Sunday, February 28, 2010
Guns in the News
Here are a couple of stories involving gun rights:
1 - Gun owners demonstrate their right to openly carry guns in Starbucks.
2 - McDonald v. City of Chicago is about to be heard by the Supreme Court. It's a challenge to Chicago's gun control laws and will provide the court an opportunity to apply its DC v. Heller decision to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment.
A few useful links:
- USA Today.
- Wikipedia.
- ChicagoGunCase.com.
1 - Gun owners demonstrate their right to openly carry guns in Starbucks.
2 - McDonald v. City of Chicago is about to be heard by the Supreme Court. It's a challenge to Chicago's gun control laws and will provide the court an opportunity to apply its DC v. Heller decision to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment.
A few useful links:
- USA Today.
- Wikipedia.
- ChicagoGunCase.com.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Senate Judiciary Committee v the Office of Legal Counsel
Great checking and balancing going on here.
The Office of Legal Counsel is an advisory office in the Justice Department. From its website:
[it] ..."provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the Executive Branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality."
The question is whether two previous members of the office broke the law when they wrote memos authorizing the use of torture when terrorist suspects were interrogated. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the office in the Senate and is investigating the question.
Related links:
- Senate Committee Hearing on Ethics Report Disappoints
- Inquiry into missing e-mails written by Bush lawyers is demanded
- The Total Legal Clarity On Torture
- Office of Legal Counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Office of Legal Counsel is an advisory office in the Justice Department. From its website:
[it] ..."provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the Executive Branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the Executive Branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality."
The question is whether two previous members of the office broke the law when they wrote memos authorizing the use of torture when terrorist suspects were interrogated. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the office in the Senate and is investigating the question.
Related links:
- Senate Committee Hearing on Ethics Report Disappoints
- Inquiry into missing e-mails written by Bush lawyers is demanded
- The Total Legal Clarity On Torture
- Office of Legal Counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
An early patron of the young George Washington. I need to learn more about these colonial personalities.
Closely Inspecting the Farewell Address: Washington on Sectionalism
If you read through Washington's address it becomes apparent why the Senators declined to sit while the address was being read. He counsels against the sort of animosity and division common today and advises that we distrust anyone who would try to create them. In fact much of what he says suggests that he would be opposed to the state oriented flavor in the campaigns of current candidates for public office. Here's some relevant text:
The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.
I do think its worth comparing this comment with Madison's observations in Federalist #10. Madison tells us that divisions are inevitable and are to be expected. Is Washington simply being unrealistic?
The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.
I do think its worth comparing this comment with Madison's observations in Federalist #10. Madison tells us that divisions are inevitable and are to be expected. Is Washington simply being unrealistic?
Is Congress Broken, Part 5: The Baneful Influence of Parties
I think this such a terrific article I copied the whole thing. You can also read it here. I like the authors use of Washington's Farewell Address to compare the current state of political parties in the Senate. This fits in with the recent "Is Congress Broken" posts.
Both 2301 and 2302 students ought to be prepared to discuss this in class.
From the bluest of states, a red senator of a different color
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 23, 2010; A02
So much for the Massachusetts Miracle.
The election of Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was supposed to bring a seismic change to national politics. It did just that Monday night, but not in the way Republicans had hoped.
It was almost time to vote on the Senate jobs bill, the first major vote since Brown's arrival. Republicans were counting on their new member to be their "41st vote," the number needed to sustain filibusters and shoot down any and all Democratic proposals.
Brown, his desk in the back corner, was the only Republican in the room as Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a final denunciation of the GOP before the vote. "My friends on the other side of the aisle are looking for ways not to vote for this," he said, accusing them of putting "partisanship ahead of people."
As Reid spoke, Brown was leafing through a Senate face book, learning to recognize his new colleagues. As soon as the vote was called, he strode quickly into the well and interrupted the clerk as he read the roll.
"Yes," Brown said quietly, and then, having become Reid's first vote, he rushed out of the room before Republican colleagues arrived. He stepped into the hallway, then waited for reporters to assemble around him.
"I'm not from around here," he said. "I'm from Massachusetts."
Back inside the Senate chamber, Maine's Susan Collins, a Republican moderate, followed Brown's lead and voted yes. The floodgates opened, and the GOP filibuster was broken with two votes to spare.
It was a good way to celebrate George Washington's birthday.
Three hours before the jobs-bill vote, the Senate chamber opened with its 117-year tradition of reading Washington's Farewell Address on his birthday. The current lawmakers evidently didn't think much of the tradition, for they assigned the reading to Roland Burris, the senator from Blagojevich. Total number of senators at their desks for the reading: zero.
That's too bad, for Washington's words were never more relevant. "The common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it," Burris read, haltingly, on the floor Monday afternoon. "It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."
The Senate then moved to validate Washington's concern by taking up the jobs bill. The measure had been rolling toward swift and easy passage -- a tally of 80 votes had been anticipated -- because of a bipartisan deal negotiated between the top Democrat and Republican on the Finance Committee.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upended the deal and replaced the bipartisan deal with a smaller bill favored by Senate liberals. Republicans, predictably, withdrew their support. And Democrats, predictably, went to the Senate TV studio to denounce the Republicans.
The ferociously partisan Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) explained why "it's sometimes more important to force a clear vote" rather than getting in the "swamp of negotiating" with Republicans. "I think continuing to force votes is the prerogative of the majority."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to inform Republicans that "there comes a time when you've got to put politics aside."
With Republican leaders vowing opposition to Reid's version of the bill, it appeared that Democratic leaders had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And it was a pointless snarl. Democrats scuttled a bipartisan deal full of provisions they supported, just to pick a fight with Republicans. Republicans, furious that their good-faith negotiations had been ignored, opposed the pared-down version of the bill even though they favored its contents.
It was, in other words, just what Washington warned about 214 years ago when he cautioned against "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party."
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," the first president wrote. "But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."
One man who did seem to get that message from the ages was Brown, who it appears hasn't been in Washington long enough to be intoxicated by the Spirit of Party.
Moments before the vote, Brown's office sent out word that he planned to side with the Democrats, and some last-minute buttonholing by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) evidently didn't change his mind.
"It's not a perfect bill, but it's certainly a bill that I felt comfortable enough to vote on, because it's the first step in creating jobs," Brown said. "And anytime you can make a small step, it's still a step."
Back on the Senate floor, the Democratic leader admired his unexpected gift for Washington's birthday. "Whether this new day was created by the new senator from Massachusetts or some other reason," said Reid, "I'm very, very happy."
Both 2301 and 2302 students ought to be prepared to discuss this in class.
From the bluest of states, a red senator of a different color
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 23, 2010; A02
So much for the Massachusetts Miracle.
The election of Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat was supposed to bring a seismic change to national politics. It did just that Monday night, but not in the way Republicans had hoped.
It was almost time to vote on the Senate jobs bill, the first major vote since Brown's arrival. Republicans were counting on their new member to be their "41st vote," the number needed to sustain filibusters and shoot down any and all Democratic proposals.
Brown, his desk in the back corner, was the only Republican in the room as Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) offered a final denunciation of the GOP before the vote. "My friends on the other side of the aisle are looking for ways not to vote for this," he said, accusing them of putting "partisanship ahead of people."
As Reid spoke, Brown was leafing through a Senate face book, learning to recognize his new colleagues. As soon as the vote was called, he strode quickly into the well and interrupted the clerk as he read the roll.
"Yes," Brown said quietly, and then, having become Reid's first vote, he rushed out of the room before Republican colleagues arrived. He stepped into the hallway, then waited for reporters to assemble around him.
"I'm not from around here," he said. "I'm from Massachusetts."
Back inside the Senate chamber, Maine's Susan Collins, a Republican moderate, followed Brown's lead and voted yes. The floodgates opened, and the GOP filibuster was broken with two votes to spare.
It was a good way to celebrate George Washington's birthday.
Three hours before the jobs-bill vote, the Senate chamber opened with its 117-year tradition of reading Washington's Farewell Address on his birthday. The current lawmakers evidently didn't think much of the tradition, for they assigned the reading to Roland Burris, the senator from Blagojevich. Total number of senators at their desks for the reading: zero.
That's too bad, for Washington's words were never more relevant. "The common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it," Burris read, haltingly, on the floor Monday afternoon. "It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another."
The Senate then moved to validate Washington's concern by taking up the jobs bill. The measure had been rolling toward swift and easy passage -- a tally of 80 votes had been anticipated -- because of a bipartisan deal negotiated between the top Democrat and Republican on the Finance Committee.
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid upended the deal and replaced the bipartisan deal with a smaller bill favored by Senate liberals. Republicans, predictably, withdrew their support. And Democrats, predictably, went to the Senate TV studio to denounce the Republicans.
The ferociously partisan Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) explained why "it's sometimes more important to force a clear vote" rather than getting in the "swamp of negotiating" with Republicans. "I think continuing to force votes is the prerogative of the majority."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) went to the Senate floor to inform Republicans that "there comes a time when you've got to put politics aside."
With Republican leaders vowing opposition to Reid's version of the bill, it appeared that Democratic leaders had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. And it was a pointless snarl. Democrats scuttled a bipartisan deal full of provisions they supported, just to pick a fight with Republicans. Republicans, furious that their good-faith negotiations had been ignored, opposed the pared-down version of the bill even though they favored its contents.
It was, in other words, just what Washington warned about 214 years ago when he cautioned against "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party."
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism," the first president wrote. "But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism."
One man who did seem to get that message from the ages was Brown, who it appears hasn't been in Washington long enough to be intoxicated by the Spirit of Party.
Moments before the vote, Brown's office sent out word that he planned to side with the Democrats, and some last-minute buttonholing by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) evidently didn't change his mind.
"It's not a perfect bill, but it's certainly a bill that I felt comfortable enough to vote on, because it's the first step in creating jobs," Brown said. "And anytime you can make a small step, it's still a step."
Back on the Senate floor, the Democratic leader admired his unexpected gift for Washington's birthday. "Whether this new day was created by the new senator from Massachusetts or some other reason," said Reid, "I'm very, very happy."
Scott Brown: RINO
Kathleen Parker questions the effort to purify the Republican Party. Will true believers accept Scott Brown?
- RINO.
- RINO.
Are Republicans Too Old?
Recent shifts in public opinion have benefited Republicans but this conservative writer worries that these shifts have been primarily among older Americans. Younger American support the Democratic Party more than they have in two or three decades. Does the future belong to them?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
About Those Millenials
Heres' some info about the 18 - 29 year old set.
My 2301's might find this useful when we discuss public opinion.
My 2301's might find this useful when we discuss public opinion.
The EPA, Carbon Dioxide and Federalism
Here's a news item that applies to both 2302, and out look at the bureaucracy, and 2301 and our coverage of federalism, among other things:
The Environmental Protection Agency has used its statutory authority to declare that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are dangerous to people and are thus subject to regulation. Doing so, in a sense, minimizes the need for Congress to pass cap and trade legislation, since the authority to address climate change might already exist. The question is whether they in fact the authority.
Some states, including Texas and Virginia have challenged their ability to do so which sets up a show down between national and state powers.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the ...
The Environmental Protection Agency has used its statutory authority to declare that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are dangerous to people and are thus subject to regulation. Doing so, in a sense, minimizes the need for Congress to pass cap and trade legislation, since the authority to address climate change might already exist. The question is whether they in fact the authority.
Some states, including Texas and Virginia have challenged their ability to do so which sets up a show down between national and state powers.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the ...
Reconciliation and Health Care
For my 2302's: One tactic that would allow a vote on health care to proceed in the Senate without the threat of a filibuster is to pass it using the reconciliation process. The reconciliation process was established as ways to pass budgets without the threat of a filibuster, but since then they have been used for any item that has a substantial impact on the budget. This is the case with the health care proposals.
There are questions about whether it is appropriate to use this process for a health care bill, but apparently, this wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
- THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS
- Reconciliation (United States Congress) - Wikipedia, the free ...
There are questions about whether it is appropriate to use this process for a health care bill, but apparently, this wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
- THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS
- Reconciliation (United States Congress) - Wikipedia, the free ...
Ron Paul wins CPAC Straw Vote and Gets Booed
Our own congressman Ron Paul won the straw vote for president in the CPAC Convention held last weekend, and then gets booed for it. Apparently he was not CPAC's preferred candidate.
- Rep. Ron Paul on Getting Booed at CPAC, Intentions for 2012
- Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Crowd Boos
- CPAC red-faced over Paul's straw poll win
By the way, CPAC is the annual convention held by the American Conservative Union. Keeping tabs of this group is a great way to keep track of what "conservatism" means at a particular moment in time.
- Rep. Ron Paul on Getting Booed at CPAC, Intentions for 2012
- Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Crowd Boos
- CPAC red-faced over Paul's straw poll win
By the way, CPAC is the annual convention held by the American Conservative Union. Keeping tabs of this group is a great way to keep track of what "conservatism" means at a particular moment in time.
Scott Brown Votes Against Filibuster
In 2302, when we discuss the behavior of individual legislators, we point out the tension that can exist between the needs of the constituents and the party caucus. Scott Brown's election to the U.S. Senate empowered the Senate Republican Conference by giving them enough vote to fight off attempts to stop a filibuster, but that doesn't mean that all their members will join. Brown might be a Republican but he represents a liberal state, so his constituents wont support him if he votes with the conservatives.
Perhaps this bests explains his decision to vote against a filibuster on a jobs bill that eventually passed the Senate (it will now head to a conference committee in order for it to be reconciled with a House bill passed previously). He faces re-election in 2012, which is not that far away.
This points out an irony when party's grown in size, they may actually lose strength because they may become less cohesive. As long as the Republicans in the Senate were small in number and mostly conservative, it was more likely that they could stay together. But once you add a moderate -- and possibly a tad liberal -- voice to the mix, this cohesion becomes compromised. In fact, if he chooses to be vocal in his positions, he might choose to be a thorn in the side of Senate Republican leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if he teams up with fellow northeastern Republican Senators Snowe and Collins, and perhaps others, to force their way on issues important to them and their constituents. Remember that they hold the key to a successful filibuster. They are in a position to force a great many concessions if they choose to do so.
Perhaps this bests explains his decision to vote against a filibuster on a jobs bill that eventually passed the Senate (it will now head to a conference committee in order for it to be reconciled with a House bill passed previously). He faces re-election in 2012, which is not that far away.
This points out an irony when party's grown in size, they may actually lose strength because they may become less cohesive. As long as the Republicans in the Senate were small in number and mostly conservative, it was more likely that they could stay together. But once you add a moderate -- and possibly a tad liberal -- voice to the mix, this cohesion becomes compromised. In fact, if he chooses to be vocal in his positions, he might choose to be a thorn in the side of Senate Republican leadership. I wouldn't be surprised if he teams up with fellow northeastern Republican Senators Snowe and Collins, and perhaps others, to force their way on issues important to them and their constituents. Remember that they hold the key to a successful filibuster. They are in a position to force a great many concessions if they choose to do so.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
A Polarized Nation?
The current, hostile, political climate is leading some to speculate that party polarization is reaching news heights. In a response, this blogger does a great job of articulating the conflicting strategies used in primary vs. general elections.
Primary elections pull candidates to the extremes, general elections pull them back to the middle. That's the overall logic, how it plays out in a particular election is impossible to predict ahead of time.
Primary elections pull candidates to the extremes, general elections pull them back to the middle. That's the overall logic, how it plays out in a particular election is impossible to predict ahead of time.
Bully Pulpit Watch: Selling the Stimulus
For 2302, where we're beginning to look at the executive branch, an example of Obama using the office to influence public opinion.
A portion of the White House staff is set aside to assist him:
- White House Communications Director - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A portion of the White House staff is set aside to assist him:
- White House Communications Director - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Has Rage Jumped the Shark?
Does anger at government justify this level of violence? And if this become classified as a terrorist act, what impact might it have on other movements, especially the Tea Parties? Will we revisit Oklahoma City? I think the anti-government types should worry about acts like this leading moderates to view them as being unhinged, irrational and unpredictable. I also anticipate that Democrats and establishment Republicans will use this act as evidence that they are.
I'll try to follow along.
In case you don't what "jumping the shark" means
I'll try to follow along.
In case you don't what "jumping the shark" means
The Peculiar Roots of Mistrust
David Brooks notes that as we have become more meritocratic (positions are noe more likely to be handed out based on talent, not connections) we have grown more mistrustful of government and other institutions.
What gives?
What gives?
Is the American Public Rational? Part 3: Negativity Works
We may not like the idea of negative campaign ads -- and there are legitimate reasons to believe that they contribute to the decline in opinions of public officials -- but they work. It is rational for candidates to use them.
Again, what does this tell us about the rationality of the American public? We say we don't like negative ads, but we respond to them anyway. There's a disconnect between what we say and what we do. Perhaps at the end of the day, as Madison suggests, passion wins out over reason.
- Negative Campaigning.
- Going Negative.
Again, what does this tell us about the rationality of the American public? We say we don't like negative ads, but we respond to them anyway. There's a disconnect between what we say and what we do. Perhaps at the end of the day, as Madison suggests, passion wins out over reason.
- Negative Campaigning.
- Going Negative.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Executive Orders to Increase
Since Congress has stalemated (refer to the previous links about whether it is broken), Obama apparently will push his agenda with executive orders.
This includes an order establishing a panel to discuss ways to reduce the budget deficit after such an effort was killed in the Senate.
in 2302 we will be discussing the factors which have led to an increase in executive power over the years. Could the current impasse in Congress lead to even greater executive powers? If so it would be an ironic result since Obama's opponents trumped the virtues of limited government.
This includes an order establishing a panel to discuss ways to reduce the budget deficit after such an effort was killed in the Senate.
in 2302 we will be discussing the factors which have led to an increase in executive power over the years. Could the current impasse in Congress lead to even greater executive powers? If so it would be an ironic result since Obama's opponents trumped the virtues of limited government.
Democracy v. Freedom
Here's some commentary from the Cato Institute about public support for some of the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. It's a response to a poll showing that most Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to recognize free speech rights for corporations.
It highlights a few points we've been making in class about the Constitution, the concern Madison had about majority rule, and the different responses polls get from respondents based on whether a question touches on abstract or concrete concepts.
In the abstract, Americans continue to support First Amendment freedoms. In concrete cases, majorities still often oppose the exercise of such freedoms. Citizens United vindicated the First Amendment in a specific case that a majority does not support. This gulf between principle and application has been and continues to be common among Americans.
....
The more important lesson here involves an often ignored truth: the U.S. Constitution does not establish a government through which a majority can do anything it likes. The Bill of Rights marks a limit on political power even if a majority controls the government. (James Madison might have said especially if a majority controls the government). We have a Supreme Court to enforce those limits against government officials and against majorities. In Citizens United, the Court finally did what it should have done: protecting unpopular groups from the heavy hand of the censor. The fact that a majority favored and favors giving unchecked power to the censor matters not at all.
It highlights a few points we've been making in class about the Constitution, the concern Madison had about majority rule, and the different responses polls get from respondents based on whether a question touches on abstract or concrete concepts.
In the abstract, Americans continue to support First Amendment freedoms. In concrete cases, majorities still often oppose the exercise of such freedoms. Citizens United vindicated the First Amendment in a specific case that a majority does not support. This gulf between principle and application has been and continues to be common among Americans.
....
The more important lesson here involves an often ignored truth: the U.S. Constitution does not establish a government through which a majority can do anything it likes. The Bill of Rights marks a limit on political power even if a majority controls the government. (James Madison might have said especially if a majority controls the government). We have a Supreme Court to enforce those limits against government officials and against majorities. In Citizens United, the Court finally did what it should have done: protecting unpopular groups from the heavy hand of the censor. The fact that a majority favored and favors giving unchecked power to the censor matters not at all.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Bills of Rights
While we begin discussing the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, here are stories regarding other proposed "bills of rights:"
- Air Passenger Bill Of Rights Debated
- Editorial: Children's bill of rights, sadly, is needed
- Colo. senator wants religious bill of rights for students and teachers posted ...
- Homeowners insurance 'bill of rights' sails through House
- Iowa considering 'Bicycle Bill of Rights'
- Better Beer Laws Campaign Launched Today in Harrisburg (Beer Drinker's Bill of Rights)
- IVR Provider Hosts 'Caller Bill of Rights' Webinar, Puts Customers First
- Unions: Sheriff's 'Bill of Rights' is all wrong
There's more....
- Air Passenger Bill Of Rights Debated
- Editorial: Children's bill of rights, sadly, is needed
- Colo. senator wants religious bill of rights for students and teachers posted ...
- Homeowners insurance 'bill of rights' sails through House
- Iowa considering 'Bicycle Bill of Rights'
- Better Beer Laws Campaign Launched Today in Harrisburg (Beer Drinker's Bill of Rights)
- IVR Provider Hosts 'Caller Bill of Rights' Webinar, Puts Customers First
- Unions: Sheriff's 'Bill of Rights' is all wrong
There's more....
Texas Republicans Drifting Too Far to the Right?
Some commentary on Debra Medina and the Texas Governor's race.
My 2301 classes should read through this as we prepare to discuss primary elections in the near future.
My 2301 classes should read through this as we prepare to discuss primary elections in the near future.
Is Congress Broken, Part 4: Bayh's Retirement
Evan Bayh has decided not to run for reelection partially based on the claim that Congress is broken, but is he correct?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Words Matter
As we continue to discuss public opinion in 2301 we ought to begin touching on how opinion, or at least measures of opinion, can be impacted by the words pollsters choose to use when they ask questions. Several previous posts have touched on this already, here's the latest proof that words matter: more people support the ability for "gay men and lesbians" to serve in the military than for "homosexuals" to do so.
- Poll results from CBS News.
- Commentary from the Atlantic.
Pollsters call these framing effects and have noticed them for decades. These have a great influence on how politicians present arguments to the public.
- Poll results from CBS News.
- Commentary from the Atlantic.
Pollsters call these framing effects and have noticed them for decades. These have a great influence on how politicians present arguments to the public.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
The 2011 Texas Budget
Here's some good news, the Texas budget is projected to be $11 - $17 billion short when the legislature convenes next year.
- background on the budget from the Texas Tribune.
- background on the budget from the Texas Tribune.
The 2010 Texas Elections
From the Secretary of State's website, a list of all the positions up for grabs in this year's election.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
NLRB Nominee Blocked
Republicans and one key Democrat in the Senate are blocking Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board.
File this under checks and balances, among other topics.
The nominee, Craig Becker, served as counsel to the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO and is a bit too labor friendly for some in Senate.
- Ben Nelson To Filibuster Key Obama Labor Nominee
File this under checks and balances, among other topics.
The nominee, Craig Becker, served as counsel to the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO and is a bit too labor friendly for some in Senate.
- Ben Nelson To Filibuster Key Obama Labor Nominee
The Tea Party vs. Ron Paul?
This is heresy.
Even anti-government icon Ron Paul can't escape the conservative "Tea Party" fervor stretching across the county.
Paul, the Gulf Coast congressman whose 2008 presidential run excited libertarians nationwide, even though he didn't get much traction overall, is considered by many to be the "father of the Tea Parties." But he has three opponents in the March Republican primary – more than he has faced in his past six primary campaigns combined.
All three have ties to the anti-tax Tea Party movement. And while Paul remains the odds-on favorite to win re-election in his district, the crowded primary highlights the potential conflict between Tea Party activists and a GOP hoping to ride their wave to electoral success this fall.
"The Tea Parties have awakened a lot of everyday people here and across America," said Tim Graney, one of Paul's opponents. "And Ron Paul is worried about getting swept up in the anti-incumbent wave as if he is some exception."
Even anti-government icon Ron Paul can't escape the conservative "Tea Party" fervor stretching across the county.
Paul, the Gulf Coast congressman whose 2008 presidential run excited libertarians nationwide, even though he didn't get much traction overall, is considered by many to be the "father of the Tea Parties." But he has three opponents in the March Republican primary – more than he has faced in his past six primary campaigns combined.
All three have ties to the anti-tax Tea Party movement. And while Paul remains the odds-on favorite to win re-election in his district, the crowded primary highlights the potential conflict between Tea Party activists and a GOP hoping to ride their wave to electoral success this fall.
"The Tea Parties have awakened a lot of everyday people here and across America," said Tim Graney, one of Paul's opponents. "And Ron Paul is worried about getting swept up in the anti-incumbent wave as if he is some exception."
The Tea Party vs. the NRCC
A Tea Party member is challenging the candidate preferred by the NRCC in a Mississippi House race. Are Tea Partiers undermining the Republican establishment? Will this lead to a stronger or weaker party?
A well-known favorite of the Tea Party movement is planning to announce a House bid Monday, setting up a challenge to an NRCC-favored candidate.
Fox News analyst Angela McGlowan will announce her bid against Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) today in Oxford. She will face state Sen. Alan Nunnelee (R) and ex-Eupora Mayor Henry Ross (R) in the June 1 primary. . . .
McGlowan's candidacy will put the NRCC in an awkward spot. Nunnelee is a highly-touted recruit, and he's already been promoted to the "Contender" tier of the "Young Guns" program. Inclusion among the Young Guns does not denote an endorsement -- several members face each other in primaries -- but the NRCC has long been optimistic about Nunnelee.
A well-known favorite of the Tea Party movement is planning to announce a House bid Monday, setting up a challenge to an NRCC-favored candidate.
Fox News analyst Angela McGlowan will announce her bid against Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) today in Oxford. She will face state Sen. Alan Nunnelee (R) and ex-Eupora Mayor Henry Ross (R) in the June 1 primary. . . .
McGlowan's candidacy will put the NRCC in an awkward spot. Nunnelee is a highly-touted recruit, and he's already been promoted to the "Contender" tier of the "Young Guns" program. Inclusion among the Young Guns does not denote an endorsement -- several members face each other in primaries -- but the NRCC has long been optimistic about Nunnelee.
John Murtha
This might not be the kindest obituary, but the recently deceased John Murtha is heralded as having been a master of pork-barrel politics. As we begin discussing just what that means in my 2302s, this gives us something to talk about.
Update:
Apparently Murtha died due to medical error:
Mr. Murtha was first hospitalized with gallbladder problems in December. He had surgery Jan. 28 at the National Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md. He went home, but was hospitalized two days later when complications developed. According to a source close to Mr. Murtha -- confirming a report in Politico -- doctors inadvertently cut Mr. Murtha's intestine during the laparoscopic surgery, causing an infection.
Update:
Apparently Murtha died due to medical error:
Mr. Murtha was first hospitalized with gallbladder problems in December. He had surgery Jan. 28 at the National Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Md. He went home, but was hospitalized two days later when complications developed. According to a source close to Mr. Murtha -- confirming a report in Politico -- doctors inadvertently cut Mr. Murtha's intestine during the laparoscopic surgery, causing an infection.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Is Congress Broken? Part 2: Is Unified Party Government Ineffective?
Jonathan Rauch thinks so.
The most important accomplishments of the past 25 years have occured during divided, not unified government.
The most important accomplishments of the past 25 years have occured during divided, not unified government.
Al Green's Appropriations Request
For discussion this week, an item from Rep. Al Green's website, his appropriations requests. A useful example of constituent service.
Area Congressional Staffs
Here's a useful item from KPRC. It tells us how much each member of the local delegation has been allocated to spend on their office (around $1.3-4 million each) and how much they do in fact spend.
It fits with our upcoming discussion of constituency service.
It fits with our upcoming discussion of constituency service.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Defining Bi-Partsanship
From the Washington Post:
. . . most people in Washington have forgotten what bipartisanship means in practice, if indeed they ever knew it.
The most common misconception is that bipartisanship means finding common ground and focusing on the things most everyone agrees on. In reality, that turns out to be a pretty small set of ideas and proposals that, taken together, would not address the major challenges before us. Certainly, that is the obvious place to begin, and it would be an improvement over the current gridlock, but it won't add up to effective governance.
After all, if the only things the party in power can accomplish are those that the minority power can agree with, then what is the point of having an election? No matter which side won a majority, "common ground" -- the things they all agree on -- would still be the same.
The only way a democratic system like ours can work is if the majority party acknowledges that winning an election means winning the right to set the agenda and put the first proposal on the table, though not the right to get everything it wants. By the same logic, if members of the minority party want to influence that policy, they have to understand that it will require them to accept some things they don't like to get some things they do.
We can also file this under "Is Congress Broken?" Has animosity between the two parties made it impossible for anything to be accomplished legislatively?
. . . most people in Washington have forgotten what bipartisanship means in practice, if indeed they ever knew it.
The most common misconception is that bipartisanship means finding common ground and focusing on the things most everyone agrees on. In reality, that turns out to be a pretty small set of ideas and proposals that, taken together, would not address the major challenges before us. Certainly, that is the obvious place to begin, and it would be an improvement over the current gridlock, but it won't add up to effective governance.
After all, if the only things the party in power can accomplish are those that the minority power can agree with, then what is the point of having an election? No matter which side won a majority, "common ground" -- the things they all agree on -- would still be the same.
The only way a democratic system like ours can work is if the majority party acknowledges that winning an election means winning the right to set the agenda and put the first proposal on the table, though not the right to get everything it wants. By the same logic, if members of the minority party want to influence that policy, they have to understand that it will require them to accept some things they don't like to get some things they do.
We can also file this under "Is Congress Broken?" Has animosity between the two parties made it impossible for anything to be accomplished legislatively?
Is the Senate Broken? Part 1
One Senator is placing a hold on all Obama appointees until he is granted two earmarks for his state. Is it possible that the Senate will be unable to conduct any business this year? Will Republicans overplay the hand they have been dealt?
Is Congress Broken? Part 1.
Yes says Lawrence Lessig.
At the center of our government lies a bankrupt institution: Congress. Not financially bankrupt, at least not yet, but politically bankrupt. Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, Americans' faith in the Supreme Court remains extraordinarily high--76 percent have a fair or great deal of "trust and confidence" in the Court. Their faith in the presidency is also high--61 percent.
But consistently and increasingly over the past decade, faith in Congress has collapsed--slowly, and then all at once. Today it is at a record low. Just 45 percent of Americans have "trust and confidence" in Congress; just 25 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job. A higher percentage of Americans likely supported the British Crown at the time of the Revolution than support our Congress today.
Large moneyed interests own it, and that's the source of populist rage.
. . . the single attribute least attributed to Congress, at least in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, is just that: integrity. And this is because most believe our Congress is a simple pretense. That rather than being, as our framers promised, an institution "dependent on the People," the institution has developed a pathological dependence on campaign cash. The US Congress has become the Fundraising Congress. And it answers--as Republican and Democratic presidents alike have discovered--not to the People, and not even to the president, but increasingly to the relatively small mix of interests that fund the key races that determine which party will be in power.
This is corruption. Not the corruption of bribes, or of any other crime known to Title 18 of the US Code. Instead, it is a corruption of the faith Americans have in this core institution of our democracy.
He argues that the flow of money through the institution has made it incapable of solving current problems. He makes two suggestions to cure this
1 - citizen funded elections
2 - a ban on ex-congressmen becoming lobbyists until 7 years after they retire.
Capitol Hill has become, as Representative Jim Cooper put it, a "farm league for K Street." But K Street will lose interest after seven years,...
A neat kicker:
. . . change should focus on the core underlying problem: institutional independence. The economy of influence that grips Washington has destroyed Congress's independence. Congress needs the power to restore it, by both funding elections to secure independence and protecting the context within which elections occur so that the public sees that integrity.
This is an interesting way to frame the problem. Federalist argues that the checks and balances only work if the institutions are truly autonomous, independent from each other. But Lessig suggests that Congress is no longer independent. Does this undermine the constitutional order?
At the center of our government lies a bankrupt institution: Congress. Not financially bankrupt, at least not yet, but politically bankrupt. Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, Americans' faith in the Supreme Court remains extraordinarily high--76 percent have a fair or great deal of "trust and confidence" in the Court. Their faith in the presidency is also high--61 percent.
But consistently and increasingly over the past decade, faith in Congress has collapsed--slowly, and then all at once. Today it is at a record low. Just 45 percent of Americans have "trust and confidence" in Congress; just 25 percent approve of how Congress is handling its job. A higher percentage of Americans likely supported the British Crown at the time of the Revolution than support our Congress today.
Large moneyed interests own it, and that's the source of populist rage.
. . . the single attribute least attributed to Congress, at least in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, is just that: integrity. And this is because most believe our Congress is a simple pretense. That rather than being, as our framers promised, an institution "dependent on the People," the institution has developed a pathological dependence on campaign cash. The US Congress has become the Fundraising Congress. And it answers--as Republican and Democratic presidents alike have discovered--not to the People, and not even to the president, but increasingly to the relatively small mix of interests that fund the key races that determine which party will be in power.
This is corruption. Not the corruption of bribes, or of any other crime known to Title 18 of the US Code. Instead, it is a corruption of the faith Americans have in this core institution of our democracy.
He argues that the flow of money through the institution has made it incapable of solving current problems. He makes two suggestions to cure this
1 - citizen funded elections
2 - a ban on ex-congressmen becoming lobbyists until 7 years after they retire.
Capitol Hill has become, as Representative Jim Cooper put it, a "farm league for K Street." But K Street will lose interest after seven years,...
A neat kicker:
. . . change should focus on the core underlying problem: institutional independence. The economy of influence that grips Washington has destroyed Congress's independence. Congress needs the power to restore it, by both funding elections to secure independence and protecting the context within which elections occur so that the public sees that integrity.
This is an interesting way to frame the problem. Federalist argues that the checks and balances only work if the institutions are truly autonomous, independent from each other. But Lessig suggests that Congress is no longer independent. Does this undermine the constitutional order?
The 2011 Budget
Something to chew on next week:
Obama unveils $3.8 Trillion Budget for fiscal year 2011.
As a point of comparison, here is the Texas budget for 2010 - 2012. It's a two year budget which we are now in the middle of. For more general info about the Texas budget, you might want to check out the website of the Legislative Budget Board.
Things might be getting tight, sales tax collections are down considerably so we might be facing a hefty shortfall when the next legislative session begins.
Obama unveils $3.8 Trillion Budget for fiscal year 2011.
As a point of comparison, here is the Texas budget for 2010 - 2012. It's a two year budget which we are now in the middle of. For more general info about the Texas budget, you might want to check out the website of the Legislative Budget Board.
Things might be getting tight, sales tax collections are down considerably so we might be facing a hefty shortfall when the next legislative session begins.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Managing the Mob
I'm lifting another article from the National Journal. This concerns the difficulties of trying to contain an electorate that is not just angry, but seemingly conflicted about what it is angry about and who it is angry at.
As with the other related posts, this illustrates the problem Madison addresses in Federalist #10. How does a constitutional system restrain the passionate multitude? And how does it do so without violating individual freedom.
Anger Management
The public obviously is angry. But where Americans direct their rage is unpredictable.
by Paul Starobin
Saturday, Jan. 30, 2010
Toward the end of 2009, about three weeks before he quit his uphill bid for a sixth term in the U.S. Senate, Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut reflected on the vagaries of anger among the citizens of his state, who are worried about jobs and housing prices, the collapse of Wall Street, and America's wars in faraway lands. It was a ripe subject, for, as Dodd readily acknowledged, "people are angry, and angry at me." He provoked their wrath when Countrywide Financial gave him a VIP discount for a home mortgage -- and even more when he neglected to mind the financial store as Senate Banking chairman and turned his energies to a futile quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
National Journal shared with Dodd a sampling of the scathing things that his Connecticut constituents were saying about him. From a hair stylist: "He's worthless. I'm trying to be very, very nice." From a small-business owner: "I hope the bastard gets wiped right off the map. Whoever he's running against, I'm voting for that person."
The senator, in response, suggested that the anger was less personal than it seemed. "You and I have never seen anything like this," he said of the awful economy, in particular. "Their reflection about how they feel about people in public life," he said of his state's citizens, "is more of a reflection of how they feel about life."
That was a philosophical answer and not a bad one, even if it served to get him off the hook a bit. Anger is one of the trickiest of all political and social sentiments. Although it is easy enough to take a thermometer reading of public anger -- and everyone can agree that the mercury stands at a high level right now -- it is devilishly hard to predict the path that the anger will take.
Anger can be a constructive or a destructive force. It can be the glue for a peaceful political movement, on the left or right, that strives for reforms. Or it can be the raw material for a charismatic demagogue bent on accumulating fame, power, and riches. It can cause crime. In some countries, it can fuel a revolution, and in others, it may simply dissipate into the Internet ether or, according to the dictum that depression is merely anger turned inward, it can boost the sale of Prozac.
What will it be, America, this time around? Where will your anger go? Whom are you going to beat up -- your neighbor, your dog, your banker, your representative in Washington, your president, or yourself?
An effort to answer that question involves, necessarily, some guesswork, but the exercise is not all guesswork. This much is certain: Woe to anyone in the public arena who fails to take the anger seriously. Just look at the indelible example of Democrat Martha Coakley, beaten in the January 19 special election to fill the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. Coakley, the commonwealth's attorney general, ran a lackadaisical campaign, allowing the insurgent Republican candidate, Scott Brown, to become the vessel for popular anger and pull off a historic upset in one of the nation's bluest states.
And one other lesson: In this incendiary environment, almost anyone can become a convenient target of blame and be singed by a sudden burst of flames. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's appointment to a new term, which at first looked like a lock, ran into trouble from senators desperate to protect their own political hides who are faulting him for reckless policies leading to 2008's financial meltdown.
The economic decline began well over a year ago -- long enough for certain patterns to be discernable. Let's consider some places where the anger is -- and is not -- apparent, and where it might be headed.
Crime
It seems fair, if somewhat simplistic, to say that anyone who commits a crime, and particularly a violent crime, is angry. When financial and housing markets and the wider economy tanked in late 2008, stoking the fury of laid-off workers, mortgage holders, and retirement savers, and wreaking havoc in communities across the country, many criminologists and others predicted a crime wave. "The economic crisis has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs -- among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities," a New York Times editorial declared.
And yet, no such crime wave has occurred in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, with unemployment hovering around 10 percent (the rate, in fact, approaches 20 percent if the definition of the jobless is expanded to include those who have stopped looking for work or can find only part-time employment).
To the contrary: In the first half of 2009, all property crime fell by 6.1 percent nationally compared with the first half of 2008. Motor-vehicle theft plummeted by 18.7 percent and burglary by 2.5 percent, according to the FBI's uniform crime report. Arson dropped by 8.2 percent. Violent crime decreased by 4.4 percent, with robbery declining by 6.5 percent. Even in Los Angeles County in California, a state especially hard hit by the recession, murder and car theft dropped sharply.
Consider, too, the broader perspective. As Heather Mac Donald, an analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank, notes, crime is at its lowest level in nearly a half-century. In her mind, this statistic is a death knell for the liberal theory of crime as a function of economically traumatic circumstances.
Her assessment may go too far. Many factors influence crime rates, including smarter law-enforcement strategies, which is the explanation that Mac Donald favors for the drop in crime, but also demographics, such as a waxing and waning of the groups most likely to commit crimes.
Surely, though, there is a heartening lesson here: America, and Americans, can take a punch. Other countries, Italy most recently, have experienced riots and other violence linked to their dismal economies, but the United States has not. We may be spitting mad, we may feel (for good reason) less economically secure, we may think (as opinion surveys suggest) that the future is not going to be as bright as the past, and we may yell and scream at town hall meetings, but at least we are not stealing from or bludgeoning one another. Under stress -- make that considerable stress -- we are behaving with greater civility than usual. Several pats on our back, please.
Depression
The Great Recession may not be causing a crime wave, but it does appear to be responsible for a surge of mental health ailments. Unemployed individuals were four times as likely as those with jobs to report symptoms of depression and other forms of mental illness, and workers who were forced to take pay cuts or work fewer hours were twice as likely to report such symptoms, according to an October 2009 survey conducted for Mental Health America and the National Alliance on Mental Illness in collaboration with the Depression Is Real Coalition. The survey also found that the unemployed were likelier to have thoughts of harming themselves and to abuse alcohol or drugs.
If the trend line of past economic downturns holds, this one will probably increase the suicide rate -- the ultimate expression of anger turned inward -- as well as domestic abuse, such as wife-beating, David Shern, a Ph.D. psychologist who is president of Mental Health America, said in an interview.
Women are generally likelier than men to become depressed because of an unforeseen economic trauma, Shern said. In simple psychological terms, he continued, people are either "internalizers" or "externalizers" -- likely to turn their anger against themselves or turn it outward, "when individuals are placed in unpredictable situations or situations that dramatically disrupt what they think is their normal life course."
Although science cannot claim to have a precise understanding of the diversity of factors that causes the blues, the idea that anger is a typical part of the mix has common sense on its side. Depressed people "often talk about being angry with themselves because they have not accomplished or achieved or done what they think they should have," notes a training guide that Barry Greenwald, a psychologist in Illinois, developed for mental health professionals.
The problem may well be self-inflicted, as Greenwald's guide says, a failure "to live up to some internal standard of who or what you are supposed to be." But the social culture is also implicated, because our idea of who or what we are supposed to be tends to come, at least in part, from values inculcated in us by our families, our communities, our nation, and even the entertainment industry. In this respect, modern-day hypercapitalism may bear part of the blame. In a society that often seems to abide by the dictum of the late football coach Vince Lombardi that "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing," a lot of folks are going to feel like losers when, even through no fault of their own, a decent job is next to impossible to find.
Today's economically caused blues may not be just about the current downturn but also a product of the long-term, slow-burn decline in economic mobility since the 1970s. Although the U.S. ranks with Norway as the planet's most affluent society, measured by wealth per capita, it generally does not place high on researchers' so-called happiness indexes: The U.S. placed 20th among 148 nations in a measurement of "average happiness" for the years 2000 to 2009, reported sociologist Ruut Veenhoven of the Netherlands, who put together the list. The leaders were Costa Rica, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, and Canada.
Among the more alarming trends is an increase in mental health problems among college students -- the cohort that is a natural wellspring of idealism and positive feeling in any genuinely healthy society. Campus counseling directors are seeing a steady increase in the number of students asking for help for "major psychological problems" -- such as depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety disorders -- as opposed to "the normal developmental concerns characteristic of this age group" -- such as "relationship problems" and "identity issues" -- according to a 2009 survey conducted by Robert Gallagher, a former vice chancellor at the University of Pittsburgh.
More students are "harming themselves, pulling their hair out, cutting themselves," and trying to "drown their sorrows" with alcohol, Gallagher said in an interview. "The economic situation," he said, "adds a level of stress" for college students, especially for those at high-powered, elite universities, who tend to have "somewhat unrealistic expectations, even in good times," about their path to success.
Youth activism was a valuable source of energy for Barack Obama's "Yes, we can" presidential bid in 2008. Now, should the bad economy continue, the question is whether that optimism will congeal into a corrosive cynicism, an attitude infused with suppressed anger. In a 2009 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists Paola Giuliano and Antonio Spilimbergo found that "individuals growing up during recessions tend to believe that success in life depends more on luck than on effort, support more government redistribution, but are less confident in public institutions. Moreover, we find that recessions have a long-lasting effect on individuals' beliefs."
Political Movements
If the folks who have the blues represent the "internalizers" of personal anger, using psychological parlance, then today's mad-as-hell "tea partiers" may be a full-throttle example of the "externalizers." They are a prime case in point, circa 2010, of a venerable tendency for anger to find outward expression in the political culture. Although it would be nice to think that hope and optimism typically inspire political movements, in reality, movements such as these are likelier to start with raw anger, like oxygen to fire.
Furious citizens started the tea party movement as a spontaneous protest against Washington's taxpayer-financed bailouts of Wall Street banks and industrial giants such as General Motors. Although a conservative, anti-government hue tints the movement, it was not, at least in the beginning, self-consciously partisan. Tea partiers were steamed at George W. Bush's Treasury for its rescue of the banks; they are steamed at the Obama administration for what they say is Washington's effort to take over the health care system.
A primal anger, especially when it motivates a crowd acting in unison, is often associated with idiocy -- so it is not surprising that the media often portray tea partiers as a gaggle of bumbling and blustery know-nothings, captive to rancid prejudices about President Obama and all other targets of their free-floating animus.
This portrait, though, misses a certain canny intelligence in the tea party movement -- and to understand that point, it is helpful to return to the original tea party gang, the tax-protesting "mobsters," dabbed with Indian-like red paint, who dumped King George's tea into Boston Harbor on a December day in 1773. Sophia Hollander has written with clarity on this subject in "The Real Boston Tea Party," an Internet posting. "One of the oddest and most nuanced protests in American history, the Boston Tea Party was a riot without violence," she observed. "The uprising destroyed a fortune in private property while taking care to replace a single lock, inadvertently broken."
In Hollander's judgment, the Boston Tea Party "represented a uniquely American means of protest -- blending elements of ritual, rioting, and respect for legal procedures." That conclusion is overstated -- fired-up crowds in other lands have also at times displayed what seems like a surprising discernment. Still, this tradition is alive and well in America, a proud heritage of Jeffersonian populism that in the 19th century took the form of struggling small farmers directing their ire at the railroad giants that dictated prices for crop shipments. This is the eternal anger of those who feel that their fates are at the mercy of "the big," of large, remote forces beyond the control of the people.
Chris Ford, a leader of the tea party movement in Connecticut, is without doubt an angry guy. His rage is focused on the big-spending, high-taxing, self-aggrandizing political establishment in Washington. But he is certainly not a yahoo. A product of the public schools of Greenwich and the University of Connecticut (Storrs), Ford, 61, is a semiretired commercial lobsterman -- "one of the best," he said with a glint in his eye in an interview last November at a diner in Woodbury. Lobster-catching, it bears saying, is not about dumb luck -- this is hazardous, painstaking labor, requiring intimate knowledge of terrain and tide and tactical flexibility in the face of the pervasive uncertainty of the deep.
The folks who show up at the Connecticut tea party rallies, Ford said, are like him, "independent-contractor" types who either develop survival skills or go out of business. The group includes "carpenters, electricians, masons, restaurant owners, [and] printing company owners," he said.
Ford expresses his anger slyly, in humor and mockery. At the end of 2008, he and his tea party comrade-in-arms, Art McNally, a retired computer consultant, created the "Dump Dodd" campaign, exemplified in a button with a picture of "Joe the Voter" unloading a white-haired, money-bag-clutching Dodd from the back of a dump truck. "We're portraying Dodd as more of an incompetent buffoon," Ford explained. "He's not evil."
Ford and McNally are Republican-leaning political conservatives, but the Dump Dodd movement struck a chord with some grumpy Connecticut Democrats as well. Dodd's hasty January exit gratified the duo, naturally, but it has only boosted their appetite for more scalps. "We got Dodd to turn and run," McNally said in a phone interview the week after Dodd's retirement announcement. "We're not stopping. November 2010, we want to get rid of all incumbents. In Connecticut, it happens, they are all Democrats."
Another vulnerable Senate Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, is also high on the hit list of tea party activists. In their favor is an especially sour climate in Nevada, where unemployment exceeds the national average and nearly two-thirds of all mortgaged residential properties are under water -- that is, worth less than their outstanding loan balance. Tea party activists contributed significantly to Brown's improbable victory in the Massachusetts special election as well. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, a Democrat elected in 1992, could also prove vulnerable to the tea partiers' efforts to oust incumbents.
Liberals Are Angry, Too
The latest question confronting the tea party movement is whether it can make the kind of transition that often trips up campaigns born of reflexive grassroots anger -- the shift from a purely "anti" focus to a positive one, with efficient organizational machinery. The tea party folks most ardently hope for seismic change, "a revolution" that takes down the ruling political elite, as Ford said. But no such revolution appears in sight, for all the anger on the streets. America has never lent itself to revolutions -- the so-called American Revolution was more typical of an anti-colonial revolt than a change on the level of the French Revolution, say, which destroyed a long-existing order by root and branch and forcibly reorganized society under a new set of principles.
A more likely prospect is for the tea partiers to take over the Republican Party -- or a least to become a weighty presence in it, much as disaffected conservative Christian evangelicals, long on the political margins, did in the 1970s and 1980s when they became a crucial bloc in Ronald Reagan's coalition. Should the tea partiers' plans not work out, they can always form a new political party, but that is a difficult route in a system stacked to favor the two established parties.
Liberal anger, too, is a live current, especially evident in attacks on Wall Street, a staple of the liberal blogosphere in sources such as The Huffington Post, whose namesake founder, Arianna Huffington, is spearheading a campaign for Americans to move their savings from large financial institutions to small, Main Street, community banks because "too-big-to-fail banks are profiting from bailout dollars and government guarantees, and growing bigger," as she wrote on her website. She added, "Think of the message it will send to Wall Street -- and to the White House. That we have had enough of the high-flying, no-limits-casino banking culture that continues to dominate Wall Street and Capitol Hill. That we won't wait on Washington to act, because we know that Washington has, in fact, been a part of the problem from the start."
Even though The Huffington Post reliably comes from the left, with the likes of Fox News as a convenient and abiding target of its abuse, those words could just have easily been written by a tea party activist. For that matter, Obama's Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who orchestrated the bailout of AIG, the insurance giant, while he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is as much an object of scorn among the populist Left as among the populist Right.
And yet it is almost inconceivable that the anti-Wall Street, anti-Washington anger shared by the Left and Right in America will fuse into a joint campaign -- liberals and conservatives are too invested in their ritual flogging of each other for that to happen. The future of anger-driven political movements in the United States remains captive to their imaginative limitations and their knee-jerk impulses -- to the relief, no doubt, of the cowering targets at which they take common aim.
Potentates
Take your pick among the Republican "P's": Palin, Perry, or Paul, as in Sarah, Rick, or Ron. Each wants to become the embodiment of the anti-government anger welling up from the tea party movement and other sources on the right.
Paul, a 2008 presidential candidate who represents a Texas district in the House, has proposed abolishing the Federal Reserve. Perry, the governor of Texas, has suggested that his state might secede from a union that no longer serves the interests of the common people. As for Palin, the former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor, she may turn out to be the biggest "anti" force of them all. She's scheduled to be the showcase speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention, which will take place at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville in early February.
Sometimes it turns out this way. A movement begins in earnest, but not-especially-well-focused, anger and is taken over by a potentate -- a particular kind of leader, unusually gifted in dealing with the masses, in seeming to channel their passions. That leader may or may not be a true representative of the flock, whose members tend to oscillate between an ingrained suspicion of any person in high authority and a yearning for the leadership that such a person might supply. Palin, again, is the best example -- she turned off some tea party activists by seeking a reported $100,000 speaking fee. Customarily, political figures speak at such conventions for free.
The Ross Perot movement -- do the last names of such folks always start with "P"? -- was the most recent to display this dynamic. Perot, a little guy with jug ears and a squeaky voice, managed to take hold of a slice of an irate citizenry turned off by both parties and by Washington's profligacy. His strong performance in the 1992 presidential election set the bar for the anger candidate. He garnered nearly 20 million votes, about half as many as the losing Republican, George H.W. Bush, received. Perot's votes amounted to a 19 percent share of the electorate.
In 2008, Obama, too, attracted a cultlike following on the campaign trail, with supporters motivated, yes, by his idealistic appeal for change but also by an intense anger at President George W. Bush personally and at Republicans generally over the Iraq invasion and other perceived evil deeds. But Obama has not really governed as a potentate; his flock is almost nowhere to be seen; his White House is as much invested in the nitty-gritty of negotiations on Capitol Hill as in bringing out the president for one of his trademark big speeches. Once a vessel for anger, Obama now risks becoming one of its prime targets, with a job-approval rating dipping below 50 percent. Anger is mercurial that way.
The bracing example of Huey Long, the "Kingfish," immortalized as the character Willie Stark in Robert Penn Warren's novel All the King's Men, suggests how dark the potentate route can be. "In the pit of the Great Depression," the real-life Huey Long, as governor of Louisiana, "tapped into a deep vein of anger against the rich and a longing for political redemption," historian Michael Kazin wrote in 2006 in an appraisal of Long's career.
Although Long was a genuine populist who built roads, got free textbooks to school children, and levied a tax on oil refiners, he was also, Kazin noted, a genuine (if often entertaining) tyrant and a boozy thug with a yen for violently intimidating his rivals. The Kingfish was assassinated in 1935, at the age of 42, before he could fulfill his plan of running for president, probably as a third-party candidate, against Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The potentate tradition, happily, has never been as resonant in the United States as in places such as Argentina (think Eva Peron) or continental Europe (think Benito Mussolini and, obviously, Adolf Hitler). America's political soil is inhospitable to would-be potentates, in part because the Founders wisely insisted on a divided government of checks and balances. Also, the United States was blessed to receive early on the sacrificial model of George Washington -- the military hero (a familiar type of potentate) who could have served a third term, and perhaps more, as a revered, king-like president but chose to relinquish his position at the end of two four-year terms in office. (The country's unwritten rule that a president may serve no more than two terms was inscribed in the Constitution only in 1951, with ratification of the 22nd Amendment, to bar a repeat of FDR's winning four consecutive terms to the White House.)
And Justice Shall Reign
Anger can be irrational, a reaction to slights that are more imagined than real. Today's public anger, though, is nothing like that. Americans have been a dealt a body blow, and their anger is righteous.
Therapy has its uses, but in the end, only justice can satisfy a righteous anger. What constitutes justice is an eternally exquisite question that must be calibrated to the particular circumstances of the offense. Somewhere between the beheading and the slap on the wrist is the appropriate measure of justice for those who are most responsible for the economic collapse of our times, which was a creation not of nature but of human beings.
Justice is more easily, or at least more efficiently, dispensed by kings than by republics, with their encumbering rules of democratic governance. Public theater -- the dock -- may have a helpful role to play, for justice must be seen for it to be felt, and the standard is not necessarily sending culprits to prison but simply calling them to account.
In this fashion, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, modeled on the Pecora inquest into the causes of the stock market crash of 1929, may prove a deliverer of necessary comeuppance to the Wall Street titans who helped create the financial debacle that tanked the economy. In mid-January, as cameras clicked, Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, had to listen to the commission's chairman, Phil Angelides, scold him that the firm's practice of betting in the market against its own securities products "sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars."
Angelides's barb made the front pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and the video is no doubt destined for Internet immortality on YouTube and other such websites. The "media circus," so often derided for coarsening the political culture, may in such cases be an indispensable tool for the meting out of a people's justice, a 21st-century version of the pillories of Puritan times. Picture MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in a stovepipe hat. For Blankfein, no amount of high-priced PR is likely to repair the reputational damage of being likened to a sleazy car salesman.
For elected officials implicated in the financial and economic meltdowns, the public has the easier remedy of dispensing justice by evicting them from office -- or hounding them out, as it did in the case of Dodd, who abruptly and probably wisely decided to retire, given his diminishing prospects for a victory.
Even when the economy recovers, anger could still prove more a fixture of the political culture than it was in past epochs, when company-provided pension plans and other cushions tended to protect workers. So be it. Although it is probably not helpful for Americans to luxuriate in their anger, they may have more to lose by burying or suppressing the sentiment. It might be that revenge is a dish best served hot.
As with the other related posts, this illustrates the problem Madison addresses in Federalist #10. How does a constitutional system restrain the passionate multitude? And how does it do so without violating individual freedom.
Anger Management
The public obviously is angry. But where Americans direct their rage is unpredictable.
by Paul Starobin
Saturday, Jan. 30, 2010
Toward the end of 2009, about three weeks before he quit his uphill bid for a sixth term in the U.S. Senate, Democrat Christopher Dodd of Connecticut reflected on the vagaries of anger among the citizens of his state, who are worried about jobs and housing prices, the collapse of Wall Street, and America's wars in faraway lands. It was a ripe subject, for, as Dodd readily acknowledged, "people are angry, and angry at me." He provoked their wrath when Countrywide Financial gave him a VIP discount for a home mortgage -- and even more when he neglected to mind the financial store as Senate Banking chairman and turned his energies to a futile quest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
National Journal shared with Dodd a sampling of the scathing things that his Connecticut constituents were saying about him. From a hair stylist: "He's worthless. I'm trying to be very, very nice." From a small-business owner: "I hope the bastard gets wiped right off the map. Whoever he's running against, I'm voting for that person."
The senator, in response, suggested that the anger was less personal than it seemed. "You and I have never seen anything like this," he said of the awful economy, in particular. "Their reflection about how they feel about people in public life," he said of his state's citizens, "is more of a reflection of how they feel about life."
That was a philosophical answer and not a bad one, even if it served to get him off the hook a bit. Anger is one of the trickiest of all political and social sentiments. Although it is easy enough to take a thermometer reading of public anger -- and everyone can agree that the mercury stands at a high level right now -- it is devilishly hard to predict the path that the anger will take.
Anger can be a constructive or a destructive force. It can be the glue for a peaceful political movement, on the left or right, that strives for reforms. Or it can be the raw material for a charismatic demagogue bent on accumulating fame, power, and riches. It can cause crime. In some countries, it can fuel a revolution, and in others, it may simply dissipate into the Internet ether or, according to the dictum that depression is merely anger turned inward, it can boost the sale of Prozac.
What will it be, America, this time around? Where will your anger go? Whom are you going to beat up -- your neighbor, your dog, your banker, your representative in Washington, your president, or yourself?
An effort to answer that question involves, necessarily, some guesswork, but the exercise is not all guesswork. This much is certain: Woe to anyone in the public arena who fails to take the anger seriously. Just look at the indelible example of Democrat Martha Coakley, beaten in the January 19 special election to fill the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. Coakley, the commonwealth's attorney general, ran a lackadaisical campaign, allowing the insurgent Republican candidate, Scott Brown, to become the vessel for popular anger and pull off a historic upset in one of the nation's bluest states.
And one other lesson: In this incendiary environment, almost anyone can become a convenient target of blame and be singed by a sudden burst of flames. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's appointment to a new term, which at first looked like a lock, ran into trouble from senators desperate to protect their own political hides who are faulting him for reckless policies leading to 2008's financial meltdown.
The economic decline began well over a year ago -- long enough for certain patterns to be discernable. Let's consider some places where the anger is -- and is not -- apparent, and where it might be headed.
Crime
It seems fair, if somewhat simplistic, to say that anyone who commits a crime, and particularly a violent crime, is angry. When financial and housing markets and the wider economy tanked in late 2008, stoking the fury of laid-off workers, mortgage holders, and retirement savers, and wreaking havoc in communities across the country, many criminologists and others predicted a crime wave. "The economic crisis has clearly created the conditions for more crime and more gangs -- among hopeless, jobless young men in the inner cities," a New York Times editorial declared.
And yet, no such crime wave has occurred in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, with unemployment hovering around 10 percent (the rate, in fact, approaches 20 percent if the definition of the jobless is expanded to include those who have stopped looking for work or can find only part-time employment).
To the contrary: In the first half of 2009, all property crime fell by 6.1 percent nationally compared with the first half of 2008. Motor-vehicle theft plummeted by 18.7 percent and burglary by 2.5 percent, according to the FBI's uniform crime report. Arson dropped by 8.2 percent. Violent crime decreased by 4.4 percent, with robbery declining by 6.5 percent. Even in Los Angeles County in California, a state especially hard hit by the recession, murder and car theft dropped sharply.
Consider, too, the broader perspective. As Heather Mac Donald, an analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank, notes, crime is at its lowest level in nearly a half-century. In her mind, this statistic is a death knell for the liberal theory of crime as a function of economically traumatic circumstances.
Her assessment may go too far. Many factors influence crime rates, including smarter law-enforcement strategies, which is the explanation that Mac Donald favors for the drop in crime, but also demographics, such as a waxing and waning of the groups most likely to commit crimes.
Surely, though, there is a heartening lesson here: America, and Americans, can take a punch. Other countries, Italy most recently, have experienced riots and other violence linked to their dismal economies, but the United States has not. We may be spitting mad, we may feel (for good reason) less economically secure, we may think (as opinion surveys suggest) that the future is not going to be as bright as the past, and we may yell and scream at town hall meetings, but at least we are not stealing from or bludgeoning one another. Under stress -- make that considerable stress -- we are behaving with greater civility than usual. Several pats on our back, please.
Depression
The Great Recession may not be causing a crime wave, but it does appear to be responsible for a surge of mental health ailments. Unemployed individuals were four times as likely as those with jobs to report symptoms of depression and other forms of mental illness, and workers who were forced to take pay cuts or work fewer hours were twice as likely to report such symptoms, according to an October 2009 survey conducted for Mental Health America and the National Alliance on Mental Illness in collaboration with the Depression Is Real Coalition. The survey also found that the unemployed were likelier to have thoughts of harming themselves and to abuse alcohol or drugs.
If the trend line of past economic downturns holds, this one will probably increase the suicide rate -- the ultimate expression of anger turned inward -- as well as domestic abuse, such as wife-beating, David Shern, a Ph.D. psychologist who is president of Mental Health America, said in an interview.
Women are generally likelier than men to become depressed because of an unforeseen economic trauma, Shern said. In simple psychological terms, he continued, people are either "internalizers" or "externalizers" -- likely to turn their anger against themselves or turn it outward, "when individuals are placed in unpredictable situations or situations that dramatically disrupt what they think is their normal life course."
Although science cannot claim to have a precise understanding of the diversity of factors that causes the blues, the idea that anger is a typical part of the mix has common sense on its side. Depressed people "often talk about being angry with themselves because they have not accomplished or achieved or done what they think they should have," notes a training guide that Barry Greenwald, a psychologist in Illinois, developed for mental health professionals.
The problem may well be self-inflicted, as Greenwald's guide says, a failure "to live up to some internal standard of who or what you are supposed to be." But the social culture is also implicated, because our idea of who or what we are supposed to be tends to come, at least in part, from values inculcated in us by our families, our communities, our nation, and even the entertainment industry. In this respect, modern-day hypercapitalism may bear part of the blame. In a society that often seems to abide by the dictum of the late football coach Vince Lombardi that "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing," a lot of folks are going to feel like losers when, even through no fault of their own, a decent job is next to impossible to find.
Today's economically caused blues may not be just about the current downturn but also a product of the long-term, slow-burn decline in economic mobility since the 1970s. Although the U.S. ranks with Norway as the planet's most affluent society, measured by wealth per capita, it generally does not place high on researchers' so-called happiness indexes: The U.S. placed 20th among 148 nations in a measurement of "average happiness" for the years 2000 to 2009, reported sociologist Ruut Veenhoven of the Netherlands, who put together the list. The leaders were Costa Rica, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, and Canada.
Among the more alarming trends is an increase in mental health problems among college students -- the cohort that is a natural wellspring of idealism and positive feeling in any genuinely healthy society. Campus counseling directors are seeing a steady increase in the number of students asking for help for "major psychological problems" -- such as depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety disorders -- as opposed to "the normal developmental concerns characteristic of this age group" -- such as "relationship problems" and "identity issues" -- according to a 2009 survey conducted by Robert Gallagher, a former vice chancellor at the University of Pittsburgh.
More students are "harming themselves, pulling their hair out, cutting themselves," and trying to "drown their sorrows" with alcohol, Gallagher said in an interview. "The economic situation," he said, "adds a level of stress" for college students, especially for those at high-powered, elite universities, who tend to have "somewhat unrealistic expectations, even in good times," about their path to success.
Youth activism was a valuable source of energy for Barack Obama's "Yes, we can" presidential bid in 2008. Now, should the bad economy continue, the question is whether that optimism will congeal into a corrosive cynicism, an attitude infused with suppressed anger. In a 2009 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists Paola Giuliano and Antonio Spilimbergo found that "individuals growing up during recessions tend to believe that success in life depends more on luck than on effort, support more government redistribution, but are less confident in public institutions. Moreover, we find that recessions have a long-lasting effect on individuals' beliefs."
Political Movements
If the folks who have the blues represent the "internalizers" of personal anger, using psychological parlance, then today's mad-as-hell "tea partiers" may be a full-throttle example of the "externalizers." They are a prime case in point, circa 2010, of a venerable tendency for anger to find outward expression in the political culture. Although it would be nice to think that hope and optimism typically inspire political movements, in reality, movements such as these are likelier to start with raw anger, like oxygen to fire.
Furious citizens started the tea party movement as a spontaneous protest against Washington's taxpayer-financed bailouts of Wall Street banks and industrial giants such as General Motors. Although a conservative, anti-government hue tints the movement, it was not, at least in the beginning, self-consciously partisan. Tea partiers were steamed at George W. Bush's Treasury for its rescue of the banks; they are steamed at the Obama administration for what they say is Washington's effort to take over the health care system.
A primal anger, especially when it motivates a crowd acting in unison, is often associated with idiocy -- so it is not surprising that the media often portray tea partiers as a gaggle of bumbling and blustery know-nothings, captive to rancid prejudices about President Obama and all other targets of their free-floating animus.
This portrait, though, misses a certain canny intelligence in the tea party movement -- and to understand that point, it is helpful to return to the original tea party gang, the tax-protesting "mobsters," dabbed with Indian-like red paint, who dumped King George's tea into Boston Harbor on a December day in 1773. Sophia Hollander has written with clarity on this subject in "The Real Boston Tea Party," an Internet posting. "One of the oddest and most nuanced protests in American history, the Boston Tea Party was a riot without violence," she observed. "The uprising destroyed a fortune in private property while taking care to replace a single lock, inadvertently broken."
In Hollander's judgment, the Boston Tea Party "represented a uniquely American means of protest -- blending elements of ritual, rioting, and respect for legal procedures." That conclusion is overstated -- fired-up crowds in other lands have also at times displayed what seems like a surprising discernment. Still, this tradition is alive and well in America, a proud heritage of Jeffersonian populism that in the 19th century took the form of struggling small farmers directing their ire at the railroad giants that dictated prices for crop shipments. This is the eternal anger of those who feel that their fates are at the mercy of "the big," of large, remote forces beyond the control of the people.
Chris Ford, a leader of the tea party movement in Connecticut, is without doubt an angry guy. His rage is focused on the big-spending, high-taxing, self-aggrandizing political establishment in Washington. But he is certainly not a yahoo. A product of the public schools of Greenwich and the University of Connecticut (Storrs), Ford, 61, is a semiretired commercial lobsterman -- "one of the best," he said with a glint in his eye in an interview last November at a diner in Woodbury. Lobster-catching, it bears saying, is not about dumb luck -- this is hazardous, painstaking labor, requiring intimate knowledge of terrain and tide and tactical flexibility in the face of the pervasive uncertainty of the deep.
The folks who show up at the Connecticut tea party rallies, Ford said, are like him, "independent-contractor" types who either develop survival skills or go out of business. The group includes "carpenters, electricians, masons, restaurant owners, [and] printing company owners," he said.
Ford expresses his anger slyly, in humor and mockery. At the end of 2008, he and his tea party comrade-in-arms, Art McNally, a retired computer consultant, created the "Dump Dodd" campaign, exemplified in a button with a picture of "Joe the Voter" unloading a white-haired, money-bag-clutching Dodd from the back of a dump truck. "We're portraying Dodd as more of an incompetent buffoon," Ford explained. "He's not evil."
Ford and McNally are Republican-leaning political conservatives, but the Dump Dodd movement struck a chord with some grumpy Connecticut Democrats as well. Dodd's hasty January exit gratified the duo, naturally, but it has only boosted their appetite for more scalps. "We got Dodd to turn and run," McNally said in a phone interview the week after Dodd's retirement announcement. "We're not stopping. November 2010, we want to get rid of all incumbents. In Connecticut, it happens, they are all Democrats."
Another vulnerable Senate Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, is also high on the hit list of tea party activists. In their favor is an especially sour climate in Nevada, where unemployment exceeds the national average and nearly two-thirds of all mortgaged residential properties are under water -- that is, worth less than their outstanding loan balance. Tea party activists contributed significantly to Brown's improbable victory in the Massachusetts special election as well. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, a Democrat elected in 1992, could also prove vulnerable to the tea partiers' efforts to oust incumbents.
Liberals Are Angry, Too
The latest question confronting the tea party movement is whether it can make the kind of transition that often trips up campaigns born of reflexive grassroots anger -- the shift from a purely "anti" focus to a positive one, with efficient organizational machinery. The tea party folks most ardently hope for seismic change, "a revolution" that takes down the ruling political elite, as Ford said. But no such revolution appears in sight, for all the anger on the streets. America has never lent itself to revolutions -- the so-called American Revolution was more typical of an anti-colonial revolt than a change on the level of the French Revolution, say, which destroyed a long-existing order by root and branch and forcibly reorganized society under a new set of principles.
A more likely prospect is for the tea partiers to take over the Republican Party -- or a least to become a weighty presence in it, much as disaffected conservative Christian evangelicals, long on the political margins, did in the 1970s and 1980s when they became a crucial bloc in Ronald Reagan's coalition. Should the tea partiers' plans not work out, they can always form a new political party, but that is a difficult route in a system stacked to favor the two established parties.
Liberal anger, too, is a live current, especially evident in attacks on Wall Street, a staple of the liberal blogosphere in sources such as The Huffington Post, whose namesake founder, Arianna Huffington, is spearheading a campaign for Americans to move their savings from large financial institutions to small, Main Street, community banks because "too-big-to-fail banks are profiting from bailout dollars and government guarantees, and growing bigger," as she wrote on her website. She added, "Think of the message it will send to Wall Street -- and to the White House. That we have had enough of the high-flying, no-limits-casino banking culture that continues to dominate Wall Street and Capitol Hill. That we won't wait on Washington to act, because we know that Washington has, in fact, been a part of the problem from the start."
Even though The Huffington Post reliably comes from the left, with the likes of Fox News as a convenient and abiding target of its abuse, those words could just have easily been written by a tea party activist. For that matter, Obama's Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who orchestrated the bailout of AIG, the insurance giant, while he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, is as much an object of scorn among the populist Left as among the populist Right.
And yet it is almost inconceivable that the anti-Wall Street, anti-Washington anger shared by the Left and Right in America will fuse into a joint campaign -- liberals and conservatives are too invested in their ritual flogging of each other for that to happen. The future of anger-driven political movements in the United States remains captive to their imaginative limitations and their knee-jerk impulses -- to the relief, no doubt, of the cowering targets at which they take common aim.
Potentates
Take your pick among the Republican "P's": Palin, Perry, or Paul, as in Sarah, Rick, or Ron. Each wants to become the embodiment of the anti-government anger welling up from the tea party movement and other sources on the right.
Paul, a 2008 presidential candidate who represents a Texas district in the House, has proposed abolishing the Federal Reserve. Perry, the governor of Texas, has suggested that his state might secede from a union that no longer serves the interests of the common people. As for Palin, the former vice presidential candidate and Alaska governor, she may turn out to be the biggest "anti" force of them all. She's scheduled to be the showcase speaker at the first National Tea Party Convention, which will take place at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville in early February.
Sometimes it turns out this way. A movement begins in earnest, but not-especially-well-focused, anger and is taken over by a potentate -- a particular kind of leader, unusually gifted in dealing with the masses, in seeming to channel their passions. That leader may or may not be a true representative of the flock, whose members tend to oscillate between an ingrained suspicion of any person in high authority and a yearning for the leadership that such a person might supply. Palin, again, is the best example -- she turned off some tea party activists by seeking a reported $100,000 speaking fee. Customarily, political figures speak at such conventions for free.
The Ross Perot movement -- do the last names of such folks always start with "P"? -- was the most recent to display this dynamic. Perot, a little guy with jug ears and a squeaky voice, managed to take hold of a slice of an irate citizenry turned off by both parties and by Washington's profligacy. His strong performance in the 1992 presidential election set the bar for the anger candidate. He garnered nearly 20 million votes, about half as many as the losing Republican, George H.W. Bush, received. Perot's votes amounted to a 19 percent share of the electorate.
In 2008, Obama, too, attracted a cultlike following on the campaign trail, with supporters motivated, yes, by his idealistic appeal for change but also by an intense anger at President George W. Bush personally and at Republicans generally over the Iraq invasion and other perceived evil deeds. But Obama has not really governed as a potentate; his flock is almost nowhere to be seen; his White House is as much invested in the nitty-gritty of negotiations on Capitol Hill as in bringing out the president for one of his trademark big speeches. Once a vessel for anger, Obama now risks becoming one of its prime targets, with a job-approval rating dipping below 50 percent. Anger is mercurial that way.
The bracing example of Huey Long, the "Kingfish," immortalized as the character Willie Stark in Robert Penn Warren's novel All the King's Men, suggests how dark the potentate route can be. "In the pit of the Great Depression," the real-life Huey Long, as governor of Louisiana, "tapped into a deep vein of anger against the rich and a longing for political redemption," historian Michael Kazin wrote in 2006 in an appraisal of Long's career.
Although Long was a genuine populist who built roads, got free textbooks to school children, and levied a tax on oil refiners, he was also, Kazin noted, a genuine (if often entertaining) tyrant and a boozy thug with a yen for violently intimidating his rivals. The Kingfish was assassinated in 1935, at the age of 42, before he could fulfill his plan of running for president, probably as a third-party candidate, against Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The potentate tradition, happily, has never been as resonant in the United States as in places such as Argentina (think Eva Peron) or continental Europe (think Benito Mussolini and, obviously, Adolf Hitler). America's political soil is inhospitable to would-be potentates, in part because the Founders wisely insisted on a divided government of checks and balances. Also, the United States was blessed to receive early on the sacrificial model of George Washington -- the military hero (a familiar type of potentate) who could have served a third term, and perhaps more, as a revered, king-like president but chose to relinquish his position at the end of two four-year terms in office. (The country's unwritten rule that a president may serve no more than two terms was inscribed in the Constitution only in 1951, with ratification of the 22nd Amendment, to bar a repeat of FDR's winning four consecutive terms to the White House.)
And Justice Shall Reign
Anger can be irrational, a reaction to slights that are more imagined than real. Today's public anger, though, is nothing like that. Americans have been a dealt a body blow, and their anger is righteous.
Therapy has its uses, but in the end, only justice can satisfy a righteous anger. What constitutes justice is an eternally exquisite question that must be calibrated to the particular circumstances of the offense. Somewhere between the beheading and the slap on the wrist is the appropriate measure of justice for those who are most responsible for the economic collapse of our times, which was a creation not of nature but of human beings.
Justice is more easily, or at least more efficiently, dispensed by kings than by republics, with their encumbering rules of democratic governance. Public theater -- the dock -- may have a helpful role to play, for justice must be seen for it to be felt, and the standard is not necessarily sending culprits to prison but simply calling them to account.
In this fashion, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, modeled on the Pecora inquest into the causes of the stock market crash of 1929, may prove a deliverer of necessary comeuppance to the Wall Street titans who helped create the financial debacle that tanked the economy. In mid-January, as cameras clicked, Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs, had to listen to the commission's chairman, Phil Angelides, scold him that the firm's practice of betting in the market against its own securities products "sounds to me a little bit like selling a car with faulty brakes and then buying an insurance policy on the buyer of those cars."
Angelides's barb made the front pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and the video is no doubt destined for Internet immortality on YouTube and other such websites. The "media circus," so often derided for coarsening the political culture, may in such cases be an indispensable tool for the meting out of a people's justice, a 21st-century version of the pillories of Puritan times. Picture MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in a stovepipe hat. For Blankfein, no amount of high-priced PR is likely to repair the reputational damage of being likened to a sleazy car salesman.
For elected officials implicated in the financial and economic meltdowns, the public has the easier remedy of dispensing justice by evicting them from office -- or hounding them out, as it did in the case of Dodd, who abruptly and probably wisely decided to retire, given his diminishing prospects for a victory.
Even when the economy recovers, anger could still prove more a fixture of the political culture than it was in past epochs, when company-provided pension plans and other cushions tended to protect workers. So be it. Although it is probably not helpful for Americans to luxuriate in their anger, they may have more to lose by burying or suppressing the sentiment. It might be that revenge is a dish best served hot.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Supreme Court and Public Opinion
While the United States Supreme Court is designed to not respond to public opinion, it matters and is often taken into consideration when the court considers the timing of its decisions. This Slate article wonders whether their timing was off on Citizens United and whether their public support might suffer for it.
Congressional Budget Office Report Not Good
The Congressional Budget Office has issued a report that predicts the economy will not turn around anytime soon.
William Galston spells out the obvious.
Wikipedia: Congressional Budget Office.
William Galston spells out the obvious.
Wikipedia: Congressional Budget Office.
The State of the Union Speech Annotated
You might find James Fallows comments on the wording and imagery of this week's speech interesting.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
About Pollsters ...
This is a bit of a hit job on Frank Luntz -- the man who worked out the wording of the Contract with America -- but it touches on the dark side of polling, so it's worth a read.
Oversight: Treasury Secretary Faces Congress
From the Washington Post:
Nearly a year after Geithner was confirmed, his actions to rescue the financial system -- first as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and then as Obama's initial Treasury secretary -- have made him a lightning rod for discontent with the Obama administration.
Geithner will come under fire again Wednesday when he faces questions at a hearing on Capitol Hill about his role in bailing out the insurer American International Group while he was New York Fed president. The grilling comes as lawmakers from both parties are becoming more aggressive in challenging Obama over federal rescue efforts, which have helped bring huge profits to Wall Street but have failed to significantly trim the ranks of the jobless.
With populist fervor putting Democrats in electoral jeopardy, lawmakers took aim in recent days at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, another key figure behind the bailout,
This applies to our discussions of both checks and balances (in 2301) and congressional oversight authority (in 2302).
Nearly a year after Geithner was confirmed, his actions to rescue the financial system -- first as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and then as Obama's initial Treasury secretary -- have made him a lightning rod for discontent with the Obama administration.
Geithner will come under fire again Wednesday when he faces questions at a hearing on Capitol Hill about his role in bailing out the insurer American International Group while he was New York Fed president. The grilling comes as lawmakers from both parties are becoming more aggressive in challenging Obama over federal rescue efforts, which have helped bring huge profits to Wall Street but have failed to significantly trim the ranks of the jobless.
With populist fervor putting Democrats in electoral jeopardy, lawmakers took aim in recent days at Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, another key figure behind the bailout,
This applies to our discussions of both checks and balances (in 2301) and congressional oversight authority (in 2302).
Obama Asserts Himself as Party Leader
From the NYT:
President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.
Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.
This is useful for 2301 since it touches on party leadership and 2302 because it addresses one of the unofficial roles president's play: party leader.
President Obama is reconstituting the team that helped him win the White House to counter Republican challenges in the midterm elections and recalibrate after political setbacks that have narrowed his legislative ambitions.
Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.
This is useful for 2301 since it touches on party leadership and 2302 because it addresses one of the unofficial roles president's play: party leader.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Top Political Contributors in Texas
From the Texas Tribune, a list of the top twenty political contributors in Texas this electoral cycle thus far.
WIll Republicans Become Overconfident?
Ed Kilgore counsels the party against overinterpreting the results of last week's special election.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Golden-Rule Federalism
With apologies to National Journal I've copied a subscription only article that describes recent changes in federalism driven by the recession, and the pressures placed on state revenues by diminishing tax bases, and the federal funds made available by the recent stimulus bill. The term golden rule federalism refers to the old maxim: he who has the gold makes the rules. Are poorer states falling more under federal mandates due to their need for federal money?
----
Education Secretary Arne Duncan had some harsh words for Wisconsin's education laws during a November visit to Madison. He complained that the state's policies, particularly its cap on charter schools and its refusal to use test data in evaluating teachers, were antiquated, unacceptable, and even "ridiculous."
Rather than take offense, his hosts acted quickly to appease him.
The very next day, Wisconsin's Assembly and Senate passed a package of four bills designed to bring the state in line with Duncan's vision. In so doing, Wisconsin became the 10th state in 2009 to alter its education laws to please the Education secretary.
The reason is money. Last year's economic stimulus law provided Duncan with $4.35 billion to give to states that pursue innovations in education. The so-called Race to the Top fund is competitive: All the states want a share of the money, and the Education secretary can give out the aid largely as he sees fit, without having to rely on any set formula.
But there is not enough money to go around, which is why the states are doing everything they can to satisfy Duncan. No other Education secretary has ever had that much cash at his disposal. "There's no question those of us in Wisconsin want to have as strong an application as we can to get at the $4.35 billion," said John Lehman, who chairs the state Senate Education Committee. "It is true that there is a big carrot that got people thinking."
The Obama administration has been using a lot of carrots to elicit support for its policy goals, from forcing states to accept new Medicaid recipients to cracking down on distracted drivers. With states facing their worst financial outlook in decades, they are becoming increasingly reliant on money from Washington. "It wouldn't surprise me if federal funding ends up being 40 percent of state budgets" during the current fiscal year, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which on behalf of state legislators and governors tracks federal grant money. Federal dollars -- dominated by Medicaid funds -- made up just over 25 percent of state spending as recently as 2008 before jumping to 30 percent for the fiscal year that ended in most states last June.
With so much money being transferred from Washington to state capitals, the administration is practicing what might be called golden-rule federalism: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
"The fact that states are so broke offers unprecedented opportunities for the federal government to intrude into areas that were strictly the purview of states," said Sujit CanagaRetna, a senior fiscal analyst with the Council of State Governments.
President Obama thus presents a paradox when it comes to federalism. Barely five years out of the Illinois Legislature, he has expressed more genuine interest in collaborating with the lower levels of government than perhaps any other president since Jimmy Carter. Several Cabinet secretaries have been working together to craft joint programs to find a more coherent approach to matching federal efforts with local programs. Obama's Office of Management and Budget and the newly created White House Office of Urban Affairs are pushing all federal departments and agencies to do likewise.
"We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive.'' -- Matt Spalding, Heritage Foundation
But at the same time, Obama is clearly presiding over a greater centralization of power and policy-making in Washington. It was inevitable that states would have to cede ground that they had been able to hold for themselves in recent years, given a president determined to set his own mark in a swath of domestic policy areas, such as education and health care. But the states' growing dependence on Washington for aid has greatly accelerated the shift.
And their ability to set their own courses as independent actors is diminishing. "This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda," says Paul Posner, a federalism expert at George Mason University. "The agenda they have is not framed in terms of helping state and local governments with their problems, but in pushing their own goals."
Innovation On Uncle Sam's Dime
In July 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared together on the cover of Time magazine under the headline "Who Needs Washington?" State and local governments were then passing dozens of laws in areas where Washington was paralyzed, including immigration, climate change, and expansion of health coverage. States had also taken the lead in regulatory areas where Washington appeared moribund, such as financial services and tobacco. There was a feeling among governors and mayors that Washington was so partisan and so distracted by the Iraq war that more and more domestic policy-making would fall on their shoulders.
"You had a period of rapid state innovation right across the board," said Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. "That's stopped mostly because of the budget impact, so the pendulum has clearly swung toward Washington."
States have collectively had to cover more than $250 billion in budget shortfalls over the past two years. In 2009, their revenue collections dropped by double digits in every quarter -- the worst performance in at least 50 years. States were able to use stimulus dollars to close approximately 40 percent of their deficits last year, but a recent Rockefeller Institute of Government study suggests that they have lost twice as much money to falling tax collections as they have gained in federal largesse.
Even as the economy begins to grow, tax collections will lag. "Our data show at that at the state level, [revenue] growth over the next five to 10 years will be roughly half what we've seen over the last 30," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. Three percent annual revenue growth is "the new normal for states" if they're lucky.
If states during the Bush years were moving forward on issues where Washington was stuck, the reality is that they were able to push ahead on the cheap. Although some states spent a few billion dollars on stem-cell research, other policies cost them next to nothing. Twenty-nine states have adopted renewable-energy standards, putting forward such goals as requiring utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. But switching to wind and solar power is going to cost the utility companies -- not state governments -- money. And regional cap-and-trade systems, such as the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, bring in revenue from energy users.
In recent years, states from Vermont to Washington have undertaken ambitious expansions of health coverage, particularly for children. Although driven by individual states, these efforts were largely financed by the federal government through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Massachusetts' much-discussed 2006 health reform law, which mandated that most individuals had to purchase insurance, was primarily spurred by a desire among state lawmakers to preserve a $385 million pot of federal health dollars. In 2008, Massachusetts received an additional federal waiver that allowed the state to spend another $1.4 billion in federal dollars annually on its health insurance plan.
In other words, state health coverage experiments -- much like the changes in welfare that were pioneered by Wisconsin and other states before becoming enshrined in federal law in 1996 -- have been conducted largely on the federal dime. That's unlikely to be the model going forward. Instead of coming up with new programs, many states are now engaged in serious debates about what core services they can afford to provide.
States also are going to be much busier trying to meet federal goals than pioneering new approaches of their own. "I don't see this administration supporting a federalism where we provide more money for governors and mayors to focus on their plans and initiatives," Posner said. "The focus will be on national goals. I can see this administration pursuing additional ways to put money down in the state and local sector but tying it to strong national goals. It's going to have to be a twofer."
Block Grants And State Sovereignty
It has always been the case that when states and local governments cut spending, they try to spare federal programs. After all, if the federal government is paying 50 percent of a program's cost, they would have to cut $2 in spending just to save $1 for their own treasury. Not surprisingly, state budgets have long been subject to federal whims, both through the creation of programs that impose new mandates and the simple expansion of the federal government.
The modern state budget was born, in fact, during the Great Depression. States expanded their budgets and operations to handle new responsibilities, including doling out federal funds to the unemployed. And because states were either in or near default during the Depression, they adopted income and sales taxes, which had originated among local authorities. "Revenue raised from state sources increased 250 percent from 1927 to 1940 because of the widespread adoption of taxes that had been insignificant or nonexistent before 1930," according to a March report from National Conference of State Legislatures.
If state spending tended to increase during federal expansions under Democratic administrations, Republican presidents took a different tack. Under the Nixon and Reagan models, block grants meant offering states less money but more flexibility. Their proposals had the dual purpose of reining in spending and giving states more authority.
It's the opposite of Obama's approach, which is more in line with Lyndon Johnson's during the Great Society -- finding innovative ways to use grants to get states and localities to pursue federal policy goals. "In the absence of reauthorization of some of the grant programs, the Obama administration is using regulations to impose their agenda," said Marcia Howard of Federal Funds Information for States, a joint project of the NCSL and the governors association. "You could call it a heavy federal hand, but it's more inducements, using more carrots than sticks to get states to do what they'd like them to do."
In response, many state officials complain that federal priorities are starting to crowd out their own. This may sound a little ungrateful. The influx of federal dollars may be edging out other parts of state budgets on a percentage basis, but it's not as if their absence would allow states to spend more in areas such as corrections or parks. As things now stand, states would simply have less to spend.
Some states have heatedly invoked the 10th Amendment in stressing supposed limits on federal policy-making. Legislative chambers in Texas and North Dakota approved resolutions last year proclaiming state sovereignty and demanding an immediate end to federal mandates not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
But it looks increasingly as if the Republican governors who opposed the stimulus -- and appeared at the time merely to be seeking to score partisan points -- had a valid argument. South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, and others noted that it would be a mistake to accept federal money that obligates them to continue the spending when the federal pipeline runs dry a year or two later. As that time draws nearer on such programs as unemployment insurance and energy-efficiency block grants, more of their colleagues are worried about what they'll do when the funding drops off.
And federal money, even as it continues, is far from cost-free. "We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive, which means political control is much more decisive," said Matt Spalding, director of American studies at the Heritage Foundation. "The default policy response more and more is toward central Washington control, because at the end of the day, what really drives policy when you have the federal government putting all the money into the pot is that the decisions are all being made by federal regulators."
Even with the influx, states are still raising the majority of their own money, and they can certainly set their own course on state-level programs such as prisons and parks. But with federal dollars making up a much larger share of state revenues, it is true that the pipers out of Washington are going to be calling the tune much more often than they have in the recent past.
The Sheriff Has His Priorities
Obama's instincts are not those of a centralizer. Nearly every state and local government lobbying group readily concedes that outreach and access are much improved on his watch. They say that his administration attempts to take a collaborative approach whenever it can, with a special interest in reshaping the interaction between the federal government and metropolitan regions. The Office of Management and Budget has sent guidance to all federal agencies instructing them to find ways to work together on joint programs affecting regions. The White House regularly convenes working groups that attract top-level agency officials to address these questions, while also looking for ways to encourage more cooperation among often-squabbling local jurisdictions within regions. For instance, the Housing and Urban Development Department has been sharing its expertise in working with local governments with departments such as Energy and Transportation, as well as agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
"You do want the federal government to say, 'These are the goals,' but not to dictate the specifics," said MarySue Barrett, president of Chicago's Metropolitan Planning Council. She summarizes the White House position this way: "We're going to set the standards, and here's some help to meet those standards, but we're not going to tell you how to do it."
Obama went so far in May as to issue a memorandum directing federal agencies not to pre-empt state and local laws when they didn't have to (although he certainly didn't diminish their authority to do so). His administration has deferred to lower levels of government in areas where it was conducive to constituency politics. In October, the Justice Department announced that it would (in most cases) not prosecute suppliers of medical marijuana who were in compliance with state laws. Four months earlier, EPA signed off on a waiver long sought by California and 13 other states to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles.
"This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda." -- Paul Posner, George Mason University
Like every administration -- and more quickly than most -- Obama's White House may have recognized that it needs state and local governments to carry out much of its program. But despite its care in consulting with them and in seeking ways to foster regional economic growth, this administration mostly treats state and local governments in just that way -- as a means for carrying out its own agenda.
State grant proposals are receiving an unprecedented level of dollar-by-dollar scrutiny not only from the operating agencies to which they apply but also from OMB and the Office of the Vice President. (Obama called Joe Biden the "sheriff" of stimulus spending.) States and localities are now required to supply much more information about how they are spending federal dollars. The stimulus law contained $250 million for enforcement, and the Government Accountability Office has sent auditors into 16 states to watch over their stimulus spending. It's a level of accountability that the administration clearly intends to keep up long after the stimulus runs out.
"This is a secretary and a president who believe strongly in evidence-based policy-making," said Erika Poethig, a deputy assistant secretary at HUD for policy development and research. "Part of that means evaluation, but it also means coming up with clarity around what the purpose of the program is. There's a high degree of commitment to that."
This approach may be most evident when it comes to education. The administration is spending record amounts on education, and it clearly expects states to get with its program when it comes to ideas such as lifting caps on the number of charter schools and using stand-ardized test data in evaluating teachers. "States were complain-ing under [George W.] Bush because they had all these education mandates with no funding," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. "At least with Obama they're getting the funding to match the mandates, but the mandates are increasing."
In certain ways, education-reform activists are glad that Duncan is showing states a firm hand. Recent experience, they note, suggests that the federal government can require states to do certain things -- but it can't make states do them well. Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind law required states to use standardized tests to ensure that a rising share of their student populations were proficient in language arts and math. But the law left it up to the states to determine what "proficiency" meant, and it's clear that many of them have gamed the system to guarantee that more of their students can pass.
The question remains whether education -- a classic example of a state and local responsibility that the federal government has been involved in for only 50 years -- is best run by an agenda driven out of Washington. "It's absolutely the case that the administration is taking enormous liberties with its ability to use emergency funds, especially the stimulus, to push states into policy adoption," said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
"If one believes that there's sufficient expertise and farsightedness in Washington, that the key is to cudgel these recalcitrant states into behaving, then I'm sure this is encouraging," Hess said.
"It so happens that I actually like what they're pushing states to do, but my concern is that this model of federal leadership is problematic. The question of federalism depends on whether one actually believes there is value in the checks and balances, and the states as the laboratories of democracy."
Alan Greenblatt, a freelance writer, covered state and local government issues at Governing magazine for nine years.
----
Education Secretary Arne Duncan had some harsh words for Wisconsin's education laws during a November visit to Madison. He complained that the state's policies, particularly its cap on charter schools and its refusal to use test data in evaluating teachers, were antiquated, unacceptable, and even "ridiculous."
Rather than take offense, his hosts acted quickly to appease him.
The very next day, Wisconsin's Assembly and Senate passed a package of four bills designed to bring the state in line with Duncan's vision. In so doing, Wisconsin became the 10th state in 2009 to alter its education laws to please the Education secretary.
The reason is money. Last year's economic stimulus law provided Duncan with $4.35 billion to give to states that pursue innovations in education. The so-called Race to the Top fund is competitive: All the states want a share of the money, and the Education secretary can give out the aid largely as he sees fit, without having to rely on any set formula.
But there is not enough money to go around, which is why the states are doing everything they can to satisfy Duncan. No other Education secretary has ever had that much cash at his disposal. "There's no question those of us in Wisconsin want to have as strong an application as we can to get at the $4.35 billion," said John Lehman, who chairs the state Senate Education Committee. "It is true that there is a big carrot that got people thinking."
The Obama administration has been using a lot of carrots to elicit support for its policy goals, from forcing states to accept new Medicaid recipients to cracking down on distracted drivers. With states facing their worst financial outlook in decades, they are becoming increasingly reliant on money from Washington. "It wouldn't surprise me if federal funding ends up being 40 percent of state budgets" during the current fiscal year, said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which on behalf of state legislators and governors tracks federal grant money. Federal dollars -- dominated by Medicaid funds -- made up just over 25 percent of state spending as recently as 2008 before jumping to 30 percent for the fiscal year that ended in most states last June.
With so much money being transferred from Washington to state capitals, the administration is practicing what might be called golden-rule federalism: Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
"The fact that states are so broke offers unprecedented opportunities for the federal government to intrude into areas that were strictly the purview of states," said Sujit CanagaRetna, a senior fiscal analyst with the Council of State Governments.
President Obama thus presents a paradox when it comes to federalism. Barely five years out of the Illinois Legislature, he has expressed more genuine interest in collaborating with the lower levels of government than perhaps any other president since Jimmy Carter. Several Cabinet secretaries have been working together to craft joint programs to find a more coherent approach to matching federal efforts with local programs. Obama's Office of Management and Budget and the newly created White House Office of Urban Affairs are pushing all federal departments and agencies to do likewise.
"We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive.'' -- Matt Spalding, Heritage Foundation
But at the same time, Obama is clearly presiding over a greater centralization of power and policy-making in Washington. It was inevitable that states would have to cede ground that they had been able to hold for themselves in recent years, given a president determined to set his own mark in a swath of domestic policy areas, such as education and health care. But the states' growing dependence on Washington for aid has greatly accelerated the shift.
And their ability to set their own courses as independent actors is diminishing. "This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda," says Paul Posner, a federalism expert at George Mason University. "The agenda they have is not framed in terms of helping state and local governments with their problems, but in pushing their own goals."
Innovation On Uncle Sam's Dime
In July 2007, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared together on the cover of Time magazine under the headline "Who Needs Washington?" State and local governments were then passing dozens of laws in areas where Washington was paralyzed, including immigration, climate change, and expansion of health coverage. States had also taken the lead in regulatory areas where Washington appeared moribund, such as financial services and tobacco. There was a feeling among governors and mayors that Washington was so partisan and so distracted by the Iraq war that more and more domestic policy-making would fall on their shoulders.
"You had a period of rapid state innovation right across the board," said Ray Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association. "That's stopped mostly because of the budget impact, so the pendulum has clearly swung toward Washington."
States have collectively had to cover more than $250 billion in budget shortfalls over the past two years. In 2009, their revenue collections dropped by double digits in every quarter -- the worst performance in at least 50 years. States were able to use stimulus dollars to close approximately 40 percent of their deficits last year, but a recent Rockefeller Institute of Government study suggests that they have lost twice as much money to falling tax collections as they have gained in federal largesse.
Even as the economy begins to grow, tax collections will lag. "Our data show at that at the state level, [revenue] growth over the next five to 10 years will be roughly half what we've seen over the last 30," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers. Three percent annual revenue growth is "the new normal for states" if they're lucky.
If states during the Bush years were moving forward on issues where Washington was stuck, the reality is that they were able to push ahead on the cheap. Although some states spent a few billion dollars on stem-cell research, other policies cost them next to nothing. Twenty-nine states have adopted renewable-energy standards, putting forward such goals as requiring utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. But switching to wind and solar power is going to cost the utility companies -- not state governments -- money. And regional cap-and-trade systems, such as the Northeastern states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, bring in revenue from energy users.
In recent years, states from Vermont to Washington have undertaken ambitious expansions of health coverage, particularly for children. Although driven by individual states, these efforts were largely financed by the federal government through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Massachusetts' much-discussed 2006 health reform law, which mandated that most individuals had to purchase insurance, was primarily spurred by a desire among state lawmakers to preserve a $385 million pot of federal health dollars. In 2008, Massachusetts received an additional federal waiver that allowed the state to spend another $1.4 billion in federal dollars annually on its health insurance plan.
In other words, state health coverage experiments -- much like the changes in welfare that were pioneered by Wisconsin and other states before becoming enshrined in federal law in 1996 -- have been conducted largely on the federal dime. That's unlikely to be the model going forward. Instead of coming up with new programs, many states are now engaged in serious debates about what core services they can afford to provide.
States also are going to be much busier trying to meet federal goals than pioneering new approaches of their own. "I don't see this administration supporting a federalism where we provide more money for governors and mayors to focus on their plans and initiatives," Posner said. "The focus will be on national goals. I can see this administration pursuing additional ways to put money down in the state and local sector but tying it to strong national goals. It's going to have to be a twofer."
Block Grants And State Sovereignty
It has always been the case that when states and local governments cut spending, they try to spare federal programs. After all, if the federal government is paying 50 percent of a program's cost, they would have to cut $2 in spending just to save $1 for their own treasury. Not surprisingly, state budgets have long been subject to federal whims, both through the creation of programs that impose new mandates and the simple expansion of the federal government.
The modern state budget was born, in fact, during the Great Depression. States expanded their budgets and operations to handle new responsibilities, including doling out federal funds to the unemployed. And because states were either in or near default during the Depression, they adopted income and sales taxes, which had originated among local authorities. "Revenue raised from state sources increased 250 percent from 1927 to 1940 because of the widespread adoption of taxes that had been insignificant or nonexistent before 1930," according to a March report from National Conference of State Legislatures.
If state spending tended to increase during federal expansions under Democratic administrations, Republican presidents took a different tack. Under the Nixon and Reagan models, block grants meant offering states less money but more flexibility. Their proposals had the dual purpose of reining in spending and giving states more authority.
It's the opposite of Obama's approach, which is more in line with Lyndon Johnson's during the Great Society -- finding innovative ways to use grants to get states and localities to pursue federal policy goals. "In the absence of reauthorization of some of the grant programs, the Obama administration is using regulations to impose their agenda," said Marcia Howard of Federal Funds Information for States, a joint project of the NCSL and the governors association. "You could call it a heavy federal hand, but it's more inducements, using more carrots than sticks to get states to do what they'd like them to do."
In response, many state officials complain that federal priorities are starting to crowd out their own. This may sound a little ungrateful. The influx of federal dollars may be edging out other parts of state budgets on a percentage basis, but it's not as if their absence would allow states to spend more in areas such as corrections or parks. As things now stand, states would simply have less to spend.
Some states have heatedly invoked the 10th Amendment in stressing supposed limits on federal policy-making. Legislative chambers in Texas and North Dakota approved resolutions last year proclaiming state sovereignty and demanding an immediate end to federal mandates not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
But it looks increasingly as if the Republican governors who opposed the stimulus -- and appeared at the time merely to be seeking to score partisan points -- had a valid argument. South Carolina's Mark Sanford, Mississippi's Haley Barbour, and others noted that it would be a mistake to accept federal money that obligates them to continue the spending when the federal pipeline runs dry a year or two later. As that time draws nearer on such programs as unemployment insurance and energy-efficiency block grants, more of their colleagues are worried about what they'll do when the funding drops off.
And federal money, even as it continues, is far from cost-free. "We've absolutely come to some sort of turning point, where the sheer amounts of money now are much more decisive, which means political control is much more decisive," said Matt Spalding, director of American studies at the Heritage Foundation. "The default policy response more and more is toward central Washington control, because at the end of the day, what really drives policy when you have the federal government putting all the money into the pot is that the decisions are all being made by federal regulators."
Even with the influx, states are still raising the majority of their own money, and they can certainly set their own course on state-level programs such as prisons and parks. But with federal dollars making up a much larger share of state revenues, it is true that the pipers out of Washington are going to be calling the tune much more often than they have in the recent past.
The Sheriff Has His Priorities
Obama's instincts are not those of a centralizer. Nearly every state and local government lobbying group readily concedes that outreach and access are much improved on his watch. They say that his administration attempts to take a collaborative approach whenever it can, with a special interest in reshaping the interaction between the federal government and metropolitan regions. The Office of Management and Budget has sent guidance to all federal agencies instructing them to find ways to work together on joint programs affecting regions. The White House regularly convenes working groups that attract top-level agency officials to address these questions, while also looking for ways to encourage more cooperation among often-squabbling local jurisdictions within regions. For instance, the Housing and Urban Development Department has been sharing its expertise in working with local governments with departments such as Energy and Transportation, as well as agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.
"You do want the federal government to say, 'These are the goals,' but not to dictate the specifics," said MarySue Barrett, president of Chicago's Metropolitan Planning Council. She summarizes the White House position this way: "We're going to set the standards, and here's some help to meet those standards, but we're not going to tell you how to do it."
Obama went so far in May as to issue a memorandum directing federal agencies not to pre-empt state and local laws when they didn't have to (although he certainly didn't diminish their authority to do so). His administration has deferred to lower levels of government in areas where it was conducive to constituency politics. In October, the Justice Department announced that it would (in most cases) not prosecute suppliers of medical marijuana who were in compliance with state laws. Four months earlier, EPA signed off on a waiver long sought by California and 13 other states to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles.
"This is an administration that doesn't take the states and locals as it finds them -- it has an agenda." -- Paul Posner, George Mason University
Like every administration -- and more quickly than most -- Obama's White House may have recognized that it needs state and local governments to carry out much of its program. But despite its care in consulting with them and in seeking ways to foster regional economic growth, this administration mostly treats state and local governments in just that way -- as a means for carrying out its own agenda.
State grant proposals are receiving an unprecedented level of dollar-by-dollar scrutiny not only from the operating agencies to which they apply but also from OMB and the Office of the Vice President. (Obama called Joe Biden the "sheriff" of stimulus spending.) States and localities are now required to supply much more information about how they are spending federal dollars. The stimulus law contained $250 million for enforcement, and the Government Accountability Office has sent auditors into 16 states to watch over their stimulus spending. It's a level of accountability that the administration clearly intends to keep up long after the stimulus runs out.
"This is a secretary and a president who believe strongly in evidence-based policy-making," said Erika Poethig, a deputy assistant secretary at HUD for policy development and research. "Part of that means evaluation, but it also means coming up with clarity around what the purpose of the program is. There's a high degree of commitment to that."
This approach may be most evident when it comes to education. The administration is spending record amounts on education, and it clearly expects states to get with its program when it comes to ideas such as lifting caps on the number of charter schools and using stand-ardized test data in evaluating teachers. "States were complain-ing under [George W.] Bush because they had all these education mandates with no funding," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. "At least with Obama they're getting the funding to match the mandates, but the mandates are increasing."
In certain ways, education-reform activists are glad that Duncan is showing states a firm hand. Recent experience, they note, suggests that the federal government can require states to do certain things -- but it can't make states do them well. Bush's 2002 No Child Left Behind law required states to use standardized tests to ensure that a rising share of their student populations were proficient in language arts and math. But the law left it up to the states to determine what "proficiency" meant, and it's clear that many of them have gamed the system to guarantee that more of their students can pass.
The question remains whether education -- a classic example of a state and local responsibility that the federal government has been involved in for only 50 years -- is best run by an agenda driven out of Washington. "It's absolutely the case that the administration is taking enormous liberties with its ability to use emergency funds, especially the stimulus, to push states into policy adoption," said Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
"If one believes that there's sufficient expertise and farsightedness in Washington, that the key is to cudgel these recalcitrant states into behaving, then I'm sure this is encouraging," Hess said.
"It so happens that I actually like what they're pushing states to do, but my concern is that this model of federal leadership is problematic. The question of federalism depends on whether one actually believes there is value in the checks and balances, and the states as the laboratories of democracy."
Alan Greenblatt, a freelance writer, covered state and local government issues at Governing magazine for nine years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)