Forget Bachmann/Clark, The Real Focus Should be Minnesota's Third District

Political pundits and analysts need to take a new look at Minnesota’s third congressional district race pitting DFL challenger Jim Meffert seeking to unseat first term GOP incumbent Erik Paulsen. Democrats have a far better chance picking up this seat than they do knocking off Michelle Backmann with Tarryl Clark.

The Futile Effort to Beat Bachmann
There is virtually no chance the Democrats will defeat Bachmann. I have argued this for months. Bachmann’s sixth district seat is apportioned approximately six points ahead for Republicans. She is a conservative candidate in a conservative district. She is the Tea Party leader in a Tea Party GOP year. She fits her district well and has already survived several attempts to knock her off in previous years (most recently '08) more favorable to Democrats. Democrats would be better served to wait until 2012, after reapportionment, when new lines may change the Sixth and make it more competitive, or when Bachmann makes the foolish move to run for the senate againt Klobuchar and gets waxed by her.

Yet Democrats cannot resist themselves. Democrats from around the country are pouring millions into this race and yet there is no evidence that Clark is catching up or gaining ground. Yes, Democrats have to challenge her and force her to campaign at home so that she does not travel and fundraise and campaign for others. But from a cost-benefit perspective, pouring millions here makes no sense. Sure there might be a symbolic victory in knocking her off, but with Democrats having to defend so many seats and having to decide where to best spend, resources need to be placed where it makes the most sense. That is why Minnesota’s Third District makes more sense.

Minnesota’s Third District
Minnesota’s Third District is a moderate suburban area mainly encompassing the western suburbs of Minneapolis. For years it was represented by Republican Jim Ramstad who had a reputation as a moderate. In 2008 he did not seek reelection and the seat looked ripe for Democrats to pick up. After all, many of the state seats in that district were occupied by Democrats.

The ideal Democrat I argued was a moderate pro-choice and perhaps female candidate. I thought that State Representative Melissa Hortman or State Senator Terri Bonoff were perfect profile candidates for the district then, but Melissa did not run and Terri’s campaign did not see Ashwin Madia coming. Ashwin did a great job organizing and hunting delegates.

In the end, the Democrats picked Aswin Madia, a political novice, Iraq vet who ran again the war. He challenged Erik Paulsen, a 10-year conservative state legislator. Paulsen won, mostly by hiding his conservative credentials and running as a moderate. Additionally, Madia ran out of steam in October '08, especially when the war as an issue was waning and the economy became the focus. Madia did not do a good job pivoting from war to the economy and he lost his message at a critical time. Finally, the race had a Independence Party candidate who, on election day, took about ten percent of the vote. The result? Paulsen won by eight points.

Since election, Paulsen has spoken moderate but voted right. He has a voting record nearly identical to Bachmann’s, voting with her over 90% of the time. He has no real accomplishments to show, and about the only news about him has been how he appeared to gouge the House franking privilege by sending out hundreds of thousands of dollars in mail to his constituents, at taxpayer expense.

More importantly, for a moderate district, his voting record is way to the right of where most of the voters are.

Too many people have heard me argue that campaigns are won or lost based on how well you capture the swing voter. The most critical swing voter in Minnesota remains the suburban mom with kids–the soccer mom. These women are less and less likely to vote GOP because of its agenda. These women are worried about family issues–early childhood ed, K-12, jobs, and health care for their children. Minnesota’s Third District is soccer mom heaven. It is heavily dominated by soccer moms in the suburbs, and they are ready to swing.

Some analysis and polls suggest Paulsen’s agenda is way out of line with voters here. Less than half have a favorable view of him, with many outright unwilling to vote for him again were there a choice. This is where Jim Meffert comes in.

Who is Jim Meffert?
Jim Meffert is a terrific candidate for the third district, if only he could get the attention of the media, Democrats, and the voters. He is a St. Olaf grad, serving there as the president of the college Republicans. He became a Democrat because, like the soccer moms of his district, he saw the GOP moving in a direction he did not like. Jim has worked with the PTA and on education issues, he comes from peace and justice wing of the religious community, and he talks of government and business working together to solve problems. All of these are perfect themes for this district.

Final Thoughts
Yet so far his race has not received the attention it deserves. Democrats are too preoccupied with Bachmann, in part because she is a fundraising tool. She is the bogey(wo)man they can use to raise money. Keith Olbermann and MSMBC give her too much attention, in large part to hype their own ratings. Too much media attention is focused on Clark and Bachmann, like the train wreck we cannot resist watching. Or it reminds me of that old commercial–“I have fallen and can’t get up.” Here, the media and Democrats cannot resist covering or giving money in this race. They seem foolishly fixed on the race. Yes it may be sexy to cover or think about it. But if the real goal of Democrats is to win races, the right mix of money, media, and luck could make this a real race and seat they could win.

All Things Gubernatorial

Two gubernatorial stories dominate Minnesota news now. The first is an MPR/Humphrey School poll declaring the race for governor in Minnesota is deadlocked between Dayton and Emmer, while the other story is Governor Pawlenty’s executive order forbidding state agencies from accepting or applying for any discretionary federal health care funds connected to the recently adopted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Poll and the Governor’s Race
The poll of 750 Minnesotans with a margin of error of +/- 5.3% found Emmer and Dayton deadlocked at 34%, with Horner at 13%, another 19% undecided. Standing on its own, the poll suggests a tight race, reporting results similar to what was reported in other surveys a couple of months ago. Yet more recent polls suggested a clear lead for Dayton over Emmer, especially in light of Emmer’s bad campaign, missteps on tips, and other similar issues. Has the race really tightened up again?

There are several reasons to say yes. Emmer was out of the news with no real primary opponent. Additionally, recent debates may have helped him, and the national anger towards Obama may be helping him. Yet this most recent poll raises more questions than they answer.
First, the margin of error of +/- must be kept in mind. The race may not be that close but the polling may mask it. Second, there are serious reasons to question the poll’s accuracy. It reports that among those surveyed, 46% identify as GOP, 41% as DFL, and 13% as Independence Party, leaving only 0% as unaffiliated. I seriously doubt this is an accurate reflection of the party alignment of Minnesota voters.

To start, to say there are no unaffiliated voters in MN is crazy. Other polls have put that number at least in the teens. Second, other estimates, even this year, have given the DFL about 35% of the affiliation and GOP around 30%. This is about my guess of where it is located. I find it unlikely, even in this anti-Obama, and Democratic party year, that GOP affiliation has surpassed the DFL and that it is 46%. My sense is that this poll has way overestimated the GOP strength in the state, thereby questioning the validity of the poll here.

Finally, what the poll also does not tell me is who the undecideds are and where they are leaning. Consistently I have argued that suburban women control the battleground in the state. This poll tells us nothing about the swing voters. Other recent polls have suggested Dayton with clear leads among women and moderates compared to Emmer.

Overall, while I suspect the governor’s race is close, this poll is not very good and there are reasons to question it.

Pawlenty and Federal Health Care Dollars
No surprise. Pawlenty foregoes federal health care money to help out the state. Critics will say it is political expediency to bolster his credentials for a likely presidential run, defenders say he is standing on principle.

Let us assume it is principle. First, principle did not prevent him from accepting money in the past, but then again, that was before he was as serious as he now appears to be in wanting to run for president. Second, there is panic. Pawlenty’s presidential run is going nowhere. He has no momentum and time is running short for him to gain it. Just a few months. Expect Pawlenty to do other dramatic things before he leaves office as final efforts to jolt his presidential bid. Look to see some way to use other executive orders to layoff workers or trim back the state.

But still, let us assume principle and personal conviction that the governor honestly believes the federal law is an impermissible intrusion. The parallel I see here is back to when NY Governor Mario Cuomo, a Roman Catholic, gave a 1984 speech at Notre Dame, seeking to explain how he reconciled his faith with his duties as governor. As a Catholic he noted a Church opposed to abortion, but as governor he had to recognize that not everyone held the same views as him on this issue. He eventually sought to reconcile faith and office by arguing that he had to represent the diversity of views in NY and serve the people first.

There is a parallel here with Pawlenty. He may have personal convictions about the federal law, but his first duty is to the people of the state of Minnesota. He is governor first, presidential candidate and person of personal conviction second. He needs to first honor his commitments to the state, doing what is best for it. Given the health care needs of the state, its budget woes, and other concerns, his personal convictions and public ambitions should take a backseat.

If the issue is taking the money conflicts with his presidential bid, then Pawlenty has a conflict of interest between his official duties to the state and his personal interests. If the issue is one of personal conviction, then he is letting his own personal views dictate public policy and what may be in the best interests of the state. Third, look at the grant that he forbid his health commissioner from pursuing–one to address teen pregnancy. Would not one have thought that an anti-abortion politician would want to acquire funds for this purpose? This makes about as much sense as making Bristol Palin the poster child against teen pregnancy!

Citizens United, Politics, and the Lessons of Target Corporation

The backlash against Target Corporation’s political contributions offers important lessons about the brave new world of politics ushered in by the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The lessons range from corporate marketing and governance to accountability.

Citizens United was a triumph for conservatives who believed that there was not enough money in American politics and that corporations lacked an effective voice in it. The 5-4 majority in Citizens United ruled that the free speech rights of corporations were violated in banning them from making express advocacy independent expenditures.

The decision freed corporations to make direct expenditures from their treasuries to endorse or oppose candidates of their choosing. That is exactly what Target Corporation did in Minnesota.

Tom Emmer is the Republican gubernatorial anti-tax and anti-gay rights candidate. Minnesota Forward was a PAC formed in Minnesota after Citizens United and it collected corporate donations to run ads endorsing Emmer. Target contributed $150,000 to the PAC, ads for Emmer ran, and then the sky fell in for Target. Immediately employees, gay rights organizations, and Moveon.org criticized the contribution, asking how the company’s donation squared with Target’s commitment to gay rights and its policy on same sex couple benefits. Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel tried to massage the protest, stating the company only endorsed the candidate’s views on taxes, not gay rights issues. But the rationalization was too late, and Target has been unable to contain the damage. Why?

Unlike other Minnesota companies such as Polaris and Best Buy which also donated to Minnesota Forward, Target occupies a unique place. Originally the Dayton and then Dayton-Hudson Corporation, this company is locally incorporated and was family owned for years. The Daytons had a record of community support and philanthropy, still expressed in terms of the company donating 5% of its profits to schools. Self-consciously, Target has curried this socially responsible, good corporate citizen brand in juxtaposition to its rival Walmart. For many, Walmart is the evil empire and Target’s progressive image made it a favored retailer for many. Steinhafel forgot all of this when he made the political contribution.

The donation supported a candidate who stood contrary to the image Target has sought to cultivate for years. Steinhafel violated the number one rule of business–know your customers.

The deterrent to corporate political contributions after Citizens United was that retail businesses would be loath to act, for fear they would alienate half of their customers. Target should have remembered that. It should have remembered how it had consciously built its image and thought about how this political contribution impacted it. Clearly Target failed to do that.

The half-hearted apology that the contribution did not mean it supported Emmer’s views on gay rights demonstrated a naivete about marketing. When companies employ celebrity spokespersons, they hire the entire package and it is impossible to separate off one part of their life or views from the rest. Think of Tiger Woods. Corporations cannot insulate themselves from criticism by saying they endorse only part of a candidate–they are stuck with the entire package.

What Citizens United and the Target donation revealed is that corporate political activity merges politics and marketing. Support of political candidates and causes are marketing and imaging statements, and companies in the future now must think about how their political activity affects their brand. Steinhafel and Target should have known that. In Target’s case, the contribution was bad branding but for other companies–such as a gun company supporting a pro Second Amendment candidate–such an expenditure might be a smart move.

Steinhafel thus violated a second rule of business–confusing his own self-interest or views with that of the interest of the company. This tells us something about corporate governance. The real power of corporations rest not with shareholders but management, and most of the major misdeeds in corporations occur when management comes to substitute their interests for that of the shareholders and stakeholders they serve. Steinhafel’s choice raises questions about how decisions are made in companies, who speaks for corporations, and whose First Amendment rights were furthered by Citizens United–the shareholder or the management?

Finally, what Target and the supporters of Citizens United forgot was that over the last 25 years corporations are increasingly being held socially accountable for the choices they make. Target understood that with its branding, but seems unable to grasp that point now that it has entered partisan politics. The brave new world of Citizens United does mean that corporations can speak, but they will be held accountable by their customers and shareholders for the choices they make.

Election Day Registration: Debunking the Myth of Voter Fraud

Voter turnout is again an issue with the coming 2010 elections. With midterm elections producing turnouts dramatically lower than in presidential election years, some argue for election day registration (EDR).

Advocates for this point out that seven states–Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming–permit EDR, with North Dakota not even requiring registration.

EDR critics raise the specter of voter fraud, contending that it would affect election outcomes. Even though there is no evidence that voter fraud is rampant or has changed the outcome of any election in a EDR state, claims persist.
The most recent salvo trumpeting the myth of voter fraud is a July Minnesota Majority report. They allege that illegal felon voting may have cost Norm Coleman to lose his senate seat to Al Franken. The Minnesota Majority argues that 1,400 felons may have voted illegally in the 2008 Minnesota elections and they have forwarded these names on to county attorneys for investigation. Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty commented on this report, echoing that illegal felon voting may account for Franken’s 312 voter victory over Coleman.

Does the Minnesota Majority report stand up to scrutiny? Hardly.

First, think about who makes up the Minnesota Majority. They are an ultra-conservative partisan political group that is a pro-property rights, pro-gun, anti-choice, anti gay, anti-immigrant, anti-sex education, and global warming denying organization. They are hardly politically neutral. They have repeatedly made unsubstantiated accusations about voter fraud in Minnesota, only to have their claims dismissed when critically examined.

Second, their initial July numbers asserting illegal ex-felon voting have been reduced based upon preliminary review by voting officials and county attorneys. That initial 1,400 has been whittled down to a few hundred–hardly enough to change the outcome of the race. Second, the Minnesota Majority did not investigate or examine whether any of the alleged voting occurred as a result of ex-felons who had their voting rights restored. Ex-felons in Minnesota are eligible to have voting rights restored upon leaving prison and that may have occurred here.

Third, the Minnesota Majority makes the assumption that any illegal voting that occurred favored Franken over Coleman. Why or how can one assume this? The political science literature indicates that, in general, people who are more affluent and better educated are more likely to vote than the poor and less well educated. Immediately this raises a series of questions regarding who exactly are the ex-felons that supposedly voted? Clearly the Minnesota Majority assumes that these individuals are more poor, uneducated, and therefore more liberal and thus voted for Franken over Coleman. Yet voting studies research suggests that this demographic is much less likely to vote.

Instead, think about who the felon voters might have been. Perhaps the most famous felon in Minnesota right now is Tom Petters–a middle aged affluent white male convicted of multiple counts of mail and wire fraud connected to a $3.5 billion Ponzi scheme he ran. He is a felon and, assuming he could vote, would he have voted for Franken? Probably not.

Moreover, think about all the other Wall Street felons from around the country–Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay of Enron, or Bernie Ebbers from Worldcom–if they could have voted in Minnesota in 2008 would they have voted for Franken? No. The odds are they would have voted for Coleman. Felons include white-collar criminals, drunk drivers, wife beaters, and middle class cocaine users. None of them fit the bill of those voting for Franken. We do not know the mix of the felons who allegedly voted in 2008. It is equally possible that if they voted they did so for Coleman, making the race even closer than it should have been.

Finally, the percentage of the vote of among illegal voters had to unrealistically favor Franken as opposed to Coleman to overcome the 312 vote victory. The Minnesota Majority states that perhaps up to 1,000 cases are possible for prosecution (although county attorneys have already cut this figure to one-third, and more, if not all will be dismissed). To overcome the 312 margin of victory, one would have to assume that of this 1,000, at least 656 votes went for Franken. In a race where Franken only received 43% of the popular vote, to assume he received nearly 2/3 of this vote is speculative.

Overall, keep in mind that county attorneys have not indicted anyone and no one has been convicted on voter fraud. The assertions of the Minnesota Majority are simply that, just unsubstantiated partisan assertions made by a group that is committed to the belief that if it denies enough people the right to vote they can successfully secure their agenda.

Art Rolnick is Correct: Why Business Taxes are not that Important to Location Decisions

Today Art Rolnick questioned the evidence behind Tom Emmer’s claims that taxes in Minnesota are driving businesses to Minnesota. Rolnick is correct.

In a January 29, 2009 op-ed I discussed the impact that business taxes have on job relocation. There is little evidence that taxes are a major determinate in terms of affecting business location decisions.

I am linking to the original op-ed.

Why business tax cuts don't make sense now

Hope is great when it comes to miracles. Belief is terrific when it comes to the Tooth Fairy. But neither hope nor belief should guide the making of economic policy, especially during a recession. The making of public policy should be driven by social science evidence regarding what does work, otherwise taxpayer dollars may be wasted.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty's call in his State of the State Address to cut business taxes to spur economic development begs two important questions: Do tax cuts encourage economic development? If so, is this the time and place to cut taxes? Social science research is clear: Tax cuts will do little to help the state economy now and will probably hurt it as Minnesota confronts this recession.

The economic literature is clear — tax breaks to encourage economic relocation or investment are generally economically inefficient and wasteful. Hundreds of studies overwhelmingly reach this conclusion. When businesses are surveyed regarding factors important to their economic (re)location, taxes often come in way behind proximity to markets, suppliers and the quality of the labor force.

These other factors occupy a larger percentage of a business's budget than do taxes, and all of them are far more critical to long-term success than are taxes. Businesses occasionally admit this. Nearly 62 percent of those interviewed in a California study on hiring tax credits indicated that they had never or rarely affected their decision to employ individuals.

In the same study, nearly half stated that tax incentives for relocation did not affect their decisions. Tax incentives reward businesses for decisions they were already going to make.

A variant of the "taxes are important factors affecting location decisions" is the claim that high taxes are deterrents to economic growth and that cutting them will lead to investment decisions that produce jobs and new employment. For all of the same reasons that taxes are not a major factor in economic relocation decisions, the same is true in terms of the impact of taxes on business or individual activity. While taxes may have some minor impact alone in terms of marginal decisions to produce, the broader claim that they impede serious economic growth is vastly overblown.

Public investments in education, infrastructure and worker productivity rank significantly higher in terms of encouraging economic development and higher workers' wages than do tax subsidies and incentives. Adam Smith, writing in his 1776 "Wealth of Nations," first pointed that out, and this remains true more than 230 years later.

Overall, tax cuts and incentives are usually a dreadful way to encourage business development. Yes, some do point to tax cuts under President John F. Kennedy as an example of how they helped the economy. That was one of the rare circumstances where they worked. The country then was not in a severe recession and the cuts went mainly to consumers to encourage consumption, not investment.

Pawlenty's call for tax cuts is not that type of consumer relief. His cuts do little to help the economy. Instead, they may exacerbate the recession in Minnesota. During the early days of the 1930s Depression, many states cut state consumption and spending as a way to address their economic problems. The cuts only made matters worse as they left more workers unemployed and depressed economic output even more. Pawlenty's tax cuts for business, if accompanied by additional decreases in state spending, will repeat this foolish path and only damage the state economy in the short and long term.

Under some circumstances, taxes and cutting them do matter, but not now. Pawlenty has it exactly wrong in his call for tax cuts, and this policy should be rejected because it is based on hope and myth, not facts.

(Note at end of original op-ed: David Schultz is a Hamline University School of Business professor who teaches classes in economic development, planning and policy analysis. He is a former housing and economic planner and is working on a book tentatively entitled "Stupid Public Policies and Other Political Myths," which examines bad laws and why they are made).

Thoughts on the MN Primary: Looking to the General Election

What did we learn about the August 10, MN primary? A few interesting things.

Turnout
First, I confess, I was wrong. I predicted an August primary would produce a 12% turnout or a 2% decease from previous years. Instead, it went up to 15%. I am glad I was wrong. Instead of people being confused by a new date perhaps candidate groundwars and the novelty of the new date increased turnout.

Second, because of increased turnout, the winning number for the DFL primary was much higher than I predicted. Moreover, given how many voted in the DFL primary, this suggests more passion or hunger by the DFL to win the governorship. This is why the primary turnout increased, and it does give Dayton some momentum heading into November.

Why Dayton?
Many DFLers expressed shock that Kelliher lost. I never thought she would. All along I said that Dayton had the name recognition advantage, the money advantage (over Kelliher but not Dayton), and was at least second in terms of ties to organized interests (AFSCME) in terms of organized interests. All this counted a lot. But I also suggested his strength would be with the Iron Range and his Lt. Governor. This is what paid off. Kelliher was really an urban Twin Cities candidate but never really one with broader appeal across the state.

I also think there was a certain arrogance on display with the DFL establishment on Tuesday. As I listened to MPR on Tuesday night Brian Melendez and others in the DFL seemed self-confident and cocky that their machine would deliver for Kelliher. Why believe that when the track record for the last two decades demonstrates the contrary. I think Kelliher’s shock and late concession on Wednesday reflected this arrogance too. Neither she nor the rank DFL get it in terms of understanding that they do not speak or represent the broader spectrum of those who consider themselves Democrats.

What is significant about Dayton are two things. First, he won with rural and blue collar support. The GOP should be worried about this. Generally, Emmer and the GOP can count on rural votes and some blue collar. However, Dayton ran strong where the GOP normally do. Assuming that the DFLers can bring their organization statewide and in the metro region to support Dayton, the DFL has a good campaign.

Second, Dayton won with a coalition and themes that bring back to life the old Perpich era. He did well with workers and the Iron Range and he ran on populist themes that harken back to that era. His emphasis on education returns the DFL to the Perpich one of making MN the brainpower state. Normally I do not think the past beats the future in politics, but here Dayton is cementing together one last time the old Perpich themes and coalition and updating for 2010. It might work again.

The General Election
It is trite to say that Dayton versus Emmer represents the broadest liberal/conservative divide in decades and that this sets up Horner for the center. All this is true. This also sets up the old Perpich coalition v. the new Tea Party brand of the GOP. Two different populist movements in conflict.

Emmer faces some weaknesses. Support for him among his base is a little soft, leaving Horner with room to grab GOPers. Also, Dayton has a stronger hold on moderate swing voters and female suburban voters (the soccer moms) than does Emmer. This is the battleground and Emmer is way behind here. He needs to figure out a way to remessage and move to the center. However, thanks to Matt Entenza and bad campaigning on his own account, the DFL has already defined Emmer. Emmer made the same mistake as Kerry in '04–he let others define him instead of defining himself. Once defined it is hard to undue.

Emmer also faces a McCain problem. In '08 McCain knew Bush was unpopular and that “change” was the mantra of the year. He needed to figure out how to run against Bush, a member of his own party, and also recognize that America was going in the wrong direction. If you are of the same party how can change mean staying with the same party? This is a tough trick to perform and McCain failed.

Emmer has a similar problem. He says MN is on the wrong track and it needs a new direction on taxes and regulation. He seems to forget that Pawlenty was governor for the last 8 years. How can he run against is own party? This is the McCain-Bush problem repeated here. Yes, Emmer represents a different wing of the GOP compared to Pawlenty (it is the Reagan v. Palin wing), but the DFL have already linked Emmer to Pawlenty.

Finally, the issues. Briefly, it is the economy and jobs. Average voters do not care about the record of Dayton as senator or the budget deficit. If the GOP talk about Dayton’s senate life that get away from core issues of the economy. Conversely, if the DFL talk too much about DWI and the deficit that also lose focus.

What is Orthodox Republicanism?

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s formation of the congressional Tea Party caucus portends the Republican Party both a challenge and a confrontation. It is a battle for the soul of the GOP, suggesting a new definition of the party in light of its 2006-8 loses. Yet this remaking of the party is only the latest effort by the Republicans to define themselves, asking what in fact is orthodox Republicanism?

If the GOP takes over the House, the Tea bloc could hold the balance of power. If the Democrats retain control, the Tea caucus might force the Republican leadership into an ever more uncompromising ideological corner. But in either case, the formation of the caucus is the maturing of the Tea Party as it travels from a grassroots movement to an institutional force within the Republican Party. The real question though is whether the Tea caucus rebrands the GOP or the later coops the former.

This is not the first time the Republican Party has sought to remake itself. Think of the GOP at its inception as the party of Lincoln, committed to emancipation, civil rights, and economic freedom. Fast forward to Harding, Hoover, and Landon, the party of small government, business, and opposition to the New Deal. Then jump again to the 1950s and 60s. At the time I grew up in New York, Eisenhower was president building the interstate highway system, signing a major civil rights bill, and denouncing the military-industrial complex, while Governor Rockefeller, Senator Javits, and Democrat Senator Bobby Kennedy battled amongst themselves for the crown of who was more liberal.

The contemporary battle for the Republican orthodoxy begins in 1964 when Barry Goldwater challenged the Rockefeller wing of the GOP for dominance. Goldwater’s “Extremism in defense of liberty” speech was a repudiation of the accommodation with the New Deal that Eisenhower, Javits, and the Rockefeller wing had reached. Goldwater may have lost the election but he propelled the GOP in a direction that first triumphed with Reagan’s victory in 1980 and his inaugural speech declaration that government is the problem, not the solution.

The Reagan coalition blended together often contradictory movements of economic liberty and social conservatism. The former requires a minimalist state protecting individual choice, the later requires an activist one second-guessing freedom. While ideological, it was still willing to compromise within its party and with Democrats, producing notable and important legislation such as the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. From 1980 to 2008 the Reagan brand is what defined the party. But beginning with the presidency of George Bush in 2001, and clearly by its end the Reagan brand had worn thin and when McCain ran and lost in 2008 it was clear that Reaganism was dead. Obama’s victory, along with Democratic gains in 06-08, signaled that change. For whatever it meant, it was preferred to Reaganism.

But the seeds of Reagan’s demise in McCain’s 2008 loss produced the heir of a new Republicanism in Sarah Palin. Palinism still seeks to balance the social conservatism and economic liberty of Reaganism, but it takes seriously the Goldwater extremism speech in its hyperactive purism and refusal to compromise. Palinism takes aim at the New Deal, combining it with nativism and constitutionalism that came to a head in the formation of the Tea Party and its mantra “I want my country back.”

The Palin makeover of the GOP combines Goldwaterism and Reaganism with a cult of personality, a multi-media advertising campaign, and a dose of Ayn Rand libertarianism. Palin, Fox news, conservative talk radio, and blogs have all produced less a coherent ideology or world view than it has yielded an attitude and brand. It is brand built on populist anger, anti-government feelings, opposition to immigration, gays, abortion, Democrats, and anything else that inspires fear. Partaking of that brand is Michelle Bachmann, and now the congressional Tea Party caucus.

While ideologically incoherent, Palinism has a deeper totalitarian aspect to it. Language describing some GOP members as RINOS (Republican in Name Only), talk of a 2009 conservative litmus test, and complaints that even Senators Bob Bennett and John McCain are not pure enough speak to a new orthodoxy.

So what is orthodox Republicanism now? It may be no more than a marketing brand or technique attempting to repackage a collection of contradictory ideas, some that have been part of the Republican Party for some time, others that are new. Palinism’s rebranding of the GOP offers little new, except for a multi-media cult of personality campaign that draws upon the anger and fear of many that their way of life is threatened and that someone else is to blame for it. If only government, gays, immigrants, abortionists, Democrats, and RINOS did not exist, we could take back our country and prosper again. This is orthodox Republicanism.