In Defense of the Electoral College

In politics, most debates over procedure are dishonest.

For example, when Senate Democrats filibuster, Republicans everywhere decry this quaint parliamentary trick.  But when the GOP has a senate majority, they suddenly sing the praises of our Founders, and applaud the filibuster as a check against the tyranny of the majority.  And vice-versa*.

So too with the Electoral College.  Usually, we give as much thought to this somewhat funky voting edifice as we do to figuring out the duties of the Minority Whip.  But as you might have heard, this year for the 5th time in 228 years and the 2nd time in 16, the popular vote winner lost the Electoral College.

So: Barbara Boxer is proposing legislation to abolish the electoral college.  Democrats are taking to op-ed pages and Facebook feeds and tiny little blogs nobody reads (ahem) because they, quite suddenly, are appalled at the way the system works.

And obviously, if the reverse had happened - if President Clinton lost the popular vote and won the electoral college - well, does anyone think Trump or his supporters would take that well?  Anyone?

When You Assume...

Before I put myself in the dubious position of defending this archaic - and by American standards, ancient - voting body, let me make a point that has been widely ignored since Election Day.

Everybody assumes that if we chose our Presidents by popular vote, Hillary Clinton would be President.  Makes sense, right?  She got nearly three million more votes, ergo, President Clinton the Second.  

But wait a second...presumably, if we changed our voting rules, the candidates would have been notified of those changes...and would have run dramatically different campaigns.  Hillary Clinton would have been flying back and forth from New York City to Los Angeles and San Francisco, trying to run up the score in these large Democratic strongholds.  Trump would have set up campaigns headquarters in Texas or the South.   The rest of America would have had to watch as many campaign commercials as our friends in the battleground states. 

Or maybe not.  Maybe entirely different tactics would have been deployed.  Maybe they would have gone all Ross Perot on us and bought hour-long blocks on major networks.  Campaigns would throw out the rule books, write new ones, and learn things on the fly.  

Voters would act differently too.  I live in a "disenfranchised" state.  Not only was Clinton predicted at a 99.7% chance to win New York, but my 79 year old Congressional Representative had as little chance of losing her seat as my dogs do of not barking the next time the doorbell rings.  Senator Chuck Schumer ran for reelection against...I have absolutely no idea. Nobody in New York does, with the possible exception of the candidate and his family.  (And my Dad.  I bet he knows).  How many voters in non-battleground states didn't vote because they didn't think their vote mattered?  How many voters in battleground states had an extra incentive to vote because they knew their votes mattered more?

Here's the most telling data point: Hillary Clinton won California alone by 4.3 million votes - whereas her total margin nationwide was 2.8 million votes.

Donald Trump did not campaign, nor spend a single dollar, in California.  California has had a Republican governor for 24 of the past 34 years, so there were votes to be had - just not enough to have any shot at a single electoral vote. (by the way, this also means Trump won the other 49 states by a million and a half votes).

Furthermore, Republican voters in California had virtually no other incentive to go to the polls.  Not only was the state was guaranteed to give all 55 electoral votes to Clinton, but Senator Barbara Boxer was running for reelection unopposed. 

Democrats, however, had a powerful incentive to go the polls:  the historic opportunity to cast a vote for the first Woman President.

The candidates, the campaigns, and the voters would have all acted differently than we actually did if we went by popular vote.  I don't what the final score would have been, and who would have won (neither do you) - but I'd bet everything in my pocket against everything in yours that it would not have been 65,844,954 to 62,979,879.

An Argument in Favor of the Electoral College

We know the argument in favor of a Popular Vote:  all votes count the same.  It's pretty much the only argument - but it's a pretty damn powerful one.

And there are numerous practical arguments against.  The difficulty of a recount, for example - which is much easier in this system (imagine Florida 2000 - writ large across 50 states!)

But the biggest argument in favor of the Electoral College - or at least, against the Popular Vote - is it would make Elections even more (if you can possibly believe it!) divisive than they are now.

Under our current system, Candidate Trump and Candidate Clinton didn't have to spend time in the liberal and conservative states they already had in the bag.  They didn't even have to spend time with the extremists in the battleground states (though some, to be sure, to drive turnout).  They had to moderate their positions.

Moderate, you scoff!  That was their moderate positions?!  Well, yeah.  Let's look at Trump's position on Muslim immigration, to take arguably his most controversial policy:

December 2015
 “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”  Trump press release

May 2016
 “It’s a temporary ban. It hasn’t been called for yet, nobody’s done it. This is just a suggestion until we find out what’s going on.”  Trump on Fox Radio

June 2016
“We must suspend immigration from regions linked with terrorism until a proven vetting method is in place.”  Trump on Twitter

You may hate all 3 positions, but they move from an opening position that is indisputably unconstitutional to one that isn't entirely different from Jimmy Carter's ban on Iranians during the hostage crisis.

What happened in May that might have caused this to occur?  Oh yeah, he effectively clinched the nomination.

###

The most tried-and-true national campaign strategy in American politics is:  tack to the left and right to win the nomination, then back to the center to win the election.  If you want Presidential campaigns that are about non-stop red meat thrown to the radical wings of the parties, you should sign one of those futile online petitions.

If not, well, you should consider the possibility that the Framers of the Constitution had reasons for doing what they did, and stick with this imperfect but effective system. A better one might come along, but it is not a Popular Vote.

* Harry Reid is the shameless King of the Filibuster Flip-Flop.   

As Senate Minority Leader in 2005, he said (of a GOP attempt to abolish filibuster): 

"The Senate was set up to be different, that was the genius, the vision of our Founding Fathers. … That's why you have the ability to filibuster, and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all of that...That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country."

Well, we got to it again, thanks to...Harry Reid!  In 2013, as Senate Majority Leader, he literally proposed the very rule he was attacking:  

"The Senate is a living thing, and to survive it must change, as it has over the history of this great country. To the average American, adapting the rules to make the Senate work again is just common sense. This is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about making Washington work — regardless of who is in the White House or who controls the Senate.

You almost have to admire the chutzpah.

Update 12/5:
Not surprisingly, Democrats are reversing course again on the filibuster.  (Many predicted at the time that the Dems would regret this move the moment the Republicans had the White House and the Senate again).  Here is Senator Chris Coons of Delaware (D), on CNN on 11/19 with CNN anchor Kate Bolduan:

BOLDUAN: But Senator, also a rules change the Democrats put in place could also come back to bite you. I mean, I don't get into the weeds, but Democrats made it much easier than a simple majority can push through presidential nominees. Democrats did it for themselves and now Republicans can do it as well.

COONS: That's exactly right. The filibuster no longer acts as emergency brake on the nomination --

BOLDUAN: So do you regret that?


COONS: I do regret that. I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down the confirmation of extreme nominees. We're instead going to have to depend on the American people, on thorough hearings and/or persuading a number of Republicans in those cases where President-elect Trump might nominate someone, who is just too extreme to the American people.

The Last Optimist

Why I'm Not (as) Terrified as My Fellow Americans of President Trump or President Clinton

Okay, you, with the Make America Great Again sign on your lawn...step down from the ledge.  I know, I get it - the Electoral College map is breaking Hillary, and you're convinced President Clinton II represents the downfall of America as a great nation.

And you, with the Stronger Together bumper sticker - don't drive your car off that cliff.  Yeah, the polls are tightening, you thought this thing would be over months ago, and now you wake up in a cold sweat, imagining Wolf Blitzer on Election Night saying, "In a shocking development, Pennsylvania has gone for Trump..."

Let me start by saying I don't have a Trump bumper sticker on my car or Clinton sign on my lawn. If somebody put one up, I'd take it down.

I think Donald Trump is an uninformed bully whose policies I largely disagree with - not just many of the ones his liberal enemies loathe, but also his inherently progressive view that the government can, and should, try to solve all of our problems*.

I think Hillary Clinton is an insincere and corrupt power seeker who will say, do, or believe anything that will get her into office*, and whose money-for-access shenanigans with the Clinton Foundation continues to be obscured by her "damn emails."

* These traits come into sharp relief on free trade.  Trump sounds like a liberal union chief who quixotically believes he can use the power of government to keep manufacturing jobs in the Midwest; and Hillary has completely flip-flopped on trade, not because she's changed her mind but because Bernie Sanders' popularity forced her hand.

And I think that the office of President of the United States - an intense, demanding, stressful job that requires at least a 4 year commitment - and possibly 8 - is not best filled by people in their 70s.

That said:  I am extremely confident that the worst fears of the "Trump is Hitler" and the "Jail Hillary" gangs are both paranoid anti-fantasies - and everybody should just calm down.

Or to quote my favorite President (who was loathed by many in his time), "This too shall pass.*"

 *  "It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words `And this, too, shall pass away.' How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride. How consoling in the depths of affliction!" - Abraham Lincoln, 1858

A Word About Hypocrisy

But first, let's dispense with all the Trump Traits You Hate - that you don't really hate.  Because if your candidate had these traits you wouldn't give a hoot.

For example, the fact that his rich Dad got him off to a good start.  Was this a mark against JFK or FDR, two Gods of the Democratic Party?  When Chelsea Clinton runs for President in 2040, will you complain that her wealthy and supremely powerful parents got her off to a huge head start?

Or the fact that he's politically inexperienced?  Barack Obama came into office with staggeringly little experience - a half term in the Senate in which he accomplished nothing but, well, running for President.  Besides, political experience is not a good predictor of future success.

And obviously anybody who desperately wants a restoration of House Clinton needs to be a little careful mounting their high horse about how powerful men treat women as sexual playthings.

As for the Clinton Traits You Claim to Hate...

They all come under one umbrella:  she is the epitome of the modern politician.  Focus-tested, truth-averse, kind to her friends and vicious to her enemies, and aided by nepotism. (This Politico story is a fascinating read on her version of Nixon's Enemies List.)

But these strike me as problems of degree, not of kind.  Trump, the Alleged Anti-Politician, suddenly became Pro-Life - about the same time he realized one needed to be Pro-Life to win a Republican nomination (as one wag put it: Trump has probably paid for more abortion bills than he'll sign).  And does anyone truly believe The Donald is being honest about his tax returns?  Or that he won't reward his friends and punish his enemies?

I've long wanted to come up with a term for these fake political beliefs - rich/poor background; experienced/inexperienced; extra-marital activities; flexibility with the truth - that only matter to voters when their candidate has the edge, and which become non-issues the moment their candidate doesn't.  Oh right, one exists already...

It's not that these things shouldn't be a factor in our voting - or rather, in the voting choices of undecided moderates.  It's that, if you're a true liberal or conservative, you're voting for your candidate no matter his background, experience, or family life, and will shift all your other "beliefs" to suit the current reality.

But anyway, here are some reasons neither President Trump or Clinton pose as grave a threat to our democracy as many of my fellow citizens believe:


1) America Ain't So Bad

I travel around our country quite a bit.  In the past month I was in Chicago, Atlanta, and DC.  I leave for Phoenix tomorrow, and will be in Charlotte next Monday.  And it's not just cities - I go to Eastern Tennessee and Northwest Arkansas and Southern Minnesota.

America is not as weak or troubled or doomed as so many think.

I know a lot of people who have good jobs, good lives, and whose family for generations has been on an upward track - and are in complete despair about the future of America.   And it's not just Trump voters - the entire Sanders Phenomenon was built on affluent college kids worried about their future.

It makes no sense to me.  I can run through a whole bunch of statistics to show you why all this pessimism is misplaced, but instead:  read Warren Buffett's annual letter to his shareholders (worth reading every year).  Scroll down to page 7 and continue to bottom of page 8.

Life is good.  We're just getting really bad at appreciating it.

2)  We've Survived Worse

Your town probably has a library.  Or a bookstore.  These places are almost guaranteed to have history sections.  You should totally check them out.  And maybe you'll stop worrying we live in this uniquely dangerous and threatening time.

Take for example, 1860.  This guy Lincoln was elected - and half the nation was so furious it seceded, and started a war that killed 600,000 Americans.  Since there were only 30 million Americans alive in 1860, that's the equivalent of more than 6 million deaths today - or double a 9/11, every day for 4 years.  Red state, blue state?  Try grey state/blue state.

How about 1940?  So many Republicans have been compared to Hitler it's hard to remember there was once an actual Hitler who invaded a dozen countries, murdered 10 million people, and is almost single-handedly responsible for a war that killed 60 million.  Oh, and if he won, roughly half the world would have been ruled by a murderous despotic psychopath.  (I know, all you Trump-Haters are nodding your head saying, this can totally happen here!  If so, please, let's find a way to wager our life savings against each other.)

I'm not saying we don't have our problems and that either President won't exacerbate them - I just think everybody needs to get a little less hysterical about how bad things are, or can get.


3) Presidents aren't that Important

Presidents are like quarterbacks:  they get far too much credit when things go right, and far too much blame when things go wrong.

Presidents do not create economic booms, nor are they responsible for economic busts.

Presidents do not create the technological innovations that transform our lives, nor do they create the technological innovations that, uh, transform our lives.

Presidents don't make teen pregnancy rates drop, or crimes rates rise; they do not create private sector jobs.

The first President Bush did not make the Berlin Wall fall.  The second President Bush was not responsible for the housing crash.

President Clinton did not make the dot-com boom that drove the American economy in the 90s.  Nor did he make the dot-com crash which crippled the economy shortly after he left.

The ability of President Trump or President Clinton to radically transform your lives is smaller than you realize - and even if they tried, there are these little things called Checks and Balances.

4)  Checks & Balances

President Clinton will almost surely have a Republican House.

President Trump will almost surely have a narrow majority in the House - and a lot of Republicans who personally hate him and intellectually disagree with him.

The two most significant Presidential Acts of the past 16 years are the Iraq War and Affordable Care Act.  Neither happen without Congressional support.  The first, with bipartisan support and the support of the American people.  The second with unipartisan support and kinda sorta not really support of the American people.

Presidents don't act alone.  I think both Trump and Clinton will have a hard time doing the things they want to do.

5)  The Unknown Unknowns

When Barack Obama took office, nobody had ever heard of ISIS.

When George W. Bush took office, few people had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden.

When Bill Clinton took office, there was no such thing as the web.

When George H.W. Bush took office, few people could locate Kuwait on a map.

Carter and the Iranian hostage crisis.  Nixon and Watergate.  Johnson and Vietnam.  Shall I go on?

Everyone thinks they know what Trump or Clinton Presidencies are going to look like.  Wanna bet?

+++++

Look, I know I'm wasting my time here.  If you think Trump is the Orange Adolph or that Hillary Clinton belongs in an Orange Pantsuit, absolutely nothing anybody says is going to move you off that position a little bit.

All I'm saying is:  this country is a lot stronger, and a lot more about a single Oval Office occupant, than it seems on the second Tuesday of November every four years.

If your guy or gal loses tomorrow, take a deep breath, count to ten, and repeat this mantra to yourself:  And this too shall pass.

The Donald & The Bern

The Extraordinary Similarities between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders

[Partial Disclosure:  This piece offers no value judgements on the policies or fitness for office of either Trump or Sanders.  It's merely a commentary on the similarities and historical importance of their campaigns.  The full disclosure, my actual opinion of these two candidates, is at the bottom.]

For most of human history it was widely believed that democracy could not possibly work as a form of government.

Sure, the Romans had some modest success with a Republic, but its republican form of government was violently wrenched into civil war and empire by Julius Caesar.  Before that, ancient Greece had some early forms of democracy, but it was only successful in small city-states - until the Peloponnesian War divided and weakened  Greece, leading to the rise of Macedon and Alexander the Great.

The problem with democracy was the demos - the common people - who couldn't possibly be expected to rule wisely.   Thus, the Caesars, the emperors of China, the czars of Russia, and the absolute monarchies of medieval and Renaissance Europe.

And then, along came the United States of America.

The birth of our nation was watched closely by the Kings and Queens of Europe.  Surely it would fail.  Surely, a nation's people* - especially a people as primitive, uneducated, and uncouth as the Americans - couldn't rule a nation as geographically large as the U.S.  

* or to be precise: men who owned property

Well, we all know what followed.  The fledgling nation defeated Britain in two wars, the heads of the French monarchs rolled, a great Civil War killed 600,000 people and ended slavery, Anastasia screamed in vain, and the world's democracies - and one desperate tyrant - joined forces to defeat the most evil dictator in world history.  Suffrage extended to non-property owners, former slaves, and women.  Today, roughly half the world's countries have a full or flawed democracy. 

But very few of these countries are truly democracies.  They are republics.  And in successful republics, candidates representing political parties run for office, are elected by the people, and lead the country.

Which brings me, finally, to Donald J. Trump and Bernard Sanders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump and Sanders have a lot of obvious similarities.

They were born within a few years and a few miles of each other - Trump in Brooklyn in 1946, Sanders in Queens in 1941.  They can both be reasonably described as loudmouth New Yorkers. They both have hair we have never seen on Presidential candidates.

They have each run what might be called a campaign consultant's nightmare.  They say what they want, when they want, and to whom they want - focus groups be damned.  Party leaders be damned. Media elites be damned.   In-state ground campaigns be damned.  Endorsements be damned.

They have gone directly over the heads of the gatekeepers - over the media, over the party elites - to speak directly to the people, to the demos.

And the messages they are sending to the demos have remarkable similarities:

America is screwed up.

As a result, your life is screwed up.  

It's not your fault your life is screwed up.  

It's somebody else's fault.

I'm going to fix it.

There are dramatic differences in their message, of course.  Who the "somebody else" is, for one.  For Sanders, its millionaires and billionaires and the big banks.  For Trump, it's government, immigrants and political correctness.

And they have very different solutions.  Sanders is going to break up the banks and raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.  And Trump is going to build a wall and, well, just be Donald Trump.

Problems solved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the most remarkable similarity between the two of them, one that has gone too often unremarked upon, one that may change the course of Presidential politics for decades - is that each of these men has been shockingly successful in their quest for the nomination of a party that neither is, in any meaningful way, a member.

Think about that:  Bernard Sanders is 74 years old, and joined the Democratic party for the first time last year! Yes, he has caucused with the Democrats in Congress but was not a member of the party whose ticket he wants to head.

Trump, meanwhile, has changed party affiliations 5 times since 1987.  He spent the entire George W. Bush years as a member of the Democratic party, and only re-registered as a Republican in 2012.  He has endorsed a whole host of opinions - from support for single-payer healthcare and abortion rights to opposition of the Iraq War - that are bedrock beliefs of the 21st century Democratic party.

Much has been written about the crackup of the Republican party, about Trump the Outsider's hijacking of the party.  But Sanders, by some measures, has been nearly as successful at hijacking his party.

Trump has won a string of primaries and is now the favorite for his party's nomination. Sanders has a lost a string, and Hillary Clinton seems the presumptive nominee.  The Democrats, in effect, have successfully beat off their challenger.

But that's not because the Democratic party has any more control of its voters than Republicans - it's because the huge Republican field vs. the tiny Democratic field - and the ridiculous, undemocratic bylaws of the Dem primaries - gave Hillary Clinton an easier path to nomination than the army of approved GOP candidates.

Sanders has won a majority of votes in 1/3 of the 15 states he's competed in.  Trump has yet to crack 50% in any.  Sanders has inspired bigger, more passionate crowds than Clinton.  He continues to raise millions of dollars from an engaged and inspired base.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does all this mean?  In the short term, maybe not much.  Bernie Sanders is a huge long shot to become President, and Trump is still an underdog.  One of the establishment candidates will likely occupy the White House in November.

But make no mistake:  this election year isn't about a billionaire reality show host or an elderly socialist.  And it's not just the Republican party that has lost control of its constituents.   (In fact, liberal America may in the end be more enraged at the Clinton Restoration, since they feel cheated during the primaries).

For the first time since the slavery crisis of antebellum America - which killed the Whig party, sectionalized the Democratic party, and created the Republican party - the 2-party system of the United States is at risk.  This might warm the hearts of an enraged electorate, but this system has provided stability to our nation for 150 years.

Hold on to your hats in 2020.  Or throw it in the ring - I can assure you, many non-politicians will be doing the same.

 

[Full Disclosure:  I think Donald Trump is a dangerous buffoon and Bernie Sanders' understanding of economics is that of a precocious but incorrigible kindergartener.]

An Enduring Democratic Majority?

A Brief History of Game-Changing Elections

[note: this is an update/re-write/mash-up of two posts I wrote 4 years ago.  See here and here for original posts.]


In the aftermath of most elections, there is a debate about its long-term meaning.  Specifically: does the outcome of this election mean certain political and demographic forces have aligned in such a way that the victorious party has built an enduring majority and will win many more elections?

Right now, Democrats hope (and Republicans fear) that the reelection of Barack Obama - and the specific demographic conditions that made that reelection possible - are the beginning of sustainable and durable coalition.

But we’ve been here before, haven’t we?

In 2004, George W. Bush won a relatively comfortable victory (at least compared to 2000) and a library’s worth of articles poured praise on Karl Rove, who had seemingly discovered the key to lasting Republican dominance: a passionate organized base that cares about family values. But only four years later, the Republicans lost the White House, and eight years later are in disarray. So much for lasting Republican dominance.

In 1992 Bill Clinton supposedly changed the game. A sax-playing Southern baby boomer who could name all four Beatles beat an old Washington hand who’d fought in WWII, ending 12 straight years of Republicans in the White House. A new era had begun! But by the time a quite tainted but still-popular Clinton left office, the Republicans had taken the House, the Senate, the White House, and the majority of governorships. So much for new eras.

Even the Reagan Revolution wasn’t quite as revolutionary as it’s made to seem. Reagan won an astounding 49 state victory in 1984 and a now-unthinkable 525-13 electoral college victory.  You didn't have to be Nate Silver to call that election.  But 4 years after the Gipper left office the Democrats had the White House back. So much for revolutions.

Only 3 elections in American history have been truly game changing, in the sense that the victory represented a political realignment that was sustained for decades after.  You may have heard of the three gentlemen who won those elections: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

Thomas Jefferson - 1800
Now that was a messy election. First of all, as brilliant as the Founders were, they hadn’t quite figured out all this electoral college stuff yet, so when Jefferson’s running mate Aaron Burr* technically had as many electoral college votes as Jefferson, he made a play for the White House. It took a while to sort out, but Jefferson eventually took the oath and went on to create a sustainable majority that lasted for decades.

* While in office, VP Burr killed the former Treasury Secretary, attempted to crown himself emperor of Mexico, and got arrested for treason.  And people think Biden's a loose cannon!

Jefferson’s Republicans (not the same as today’s) had so thoroughly destroyed their political competitors, the Federalists, that his hand-picked successors (Madison and Monroe) took the White House for 16 more years, and by the time John Quincy Adams, the son of the last Federalist President, took office, even he was a Republican. The Federalist Party was dead.

That was a sea change election.

Abraham Lincoln - 1860
The remarkable thing about this election is that Lincoln's party, the Republicans (this one is the same as today), was fairly new.  It grew out of the ashes of the Whig party and ran its first Presidential candidate in 1856.  They won their first Presidential election - barely - in 1860.  By the summer of 1864 Lincoln's reelection looked unlikely, and the idea of lasting Republican dominance - or even a lasting Republican party - seemed improbable.

But Atlanta fell in early September, assuring Lincoln's reelection.  And then what a run the GOP went on.  From 1860 to 1932 the White House was virtually the sole property of the Republican Party, as Grover Cleveland* was the only Democrat to win a head-to-head election against a Republican.

*  And he did it twice; Cleveland was an outstanding politician, winning the popular vote 3 times despite being named Grover

Can you imagine that today?  A new party is formed, takes the White House in less than a decade, and holds it for nearly a century?

Franklin Roosevelt - 1932
Democrats looking for signs of a long fruitful electoral run should start here.  FDR came into office much as Barack Obama did: a long period of Republican domination ended with a Wall Street calamity, thrusting a Democrat with profound faith in government action into office.  The Democrat is reelected 4 years later, after the passage of huge federal programs and despite a still struggling economy.

In FDR's case, the Democrats went on to win 7 of the next 9 elections (losing only to war hero Eisenhower).  It took LBJ's Vietnam catastrophe to end this run.


Is Obama’s Win Sustainable?
Have the Democrats won that kind of election?

When analyzing whether an election has created genuine political realignment, you need to see if the conditions are easy to duplicate. And certain demographic trends, particularly the growing importance of the Hispanic vote, suggest it is possible.

And, as I hope to explore in a later post, the Republicans are out of step with the majority on social issues like gay marriage and abortion, and this situation will only worsen.  If the Republicans don't learn how to move to the center on social issues, they are going to have a hard time getting my kids' vote.

But several other conditions will be nearly impossible to duplicate in future elections.

The first is Obama’s charismatic hold on the electorate. He's not quite the rock star he was in 2008, but remains enormously popular, particularly with African-Americans and 18-35 year-olds.  That kind of star power comes along very rarely. Reagan had it. Kennedy had it. Its a wonderful thing for a particular candidate to possess, but it is not a quality to build a sustainable majority on.

Can Joe Biden duplicate that in 2016? Hillary Clinton? If you’re thinking Al Gore, remember that while he was briefly the world’s most improbable movie star and the winner of the increasingly ridiculous Nobel Peace Prize, he’s already failed in the role of filling the shoes of a charismatic predecessor.

The second thing the Dems won’t be able to duplicate is the Blame Dubya tactic.  A majority of voters in exit polls still blame George W. Bush for our current economic woes.  By 2016, the Democrats will own the economy.

And finally, there is this interesting trivial fact:  all but 2 reelected Presidents in U.S. history have seen their popular vote percentage increase on reelection.  The first, Andrew Jackson, only declined because a 3rd party candidacy won 8% of the vote.

And the second, of course, is Barack Obama.  Put differently, it was the weakest reelection win in U.S. history, suggesting voters were saying, "Okay, we'll give you 4 more years.  But if things haven't improved by 2016..."

And that the key, isn't it?

It is a very rare thing to build a sustainable majority and it cannot be built on personality.  His administrations have to govern with  performance.

That's how lasting majorities are built.

True Believers (and other Election Day thoughts)

In 1999 I made my first – and still only – contribution to a political candidate. I gave fifty bucks to John McCain for his first Presidential run.

McCain’s policies were not in sync with mine – very few voters get to vote for a candidate they agree with on everything – but I was truly seduced by McCain’s honesty, the Straight Talk Express and all that. After eight slippery years with the Clintons, I was kind of desperate for a politician who seemed to have genuine beliefs, and was unafraid to express them even if it hurt him politically. Further, his extraordinary personal story* told me that his integrity was hard-earned.

* Five and a half years in a POW camp. Whenever I see that number – five and a half years is 2000 days– I’m struck by how long a period a time that is, and how much daily personal suffering he endured. And I bitch and moan when my internet connection is slow.

Bill Clinton, I decided, believed in only one thing: Bill Clinton. He was a skilled politician and incredibly smart; and policy-wise I was nearly as comfortable with him as I was with McCain (Northeast Republicans are more like Southern Democrats than Southern Republicans). But I had reached the point where I needed a breather from the Clinton’s Eternal Campaign style of politics. The Clintons, I thought, would do or say just about anything for one more vote. I wanted someone who believed in his positions, not just his electability.

Well, this week’s election marks the 10th anniversary of the period of True Believers. However different George W. Bush and Barack Obama may be, these are two Presidents who believe in their mission.

Bush fervently believed in the global threat of Saddam Hussein and the transformative power of democracy and aligned his Presidency behind that belief, even as the country turned against him. Obama fervently believes in the necessity for national healthcare and the efficacy of stimulus spending and aligned the power of his Presidency behind that belief, even as the country turns against him.

(I could take this analogy a little further. Both were so convinced that invading Iraq/passing healthcare legislation was vital to the national interest that neither was above stretching the truth to ensure it happened. The interesting thing was that the supposedly inarticulate divisive Bush was infinitely more successful at persuading his political opponents and the country at large that invading Iraq was a good idea than the supposedly eloquent and post-partisan Obama has been at selling his policies. Many Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution and large American majorities supported it, while no Republicans supported Obamacare and a majority of Americans opposed it).

The point is, this whole true believer thing isn’t really working out for us. The war in Iraq proved to be more painful and less necessary than promised. The stimulus bill was the government equivalent of throwing a trillion bucks in the fireplace. And national healthcare – we don’t know what it’s going to be exactly, but we’re pretty certain it’s not going to be what the President promised.

The problem with true believers is that they, far more than practical-minded politicians like Bill Clinton, are victims of confirmation bias. To stay with our current President a moment, the American electorate has been telling the Obama Administration for some time - since at least the stunning election of Scott Brown - that they disagree with his policies. But he won’t be persuaded. He persists in believing that we just don’t understand them, that his only failure was explaining the policies well enough to us (which is kind of ironic, given his allegedly great oratorical skills).

Makes me long for the days of cynical politicians who will do anything for a vote. Slick Willie, where are ya?

Concrete Jungle Where Dreams Are Made
We had an interesting Election Day in my home state of New York. Democrats rolled to landslide victories in the 3 big races (Governor and both Senate seats) but Republicans took 5 House seats. Among the defeated House Democrats was John Hall, the guitarist/songwriter for the band Orleans who had two big hits in the 70’s (Dance with Me and Still the One).

For the first time in my life as a voter I left one column blank. I couldn’t vote for either Andrew Cuomo or Carl Paladino for Governor. I’ve disliked Cuomo since he made his name in politics. He’s a self-righteous screeching moralizer – a pre-scandal Spitzer but without Spitzer’s cunning intelligence. And he’s got his Dad Mario’s faux-populism without the eloquence. Paladino was worse, significantly worse, and would have been an embarrassment to the State. I wish I had the presence of mind to write in a vote for Amare Stoudamire or my dog Finnegan, but I just left it blank.

Another interesting note in New York: Harry Reid’s come-from-behind victory in Nevada was good for the Democrats but bad for New York Democrat Chuck Schumer. Schumer would’ve been Senate Majority Leader had Reid gone down in flames. If that had happened, Schumer would be omnipresent in American politics – it’s said the most dangerous place in Washington is between Chuck Schumer and a camera. Chuckie is such a publicity-hound that he held a press conference a few months ago calling on Apple Computer to fix the antennae problem in the iPhone. Thank heaven for small mercies.

That’s No Salamander
Everybody knows the numbers 6 and 60 – the GOP took six Senate seats and sixty House seats. Less known is the number 680. That is the stunning number of State legislature seats the Republicans won, taking over 18 state legislatures. Close readers of FreeTime, and there are at least 3 of you, know my obsession with gerrymandering. Well, state legislatures control the re-drawing of districts, and according to the Washington Post, “When the next round of redistricting -- the decennial re-drawing of all 435 House districts -- occurs next year, Republicans will have complete control over the process in four times as many House districts as Democrats do, districts that comprise nearly half of the entire House.”

That may be the worst news of the day for Democrats.

Occasionally Right
Mind if I point out a few instances in which I was right?

After Obama's election - when many pundits were proclaiming this was the beginning of an enduring alignment in American politics - I wrote a not-so-fast piece entitled A Sea Change Election. Very few American elections are truly transformative - by my count only three in American history - and it is usually a mistake to overread the results of a single election.

Republicans would do well to remember that now.

I also wrote a couple of pieces (see here and here) arguing that the passionate faith of Obama's followers put unreasonable expectations on him, ones that would be difficult to meet. I think that proved true.

I may have been wrong about a couple things, but you'll have to find those yourself...

Jekyll & Hyde
I’m trying to imagine what the city of San Francisco was like on Tuesday. I’ve spent a lot of time in Frisco* through the years, and it is a freakishly liberal place (I say that with affection for my liberal San Francisco friends, some of whom will read this). It was a sad day for liberals, and SF’s own Nancy Pelosi lost her gavel, of course. But (speaking of freaks) Tim Lincecum and the San Francisco Giants won the World Series! That must have been a seriously bi-polar city this week.

* San Franciscans hate the nickname Frisco, and if you use it you are disdained as an outsider who doesn’t know the city’s ways. But why? It’s a cool nickname – much better than San Fran or SF, and shorter than the full San Francisco. Come on, Friscans, embrace the Frisco!

Who Won Tuesday?

Political commentators– whether they are conservative or liberal; thoughtful or angry; intellectually honest or hopelessly partisan; penetratingly insightful or galactically stupid – and whether or not they ply their trade in television, print, or radio - have one thing in common. They analyze election results in terms of which political party won the day.

The read on Tuesday, generally, was that Republicans won the day. Gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia, two states that voted decisively for Barack Obama in 2008, gave the GOP reason to celebrate. Democrats took what cheer they could from a Democratic victory in New York’s 23rd Congressional district, in which one of their own defeated a Conservative party candidate that was endorsed and supported by such GOP heavyweights as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin.

But the real winners on Tuesday were the largest and quietest group of American voters. There will be no victory parties, no spinning to the press, no acceptance speeches and no oaths of office – but the winners on Tuesday were your friendly neighborhood moderates.

The Misunderstood Moderate
There are several problems with the way moderates are characterized by the political press.

First, we are not the same as Independents. Many moderates belong to political parties, but represent the more moderate wing of that party. Most Northeast Republicans, for example, are moderates, as are many Southeast Democrats.

Second, we do not hold moderate views on every subject. We tend to be moderate on some subjects such as abortion and interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists. But we can often be well to the left or the right of the major parties on other issues. For example, many Northeast Republicans favor gun control, while most Democrats with national ambitions make sure to get their picture taken shooting ducks.

And third, we care about politics. The independent voter, especially those that only vote during Presidential election years, tend to be apathetic about politics, and their votes tend to be more personality-driven than issue-driven. But the true moderate cares deeply about politics, is highly informed, and votes in off years…he just doesn’t vote for the same party all the time. National and local issues and even broader strategic goals play a part in which lever gets pulled.

Moderates Win! Moderates Win! The-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e Moderates Win!
I won’t go into detail on what happened Tuesday – there is plenty of good analysis in the mainstream media for that. But the bottom line – GOP victories in blue states and the hard right getting a bloody nose in upstate New York – were both good things for moderates, both cautionary tales to the partisan leaders of both parties that the center will hold. To Pelosi and Rush, we say a pox on both your houses.

Now if we can just do something about gerrymandering…

Barack Obama & The Activist’s Dilemma

For a long time I’ve been interested in what I call “The Activist’s Dilemma”. I’ll illustrate the Activist’s Dilemma with a fictional activist movement – the LUNATICS (League of United Natives Against The Invading Creatures from Space).

The LUNATICS fervently believe that the earth is ill-prepared to defend itself from an attack by aliens. Like any cause, they need money and supporters. So, at every opportunity, they explain to potential donors and supporters that the threat is grave, that action must soon be taken, and that we are totally and completely unprepared for an alien invasion.

The movement is well run and gains some traction. Support grows and huge strides are made. Donations increase. The LUNATICS become important political players, giving money and endorsements to candidates who support their issue. One by one, goals they have set for themselves are achieved, and defenses against alien invasion are considerably strengthened. A LUNATIC is even appointed Secretary of Defense. The movement is a success!

But…here’s the dilemma. In order for the movement to remain successful, the LUNATICS must say they have failed. In other words, if they tout their achievements, then the world will begin to believe that we are sufficiently prepared for alien invasion, and time and money can be turned to other causes. To keep vigilance alive, they must make the case that there has been little progress – which runs the risk of making the LUNATICS look like failures. (The go-to activist phrase here is: there is much work to be done.)

That is the Activist’s Dilemma. And you can apply it to any cause you can think of (except those with specific endgames, like electing a specific electoral candidate).

What does this have to do with Barack Obama?
There has been no greater activist cause in American history than civil rights for African-Americans. It has featured specific noble causes like Abolition and voting rights and heroic enterprises like the Underground Railroad and the Selma marches. It has counted among its champions people from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King – each of whom gave the greatest speeches in American history on the topic. It has inspired great works of art. It has made consistent and measurable progress over a long period of time.

And it is quite possible that in November of this year that the movement will have torn down so many walls and crashed through so many ceilings that Barack Obama (who, with his Kenyan father and Kansan mother, is truly an African-American), will be elected President of the United States. One can’t help but think that Frederick Douglass and Reverend King are enjoying this moment somewhere.

But…here’s the dilemma. As a political movement, civil rights for African-Americans must compete with other causes for time, money, passion, media attention, and legislative focus. And some of those competitors (the environment, the war) are on a roll. The modern civil rights movement largely rests on the contention that the United States is a society that denies equal political, educational, social and economic equality to African-Americans. If Barack Obama – born without privilege, Harvard-educated, financially successful – becomes the 44th President of the United States, that contention becomes harder to make.

So in a strange and screwy way, the elevation of an African American to the Oval Office could have a potentially negative effect on the movement (if not the actual cause) for civil rights for African-Americans. But not that strange, really - it is the dilemma faced by all successful activist causes.

Update (1/14/08): Interesting piece in the Washington Post titled "As Obama Rises, Old Guard Civil Rights Leaders Scowl".

Note: the Activist’s Dilemma is something I’ve spoken about for years, but the Obama part is influenced by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal (see here, 2nd item). I disagree with Taranto’s conclusions about the impact of an Obama election on party politics, but the way he got there made me tie it into my own thoughts about activism.

The Elbridge Legacy

The phrase “threat to our Democracy*” has gotten a heavy workout the past few years.

Liberals generally use it to describe things like The Patriot Act, the Bush Administration’s use of intelligence to argue for the Iraq War, and well, just about everything related to what they consider the Imperial Presidency of George W. Bush.

Conservatives will trot it out to describe things like the Nanny State, judicial activism, and billionaire activists like George Soros spending their fortunes on elections.

But all of these things, whatever you may think of them, are the policies of elected officials, or at least the outcomes of policies of elected officials. If we as voters are unhappy, we get to vote for someone else who would conceivably change the policy.

But what if you can't vote for somebody else? What if the system has been rigged so that you are stuck with the incumbent you have? That is a genuine "threat to democracy". I'm referring to something called "gerrymandering".

(I've lost most of you by now anyway, haven't I? If you'd prefer something mindlessly fun over this galactically boring civics lesson, go here).


What is Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is defined by FairVote as "the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of congressional districts to influence the outcome of elections". For example, if a state legislature was Republican (like in Texas), they could rearrange some districts so that enough Republicans lived in each one, and the incumbent would be ensured reelection every two years. In New York (where I live), the Democrats can do the same.

It's named for Elbridge Gerry, a man who has much to be proud of. He was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He helped force the Bill of Rights onto the Constitition. He was James Madison's Vice President. But sadly, his legacy came as as governor of Massachussets, when he supported a redistricting bill that gave his party control over numerous Congressional seats. (A Federalist opponent remarked of one district, "It looks like a salamander". No, his friend replied, it's a gerrymander.)

In fact, I live in a gerrymandered district. For years, Rockland County was part of a suburban Congressional District, with bits of other counties tossed in, and was represented by Ben Gilman, a moderate Republican. But in 2003, the gerrymanders swooped in. They carved out two new, funky-looking districts that start in the North Bronx, snake up the eastern shore of the Hudson River, then jump the river to encompass a chunk of Rockland County. The two districts look like a couple of tadpoles having conjugal relations. I share a district with people in the North Bronx, but not with people in the next town.

Eliot Engel, my congressman, represents one of those districts. In the years before the gerrymandering, Engel won elections with nearly 90% of the vote. So they took Engel's overwhelmingly Democratic district, and changed it so that some slightly more Republican areas got encapsulated in it. EE won his last election with 76.4% of the vote. In 2004, he got 76.2%. I think Mr. Engel's seat is safe.

The Death of Moderates
Why does any of this matter? Well, there's the obvious - my vote has been rendered worthless.
But what is far worse is that we have created a U.S. House of Representatives that rewards extreme partisanship. With a 98% reelection rate, and the vast majority of the 435 reps in overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic districts - why would anyone need to compromise? Why would anyone reach across the aisle?

Worst of all, why would anyone hold moderate views? If you are a moderate - but represent an immoderate district - you will be targeted by the other side as vulnerable in the next election.
We should be furious about this. But we're not - and you know why? First, because both parties benefit, so they gleefully carry on with the support of their constituents. Second, the only people who really get hurt, whose views get ignored...are moderates. And moderates, well, we're just not the angry type.

So be ready...the partisanship you see now will not walk out the door with Dubya in January of 2008. It will stay under a Clinton and Giuliani Administration, and yes, it will even stay under an Obama or Thompson Administration, even though they seem like such nice guys.




* The US, incidentally, is not a democracy. In a pure democracy the people (demos in Greek) would rule (kratos). Meaning, we would directly vote on everything: appropriations bills, judicial appointments, whether or not to designate September National Bourbon Heritage Month. In a pure democracy, we'd be voting so often we wouldn't have time to work, play, eat, sleep, or write galactically boring blog posts on the evils of gerrymandering.

So instead, we have a republic (this one comes from Latin; res publica means public thing) . Under a republic, we vote for people to do those things for us. Sometimes they are great, sometimes they are awful, but usually they are average.

The Dubious Value of Experience

In the upcoming Presidential election we are going to hear a lot about the value of experience, particularly on the Democratic side, where the three leading contenders between them have averaged less than one term in the Senate, and little else.

The upside from this is you get some terrific zingers. My favorite two, so far, are Hillary's shot at Obama that ‘‘Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’’

And Obama's retort that "My understanding is she wasn't treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. I don't know exactly what experience she's claiming."

Mudslinging may be bad for the Republic and all that, but it can be fun!

But does anybody stop and wonder: does experience really matter? Surveys of historians routinely place three Presidents - Lincoln, Washington, and FDR - as the three greatest Presidents in U.S. history. How much experience did these guys have?

• Lincoln, the consistent champ, has a resume that is similar to Obama's, only not as impressive. Like Obama, Abe spent a fair amount of time in the Illinois State Legislature, while pursuing a law career. But Obama has a much more impressive education and spent 3 whole years in the Senate. Poor Abe's national electoral experience consisted entirely of one 2-year term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was not reelected.

• Washington had a successful military career, of course. But the very fact that he was in the field during the Revolutionary War meant that he played little role in the most significant political event of his (or any?) time, the Declaration of Independence. He was President of the Constititional Convention, but "took no active part in its debates nor in the subsequent ratification debates".

• FDR had more experience than most, but not as much as you'd think. He was a State Senator, Under-Secretary of the Navy, and VP candidate as a young man - but like Hillary and Dubya, he got these jobs more because of his last name than any personal accomplishments. He then withdrew from politics for most of the 20's while recovering from polio. In 1928 he ran for governor of NY, and 4 years later he was President.

Who had more experience than all these guys combined? How about James Buchanan? Buchanan served 5 terms in the House, and was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He then served as Minister to Russia. He returned to the States and was elected 3 times to the Senate, where he was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He was nominated (but declined) to serve on the Supreme Court. Instead, he became Polk's Secretary of State. Finally, he was the Minister to the Court of St. James (Ambassador to Britain). That, my friends, is a resume!

Naturally, he was a complete failure as a President, and consistently ranks as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history.

So, vote for who you want. But be suspicious of the value of experience.

Update (12/7/07): A NY Times/CBS News poll shows that primary voters slightly favor the "Right Experience" over "Fresh Ideas" (48% to 39%). But drill down a bit, and you find that Republican voters massively favor experience (61% - 27%) over ideas, whereas Democrats actually favor "fresh ideas" (45% to 42%). It's my opinion, which I'll explore in a future post, that these aren't actual opinions - they are opinions that have been formed to meet existing conditions.