Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Q Day 4: Springsteen and the Dems

Cobly asked three great questions about parties, and I wish I could get to them all, but he hooked me for sure with this one:
I know how he would answer this, but is Bruce Springsteen a member of the Democratic Party? I don't mean what his political beliefs are, those are clear. I mean does he fit into the broad definition of political parties, the networks and coalitions of people invested in the party's success even if they don't hold an office or a staffing job?
OK, first of all, there's the question of whether he's a Democrat in the old sense of "party in the electorate." For that, I think what matters is behavior: if one generally votes for Democratic candidates, then for all practical purposes one is a Democrat in this sense. Whether we want to call party identifiers who are just voters "members" of the party is, once you get that far, just a semantic question.

But what I think the question is getting at -- and what I think is more interesting, really, is about what I've taken to calling "party actors." And for that, I think the answer is probably a qualified yes (given that I really don't know what Springsteen actually does in overtly political terms, beyond appearing at big rallies during presidential campaigns).

To back up: American political parties in the active sense, in the sense that they do things and have positions and the like, are composed of party actors who fall into several categories: formal party staff and officials; politicians; activists; campaign and governing staff, including party-aligned consultants; party-aligned interest groups; and the partisan press.

Where does Springsteen fit in? He's obviously not, say, executive director of the New Jersey Democratic Party (a formal party organization). Nor is he a staffer for any Democratic candidate or New Jersey governor, or a legislative assistant for Robert Menendez. So we can think of him as an a particular type of activist.

We might, also, think of his music and whether that qualifies him as...I don't know. Partisan press? Not really. But perhaps, or perhaps we need another category for ideas and symbols at that level...not the policy level, but a more abstract one.

That is: if that's what he's really doing. There's a bit of a factual question here that I don't know about -- does Springsteen get involved in primary elections at all? Does he attempt to influence the party at the issue level, and if so is he actually influential?As an activist, is he in the subgroup that donates substantial chunks of money? Does he personally lobby Democratic politicians on issues he cares about? If so, does he do it in some organized fashion through some extension of the party network, or does he really do it alone, as a celebrity?

But of course we don't need to just ask these questions about one particular celebrity. Once we understand that an informal party network is important, we need to ask it of everyone within that network (indeed, we need to ask it of people within the formal party structure, too; there are cases, perhaps many of them, in which the formal party merely performs some fairly menial duties and all the real action is elsewhere). There's no assumption, at least for me, that either the different components of this expanded party are equally important, or that people within them will have equal influence, or that any of it will stay the same over time.

Q Day 3: Massachusetts Romney?

Another anonymous commenter asks:

What do you think would have been the result of the 2012 presidential election if Romney had campaigned on his record?
* Said that he did his job of creating wealth for stock holders at Bain even though people lost jobs and that he would do his job of president to get more people working.
* Stood behind Romneycare.
* I think he was for cap-and-trade before running for president.
* Proposed tax policies that actually added up.
It's an important question because it has a clear, certain answer: that Romney could not have been nominated by the 2012 Republican Party. He would have been knocked out, receiving Hunstsman-level support if that, depending on whether "campaigned on his record" meant only those things or extended to guns and abortion.

A candidate Romney who flipped (back) on these things after winning the nomination by sticking to the GOP platform would have risked a horrible mess...some Republicans would have stuck with him, but the odds are very strong of a major, debilitating party revolt, with Romney reduced to winning Utah and maybe a handful of others.

I'll add one more. Forgetting about the specific issues, what about a supremely skilled candidate Romney who was able to fully pull off the "moderate technocrat" image that was his best bet? My guess is that at best it gets him a couple of points, leaving him still a solid loser. Indeed, I haven't looked post-election but in the fall if I recall correctly his reputation among voters was, indeed, moderate technocrat. The bottom line is that the out-party candidate's image just doesn't matter very much in presidential elections when there's an incumbent on the ballot.

But the key thing here is that parties really are not going to nominate someone who opposes their consensus positions. Just not going to happen. And the 2012 position on health care, taxes, and climate didn't allow for Romney to deviate at all.

Q Day 2: Major Change Coming?

Ron E. asks:
What do you think the prospects are for major changes to our Constitutional system? For instance term limits for (Supreme Court) judges, abolition of the electoral college, an Amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow campaign finance legislation, the ERA, etc.? You don't have to comment on each of these individual items, but I'm interested in if you think there is any possibility of changes at least as radical as these taking place anytime soon.
Thanks to partisan polarization, it's very, very difficult to see any changes by Constitutional amendment happening any time soon. Probably the least unlikely would be the electoral college...it's vaguely possible for me to imagine circumstances in which the status quo becomes so overwhelmingly unpopular that switching to a plurality vote becomes viable, with perhaps the state-by-state folks succeeding enough that it puts pressure on Congress to act. But I'd put that one at below 10% chance over 20 years.

However, that doesn't mean big change couldn't happen. Many of the big changes have happened without Constitutional amendment: the McGovern-Fraser reform of the presidential nomination system after 1968 (and subsequent institutionalization in the 1980s); the reform of the House of Representatives from 1958-1975, changing it from a decentralized committee-run chamber into a much more centralized party-run body; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The obvious big one on the horizon is the Senate, which is well into a cycle of change (towards obstruction) that appears highly unstable.

What else? I think it depends on the future of the GOP, which I have no prediction for at all. Suppose the GOP continues more or less as it is, or even gets more dysfunctional; it's easy to imagine it winning big in some election cycle and implementing major changes to the system of some kind. On the other hand, it's possible to imagine a GOP that reforms itself and marginalizes the crazies; that opens up a whole different set of potential coalitions.

Do major demographic changes count? It's possible to see big changes happening on immigration, I suppose, and that could changes lots of things.

Not sure what else in the short or medium term horizon.

Q Day 1: The 2016 Nomination Process

An anonymous commenter asks:
Do you foresee any meaningful rules changes occurring for the 2016 primaries and what impact on the nomination process do you think they would have?
I doubt that anything significant will happen with the formal rules. Republicans, I suspect, will follow up on tightening the link between votes and delegates, making them a bit more like the Democrats in that regard; this part of the process has always been a bit murky to me, so I don't want to predict much about how successful the change will be. And it's not likely to matter a whole lot to nomination outcomes, although if we do ever get a seriously close nomination fight, it certainly could matter how it's resolved.

Beyond that, the most important changes will probably be within the current rules. One is that there are always shifts in the calendar, and they may have some effect; that's more or less impossible to predict at this stage. I think Democrats especially will fight hard to retain their four early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina), but whether they'll be successful is hard to know. The other "change" of note is that it will be the second cycle run under the current (almost) anything goes campaign finance regime, and the first for the Democrats. How will that affect things? Hard to say! But it's safe to guess that the folks who do that stuff will have another round of innovative practices, assuming that there are still areas in the current law available to exploit. My guess is that it won't be a very big deal, but that's just a guess.

As always, while I do pay a fair amount of attention to these issues, all those interested in it should be reading Josh Putnam.

Question Day

Wow, it hasn't been question day around here for ages. Today should be a good day for it, I think (among other things, I have to run over to the airport...the eldest daughter, after a very nice gap semester, is setting off for college. Yikes!).

Anyway: it's on. Leave your questions in comments below, or email them, or via twitter, and I'll get to as many as I can. Whatever you have: filibuster, the new Congress, the next round of presidential elections, the HOF vote, anything. Apologies in advance if I don't get to yours -- and while I don't always get to it, I try at the end of the day to quickly run through the ones I didn't write about and do a one or two sentence response in comments here. But for now, ask away.

Read Stuff, You Should

Happy Birthday to Albert Pujols, 33. He's so good that he was able to do something that only the Panda and a couple of other guys could do.

And just a little good stuff:

1. Barack Obama doesn't take questions from the press corps very often. Donovan Slack has the story, with numbers from Martha Kumar.

2. Really good reporting and analysis from David S. Bernstein (yeah, I know, but I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true) on field-clearing and the Massachusetts Democrats.

3. An nice slideshow explaining filibusters, from Newsbound. I wish they would put less emphasis on "silent," and also wish that they didn't treat cloture votes as the One True Measure of filibusters, but still it's nice work.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

If It's Always a Crisis...

Philip Klein has been urging Republicans to act sensibly on the debt limit, but I'm going to have to call him out on this one:
[I]t’s undeniable that Obama’s first term sent a clear message. For Obama to agree to cut spending, there needs to be a crisis. If Republicans don’t use crises as leverage, Obama will make lofty statements about deficit reduction without actually doing anything about it.
Now, never mind that Klein here equates "deficit reduction" (which Obama has strongly supported by advocating tax increases) with "cut spending." He's pretty clearly interested mainly in the latter, so we'll stick with that.

If Klein's point is just that Obama's main priority is not to slash spending, then that's fine. And Obama's first two years are, I agree, good evidence that if he could get his way on everything, he wouldn't be cutting spending overall -- although, as Klein acknowledges, he might cut spending on some things (along with tax increases) as part of a way of increasing spending on others. But, yes: I think there's an excellent case that those liberals who have convinced themselves that Obama's ultimate preference is to cut federal spending, including Medicare and Social Security, are wrong.

But as far as House Republican strategy is concerned, I'm afraid Klein's analysis won't wash.

The problem is an obvious one: lack of variation in the independent variable. That is, as soon as the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, they've lurched from one crisis to another; there's never been a time when they didn't force a crisis and try to negotiate the regular way.

In their defense, it's pretty normal for all negotiations to go down to the last minute, or at least close to it, or at least it has been since at least the 1980s. Still, it's hard to deny that House Republicans have been embracing the crisis in order to win concessions from Barack Obama, whether the crisis has been a government shutdown, the debt limit, or a sequestration. There has not been, for example, an example of Republicans passing routine continuing resolutions to keep the government going at current levels while Obama repeatedly refuses to budge on his preferences.

So, yeah, I think that Klein is right that giving his druthers, Barack Obama isn't really looking to cut government spending below current levels. But there's no evidence at all that it takes a crisis to get Obama to negotiate.

Who links to my website?