What’s in a name?

Incumbents hold a number of advantages over their challengers.  They have policy records. They’ve demonstrated that they are electable. They can provide constituent services from helping grease the wheels of a sclerotic bureaucracy for stymied constituents to offering condolences in times of tragedies and congratulations for sporting championships and similar accomplishments.  Perhaps most importantly, voters recognize their name when they enter the polling booth. They are well known.  And name recognition matters. Cognitive short cuts like party identification and the confident proclamations of news commentators serve as lighthouses in a sea of unanchored opinions, and tidbits of information (See Chapter 11). A name works similarly.  Recognizing a name on the ballot–even if you cannot place from where you know it–is a signal that the candidate is not a nobody.  But in some cases a name may not only bring up past accomplishments but also well-documented shortcomings.

Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford attempts to resurrect his political career today by winning the congressional seat last held by Tim Scott who was appointed to the Senate following the midterm retirement of Jim Demint.  Casual observers of politics may remember Mark Sanford as the governor who was caught in a web of lies covering up an extramarital affair. The house of cards came tumbling down when what he claimed to be a long weekend hiking the Appalachian Trail was in fact a clandestine flight to South America to see his Argentinean mistress. (A investigative reporter was waiting for him at the airport upon his return.)

Sanford’s republican credentials in the strongly conservative congressional district would normally be enough to beat out a Democratic challenger.  But Sanford’s scandal as governor, and more recently allegations of wrongdoing by his ex-wife, make the outcome far less certain.  Making the outcome even more uncertain is the fact that the Democrat in the race owns a recognizable last name like the putative incumbent Sanford. Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert, and a considerably more serious personality shares many of the same dilemmas with her last name as Governor Sanford does with his.

Both last names should be recognized by large numbers of voters, which is positive. For each politician’s base supporters that name should serve as a clear signal of their ideological bona fides. But for moderate voters and poorly informed voters the names may serve as a turnoff if they bring to mind Appalachian Trail antics and the Stephen Colbert’s absurdity. For now the polls show Sanford and Colbert-Busch to be neck-and-neck.

One person one vote?

The New York Times’ recent examination of the disproportionate power held by senators from small states confirmed something that is widely recognized amongst political scientists.

“… Professor Dahl has calculated the difference between the local government unit with the most voting power and that with the least. The smallest ratio, 1.5, was in Austria, while in Belgium, Spain, India, Germany, Australia and Canada the ratio was never higher than 21 to 1. In this country, the ratio between Wyoming’s representation and California’s is 66 to 1.”

We recall from Logic of American Politics [Chapter 1] the Great Compromise between large (Virginia Plan) and small states (New Jersey Plan) at the Constitutional Convention stipulated that the lower chamber (House of Representatives) would be proportional to a state’s population while in the Senate each state would have two members.  The myriad consequences of this skewed representation toward smaller states extend from greater recession relief in Obama’s first term stimulus bill to formulas for federal grant that carve out special consideration for small states to delayed and failed ratification of environmental treaties.

While the Supreme Court found in Gideon v. Wainwright that states senate seats must be allocated according to population (and not geography) no such rule exists for the U.S. Senate.  In fact, as Article 5 of the Constitution explicitly states: “No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

One person one vote? Not necessarily.

Sequester

Now that the budget sequester deadline has officially passed Congress faces the reality of what it feels like to cut certain government programs.  White House tours are no more; Yellowstone National Park is opening later this year because it can’t afford to plow the roads;  schools on Indian Reservations and military bases are due to close.

By radically changing the status quo policy, the Budget Sequester has also opened a door for Congress to selectively restore current spending levels for certain accounts in upcoming legislation.  Depending on your ideological viewpoint this may be good or a not so good.  House Republicans recently unveiled a Continuing Resolution (CR) that appropriates money to be spent over the next six months.  Typically a CR simply maintains the funding levels for each account already on the books.  This occurs because the status quo spending levels often represent an equilibrium in the ideological tug-of-war between the two parties.

In the recent CR proposal, however, the House Republicans eliminated cuts to certain military accounts made in the Budget Sequester.  The Sequester packaged these defense cuts Republicans found unsavory with cuts to social programs Democrats disliked.  By restoring just the defense spending House Republicans are strategically setting the agenda.  Democrats may neither like the Sequester defense spending level or the CR defense spending level, but if forced to choose between the two they would prefer the least bad option.  In this case, that’s probably the CR spending level.  

The real problem is House Republicans and Senate Democrats have opposite priorities. While the House Republicans are trying to restore defense spending in the CR, we would similarly expect Senate Democrats to restore spending for social programs.  The Budget Sequester linked these together to keep both sides bonded to the deficit reduction plan.  But now that these accounts can be changed individually the real preferences of Congress will be revealed.

Going Public in the 21st Century

Chapter 7 in Logic of American Politics on the Presidency explains how presidents over the last century have engaged “in intensive public relations to promote the president’s policies to the voters and thereby induce cooperation from other elected officeholders in Washington.”  This is known as “Going Public”, and the strategy can be clearly seen as far back as President Theodore Roosevelt who spoke of using the “bully pulpit” to rally public support.

A recent article from Politico makes the case that the current Obama Administration has taken the practice a step further by utilizing new technologies and social networks.

“One authentically new technique pioneered by the Obama White House is extensive government creation of content (photos of the president, videos of White House officials, blog posts written by Obama aides), which can then be instantly released to the masses through social media. They often include footage unavailable to the press….[A White House press secretary went on to say] ‘The goal is not to satisfy the requester, but doing what is necessary to get into people’s homes and communicate your agenda to the American people.’”

This particular article is less focused on the Obama Administration’s going public for specific pieces of legislation.  Rather the attention is paid to how the President is increasingly less reliant on using the White House press corps to disseminate his message.  In the past when Presidents went public to turn the tides of legislativ debate they needed to hold press conferences or public rallies. In order for this to be effective the press corp covering the President had to relay the news event to the public  in a manner reflecting the President’s aims.  With new technologies the Obama Administration can more effectively circumvent the tough questions good reporters might ask by spreading their message via different channels that go directly to the American public.

One clear example raised in the article is how the Administration selectively releases photos taken by its own photographer to reinforce the President’s message (e.g. not a radical on gun policy, engaging the business community during the recent tax debate).  Another new technology exploited by the current Administration is its large committed volunteer list.  Fitting directly into the argument that going public continues to be a key strategy in the 21st century, President Obama’s reelection organization (Organizing For America) was retooled (Organizing for Action) to directly support his legislative priorities. Rather than relying on the media to report on the President’s activities and hope this spurs supporters into action, the modern White House can reach out to its most likely supporters directly.

Executive Order

Yesterday President Obama released a series of recommendations to address gun violence in the United States.  Included as part of these recommendations were a set of  23 executive actions that include initiating research on gun violence, steps to strengthen the existing background-check system, and provide school officials training for handling emergency shootings.

Only in the last century have presidents maintained the Constitution (See Appendix 3) provides them the right to issue executive orders.  Article II Section 3 of the Constitution gives the president the power to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Under this authority a president may issue executive orders that ensure certain policies are carried out.  In the case of the list of executive actions taken by President Obama, most appear to give substance and force to existing statutes, or more minimally, to clarify the intent of previous administrative rules and legislation.

As Chapter 7 of Logic of American Politics discusses, executive orders have the force of law until Congress nullifies it, a federal court rules that it violates the Constitution or existing law, or when the president’s successor retracts it. Such executive actions were uncommon until the twentieth century.

 

Laboratories of Partisanship

State governments are frequently referred to as laboratories of democracy. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis popularized the idea in a 1932 dissenting opinion:

“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Where Justice Brandeis may have seen just a single courageous state passing innovative policy, the current political configuration in states across the country should allow for many states to pass legislation unfettered by minority party opposition. Beginning in 2012 one party will hold both legislative chambers and the governor’s office in 37 states. Republicans will control 24; Democrats, 13. This is the largest number of states with politically united governments in 60 years.  While House Republicans and Senate Democrats are bound to slow and temper one another’s policy agendas on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, single party dominance in the statehouse is likely to produce a wellspring of policy innovations. 

The catch, however, is that these policy innovations are also likely to be deeply partisan.  Because they do not need minority party support we should expect legislation passed by California Democrats and Alabama Republicans, for example, to reflect the far ends of the political spectrum.

We know from Chapter 3 of Logic that the national government frequently employs grants and mandates to shape state policies.  This nationalization of state policy may temper partisan policymaking in the states. For example the exact form of landmark legislation, such as Obama’s health care reform, will be shaped by provisions rewarding and punishing states for adopting certain policy changes.  But with increased partisan polarization in the states comes the chance that these carrots and sticks may altogether be rejected, further apart policy differences between states. 

 

The Rulemakers

When the Affordable Care Act (more commonly known as Obamacare) passed in the spring of 2010 Democrats controlled all three lawmaking bodies–the House, Senate, and Presidency.  In spite of this apparent monopoly on lawmaking power many of the details of Obamacare were left unwritten.  Given the staggering scope of the law, leaders of Congressional Democrats feared that drafting language for how each provision should be implemented would be unwieldily and could tear apart their coalition of progressive and moderate Democrats.  

But simply delegating bureaucratic agents to write the details of the law is not without risk. Chapter 8 of Logic of American Politics on Bureaucracy details how leaving the rule writing to the bureaucracy creates the potential for the risk of agency loss, whether from hidden action (the principal cannot observe what agents are doing) or hidden information (agents know things the principal does not).

This Washington Post article details the deluge of health care rules many expect to be announced in the coming weeks.  Many of the most important aspects of the new healthcare law are dependent on these rules from public insurance exchanges to new reimbursement  methods for hospitals and doctors that treat patients.  Interestingly, these rule writers in agencies may be strategically writing rules dependent on the post-election landscape.

The [Office of Management and Budget] Web site shows that three rules — on exchanges, the health insurance market and wellness programs— were submitted by HHS to OMB days after the election.

Perhaps knowing that the next president was not one who would to abolish the law on their first day in office, as Republican nominee Romney vowed, led the bureaucratic rule writers choose rule that would be more durable in the foreseen political landscape. At the very least we know in this particular case that the final drafts were not submitted to OMB by the agencies until after the election results were known. 

 

Election Aftermath

With the dust now settled on the 2012 elections, what changes may we expect from the current historically unproductive congress?  After all, the Republicans maintained their majority in the House, losing only a few seats, while Democrats comfortably won the White House and Senate. Should the same configuration produce the same sort of gridlock? Or will something change?

Recent statements by Speaker Boehner and House Republicans suggest there is some newfound willingness to consider President Obama’s overtures on debt reduction bargains.  Why the change in tone? For one, not only did Republicans lose numbers in both the House and Senate they are dealing with a President they know will be around for another four years.

In their Saturday addresses, the president demanded immediate House passage of a bill approved by the Senate that would extend the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for households earning under $250,000, while the speaker said raising tax rates on anyone would be unacceptable.  But beneath the posturing, both men were keeping open avenues of negotiation. Mr. Obama was careful to call for more revenue, not higher tax rates, a demand that could be fulfilled by ending or limiting tax deductions and credits, a path Mr. Boehner has accepted.

Speaker Boehner may have the best interests of the Republican party in mind in forging ahead with the President, having seen that Congressional obstinacy fails to provide large enough electoral benefits to expand his party’s influence.  Whether his most partisan caucus members follow him depend equally large on how likely continued gridlock portends for their electoral future.

The Price of Victory

By most popular accounts, yesterday’s presidential election ended one of the most expensive campaign seasons in the history of democratic politics.  Indeed, when you factor in all the special interest groups, the Super Pacs, and the prodigious fundraising efforts by the candidates’ campaigns some estimate that nearly $4 billion was spent this election.  

The reality is that $4 billion is nothing. Well, it’s certainly not nothing, but when you control for inflation the amount of spending in this presidential election pales in comparison to that of the Gilded Age of American politics at the turn of the twentieth century.   This graph from a recent Atlantic article shows just how much more was spent in the 1896 election than in any other before or since.  

And the reason for the spike in campaign spending? A threat to end the gold standard:

Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan famously wanted to stop crucifying mankind, or at least the economy, on a cross of gold — that is, he wanted a bimetallic money standard. The economics were on his side. The 1890s were the heyday of the gold standard, but also the heyday of deflation and depression. The economy was in recession more often than not between 1873 and 1896 for a painfully simple reason — there wasn’t enough money. . . by 1896 prices were 30 percent lower than 24 years earlier. A stronger dollar, which is just another way of saying falling prices, was good news for creditors and bad news for debtors. Lenders got paid back with dollars that were worth more than when they made their loans, and vice versa for borrowers.

Court Protection of Civil Rights

Last week a U.S. appeals court in New York ruled that gays and lesbians are a minority group that deserve special protection from discrimination under the Constitution.  This LA Times article discusses how the New York court is one of several that have now stated the Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 is unconstitutional.  However, the New York court ruling is unique in that it is the first to rule that gays and lesbians are a minority group akin to women or racial minorities that deserve special protection by the law.

The ruling underscores the importance of equality of economic opportunity in advancing U.S. protection of civil rights. In Chapter 4 of the Logic of American Politics on Civil Rights we find that the civil rights movement was most successful when proponents protested against the unequal political and economic status of minority classes.  Similarly, this New York Appeals court case centers around the unequal treatment of an 83-year-old widow, who had to pay $363,000 in federal estate taxes after the death of her spouse because under federal law they were not legally married. Had the U.S. government recognized New York state law, where the couple was legally married at the time of the spouse’s death, the widow would not have had to pay the estate tax.  By focusing on the unequal economic consequences of the Defense of Marriage Act, current gay rights activists are pursuing a course of action taken several decades ago by racial minorities during the civil rights movement.