Bush-Wacked and Berned-Out: What We Have Learned About the 2016 Presidential Elections So Far

            Three weeks into the official start of the 2016 US presidential elections have produced a trove surprising and not so surprising results, along with a ton of misinformation.  So what have we learned so far?

The Bush Dynasty is over.  Six months ago received wisdom was that this election was going to be clash of political dynasties–Bush v Clinton–but that is just not the case. Jeb left the race for several reasons.  First he was a lousy candidate with weak media skills and no narrative for why he was running.  He had a ton of money but his campaign spoke either to the fact that money cannot by everything or that money misspent cannot buy votes.  Since 1980 a Bush has been a presidential or vice-presidential  candidate in  all but three elections (1996, 2008, 2012), although Obama did effecting run against a Bush in 2008.  The Bush brand has run its course, ruined in part by Jeb’s brother’s weak presidency and also by the fact that the GOP has moved further to the right than where the Bush brand lies.

It’s all Politainment.  Bush also lost because politics and entertainment have converged into politainment (politics + entertainment).  Presidential races are media events favoring candidates with the ability to look good on television.  This is Trump’s strength, nurtured by years of his own personal branding and television show.  Trump is only the latest candidate to show how mastering television and other multi-media forums is a big advantage.  This is also the election that the social media seems to have gone into overdrive, with Facebook campaigning taking on the new role of spinning in the way that only pundits used to.  One wonders how much of what is posted on Facebook is actually true, or done by real people.  The barrage of misinformation on the social media will soon raise questions about how much people can trust it and therefore, its utility as a campaign tool.

Trump is for real.  All of us wondered if Trump could transform his media presence into a get out the vote effort.  The received wisdom 20 years ago was that it was all about ground game and not just about the airwars.  They were separate strategies that had to be mixed to produce a successful presidential campaign.  Trump may be unique but he is redefining the rules, showing how media presence can be a winning strategy, generating its own ground game.  Barring the unexpected, his path to the party nomination seems likely.

But how popular is Trump?  Trump is polling about 30% of the Republican voters.  The best estimates are that 32% of the population describes themselves as Republicans.  Trump thus commands not quite 10% of the voting population.  Polls also suggest that he has high disapproval ratings among many voters, especially the swing voters.  This is important because were he to get the nomination it will be interesting to see who these swings vote for. In a race against Clinton (who has the second highest disapprovals), it will be a battle to see who these voters like least, and whether they will vote at all.

The anger and intolerance vote.  Historian Richard Hofstadter described the paranoid style in American politics that also prided itself on ignorance. Trump and Cruz are proving Hofstadter right, showing that there is an ugly side to American politics where I suspect a significant percentage of the populations still will not vote for women, people of color, members of certain religious faiths, and those with a grasp of facts.

The mainstream Republicans don’t get it. There is a base of the party that hates mainstream wimpy candidates like Bush.  They believe that running milk toast moderates such as McCain and Romney cost them the election and now they want purity.  The base is aging, refusing to change, seeing perhaps this election as their last hurrah to win.  The base of the GOP is demographically eroding and the party establishment is trying to figure out how to hold on.  As more and more mainstream Republicans endorse anyone but Trump they fail to see how that fits into the strategy of Trump to be the anti-establishment candidate.  Additionally, fascinating in this election how the “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” strategy that the GOP has run for a generation or more is now killing them.  By that, for years the GOP has used social issues to get working class to vote for them, while at the same time pursuing a plutocratic strategy that favors the rich.  Working class whites have seen little that the GOP have done for them and thus, why should they support them anymore?

Democrats need to worry about turnout.  Republican turnout is way up so far and Democratic turnout below 2008 levels. Sanders needs bigger turnout to win but more importantly, if primary and caucus turnout is predictive of general election turnout then no matter who gets the Democratic nomination there is cause to worry about the Democrats delivering their base.  Why is turnout so bad for Democrats?  Blame in party the party leadership who wanted to protect Clinton by not scheduling many debates or placing the debates on nights when no one watches them. The Democrat debates have produced less television and media coverage and therefore less turnout. Remember as noted above, presidential politics is politics and entertainment. (Politainment).   Presidential debates are like pop culture advertising for candidates and the Democrat party has done a terrible job advertising itself.

No Democracy in the Democratic Party. Who is ahead, Clinton or Sanders?  After three contests  Clinton and Sanders are tied each with 51 pledged delegates.  Add up the total votes cast for Clinton and Sanders in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada and Sanders probably is ahead.  Yet Clinton has a huge super-delegate lead.  The media is quick to declare Clinton way ahead but in terms of grass roots earned delegates she is tied.  The story this year is about the lack of democracy in the Democratic party and how there will be a coming battle to scrap the super delegates. They look like elite efforts to thwart popular will.  Super-delegates are as anti-democratic as the Electoral College.  In a fair primary process driven by the people the race to be the Democratic nominee would be wide open.

Gender, Age, Class, and the Generational Divide.  Clinton wins female voters over the age of 40, but not younger.  There shows a generational split and a declining importance of old style gender politics characteristic of the Baby Boom generation.  In the same way that the GOP is facing a demographic and base revolt, so too is the Democratic Party. The Boomers are aging out, the Millennials are taking over, and that change is pushing the party in a new direction.  Clinton may be the last Baby Boomer candidate to head the Democratic party.  The future is not with her wing of the party, but with a new group.  Think of Sanders not in terms of his age but in terms of the shift he is bringing about–a retreat from simple identity politics and a re-emergence of class as factor to mobile voters and provide a focus for public policy.

Finally, it’s a long way to November! We have only just started campaign 2016 and no doubt other new trends will emerge.

An Historic Epic Blog About the Iowa Caucuses that will Amaze You, Blow Your Mind, and Make You Drop Your Jaw

Actually no, this blog displays none of these characteristics or adjectives.  Yet looking at social and mainstream media postings since the Iowa caucuses one would think that every posting or idea drooled out by anyone to describe what happened on Monday was historic, epic, amazed you, blew your mind, and made your jaw drop.  Frankly, none of this is true and in many ways what happened in Iowa on Monday and afterwards is or was relatively mundane and predictable.  So how do we understand the Iowa caucuses–who won or lost–and what will happen now or next?

The Iowa Caucuses are about three things: the expectation game, raw numbers, and then the spin.  It almost does not matter how well you really did, it is about whether you met expectations or not.  Do better than expected you are winner, worse than expected a loser.  The real number counts or delegate counts seem unimportant.  Momentum or spin from Iowa is based on the expectations game.  Thus, Iowa is about also being a form of musical chairs or a variation of the television show the Bachelor–it is the start of an elimination game that thins the heard until there is a winner.  For Democrats, the Iowa winner goes on to win the party nomination 2/3s the time, for Republicans it is 60% of the time.  Iowa is important and predictive, but not necessarily determinative and certain  in terms of what its results say.

In terms of the expectations, based on the latest polls before the caucus Trump should have won with Cruz second and Rubio a distant third.  Trump did not meet expectations with his results and is declared the big loser.  Of course the real losers are all those other Republicans who finished near the bottom of the heap next to the asterisk zone–including Bush, Santorium, Paul, and Huckabee.  The latter three have no dropped out, Bush might need to do so soon.  He spent $80,000,000+ to get 4,000 votes–approximately $20,000 per vote.  I am sure his supporters would have preferred the cash instead.

Yet Trump’s second place performance could be seen all along.  Many of us said that his challenge was translating his media presence and name recognition  into real numbers when he had no ground game.  His second place performance and Cruz’s first place show the power of the ground game.  Yet Trump’s second place finish still demonstrates how well he did without spending much time working on getting out the vote.  In some ways he did better than he should have given his strategy.   Of course, Trump reacted badly to his loss, crying foul, and showing to a large extent that his main rationale for the presidency–he is leading in the polls–may be crumbling under him.  Yes he still leads in New Hampshire and nationally, yet now there is reason to think he is vulnerable.  Despite winning almost as many delegates as Cruz, he is seen as a loser and the media and spinners are treating him as such.

For the Democrats the two most recent polls before Monday had Clinton up by three and Sanders up by three, with margins of error approximately 3.5%.  The race was a statistical dead heat.  Clinton supporters spin it as a historic win for Clinton but given her 50 point lead six months ago, that she was challenged by someone who is not a Democrat and who declares himself a socialist, winning by three-tenths of one percent of the vote is not much of victory.  If this were a general election this margin would trigger an automatic recount before it would have been certified by a canvassing board.  As we know in Minnesota from the Franken Coleman 2008 race, election night counts are not final or accurate and are readjusted several times before declared final and valid. Additionally, as we saw with Romney and Santorium in 2012, the former was originally declared the winner only to have the latter prevail later on when the votes were finally adjusted.  Monday is  perhaps a win for Clinton, but it does reveal powerful weaknesses in her candidacy especially among younger voters.

For Sanders, it was a good showing. Again, don’t say historic.  Just because something  happens once does not make it historic.  For something to be historic it has to stand the test of history.  In six months Iowa may mean little or nothing or something completely different than what people think it means now.  For now Sanders either tied Clinton or came in a close second, winning almost the same number of delegates. He raised millions after the Iowa Caucuses and he heads into New Hampshire where he is favored. Yes, part of his advantage in that state is the close media market to Vermont, but no folks, NH is not a liberal state.  It is a political swing state that elects lots of Republicans.  It is not necessarily a natural home for Sanders.  Moreover, remember Clinton won it eight years ago after losing to Obama in Iowa.  Both Clinton and Sanders have lots to spin at this point, but in may ways Sanders comes out this week looking stronger for now

Certainly Clinton and her supporters point to polls regarding her firewalls in Nevada but more importantly South Carolina, but polls today cannot necessarily tell us what will happen in those two states in several weeks.  Those who say Clinton has a lock on voters of color need to understand that it is not an issue of her getting all their votes and Sanders none.  The same is true with Sanders and Clinton when it comes to young voters, or liberals, or women.  The issue is  how well each does in terms of holding and mobilizing their bases compared to one another.

So what do we learn from Iowa? Perhaps far less than we think and which should shock.  Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, and Sanders can point to expectations, real numbers, and spin all to support their arguments about the significance of Monday. We are at the beginning of perhaps a very long process where many things can change, including polls, public opinion, and a score of other variables that may impact the 2016 elections. But none of what happened Monday necessarily has or  will rise to the level of something that is historic and epic, that will amaze you, blow your mind, and make you drop your jaw.  To assert any of this is just trivializing hype and  should be treated as such.

American Presidential Politics on the Eve of the 2016 Iowa Caucuses

With the Iowa Caucuses finally here, this is a good time to offer a few thoughts on their significance and the American presidential race this year.

Why Iowa?
I tell my doctoral students writing dissertations that oftentimes one does not have to be right, just first.  That is the story of Iowa.  By all accounts if one were going to pick a first state to start the US presidential selection process, Iowa would not be it.  It is a state hardly representative of the nation–too white, too rural and agricultural, and too small a population.  Its is over-representative in religious conservatives compared to the rest of the nation, and with a caucus system it brings out a very small percentage of the population that even might not be representative of the national let along the Iowa Democratic and Republican parties.  But none of that matters–it is first and it does have a major impact on the presidential election.
Its impact is twofold.  First it eliminates candidates who do poorly—think Howard Dean in 2004.  It does that by drying up money and media attention.  But the Iowa Caucuses also can help presidential campaigns by declaring winners and those doing better than expected getting boasts.   The Democrats have been holding the Iowa caucuses since 1972 (11 total) and 8 of the winners there have gone to win the party nomination (66%).  The Republicans have held caucuses there since 1976 (10 total), and 6 of winners (60%) have gone on to win the nomination.  Overall, 14 of 21 winners (66%) have gone on to win their party’s nomination, with seven of the winners of the caucuses winning the presidency.


Year Iowa Dem Winner Dem Party Nominee Iowa GOP Winner GOP  Party Nominee President
1972 Muskie McGovern Nixon Nixon
1976 Carter Carter Ford Ford Carter
1980 Carter Carter Reagan Reagan Reagan
1984 Mondale Mondale Reagan Reagan Reagan
1988 Gephardt Dukakis Dole Bush Bush
1992 Harkin Clinton Bush Bush Clinton
1996 Clinton Clinton Dole Dole Clinton
2000 Gore Gore Bush Bush Bush
2004 Kerry Kerry Bush Bush Bush
2008 Obama Obama Huckabee McCain Obama
2012 Obama Obama Santorium Romney Obama



Life is About Showing Up
The caucuses are all about turnout, proving the adage that 90% (if not more) of life and politics  is showing up. To participate caucus attendees must register in advance with a party or they can do that at the door.  This is effectively day of caucus registration, making it difficult to predict turnout because of the possibility of individuals not previously registered (or predicted by the polls) deciding to attend.  In 2008 239,000 Democrats and 120,000 Republicans turned out. In 2012 it was 25,000 (Obama unopposed) and 122,000 respectively.
Turnout is important because the question for 2016 is will the turnout be closer to the 2008 number (360,000) total or 2012 (147,000 total).  Turnout is key for Sanders and Trump.  For both to win they must generate numbers closer to the 2008 level.  This would mean the Millennials, independents, and swing voters go for Sanders and the non-college blue collar (among others) show up for Trump.  What will be tested on February 1, is the ability to translate pep rallies and media persona into get out the vote and actually showing up at the caucuses.

Who Lost the White Working Class?
Much has been written about why the Democrats lost the white working class voter to the  Republicans?  This is an issue again this year because of a great piece in the NY Times recently describing how union leaders are fretting that their rank and file might bolt to Trump if he were to get the nomination.  This split in the labor vote would be a disaster for the Democratic nominee.
Lyndon Johnson declared the signing of the 1964 Civil rights Act cost the Democrats the south and the white vote.  The Edsells’ Chain Reaction says the same thing.  Ronald Reagan pealed off the Reagan Democrats by talking muscular and opposing affirmative action.  All possibilities.  But Bill Clinton did further damage by supporting NAFTA and blowing off working class America, especially the unions.  Obama did that too with his race and his failure to address the economic hardships of white working class America who saw him continue to bail out the banks and not the home owners, and do little to address the loss of manufacturing jobs.  Granted the Republicans too have done next to nothing to help white working class.   But with neither the Democrats or Republicans having done anything to help white working class, this group of voters has been receptive to the claim that they are losing out because people of color are being helped.  Yes, this is the racial card and for 40 years it has helped the Republicans, and Trump is again playing it.

Defining Inclusive
I read the other day about a woman saying she loved Clinton because she was more inclusive than Sanders.  Her reference was the Clinton ads showing people of color and Sanders mostly whites.  What we see here are contrasting definitions of what it means to be inclusive.
In 2016 Sanders is appealing to many of the white working class again.  The political messages and coalitions of Sanders and Clinton display two different concepts of inclusivity–For Sanders class is the inclusive group to unite America, for Clinton it is gender and race.  We see here a battle between rival concepts of how to unite America.  Moreover, as we think about their coalitions, it is important to remember that neither Clinton nor Sanders is winning 100% of their groups.  Both are winning some women, liberals, and people of color.  The issue is about marginals and how will each does to hold their own bases, eat into the other’s, and mobilize new voters.  This too is what we shall learn on February 1.

The Media
Finally what is also surprising is how the institutional mainstream media has lined up for Clinton and against Sanders.  The mainstream media however is perplexed by Trump v Cruz, opting to give Rubio its favored treatment yet also liking Trump for the ratings he produces.  None of this is a surprise.  Remember, Sanders is not a traditional Democrat and he talks about issues that have not be part of the mainstream in years, if ever.  In the last week the social and traditional media have piled on to criticize Sanders, often unfairly.  For example, there is heavy criticism of his healthcare plan (and there is room to criticize all of the plans by all the candidates) but the idea of national health care and single payer is the norm across many countries including Canada and it works very well.  To hear the media and critics, one would think Sanders is the first to come up with this idea and that it is unworkable.
There has also been a media blackout of Sanders in the US, at least until recently, and a continued refusal to treat him as a serous candidate.  How will the media report the results on Iowa for Tuesday?  Will it be Sanders lost and he is done(if he does), or that a socialist almost beat Clinton (proving her vulnerable), or that he won and it was a fluke?  For Trump, does a win legitimize his campaign or does a second place mean that he lost and that it demonstrates he has no ground game?  How the media and the candidates spin Monday is even more important that actually what happens.   This is part of why the Iowa Caucuses are so important, even though they should not be.  They are first and they get to decide how the next stage of the 2016 presidential campaign will be framed.

The Death of Thoughtfulness in Politics and Journalism

Whatever happened to thoughtfulness?  No, the reference is not “thoughtful” as in considerate toward others (although that it is an issue and a topic for a different essay), but thoughtful in the sense of thinking through issues, being mindful of subtle distinctions, considering opposing viewpoints, making truthful statements that are faithful to the facts, and eschewing dogmatic one-sided arguments?  Such thoughtfulness seems all but to have disappeared in politics, journalism, and among those making political arguments, especially in the social media.
Politics 2016 seems to be the year where all pretense of being thoughtful and truthful have been dropped.  Truth tests after the Republican debates, for example, find that Trump and Cruz consistently fail or rate as “liar, liar, pants on fire” when it comes to statements about immigration or their own records or positions.  We see other candidates in both parties outside of the debates distorting the records of both themselves and other candidates, and of course the SuperPacs and political ads they run simply lie.  The Courts have said there is a First Amendment right to lies, letting the political marketplace and voters decide truth. This marketplace of ideas has failed and with so many so skeptical about what candidates    Say is untrue none are believed.
But even if it is not outright lies it is making bold simplistic statements or policy proposals that just are not possible because either the empirical evidence suggests they will not work or they are not based on theories grounded in reality.  Yes there is a distinction between visions and hopes about the world one wants versus policy statements, but too often what one sees are one-sided statements that fail to consider objections or points from opposing view points.  Political rhetoric  is simply dogma and marketing hype, not serious policy discourse.
The death of thoughtfulness is evident too in the commercial media.  Tune into any talk show on Sunday morning–even ones with those speakers from different perspectives–and there is no thoughtfulness. Each speaker drools out a predictable point of view that is dogmatic and unreflective.  It bears no witness to opposing views, no subtlety.  The journalists on these shows are no better.  In fact, part of the problem with so much of commercial journalism is that it has given up on the idea of finding the truth–just report opposite partisan positions and call that news gathering.
The world is not black and white but it  is lived in shades of gray.  Solutions to America’s or world problems are not as simple as just send in the marines, cut taxes, or carpet bomb.  There are no silver bullets to fix the economy, bring about world peace, or eliminate poverty.  We live in a complex world with complex problems and understanding both and possible solutions require thoughtfulness about recognizing the limits of any one idea or policy proposal.
Yet simple-minded dogmatism is what sells.  Recently I attended a conference  of student college journals.  One of the speakers was a representative from a major media news service.  When one of the students asked how they could get more media attention for their journal the response from the news service was simple: Take a point of view and press it no matter what, even if extreme.  The advice was that to be successful you had to have a simple  clear perspective and argue it to the extreme.  It was not about being thoughtful or making clear careful distinctions–just take a position and advocate it, facts be damned.
Social media is perfect in terms of lacking thoughtfulness.  Partisans should advocate for their candidate, but seriously, not everything Sanders does is bad or what Clinton does is good or vice versa.  The same can be said about the Republicans.  None of these candidates are perfect or have the answers to everything.  Moreover, not every rumor need be reported and not everything a candidate does–or fails to do–is a cause for faux outrage. Social media is terrific for doing this, and for passing along half truths and claims that most people know or should know are just not accurate.  What social media has done is undermine its own credibility–when it is no longer possible for people to sort out the true from the false everything is doubted and nothing is believed.  This is what happened to mainstream commercial journalism and thereby destroyed its believe-ability.   The same is happening to the social media, thereby rendering its utility as a campaign or information gathering tool nil.
Finally, my political science profession is no better when it comes to a lot of analysis.  Rewards go to those who have singular methods and theories to look at the world, again rejecting the idea that how we study something is dictated by what we are studying.  Yes good theories should be simple, but they should also be accurate.
Thoughtfulness is out of fashion.  Thoughtfulness is not saying one needs to be a political  moderate or wishy-washy.  There are loony tune leftists and wingnut conservatives, but there are also those on all sides of the political spectrum who can be thoughtful and recognize the limits of their arguments or and reflect on what they and others are saying.  Unfortunately, thoughtfulness seems  unfashionable and certainly it does not seem to sell anymore.

Ben Carson’s America

With Ben Carson taking the lead over Donald Trump in Iowa and perhaps nationally there will be new media focus on him in the third Republican debate.  So far he has not gotten much scrutiny, but that will soon change.

            What does Ben Carson’s America look like?  In many ways perhaps not so different from that of Trump’s, Fiorina, and most of the rest of the Republican presidential field.  More style than substance has distinguished the various GOP candidates from one another, but in so many ways they share along with the congressional Freedom Caucus (the Tea Party) faith in what I shall call the five Cs: Conservatism, Constitutionalism, Capitalism, Christianity, and Caucasianism.  It is these five Cs–especially let’s call them the Five Fundamentalist Cs–that really is the core of  what Ben Carson’s America looks like.

            Carson’s campaign slogan is “Heal, Inspire, Revive.”    Ted Cruz’s is  "Reigniting the Promise of America.”  Trump’s is “Make American Great Again.”  All three speak to an America in decline, one that has drifted away from it basic principles or values.  They want to bring America back to an ideal they once saw in the US but which they see having slipped away, especially under Obama.  It is a retro image of America–no, not a benign Norman Rockwell one–but nonetheless one that  looks at the country with a halcyon view of the past.  It is less looking at the world though rose colored glasses or one that has golden tones.  It is instead that world of the five fundamental Cs.

            It is a conservative America, one hostile to change and resistant to new ideas, especially those based on science and reason.  Thus it is an America that denies global warming, ignores the reality about immigration, cannot come to grips with the fact that vaccines work and do not cause autism, and questions whether other countries have ideas from which we can learn.  But on the other hand, Clinton sold us out in Benghazi, Planned Parenthood got rich selling dead baby parts, and Obama is a Muslim who is not an American citizen.

            It an America of constitutionalism.  No, not a constitutionalism that generally emphasizes individual rights but one of limited government, especially a federal government.  It is a belief that all government is wrong, but especially the federal government since the New Deal, and there is a need to strictly enforce the Constitution to limit the size of the government.  It detests presidential power–at least as used by Obama–and selectively wants to give absolutism to the Second and Tenth Amendments–but sees no constitutional impediment to waterboarding or restrictions on government spying on its own citizens in the interest of national security.  Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment means what is says when it declares all who are born in the US are citizens.  And even if it does mean that, we should change it in the interest of getting the Constitution right in terms of what it is supposed to mean.

            It is an America of capitalism.  It is no coincidence that the Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (the book giving the first expression and description of capitalism) both came in 1776. Markets are good, government is bad. Who needs regulation, such as the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, as Trump recently remarked.  Business can figure out how to protect the environment much in the same way that the Obamacare is not needed because the private sector can find better ways to insure more people than the government can.  We do not need to tax the rich, the benefits of capitalism will trickle down to all of us.  Welfare disincentivizes the poor and crowds out charity, taxes discourage individuals and businesses from investing, and left to its own devices, privatized government services will do it faster, better, and cheaper than all those lazy overpaid government workers.

            It is an America that is Christian. God Bless America. We are one nation under (a Christian) God.  Muslims are not welcome and are suspect, especially unfit to be president.  Jews are tolerated, and non-mainstream Christian faiths such as Seven Day Adventists are not really Christian.  The Constitutional Framers never intended a separation of church and state.  Government should be able to enforce morality, ban abortion, prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.  Christians should be able to invoke the First Amendment to discriminate, to refuse to provide for birth control for women, and force everyone to pray in public school.  With God on our side America can again be a great nation–just let’s not remind anyone about all the times true Christian politicians have been caught with their pants down.

            Finally, it is an America that is Caucasian (and male). Especially ironic in part for Carson.  But it wants a color-blind America–or at least one that says that the only color that matters is white and that all of us should act that way.  It denies racism still exists, all lives matter and not Black Lives Matter, and that police target racial minorities.  We need to erect a big wall across American borders (Even Canada for ex-candidate Walker) to keep not just the illegals out but perhaps also to keep all immigrants out.  America was better when it was almost all white, but now immigration is flooding America with lazy, welfare-dependent rapists and murders who just want to come to the US to steal our jobs.  Oh, except for those agricultural jobs, according to Carson, that pay so low that no real American’s want them.

            Ben Carson’s America is what they think the country was like 50 years ago.  Or maybe 100 years, of perhaps what it was in 1787 or 1776.  It was an America where God made America a shining city on a hill where rich white guys ruled and where everyone else knew their place, whether it was on the plantation, in the kitchen, or working for the businessman who knew best how to invest his money and provide for us all.

            This is Ben Carson’s America.

A Tale of Two Parties: The Challenges Facing the Republican and Democratic Parties in 2016

            In contrasting ways both the national Republican and Democratic parties are divided and dysfunctional, facing terrific challenges as they enter the 2016 elections.  Their respective troubles speak to many issues, but among them is both a generational shift occurring in the US and the failure of the establishment in the parties to keep pace with these changes.  Political scientists like to speak of critical party realignments.  These are processes where parties redefine themselves, adopting new policies and coalitions to reflect the changing political landscape.  Realignments are necessary for political survival.  Yet in so many ways, what we are seeing with the Republicans and Democrats are realignments that are either going in the wrong direction or which are stalled, thereby contributing to the problems they face as they enter 2016.

The Republicans

            When Abraham Lincoln in 1858 gave his famous “A house divided against itself cannot stand” speech he was referring to a country torn by slavery not a House of Representatives and Republican Party divided against itself.  But that is exactly what we are witnessing now.  First it was the presidential race where the so-called establishment party candidates with governing experience (Jeb Bush for example) are losing to the outsiders (Trump, Carson, and Fiorina) or to the hard right (Cruz).  But now the House of Representatives is a mess: Boehner is out, McCarthy is out, and the Liberty Caucus of the House (aka the Tea Party members) is looking to weaken the Speaker’s position and pull the Republicans even farther to the right and into even a more confrontational mode against Obama, Democrats, and really government and the institution of the House itself.  One thought it was bad enough that the Republican House could not accomplish anything in the last four years, now it cannot even rule itself.  It is a party hugely divided against itself, and against its future.

            The Tea Party has won.  They have achieved a critical realignment of the Republican Party, remaking it in is conservative image.  It took five years but now they have enough clout to at stalemate the party, if not perhaps completely take it over.  Critical realignments of parties are good–they are ways to realign the base and policy preferences of the party so that it will be able to survive and reflect the changing and evolving political landscape.  Yet the critical alignment of the Republican party is retrogressive–it is a party taking it backwards in time. 

            The new Republican Party is one that seems to represent not a new emerging demographic of America–one that is more multicultural and racially diverse–but one that is a throwback to the aging base of its that will literally die off in the next few years.  Phrase otherwise, the future belongs to the Millennials but the Republicans are still locked into the politics of the Silent generation.  They are adopting views on immigration, abortion, GLBT rights, and taxes that are clearly at odds with those views held by the Millennials.  Moreover, they are hardly a populist party.  Their views on GLBT rights, guns, and money in politics are in clear opposition to where public opinion in America is headed, and also to where majorities of their own members are in some cases.  Throw in their views on taxes and it is clear that the new GOP is a plutocratic one, increasingly anachronistic and at odds where history is headed. Contrary to the claims of some that the Republicans are the party of no, they actually do have an agenda.  It may not be one that they can govern on, but they do seem to have an emerging an clear narrative, even if that narrative is one that is a throwback in time and to a set of views that is so many ways take them back to a world before the New Deal.

The Democrats

            The best thing the Democrats have going for them is the Republicans.  Yet the Democrats too are a divided party–just look at Clinton versus Sanders.  Clinton is still leading in the national polls and have a ton of party regulars and leaders supporting her, but polls show little enthusiasm for her among many of her supporters. She is the safe candidate, although one that the polls again suggest may not be able to win over critical swing voters in swing states.

            Sanders speaks to a base of the Democratic Party fed up with its institutionalism and elitism.  Obama  disappointed, he helped the banks and Wall Street and never did much for workers, unions, and middle class America.  He now seems paralyzed in waning presidency.  Sanders offers something Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats have not had since 2008–a narrative for why they should govern.  “Change” was great in 2008 but since then what has been the narrative for the Democrats?  What is the message they offer for why they should stay in power and govern?  Simply saying the Republicans are nuts is not enough.  The lack of narrative cost Democrats power in 2010 and 2014 and it was only a weak Mitt Romney that saved them in 2012.  Clinton has no narrative in 2016, Sanders does. He has pulled near even with Clinton in fundraising, still leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and draws enthusiastic large crowds.  Clinton for now has huge advantages further down the line, even if Biden enters the race. Clinton should be able to wipe out a Socialist running as a Democrat, yet her failure to do so speaks to her weaknesses and to the dangers facing a Democratic Party establishment that has too quickly endorsed a candidate who too may not be where the future of the party is.  Clinton, like Bush, is yesterday, not the future.

            Moreover, Democrats are counting too much on “demographics are destiny” in 2016.  The demographics are against Republicans and favor Democrats, but one still needs a reason to get people to vote, and they includes offering a good candidate with views that will motivate and mobilize.  Remember 2014 where we threw an election and no one voted?   Clinton lacks the buzz, Sanders may have that.  The Democratic party divide mirrors the Republican Party–establishment v outsiders, aging Boomers v Millennials.   The problem the Democrats face right now is that while demographics are destiny, the leadership is fighting this destiny both by embracing policies and candidates who might now reflect this destiny, and by a failure to construct a narrative to take advantage of that destiny.

              It is the best and worst of times for the Republicans and Democrats.  Both have the potential to change but they approach and they direction they are taking may not where history suggests they  should move.  What also may be occurring is that the divides between and within these parties reflects more powerful divides within the US across race, class, gender, region, and religion.  Lincoln may have been right in that a house divided against itself cannot stand.  The divisions that we see politically reflect broader divides found in America society, yet neither the Democrats nor Republicans seem capable at addressing  these divides.

Technically, Ted Cruz And Greg Abbott Should Be Disbarred

Today's blog appeared  on July 15, 2015  at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/ted-cruz-greg-abbott-should-be-disbarred

Technically, Ted Cruz And Greg Abbott Should Be Disbarred

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry and that states are required to issue them marriage licenses. Yet many public officials have publicly encouraged people to break the law. Among them are attorneys, such as Texas governor Greg Abbott and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. They may frame their opposition as standing up for what’s right. But according to the ethical rules of lawyers, public officials who are attorneys defying the Supreme Court by refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or encouraging others to do the same should be disbarred.

Article VI of the Constitution makes it the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court gets the final say on what the Constitution means. The Court may be wrong, and on occasion it has been, such as with slavery and the separate-but-equal doctrine. Yet until it is overturned by constitutional amendment or it reverses itself, the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Constitution are binding precedent on all lower courts and public officials. Every lawyer and law student knows this.

Public officials are entitled to express disagreement with Supreme Court decisions, but they are not free to disregard them, or encourage others to do so because they are legally and ethically bound to obey them. They are in a different position from ordinary citizens when it comes to civil disobedience and defying the Supreme Court. Individual citizens may ignore the Supreme Court on matters of conscience, but at their own legal peril. Public officials do not have this luxury. Almost all public officials, including elected, appointed, and civil service across the country take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Refusing to follow a Supreme Court ruling as a public official, especially when one takes an oath to obey it–and even more so when one is entrusted to enforce the law–is illegal. That alone limits their ability to invoke conscience as an excuse to disobey. Now add to that an additional issue: What if the public official is an attorney?

The American Bar Association designed the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to define ethical duties of attorneys. State Supreme Courts have adopted versions of the Model Rules as binding upon attorneys who practice law in their jurisdictions. Attorneys are not free to ignore them–compliance is conditioned upon being licensed to practice law–and failure to obey could result in disbarment.

In the preamble, the Model Rules declare that lawyers must “demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges.” The Model Rules state that it is permissible to disagree with court decisions, but lawyers have a duty to uphold the legal process. This includes respect for, and compliance with, Supreme Court decisions. Model Rule 3.5 admonishes an attorney not to “engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.” Rule 8.4 declares that it is professional misconduct for attorneys to violate these rules, or to commit an illegal act that reflects adversely on their fitness to practice law. Rule 1.6 prohibits attorneys from using their legal skills to help others commit or plan a crime.

For Greg Abbott, Ted Cruz, and other attorneys who are public officials, their refusal or advocacy to others to refuse to perform same-sex marriages is both illegal and unprofessional conduct. Attorneys as public officials are legally and ethically bound to comply with the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling. Their refusal to do so means they should face disciplinary action for their behavior, and other attorneys who know of their contempt for the law are required to report them.

Final Exam: Political Science 101, Introduction to Real World Politics

It’s May.  I am a political science and law professor and it is final exam time.  Here are the questions  and suggested answers to the final exam in my class Introduction to Real World Politics.   The final consists of three essay questions.


1.  Independent and self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders has officially declared he is running for president as a Democrat.  The media has declared that he cannot win.  Are they correct?

Much in the same way after Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul declared they were running for president and the mainstream press declared they could not win either the general election or even secure the party nomination, they are saying the same about Bernie Sanders.  The media says that Sanders cannot raise enough money to challenge Hilary Clinton and that she is such a frontrunner and he has positions so liberal that he cannot possibly win and that even the very idea of running seems Quixotic at best.  However, the media and the establishment has been wrong in the past.  Just seven years ago Clinton too was declared the front runner and had a lock on the Democratic nomination and then something happened–It was called Barack Obama.  Both he and John Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa and the former went on to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency...twice.
Clinton has high name recognition and a strong media presence, but she also has huge negatives.  She is well-known and will have a hard time redefining her image.  She does not have a lot of room to recreate herself.  Additionally she has yet to craft a narrative and rational for her campaign.  In effect, she is repeating so many of the mistakes she made seven years ago when the arrogance of her campaign assumed she was inevitable.
True Sanders does not have a ton of money but he has a powerful narrative about economic justice and fairness.  Sanders also appeals the disenchanted left of the Democratic party which does not like Clinton. He will not vulnerable to the criticism that he is a tool of Wall Street and instead will be able to make that argument against Clinton.  Sanders is also good one-on-one talking to people, something really valuable in Iowa and he could pull off an upset there just like Obama did in 2008.  Moreover, while Clinton then recovered and won New Hampshire, Sanders may enjoy terrific name recognition in the Granite state because he is from Vermont.  Combine an Iowa win and a great New Hampshire showing, along with a good narrative and who knows.  Yet again the media could be wrong.  Remember, the media was not only wrong with Obama in 2008, it missed it with Bill Clinton in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1976, among many other examples.


2.  The 2015 Minnesota Legislative session ends on May 18.  Do you think they will reach an agreement on a budget by then?
There is barely two weeks left in the legislative session and it is looking less and less likely that there will be a budget by then.  While in January few thought that either not passing the budget by May 18, or by July 1, to avert a government shutdown was likely, what has been most interesting to watch is how the Republicans have hardened their political and policy positions over the last few weeks.  Kurt Daudt and the Republicans have learned how to move their agenda in a coherent fashion (they have learned how to be a majority), while the Senate Democrats and Governor Dayton still seem both unable to articulate a compelling narrative to support their agenda and unable to find the political ability to work together to counteract the GOP.  The governor’s political interests are different from Senate DFLers in that he is not running for reelection while they are and potentially  are vulnerable in 2016.  Thus, their political interests are moving in different directions, thereby preventing them from uniting to oppose the House Republicans.
Many contend that the Republicans are operating in a fantasy world.  They want to make $2 billion in tax cuts (give back all of the surplus) and also spend more on rural and greater Minnesota.  That explains why their recent higher education budget hammered the UMN Twin Cities.  One cannot give away $2 billion and also spend more on greater Minnesota at the same time if one is talking about using the surplus.  That is why the GOP us also proposing other cuts to human services.
But remember that the Republicans are not the only ones living in a different dimension.  The governor and the Senate Democrats too believe that we have a surplus.  The reality again is that there is no real surplus and that between inflation and money that should be placed into contingency, that $2 is already spent.
Perhaps partisan ideology and contrasting constituencies account for many of the reasons regarding why Minnesota this year is perhaps hurling toward another budget impasse.  Yet given all the recent problems with government shutdowns, special sessions, and botched unallotments, the bigger problem is that the budget process is broken.  There are many changes that could be made to improve budgeting.  One example of a good reform would be to adopt an idea from Wisconsin.  In that state, if there is no budget adopted by the due date the current ones continues in effect.  This automatic continuing resolution if adopted in Minnesota would prevent government shutdowns and  would be a good first step in reforming the budget process.  Another good reform would be eliminating the dumb idea that inflation is not calculated for the purposes of determining state budget obligations, even though inflation is considered for the purposes of determining revenue.

3.  Will the screening out of bad racist police officers solve the shooting problems such as what we just saw in Baltimore?  What are these killings occurring?
Police shootings such as in Ferguson and now most recently in Baltimore are not just the product of a good cop/bad cop dichotomy.  By that, the assumption is that only bad cops shot unarmed civilians or racial minorities.  Find a way to screen them out and the problem is solved.  Alas, this is a simplistic solution.
Yes there is individual racism that might motivate some of these shootings, but the problem is far larger than that.  The racism found here is rooted in something larger–the social injustices of American society.  It is about the huge income and wealth gap between Black and White in America.  It is about the educational achievement gap, and it is also about the gap in the demographics of the American population and who is actually elected to office.  The core problem here really is a political economic one.  African-Americans and Latinos, for example, have largely been excluded from the  political structure in the United States and one can argue that the excessive use of political force against them is really the most direct symbol or sign of how the government and society use its power to oppress them.
But even beyond the institutional racism that may be at play here, one needs to consider other factors that may influence why so many people–and not just people of color–are shot.  Unlike in England where there are no police shootings of civilians, this country has a lot of guns in private and personal possession.  England does not.  America is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world.  We are the fantasy world of the NRA where they seem to think if everyone is armed like in the good old wild west of yesterdays then everyone will be able to protect oneself or others.  Guns deter them seem to believe.  They have forgotten though that the old days of the west were violent, and that is what happens when you have guns–people use them, or at least there is a fear that they will be used.  I can appreciate the fear of police who approach people whom they do not know whether they are armed or not.
But yet another issue here is the nature of policing.  Policing is not about roughing up people–it is about interpersonal skills, communications, and problem solving.  Policing now requires  skills more closely approximating negotiator and not a solder.  Yet too often police are badly or ill-trained.  Minnesota has some of the most stringent educational and training requirements for police in the country. Elsewhere across the USA a simple high school degree lets any Barney Fife put on a badge and carry a gun.  The skill of policing is in learning how not to use force, yet that has been forgotten by politicians whose message and arming of police over the last 50 years has been one emphasizing a war mentality.
What all this means is that the political economic exclusion of people of color from the political process, along with a society with too many guns and often bad police training may better explain than individual racism why so many shootings occur.

Orthodox Republicanism after Eric Cantor

David Brat’s defeat of Eric Cantor should comfort neither establishment Republicans nor Democrats.  His victory portends threats to both parties.  For Republicans, it suggests a continued ideological divide, for Democrats, a vital threat in 2014 to the electoral prospects.

Until Brat’s victory, many declared dead the Tea Party insurgency within the Republican Party.  But the Tea Party is more than simply a group of people or a fringe organization.  It is an attitude and ideology. The Tea Party movement, with language describing some GOP members as RINOS (Republican in Name Only), questions the ideology and political views of party, raising the question:  What is orthodox Republicanism today?

The contemporary battle for the Republican orthodoxy begins in 1964 when Barry Goldwater challenged the Rockefeller wing for dominance.  Goldwater’s “Extremism in defense of liberty” speech was a repudiation of New Deal accommodation that Eisenhower, Jacob Javits, and the Nelson 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 conservativism.  The former requires a minimalist state protecting individual choice, the later 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 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, whatever it meant, 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 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.”

Palin is toast, but her spirit lives on. 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.  But Palinism is also built on what historian Richard Hofstadter labeled the paranoid style in American politics.  It is a anti-intellectual world view nurtured in fear–a fear that outside forces are threatening a way of life that includes faith in Christianity, capitalism, and the Constitutionalism.  This paranoid style, incubated in the Puritan theology of the seventeenth century as described by Perry Miller in his classic 1956 Errand into the Wilderness, was premised upon a theory of uncertainty of salvation, fear of evil, and the omnipresent threat of outsiders who were not part of the church and community.  For Hofstadter and Miller, the paranoid style of fear and prejudice produced notable events such as the Salem Witch Hunts and McCarthyism.

Puritanism and the paranoid ethos both contain an orthodoxy and powerful internal contradictions. Both believe in the righteous and absolute certainty of their truths and in a demonification of challengers.  Both eschew reason for fear, and both necessitate a strong state to suppress evil and  preserve God and American values, even at the expense of freedom for some.  Facts are not important–they stand in the way of truth.   Liberals and MSNBC commentators fail to understand the Tea Party world view.  It is a new orthodoxy that goes right to the heart of politics, asking and questioning the most basic question, “Why government?”

This new orthodoxy draws its roots from this Puritanism and paranoid style .  But it is driven less so from the pulpit than by Fox news, conservative talk radio, and blogs in search of profits and ratings.  Tea Partyism is less a coherent ideology or world view than it has yielded a paranoid attitude mixed in with a branding effort to make money.  It is a brand built on populist anger, anti-government feelings, opposition to immigration, gays, abortion, Democrats, and anything else that inspires fear, so long as it sells.

The new orthodoxy has two wings–The libertarianism of Rand Paul committed to some type of libertarianism, and the Ted Cruz populist politics.  While both revolve around less government and less taxes, they differ on civil liberties and the role of the US in the world.  Whatever their anti-governmentism is, their views and that of many Tea Party members are hypocritical.  Yes less government and taxes, but still I deserve my Social Security check and Medicare because I deserve it, others do not.  There is also a hypocrisy in that the areas of the country that most strongly espouse  anti-government views are the ones with the greatest poverty, uninsured, lower per capita incomes, and the greatest percentage of money coming to their states from the federal government.  Less government for thee, not me.
   
So what orthodox Republicanism now?   Tea Party GOP rebranding is a multi-media cult of personality 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 what orthodox Republicanism is, the marketing of a politics of fear.

For all of the contradictions within the new Republican orthodoxy, Democrats should not take comfort.  Yes such a new orthodoxy threats to split the Republican Party, sending them further to the right, putting them out of sync with the median voter, and thereby making it more difficult for them to win elections.   But this might only matter with national presidential elections.  As Democrats saw in 2010, turnout is lower in non-presidential elections years, benefitting Republicans.  What the Tea Party brings to the Republicans is passion–passion is essential to electoral success. Passionate candidates and voter win.  Democrats have little passion going for them in local races in non-presidential election years.  Moreover, today as it was back in 2010, Democrats lack a narrative to counteract the Tea Party.  Four years the Democrats ether lacked a narrative, or simply said the Tea Party was nuts, or they simply expected them to self-implode.  They are taking the same road again this year, perhaps with equally disastrous results.

The new Republican orthodoxy is the child of Obama–has taken up the banner of “change” and it  is using their narrative, also with fear, to advance an agenda that challenges the mainstream of both the Republican and Democratic parties