being co-opted both at the local and national level. The potential for narco-states exists in the region.

Mark Ribbing called for a special envoy to Mexico and the Caribbean. What we really need is a special envoy to Mexico and Central America to address the interrelated issues the isthmus faces: gangs, drugs, and illegal immigration. Additionally, that envoy needs resources to help fight these problems and not just be another talking head. While the previous administration pushed the Mérida Initiative as a “Plan Colombia” for our southern neighbor, we need a “Plan Mesoamerica” to help develop stronger institutions in the region that can stand up to illegal activity, whether it comes in fatigues, a tailored suit, or gang tattoos.

Conservatism Ascendant?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Conservative bloggers are crowing about a new Gallup poll showing that 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, topping moderates (36 percent) and liberals (20 percent). The findings represent a change from the 2005-2008 period, when moderates tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.

There are other areas of concern here for progressives. For one thing, the number of independents describing themselves as conservative rose from 29 percent in 2008 to 35 percent. While political scientists have long warned that ideological self-identification surveys should be taken with a grain of salt — Americans, for the most part, don’t think of themselves in ideological terms — a breakdown of respondents’ views on different issues reflects the same movement. On government regulation of business, labor unions, gun rights, and several other issues, the public has also moved to the right, according to the Gallup poll.

There are several possible reasons for the shift. One, with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, it’s perhaps inevitable that the uncommitted middle would lean toward checking progressive control of government. In addition, conservatives who may have been turned off by the disastrous Bush administration and drifted to the middle may be coming back home in the age of Obama.

Finally, one can’t overstate the media’s influence in shaping public opinion. Since day one, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the right-wing noise machine have hammered the administration as unapologetically liberal (even Marxist!), a narrative that is now gospel among the conservative base — and perhaps influences independents as well. But the fact is that the president has been genuinely pragmatic, earnestly seeking common ground with the opposition party and urging caution and prudence on a whole host of issues. As Newsweek put it this week, he “governs like a cerebral consensus builder,” and he’s even taken a lot of grief from the lefty base because of it.

But we shouldn’t be too concerned about the Gallup poll — at least not yet. For one thing, its results are actually nothing blindingly new. Since 1992, Gallup’s results on its political ideology surveys have been generally consistent, with conservatives usually finishing in the 36 percent-40 percent range, moderates fluctuating from 36 percent-43 percent, and liberals ranging from 16 percent to 22 percent. Rather than signaling a new conservative backlash sparked by Barack Obama, as right-wing activists like to believe, the poll actually shows a swing within a narrow range. It’s not great, but it’s not catastrophic.

Another reason for comfort is that the Gallup survey comes on the heels of another poll that showed the GOP at its lowest favorability rating in a decade. Such has been the decline in the Republican Party’s fortunes that even during a year when the percentage of independents identifying themselves as conservative rose six percentage points, the GOP still can’t make any gains.

The lessons are obvious. One, even during a period of conservative resurgence, the Republican Party is still a broken brand. But progressives cannot continue to rely on Republican ineptitude and tone-deafness to keep them in power. We have to assume that the GOP will get its act together at some point and make a play for the middle. Which brings up the second lesson: this is a big country with a whole lot of interests, beliefs, and values to navigate and negotiate. Candidate Obama became President Obama because he understood that and made the tent bigger. It’s up to progressives to make sure that the tent remains big and welcoming.

Defense Authorization Bill a Good First Step

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

In a February address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama promised to “cut Cold War weapons systems we don’t use.” By signing today’s $680 billion defense authorization bill, it’s remarkable at how well he succeeded.

Trimmed from the budget are more F-22 fighter jets, VH-71 presidential helicopters, and Air Force search-and-rescue helicopters. In short, we own an acceptable quantity and/or quality of these systems to achieve their stated missions, freeing money that could more efficiently be spent elsewhere. The simple message comes down to this: In the middle of two major military deployments, spending on weapons we don’t need makes America weaker because we’re short-changing those involved in our current fights.

The president has made a solid first step in breaking the iron triangle of defense contractors, Congress, and the Pentagon. However, the war is hardly over. If you want to dunk your head in a bucket of cold water, read Winslow Wheeler’s reality check:

In 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year. Despite that, I see signs that we might be on the cusp of a change for the better.

This past week, as the Senate debated the Department of Defense (DOD) appropriations bill, a tiny bipartisan group of senators stood up to fix an important part of the gigantic mess in our defenses. This minuscule bunch lost at every turn when the votes were counted, but for the first time I can remember, senators revealed previously unrecognized aspects of their colleagues’ appalling pork-mongering — and took action against it. In the process, a few supremely powerful senators who have been corrupting the process were exposed as contemptible frauds. Now, if only the press would notice.

Wheeler is referring to a new budgetary trick used by a group of senators — led Sens. Inouye (D-HI) and Cochran (R-MS) — to raid the “Operations and Maintenance” account, a little-noticed fund that pays for things like pilot training and basic equipment upkeep, to finance home-state weapons projects that even the military says it doesn’t want.

Reforming the weapons acquisition culture is like turning an aircraft carrier 180 degrees. The White House and Secretary Gates have started, but the next several Pentagon budgets will show us where we really are.

The Good Health Reform Idea That Everyone’s Ignoring

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Writing in The Hill’s Congress Blog, Joseph Minarik of the business group Committee for Economic Development brings up an idea that unfortunately has been largely passed over in the health care debate:

Short of starting over with a fundamentally different bill, CED believes that the most constructive change to the current legislation would be the “Free Choice” amendment of Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The CED letter urges Congress to address the underlying problems in the healthcare system: the absence of choice and competition.  Today, 77 percent of private-sector employees with coverage have no choice of insurance carrier. The Finance Committee bill protects this monopoly, leaving 200 million Americans with no choice of health plan.  This system, without competition and without portable coverage for employees, would have the same fundamental problems that we have today.  The legislation in Congress therefore merely expands the status quo and makes its exploding costs even worse.

The disappearance of the Sen. Wyden’s Free Choice Act in the legislative wrangling over health care remains one of the more unfortunate turns in the whole process. The idea had bipartisan support, was well-liked by many progressives, and was genuinely transformative.

The Wyden amendment seeks to add that key element in the act’s title – choice – into the current legislation. Under the plan, employers are required to offer their employees a choice of either participating in the employer’s health benefits plan, or a voucher equal to the value of the employer plan that the worker can then use to purchase coverage in the health insurance exchange. Even better, if the employee can find a cheaper alternative on the exchange, she can keep the change from the voucher.

In the long run, this will have the effect of expanding the pool of enrollees in the health exchanges, maximizing efficiencies of scale, and slowly moving us away from the regressive, taxpayer-subsidized employer-based health system. Perhaps most obviously, it strengthens the consumer’s hand by giving her the freedom to decide what kind of plan she’d like, instead of having to go along with her employer’s plan (which – it should be made clear – she would still have the option of taking).

It might be too much to hope, but progressives in Congress should take another look at Wyden’s idea. Who knew expanding choice could be such a tough sell?

GOP Obstructionism Threatens the Courts

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

A recurring theme in the first year of the Obama administration has been the refusal of the Republican Party to work in good faith with President Obama and the Democratic Congress. A new article by Doug Kendall in Slate points out another area in which Republican obstructionism has wreaked havoc on not just Democratic plans but political norms as well:

The emerging Republican strategy is to hold these uncontroversial nominees hostage as pawns in the larger war over President Obama’s agenda and the direction of the federal judiciary. The Senate operates according to a set of arcane rules that allows a minority party to bring the institution to a halt if it chooses to do so. Most bills and nominations pass through the Senate with no debate and only a voice vote on the Senate floor. But this requires every senator to play along. By stonewalling on every nominee so far, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is requiring his counterpart, Sen. Reid, to negotiate, or devote precious floor time, for every judicial confirmation.

This is unprecedented and dangerous. There are already 95 vacancies on the federal bench at a time when there is bipartisan agreement that we need more judgeships. The last thing we need is for existing seats in overworked courts to go unfilled.

Even more important, Republican obstruction of uncontroversial nominees undermines the one part of the judicial confirmation process that was still working, until now. Well-qualified nominees who enjoy bipartisan support should be able to count on a fair and relatively smooth Senate confirmation process. This is critical because while they’re waiting, the careers of these nominees go on hold. Given the demands of the bench, and the gap between judicial salaries and what these candidates could earn in private practice, the nation is already lucky that top candidates are willing to serve. If we throw in an unpredictable and lengthy confirmation process, the quality of the federal bench—and the dispensation of justice—will unquestionably suffer.

As Kendall points out, while politics have always played a role in the judicial confirmation process, the extent to which Republicans have played it is unprecedented. When Democrats controlled Congress during the Bush administration, a large number of Bush’s nominees zipped through the proceedings. Uncontroversial nominees were treated as exactly that – qualified judges who deserved to be confirmed without political gamesmanship.

Contrast that with what Republicans have done so far. Only three of President Obama’s 22 lower court nominees have been confirmed, a staggeringly low number especially considering there are already 95 vacancies waiting to be filled.

The GOP obstruction of Obama’s judicial nominees underscores just how little compunction the Republican Party has about playing politics — exactly the kind of stance that got them booted from power. For every Olympia Snowe who votes her conscience and is willing to cross partisan lines to do so, there are, well, 39 others who march in rejectionist lockstep. The strategy may win them the devotion of the hardcore base, but it’s hardly a recipe for long-term success.

Deeds Undone by Obama? No.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

It’s too early to write off the gubernatorial aspirations of Creigh Deeds in Virginia, but if he doesn’t overcome a consistent lead by Republican Bob McDonnell in the next twelve days, you can be sure many pundits will attribute his defeat to Barack Obama.

There’s only one problem with this hypothesis: despite his extraordinary unpopularity in other parts of the South, the President remains relatively popular in the Old Dominion. According to pollster.com, Obama´s average approval/disapproval ratio in recent Virginia polls is 51/46. Even Rasmussen has him in positive territory at 53/47, and the latest Washington Post poll had him at 53/46. This is precisely the same margin by which Obama carried the Commonwealth last November.

Nor does general disdain for the Democratic Party appear to be the culprit. The current governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. His average approval ratio at pollster.com currently stands at 53/39.

It’s always tempting to interpret state electoral contests as bellwethers for national political trends, particular in odd years like this one. But it’s usually wrong.

This item is cross-posted at The Democratic Strategist.