From TribTalk: How HERO was defeated

I'll add more to this topic.

The author - Rice's Robert Stein - is one of the better commentators on Houston politics. He points to high turnout, not just among Republicans, but African-Americans who were opposed to the measure. Local political often includes unusual alliances - here's the latest example.

- Click here for the story.

From Reason: Is This Where Libertarians and the Gay Community Part Ways?

The author argues that the recent gay marriage decision marks a turning point in the alliance between the two groups. This illustrates the ways the groups can coalesce around certain issue and how those relationships can change over time.

- Click here for the article.

Areas of disagreement:
- Employment Nondiscrimination.
- Religious Freedom Exemptions.

Areas of agreement:
- Transgender Recognition.
- Adoption.

From Vox: Are Republicans and big business on the brink of divorce?

Ezra Klein discusses the potential rift between big business and the Republican Party.

- Click here for the video.

Erik Cantor was a proponents of business interests and that seems to have been part of what drove ideologically oriented - Tea Party - Republicans in his district to vote him out.

They are part of a growing movement that does not think recent Republican presidents have been conservative enough.

For 2305 and 2306 - but mostly 2305 - this highlights the coalitional nature of political parties, and the fact that the Tea Party movement has had a major impact within the Republican Party. It's still anyone's guess what impact this has down the line.

How to frame environmentalism so centrists and conservatives support it

2305's sections on public policy, public opinion and campaigning discuss the importance of framing. This is simply the attempt to influence how people think about a specific issue by condition the frames of reference that people use to think about that issue.

Public policy issues can be complex, meaning that aspects of it can be positive or negative and one's view point towards the policy can be tweaked by presenting it in a specific way.

An author in the American Prospect wonders if environmentalists - whose ends are primarily supported by the left - can entice centrists and conservatives to rethink opposition to environmental programs by rethinking the frames of reference they use to present the issue.

- Click here for the article.

The author suggest using terms like sustainability - which has been used to frame the debt issue:

Dr. John Roemer, a professor of political science and economics at Yale, wrote in a 2005 paper with Woojin Lee and Karine van der Straeten that “the Left might attempt to exploit global warming the way the Right has exploited racism.” He says that the issue is even more salient today, although the right is currently in a state of “cognitive dissonance” because of their anti-government ideology. His own upcoming book, Sustainability for a Warming Planet, uses terms like “intergenerational equity” and “sustainability” that are commonly used by centrists like David Brooks and Joe Scarborough, who worry that the federal debt is unfair to future generations and on an unsustainable course. Such leaders thrive on issues like the federal debt and sustainability, a leftist concept that is intellectually harmonious with stewardship, a right-wing one. By using the language of responsibility and intergenerational equity, as well as homespun wisdom about “living within our means,” the left could create a broad umbrella coalition encompassing concerned centrists.

And point out how candidates have framed the issue to make it more enticing to conservative voters. Hit their sweet spot:

In America, some left-wing candidates have won in heavily right-wing parts of the country by using conservationist rhetoric. Bernie Sanders won his Senate seat in Vermont—a rural, white state that holds the record for longest-consecutive streak voting Republican in presidential elections—by, according to David Sirota, “visiting hunting lodges to talk about protecting natural resources for hunting and fishing and establishing a connection with [hunters].” In Montana, a state that has voted Republican in all but one of the last ten presidential elections, Governor Brian Schweitzer won twice (the second time in a landslide) partially by wooing hunters and fisherman with land and stream access. In Wyoming, the most conservative state in the country, Governor David Freudenthal’s administration focused on a long-term strategy for resource extraction that included, among other things, preserving the state’s forests and regulating hydraulic fracking. The result: a re-election margin of 20 percent and a reputation as one of the most popular governors in the country with 66 percent approval among Republicans.

The message could be tied into religion and other conservative values as well:

In hindsight, the potency of the environmentalist message should not be surprising. Religious traditions have always stressed the importance of living in harmony with the environment, and the very idea behind conservatism is not radically re-inventing the world in which one lives, lest unintended consequences ensue.

The trick will be figuring out who sends this message out. Studies suggest that who relays a message is at least as important as the content of the message. It creates a frame of reference that tells the listeners whether the content of the message should be believed.

Greek coalition formed

This builds off yesterday's story about the Greek elections. A coalition has been formed and parliament can now meet and do its magic.

Coalition Building in Israel

In 2301 we've been discussing our two-party system - and its basis on our winner take all electoral system - and multi-party systems - and their basis on proportional representation. I use Israel as an example of proportional representation in large part because the process is described so well on the Knesett's website. I mentioned the political difficulty of forming coalition governments in parliamentary democracies without much detail, so if you would like to dig further into how Israel's prime minister has been able to do so successfully, I recommend reading the following.

From the Washington Post: The budding alliance between greens and libertarians

An unusual alliance seems to be evolving on environmental policy:

After a climate bill fizzled out in the Senate last year and Republicans won big in the midterms, many observers wondered how the environmental movement could reinvent itself. Would it shift to playing defense on the EPA? Try to build a broader grass-roots movement? But few could have predicted the trend we’re seeing now: Amid calls for austerity, some green groups are aligning with conservative think tanks to push for cuts to environmentally harmful programs.
The odd alliance kicked off last month when Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen teamed up with Taxpayers for Common Sense and the conservative Heartland Institute for their “Green Scissors” report, focusing on cuts to everything from ethanol and oil tax credits to timber subsidies. And this month? The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is teaming up with the libertarian Reason Foundation and Taxpayers for Common Sense to attack the Essential Air Service program, which has been a small but controversial part of the ongoing fight over FAA funding in Congress.

- Can big budget cuts be environmentally friendly?

Ideology v. Pragmatism / Campaigning v. Governing

This is a terrific piece by James Fallows on, among other things, the difference between running for office and holding office.  

Will Obama's Compromise With Republicans Drive a Wedge in the Democratic Party?

Greg Sargeant thinks not:

. . . there may be a gap between what high profile liberal commentators -- the so-called "professional left" -- think of Obama, and what self-described rank-and-file liberals think of him. The impression of liberal wrath is also perhaps exaggerated by media organizations that seem eager to feed that storyline.

The question now, however, is whether GOP gains in Congress will induce the Obama team to undertake a strategy that risks genuine alienation of liberals. Obama advisers have reportedly concluded that the key to winning back independents in advance of 2012 is to demonstrate compromise with Republicans in order to recapture his post-partisan appeal.

Is the Tea Party Movement Pulling the Republicans Party Too Far to the Right?

E .J. Dionne argues that they are.

We will have evidence soon enough, but it is commonly argued that highly motivated, ideologically driven party members, even if they are a minority, can pull either of the major political parties far enough to either ideological extreme that they become uncompetitive in the long run. It happened to Democrats in the 1960s, 70s and 80s and it could, possibly, be happening now to Republicans.

One culprit may be the primary election process which -- through the miracle of low voter turnout -- allows a small, focused group of people to select a party's candidates and issues. These candidates and issues might be competitive for an election cycle or two, but overtime they might turn the party off to the moderate middle (the one's who tend not to get worked up over politics and are often likely to vote only in presidential elections).

That's the theory anyway. It looks like it might get tested in the next couple of years. Of course this only matters if the aggregate opinions of the general public are fixed. If public opinion moves to the right, this doesn't matter. But considering how volatile the electorate has been over the past few years, it is not unreasonable to suspect that a motivated and highly conservative voting bloc might control Congress after this election, but will set an agenda that will lead to a moderate to liberal counter mobilization in 2012. That's basically what happened after 1994. So will Obama 2012 be a replay of Clinton 1996? That's my prediction.

Centrists Win, Conservatives Lose

Yesterday's elections seem to prove the importance of running centrist campaigns if a party wishes to actually win elections to office, and underscore the problems when extreme candidates, or at least candidates that veer far to one side of the political spectrum represent the party.

Republicans won the two governors races (in New Jersey and Virginia) where the candidates largely refrained from excessive anti-Obama rhetoric in an apparent attempt to lure independents that voted for the president (and could do so again) to vote Republican. It was a big tent strategy that worked.

In New York's District 23rd however, where a more extreme conservative ran under the Conservative Party Label, the Republican vote was split. Some moderate Republicans -- possibly turned off by the conservative positions of the candidate -- voted for the Democrat. The Democrat won a seat the party had not held in over a century.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the national party will be able to encourage candidates to adopt the more centrist, inclusive strategy, or whether the conservative movement will continue to attempt to pull the party to the right and purge it of moderates.

Conservatives v. Republicans

From Politico:

In what could be a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials, conservative activists are gearing up to challenge leading GOP candidates in more than a dozen key House and Senate races in 2010.

Conservatives and tea party activists had already set their sights on some of the GOP’s top Senate recruits — a list that includes Gov. Charlie Crist in Florida, former Rep. Rob Simmons in Connecticut and Rep. Mark Kirk in Illinois, among others.

But their success in Tuesday’s upstate New York special election, where grass-roots efforts pushed GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava to drop out of the race and helped Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman surge into the lead on the eve of Election Day, has generated more money and enthusiasm than organizers ever imagined.

Activists predict a wave that could roll from California to Kentucky to New Hampshire and that could leave even some GOP incumbents — Utah Sen. Bob Bennett is one — facing unexpectedly fierce challenges from their right flank.

“I would say it’s the tip of the spear,” said Dick Armey, the former GOP House majority leader who now serves as chairman of FreedomWorks, an organization that has been closely aligned with the tea party movement. “We are the biggest source of energy in American politics today.”

....

Obama Moves to the Center

Primaries are won at the extremes while general elections are won in the center. Its a well worn truism of politics which is reconfirmed each election. Obama' s announcement that he will continue to fund Bush's Faith Based Initiatives if elected, is the latest example.

Barack Obama pledged Tuesday to expand a controversial White House program that funnels federal money to religious charities, embracing a core piece of President Bush's legacy as he tries to win over Republican-leaning evangelical voters.

The presumed Democratic presidential nominee said he would make it easier for churches and small community groups to win grants and would spend $500 million to help schools and churches run summer reading programs.

This is part of an effort to defuse religious opposition to him. The theory is if you can't win them, neutralize them.

The campaign is targeting young and politically moderate evangelicals who are not excited about presumptive GOP nominee John McCain.

One new pro-Obama group, the Matthew 25 Network, run by several Democratic strategists who have pushed the party to court religious voters, began airing an ad Tuesday on Christian radio stations, playing a clip in which Obama recalls becoming a Christian."Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me," Obama says in the ad. "I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth."

It is upsetting some liberal groups, but that's part of the point. Their opposition might actually help legitimize the move to centrists, to make it seem more credible. Smart stuff.

Is An Evangelical Dealignment in the Works?

The Huffington Post has a piece describing a trend among younger evangelical voters to distance themselves from the Republican Party and to not take cues from the leadership which has dominated the movement for the past three decades. They are not flocking to the Democrats, so this is not a realignment, but a dealignment that might add to the number of independents whose vote might sway based on the politics of the moment.

"I think it's a new movement starting," said Amy Archibald, 19, a sophomore at the evangelical school [Seattle Pacific University]. "Most of us would never blindly follow the old Christian Right anymore. James Dobson has nothing to do with us. A lot of us are taking apart the issues, and thinking, 'OK, well, [none of the candidates] fits what I'm looking for exactly.' But if you're going to vote, you've got to take your pros with your cons."

Eugene Cho, a founder and lead pastor at Seattle's Quest Church, which caters to a predominantly under-35 crowd, urges young Christians to look beyond the two or three issues that have allowed Christians to be "manipulated by those that know the game or use it as their sole agenda."

"While the issue of abortion — the sanctity of life — must always be a hugely important issue, we must juxtapose that with other issues that are also very important," Cho wrote in his blog on faith and politics.

Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp. (In fact, a study by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling organization, shows young Christians are actually more conservative on abortion than their elders.) It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats.

It may be that this is simply because a candidate that shares the views of the old line evangelicals, but us appealing to this age group, has not yet emerged. If such a person emerges, this shift might be short term. That's a big if.

Rove's Resignation

It is common place for commentators to discuss the close relationship between George W. Bush and Karl Rove. He has been fixed to the side of the president at least since his decision to run for Texas Governor.

Before that he worked as a kid (literally) in the Republican Party and the Nixon White House. He cut his teeth running political races in our neck of the woods and developed his technique of identifying local Democrats--who used to be conservative once upon a time--with the more liberal national party. This allowed the Republican Party--which used to be moderate once upon a time--to bring the conservatives into their camp.

It didn't hurt that he was able to fall under the radar screen of the Bush Dynasty. It is said that each needed the other, and I'm in no position to disagree. One wonders where he would be now had Reagan not asked HW Bush to be his VP.

Here's a brief handful of some of the back and forth about Rove and his influence on contemporary politics. He clearly fits into a discussion of parties and we will do so in 2301 when we hit parties around October. We'll discuss his (apparently failed) efforts to increase the size of the national Republican Party by taking his Texas strategy nation-wide.

- Summary of editorial opinions.
- Summary of some of the blogs.
- Rove interview with Chris Wallace.
- More wrap ups from Slate.

Kos v. DLC

This has to be great news for Republicans. Daily Kos is officially calling out the DLC, calling them sad and ridiculous. He argues that the future of the Democratic Party depends upon them tilting further to the left, towards populism, and abandoning the middle.

The DLC's principle success, the election of Clinton in 1992 and 1996, wasn't significant he argues because he only won by pluralities. He promises solid majorities for the Democrats if they abandon the middle and push progressive candidates: "We helped build this majority. Not the DLC's 350 or so members. This is no longer their party. And as such, we can look forward to finally being truly competitive for years to come." He is almost certainly over reaching in this assessment. Scandal, incompetence and Iraq won Democrats the majority vote for Congress.

They are responding to an opinion piece in the Washington Post by two leading DLC Democrats urging the party not to ignore the "vital center." Losing the center risks elections, but a strategy shutting the center out makes it easier for party activists to pass their agenda--if in fact they do win. Kos argues that this is just the party establishment preserving its position of power, and there is certainly truth to that.

But the divisiveness could well turn out to be the Democrats' Achille's Heel. Republicans will certainly do what they can to drive the two sides apart. If the coalition cannot hold, the Republicans win. They may even attempt to stake positions on issues designed to lure some of the DLC'ers off to their party. It worked with Lieberman. This National Journal story about how Karl Rove charmed a meeting of DLC friendly Democrats hints about how it may be done.

Nothing Changes?

The Mainstream media has been covering the latest (physical, not cyber) gathering of fans of the Daily Kos, a left-liberal blog that has helped pull the Democratic Party--for better or worst--further to the left than it was when Clinton was president.

E.J. Dionne calls Markos Moulitsas--aka Kos--the left's answer to Rush Limbaugh, whose mastery of talk radio has never been duplicated by liberals. Many are suggesting the internet, as a medium, tilts as much to the left as talk radio tilts to the right.

Like most opinion leaders on the edges of the liberal conservative spectrum, Kos focuses as much, if not more, rage on moderate Democrats willing to compromise with the president as he does on Republicans. The more powerful they become, or seem to become, the more they can persuade candidates to stake out positions to the left.

As an indication that they are succeeding, almost all the Democratic candidates spoke before the Yearly Kos, though none attended the annual meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council. The DLC helped develop the centrist ideas that won Clinton the elections of 1992 and 1996, and Gore the popular vote in 2000. But nothing fails like success and the liberal wing, which began rearing its head with Howard Dean's 2004 candidacy (Dean was an ex-DLC'er by the way) now wants it all. Which may not be a good thing for Democrats if they want to win in 2008. There just aren't that many hard core liberals out there.

Commentators also seem to point out an irony of the yearly convention--which was aimed at the liberal blogosphere. Once you got to see them, they looked suspiciously white, male and middle aged, just like everyone else in politics.

It makes you wonder if, once the web becomes mainstream, we'll be back where we all started.

Giving Up?

Luring Latinos over to their side was once a goal of the Republican Party.

Maybe not anymore.

Winning by Losing

When covering elections, we generally argue that the presidential elections of 1964 and 1972 were catastrophic failures for, respectively, the Republicans and the Democrats. After all, each party's fringe nominated candidates that were not accepted by the electorate's moderates.

But David Broder reminds us that each candidate represented a wing within the party that was growing in strength and eventually allowed the party to dominate a series of elections. The Goldwater Republicans later fixated on Reagan. Now, he suggests, the wing that brought you George McGovern--who pushed to expand the party to aggressively include women and minorities--is deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, two products of that inclusion.

He suggests that the effort to find strategic politicians that scrape through with narrow victories do not leave lasting legacies.

Wackos?

The Stump reports that one of Ron Paul's organizers is concerned about the number of wackos ("dedicated, vigilant and small.") supporting his presidential bid, wondering if it might limit his appeal to the mainstream. A number of them apparently think, among other things, that 9/11 was an "inside job." They could drive away the moderates.

Maybe, but note that around here the proper term is not "wackos," it's "neighbors."