Republicans Resist Reality That Sometimes Reality Can’t Be Resisted

When analysis like this is actually better than what comes from most Republican consultants, it’s dispiriting to think that Democrats do not win nearly every election:

Many Republican strategists now see this as a parallel dynamic similar to what the Iraq War issue did in 2006 to President Bush’s job approval, costing the Republicans their Senate and House majorities. That year, Democrats for the House got 54 percent of the national vote. Here’s what the 2006 national media post-election survey showed:

 42 percent approved of the Iraq War and 56 percent disapproved.
 If you disapproved of the war in Iraq, you voted for Democrats for Congress 80–18.
 If you disapproved of the job President Bush was doing, you voted for Democrats for Congress 82–16.

The Democrats’ 2006 strategy was simple: Drive up the disapproval of the Iraq War, which drove up President Bush’s disapproval, which drove up the vote for Democrats for Congress. [Emphasis added]

The authors go on to argue that the situation isn’t quite parallel, and that Republicans can’t count on opposition to Obamacare to be the GOP’s silver bullet. That much is true, since approval/disapproval of the ACA has been fairly static, and three times as many people want to keep the ACA as want to repeal it and go back to the way things were. But the authors have a bizarre view of the relationship between rhetoric and reality, and what influences people’s votes.

In 2006 Democrats didn’t win big because they drove up disapproval of the Iraq War. They won big because they blamed Republicans for supporting what by then was an obviously failed war. Gallup polls during and immediately after the invasion showed a 50 point margin for belief that it was not a mistake to go to war against Iraq. Once US soldiers began taking significant casualties in the fall of 2003 that margin plunged 30 points, to roughly +20 in favor of going to war. By late 2004 the margin was down to roughly +5. And by the run up to the 2006 election support for the decision to go to war plummeted to -15. From 2003, disapproval of going to war had doubled, from 27% disapproving the decision to 55% thinking the war had been a mistake.

What explains that massive shift from overwhelming support to solid opposition? The McLaughlins appear to think it was something the Democrats did. That does not hold up, for two reasons. First, full-throated Democratic opposition to the war didn’t lead public opinion beyond the Democratic base, it followed it. Presidential candidate John Kerry danced around Iraq in 2004, and in 2004 few Democrats in competitive races had opposed the war, or if they had, their messaging on Iraq was defensive, rather than an attack on their opponent for supporting Bush’s war. Even in early 2006, most highly-touted Democratic Congressional candidates challenging pro-war Republicans were timid in their criticism of the Iraq war.

What changed public opinion about the war was not what Democrats said about it, it was the war itself. Most who supported the war bought the story pitched by Bush and the neocons, that it would be a quick war, and then Arab democracy would flourish across the Middle East. But US casualties never came down:

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 9.34.05 AM

And it was not just US casualties that soured Americans on the Iraq debacle, it was that things in Iraq looked in some ways even worse than before the invasion. What got to voters were the daily reports of rampant killing in Central Iraq, in particular the “religious cleansing” of Baghdad, which hit a peak right before the 2006 election:

Screen Shot 2014-03-06 at 9.33.32 AM

Claiming what drove up Bush’s negatives was Democrats driving up disapproval of the war is dumb, and it’s also insulting to American voters. Voters are often ill-informed, and can often succumb to clever campaigns of deception, like the Iraq WMD story. But after a while, if they’re confronted with a reality that is hard to deny, most voters will incorporate that reality in to their beliefs and–sometimes–their voting behavior. In 2006 a lot of Americans saw that large numbers of US soldiers were still being maimed and killed in Iraq, and that things in Iraq had gotten horribly worse. Only a third of independents believed the US would succeed in Iraq. Those voters realized that the Iraq war had been a disaster, so they voted against the Republicans. Democrats didn’t win big in 2006 because of turnout–Democrats were 38% of the electorate, Republicans 36%–but because of an 18 point advantage among independents. [Incidentally, in 2010 Republicans won independents by 19 points.]

Iraq didn’t hurt Bush because Democrats succeeded at convincing voters of their illusions at the expense of Republican illusions. No, Iraq hurt Bush and his fellow Republicans because Iraq fell apart, and with it the rationale for the invasion and occupation. It was obviously a failure. To think it was spin over reality appears to be a problem rampant not only among the GOP primary electorate, but a good many of its consultants and strategists as well.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Congress: Worked With FDR to Address a Catastrophe, Working Against Obama to Create One

From Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 State of the Union address:

In the many methods of attack with which we met these problems, you and I, by mutual understanding and by determination to cooperate, helped to make democracy succeed by refusing to permit unnecessary disagreement to arise between two of our branches of government. That spirit of cooperation was able to solve difficulties of extraordinary magnitude and ramification with few important errors, and at a cost cheap when measured by immediate necessities and the eventual results.

FDR’s fruitful partnership with Congress ended not long after that speech, as the expansion of the modern welfare state began to bump against the white supremacist foundations of political and social power in the South. But even after acknowledging that  fundamental legislation like the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act excluded most African Americans from their protections in order to get the support from Southern Congressmen they needed for passage, it is undeniable that from 1933 to 1937 Congress and the President effectively cooperated to address the devastation of the Depression without succumbing to the anti-Democratic forces sweeping the globe.

The last five years have been possibly the toughest we’ve faced since World War II and the Depression. But the challenges for government could have been much more easily managed than what faced FDR and those Congresses. But our politics have failed, largely because the Republican party has failed our democracy.

Congress cooperated with FDR to recover from a catastrophe. Our current Congress–specifically, the House Republicans–are so deranged that rather than cooperate with Obama, they are determined to create a catastrophe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shutdown: It’s Not Gerrymandering, It’s The South

Analysts and politicians trying to explain the breakdown of our federal system regularly pin significant blame on gerrymandering for the radicalization of the Republican party. I think Nate Cohn has a good rebuttal to the notion gerrymandering has significantly influenced the composition of the Republican caucus. I wrote about this a few years ago. In 1988, there were 44 Congressional districts in states where the presidential results were more than 15 points away from the national result. In 2008—when Obama won by roughly the same popular vote percentage of George HW Bush—there were 231 Congressional districts that were 15 or more points from the national average. Outside the 12-16 largest states, it’s hard to do much of a gerrymander when the entire state is much more conservative or liberal than the nation overall. [I do, by the way, think gerrymandering has cost Democrats numerous seats in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, although at most enough to narrowly flip the House to the Democrats, but not enough to return to the majorities won in the 2006 and 2008 elections.]

Whatever the causes of the breakdown—and there are many—John Judis rightly argues that this is among the worst crises in American history (I think the worst since the Civil War). Judis puts too much weight on gerrymandering, and he mentions, but doesn’t go far enough, with what I think is a key factor, and one that may make the current crisis both worse, but also suggests a way out around future impasses. Our government isn’t working because too many White Southerners don’t want it to work.

Look at the last shutdowns, in 1995 and 1996. The Gingrich Congress was radical, but not as crazy as the nihilists pressuring the current Republicans in to increasingly catastrophic positions. That previous Republican caucus was led by a (transplanted) Southerner, and they gained their majority by decisively breaking the Democratic hold on the former slave states, which had continued in to the early 1990’s. But that caucus was not dominated by slave state Republicans, and those conflicts were not strongly sectional. But that’s changed, and now the conflict is essentially White Southerners and some allies standing in the schoolhouse door, trying to hold back the rest of America. [For the sake of this discussion I’m excluding Maryland and Delaware, which have largely lost any Southern character and are now part of the extended Northeast megalopolis.]

After the 1994 election the Republicans had a 230-204 House majority. The slave states (the states of the Confederacy, along with West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri and Oklahoma) were apportioned 155 seats in the House. Those seats were split 82 Republican, 73 Democratic. Slave state Republicans made up 19% of Congress, and 35% of the House Republican caucus.

Today the Republicans have a 234-201 majority. Reapportionment has slightly increased the representation of the former slave states; they now have 160 seats. But now it’s split 116 Republican to 44 Democratic. Slave state Republicans now make up over a quarter of the Congress, and they make up almost exactly half the GOP caucus.

And it’s not just that the South is more Republican; other parts of the nation that were once fairly competitive have become solidly Democratic, and in much of the country there’s a much stronger tie between region and partisanship. In 1996 the California Congressional delegation was 25 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Today it’s 15 Republicans and 38 Democrats. Texas went from 19 Democrats and 11 Republicans to 12 Democrats and 23 Republicans. New England had 15 Democrats and 8 Republicans; now the 21 New England seats are all Democratic.

The shift is just as dramatic in the Senate. Slave state senators have gone from 12 Democrats and 18 Republicans to 9 Democrats and 21 Republicans, while New England went from a 6-6 delegation in 1996 to a 10-2 Democratic majority today.

Judis refered to nullification, the antebellum theory “that states, claiming a higher Constitutional authority, could refuse to obey federal laws.” That’s close to what’s happening with Medicaid expansion; it’s mostly happening in non-slave states, while the entire confederacy save Arkansas is denying its poor—who are more heavily African-American than is the case nationally—access to free health care. And it’s a refusal to do in what their states the national election results showed they should do (although the Supreme Court gave them a way out). And trying to overturn the Affordable Care Act by shutting down the government and threatening the world’s financial system is definitely nullifcation. People who hold these views, and who represent parts of the country that adhere to these ideas, dominate the Republican caucuses.

In 1996 the shutdown was a partisan battle, but it wasn’t a sectional battle. Many Republicans were not from the South or the rural center of the country, and not every elected official from those areas acted as a radical. Although we’re not in danger of a war, the conflicts in Congress are almost as strongly sectional as was the case in the 1850’s (this time with the ranks of the Southern reactionaries bolstered by reactionaries from the rural Midwest, the Plains and the Rockies). Barack Obama and Harry Reid may be talking to a guy from Ohio, but unless and until suburban, non-Southern Republicans break from their party, Obama and Reid are really managing a conflict with the South.

I intend to plumb this subject quite a bit deeper over the next few weeks. For now, I’ll say that this return of sectionalism, largely overlapped with partisan alignment, means the current Republican caucus will be impossible to work with in the absence of the Speaker bucking his caucus and putting on the floor bills that could pass with only a couple dozen Republican votes. But over the coming years, the radicalism of those looking to the past could so marginalize the Republicans that they become a largely rural party, centered in the interior of the country, strongly rooted in the states rights petulance of the former slave states. The GOP will be so repugnant that they have a deeply hostile relationship with a significant portion of the residents of their own states, and drive the increasingly cosmopolitan and diverse electorates of most of the rest of the country to vote against the party of reaction, and thus marginalize those parts of the country that are home to a lot of people who can’t stand having to share with everyone else the title “American.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Montana Senate Race: Far from Over

Former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer, who was expected to be the Democratic candidate to replace retiring Democrat Max Baucus, announced today that he will not run for the U.S. Senate. This is not good news for Democrats; if Schweitzer had run and there were no new and damaging negatives that hadn’t already been raised during his governor campaigns he may have won comfortably. But the response on Twitter to the announcement was, for the most part, credulous acceptance of the GOP spin that there’s no way Democrats can hold this seat in “deep red Montana.”

That’s BS.

We’ve heard this story before. When North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad announced he would not run for reelection in 2012, pundits generally declared the seat a Democratic lost cause. This blog was one of the only places that in November 2011, when she announced her candidacy, argued that now-Senator Heidi Heitkamp had a great shot of holding the seat. It’s worth remembering this, and also considering the ways in which Montana is even more promising than was North Dakota.

First of all, contrary to the spin of the Republicans and the assumptions of the let’s-never-actually-look-at-data-and-history pundits, Democrats have been doing quite well in Montana for several elections now. After two terms with Schweitzer as governor, in 2012 Montanans went Democratic for the third straight time, electing Attorney General Steve Bullock as governor. Republicans captured the open AG seat, but incumbent Democrats retained the Secretary of State, State Auditor and Superintendent of Public Instruction. Of course, Democrat John Tester was also reelected to the U.S. Senate. Add in the GOP-held at large Congressional seat and Baucus’ Senate seat, and of the eight statewide elective offices, Democrats hold six.

But could the recent Democratic success be a fluke? No. In fact, in historical context, it would be a fluke if a Republican won the seat held by Baucus; Democrats have held that Senate seat since 1913. That’s right, Democrats have held this seat for 101 straight years.  Tester defeated three-term incumbent Republican Conrad Burns for the other seat. Since 1911 only one other Republican ever held that seat, and he held it only one term.

One might argue that being a Democrat is a problem in a state that Obama lost twice. But at the presidential level, Montana has gone Republican in every election since 1948 except the 1964 LBJ landslide and in 1992, when Bill Clinton squeaked through with 37%. During all these losses, Democratic senate candidates have continued to win and win and win.

Even if you limit the analysis to recent years, the situation in Montana is not inherently dire for Democrats. In 2008 Obama lost Montana by only 2 points, his second narrowest loss, after Missouri. Against Romney he did significantly worse, losing by 14 points. (The big swing may be partially due to Montana having the sixth highest percentage of Mormons in the U.S..) But in recent years Democrats have won Senate seats in numerous states that went against Obama, including Alaska, both Dakotas, Nebraska, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia and North Carolina, and they came close in Kentucky (2004) and Tennessee (2006).

It’s also possible, if there’s anything to this CNN report, that research was unearthing real problems for Schweitzer. While on paper Schweitzer was obviously the strongest potential Democratic candidate, it’s possible that his withdrawal from consideration actually strengthens Democratic chances by removing a candidate with a ticking time bomb strapped to his candidacy.

Schweitzer is out of the race, but Montana is by no means so Republican that the Democrats are doomed. What will probably matter is what often decides elections: the national political environment, the strength of the candidates, and the effectiveness of their campaigns. Handicapping those factors today is impossible, so everyone should just wait a while before declaring the Montana seat a GOP pickup.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Conservatives Prefer Massive Explosions Over Taxing the Wealthy

The problem isn’t just that Texas laws and regulations are state of the art for, say, 1897:

West Fertilizer fell under the purview of at least seven state or federal regulatory agencies, each with its own objectives. None had primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of the hundreds of tons of ammonium nitrate stored there or that of the workers or residents nearby.

Zak Covar, the executive director of the state environmental regulatory agency, has said his office is not responsible for tracking ammonium nitrate. He pointed to the Office of the Texas State Chemist. Tim Herrman, the state chemist, said his agency monitors whether fertilizers are labeled correctly and not their safety. “It’s fair to say we are not fire-safety experts,” he said.

Allowing the plant, a school and a nursing home to be in close proximity was a local zoning failure. It’s also likely that how the laws were written and the rules were promulgated resulted in gaps in the regulatory responsibility and authority. But like the case of the Gosnell abortion clinic–which wasn’t visited by state inspectors for seventeen years–the biggest problem isn’t laws and regulations, but whether and how they’re implemented and enforced.

The West plant was regulated by at least seven separate federal and state agencies, but most had not been in the plant in years; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had not been in the plant since 1985. It’s no surprise OSHA hadn’t inspected the plant; it has only 2,000 inspectors to ensure safety at seven million worksites. And as budgets are slashed at all kinds of state regulatory agencies, federal agencies are too cash-strapped to take over those responsibilities. Which is exactly what conservatives want: if they can’t block or overturn laws they don’t like, conservatives can undermine them by denying the funds necessary for their implementation and enforcement.

Conservatives usually oppose regulation and enforcement on the grounds of letting businesses do whatever they want. But there’s a broader principle driving their actions. Enforcing regulations costs money. And conservatives do not want to raise the revenue needed to protect the public safety if it would require higher taxes on their wealthiest supporters. After all, how many conservative millionaires live near a fertilizer plant?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Workers Killed by Historical Determinism

Over the last few days there’s been an interesting back-and-forth between Erik Loomis and Matt Ygeslias about holding international corporations to some common set of labor standards in all countries they operate. Erik’s most recent post calls Ygeslias’ crude “creative destruction” model of development economics “the Gilded Age Theory of Risk,” which reminded me of this:

After their work, the workers often have to travel for hours in order to reach their homes. The tramway company has been bankrupt for years. As usual a receiver, who has no interest in speeding up the liquidation, manages its affairs; therefore, new tram cars are not purchased. The old cars constantly break down, and about four hundred people a year are thus killed or crippled. According to the law, each death costs the company about $5,000, which is paid to the widow or heirs, and each cripple costs $10,000, paid to the casualty himself. These compensations are due so long as the company does not introduce certain precautionary measures. But they have calculated that the four hundred casualties a year cost less than would the necessary precautions. The company therefore does not introduce them.

That was written about Bangladesh, or Vietnam, or China, or Mexico. That was written in 1904, about the United States, in a letter to his mother by Max Weber. Hans Gerth, & C. Wright Mills quoted that letter as evidence that on his trip to the US, “again and again, Weber was impressed by the extent of waste, especially the waste of human life, under American capitalism. He noted the conditions that the muckrakers were publicizing at the time.” *

I thought of that because, despite Erik’s claim that it’s not expensive to provide a safe work environment, I’m afraid that the rational choice that’s most relevant isn’t an informed choice by the workers in a developing country to do work that need not be dangerous, but corporate (and often government) elites to make the rationally choosing to commodify human beings.

Among the great reforms of the early twentieth century were labor laws that set a floor below which costs could not go at the expense of workers and of citizens. Worker safety laws couldn’t allow an employer to gain competitive advantage at the expense of his workers’ safety. He couldn’t gain competitive advantage by cutting pay below a minimum wage. And because of consumer protection laws, he couldn’t gain competitive advantage by selling shoddy or even dangerous products.

I’m no expert on Bangladesh. But in general, US, European and Japanese corporations don’t operate outside the developed industrialized countries only for cheap labor. Many operate in those places because they are not prohibited–in practice, at least–from spewing pollution, from discriminating against and abusing workers, from denying them pay, from failing to maintain a safe work environment, or from bribing officials for favorable treatment.

Matt Ygeslias may be correct that workers are making a conscious choice to work in a dangerous job. But they’re often doing that because the choices before them–subsistence farming or extreme poverty in urban hellholes–are certain dead ends. But he appears to think it’s necessary for developing countries to pass through all the squalor and degradation as people did in the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and North America. But it’s not necessary. It’s no more necessary that people die at work because it’s cheaper and easier than creating and maintaining a safe work environment than it’s necessary that those countries go through stages of communism or fascism, as almost every recently industrialized country did in the early 20th century. If we refuse to accept that it’s necessary that developing countries go through a stage of savage totalitarian dictatorship, why should we accept it’s necessary that large numbers of workers will die deaths that can easily, even if not cheaply, be prevented?

*Gerth & Mills–From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology pp. 15-16

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Michelle Rhee is Like the Anti-Vax Murderers

Scott LeMieux does most of the hard work here, so I won’t go through a point-by-point rebuttal of this post by Matt Yglesias. But there’s a big point Scott didn’t address. Yglesias’ post is argued entirely from the perspective of how to deal with teachers:

Suppose we found out that LeBron James were taking steroids. I can imagine a whole range of responses to that revelation that reasonable people might take. What I can’t imagine is someone saying that LeBron James taking steroids proved that basketball players should be compensated on the basis of pure seniority rather than perceived basketball skill. Right?

That’s a great way of looking at the alleged cheating under Michelle Rhee if public education were about creating a structured environment for a competition where success or failure is measured by who has the superior score. That is, of course, pretty much how most “school reformers” see public education. Using this frame, it would mean just that someone cheated so they don’t win, but it doesn’t mean  the entire game is flawed.

But public education isn’t a game where someone wins and someone loses. Public education is about educating and nurturing children. Children in public schools shouldn’t be thought of like players on a court, but more like patients in need of the best available care, so they can grow, be healthy, develop their full capacity and thrive.

Matt reveals a lot about the mindset of most school reformers when he compares Michelle Rhee’s cheating to an athlete getting an unfair advantage. The problem isn’t just that it presents Michelle Rhee as better at her job than she actually is, or that she gains advantages such as higher pay, more prominence, and better jobs. It’s not just Michelle Rhee gets to declare “I’m better than everyone else at running schools.” It’s also a problem because it leads to the conclusion that everyone else should adopt Michelle Rhee’s methods, because her policies and practices have been proven to be superior to those previously dominant in public education.

Yglesias’ sports analogy doesn’t work, but there is a good analogy to the alleged cheating by Rhee: the case of Andrew Wakefield. The name may not ring a bell, but you know the story: he’s the former British physician who published fraudulent research purporting to establish a link between vaccines and autism. As covered in Yglesias’ own Slate, there’s a measles outbreak in the UK, created no doubt in part by the anti-vaccination conspiracies validated by Wakefield’s now repudiated “research.” But there was immediate harm as well. Here’s that same Slate writer, Phil Plait, from 2010:

The GMC (the independent body of medical regulators in the UK, rather like the AMA in the US) didn’t investigate whether his claims were correct or not — and let’s be very clear, his claims have been shown beyond any doubt to be totally wrong— only whether he acted ethically in his research. What they found is that his research (involving spinal taps of children) was against the children’s clinical interest, that Wakefield was unqualified to perform the test, and that he had no ethical approval to do them.

Even the most serious allegations against Rhee don’t involve the kinds of immediate and life-threatening danger to which Wakefield exposed his subjects. But if a curricula and radically different system of running schools was a failure, and if Rhee and her associations concealed or altered empirical results that not only would have revealed that failure, but presented it as a great improvement over previous methods, their actions were a threat to the cognitive, emotional, social and physical flourishing of the students funder Rhee’s authority. But the harm won’t end there. If she concealed and distorted data to fraudulently claim success, and that led to a widespread embrace of her policies, Rhee’s actions also threaten the well-being of all children in American public schools, for it validates practices–treatments, were it medicine–that are not improvements over current practices, and quite possibly could inflict avoidable harm on children.

Matt Yglesias is wrong here, but he’s not, to use one of his favorite lines, “history’s greatest monster.” And being wrong about school reform doesn’t have the immediate life-and-death effects of monstrously convincing parents to not vaccinate their children. But think about the willingness of a lot of people like Yglesias–smart, otherwise liberal people who end up thinking so much about the “scores” of teachers than they sometimes lose focus on doing what’s best for children–to remain immune to the evidence that the school reformers are charlatans, and see how Plait’s description of anti-vaxxers [emphasis in the original] could be used to describe those who embrace the hucksterism of “school reformers” like Michelle Rhee:

[T]he evidence was already overwhelming that Wakefield was wrong, just as it’s overwhelming that vaccines are totally and completely unrelated to autism. But the antivaxxers’ world is not based on evidence. It’s more like a dogmatic religion, since many of its believers will twist and distort the truth to fit their views, even, tragically, if it means babies will die.



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment