"It's Even Worse than It Looks"

[rubato]

I wish I had the day off:

________________________
http://igs.berkeley.edu/show_news.php

Please join us Friday, May 18 at noon in the IGS library (109 Moses Hall), for a special session of the Research Workshop on American Politics with authors Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein. As always lunch will be served.
Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institution, have observed Washington politics for more than 40 years — and they're acclaimed for their carefully nonpartisan positions.
Now, they say, Congress is more dysfunctional than it has been since the Civil War, and they know who to blame.
"One of the two major parties, the Republican Party, has become an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition," they write in their new book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks, How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism.
Books will be on sale at the event. To read more about their findings in advance please see their Washington Post editorial introducing the book, or check out the excerpt available from NPR.
________________________


yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The first part of the editorial:
___________________________________
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

What happened? Of course, there were larger forces at work beyond the realignment of the South. They included the mobilization of social conservatives after the 1973Roe v. Wade decision, the anti-tax movement launched in 1978 by California’s Proposition 13, the rise of conservative talk radio after a congressional pay raise in 1989, and the emergence of Fox News and right-wing blogs. But the real move to the bedrock right starts with two names: Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

... see link for the rest.
_____________________________

[Sue U]

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy.

"Center-left"???? Please, by any rational standard the Democratic Party adheres to a center-rght or centrist philosophy at best, especially over the last 35 years; the DLC saw to that pretty effectively. The rightward drift of American politics since the end of the Vietnam War has wiped out any meaningful representation of the "left" entirely, while similarly exterminating any moderates remaining in the Republican Party.

[Lord Jim]

Well Sue, I know this is going to surprise you, but my take is somewhat different...

While it's true that the center of political gravity has moved to the right in this country since the 60's (there's a good reason for this...you may recall the chart from the Gallup organization that I've posted several times that shows that for some decades now, on a regular basis about twice as many people consistently identify themselves as "conservative" as identify themselves as "liberal" ; about 40% to 20%...of course this is just because people are too ignorant and/or stupid to know what's good for them )

However, that having been said, the current membership of the Democratic congressional caucus is the furthest to the left since the post Watergate Congress elected in 1974.

The reason for this is because of the huge number of moderate, and moderate/conservative Democratic House members that were defeated in the last election cycle. (the ones that walked the plank for Obama and Pelosi on stuff like "cap and tax" in districts where these types of things were extremely unpopular with the voters)

To provide just one yardstick, nearly half of the current Demo House membership belongs to the "Progressive Caucus" (less than a quarter of the GOP members belong to the Tea Party Caucus, though of course their success has had a depressing affect on may of the others.)

[Big RR]

Absolutely Sue; I think the big problem is that the repubs define "left" as anything less conservative than their most reactionary members.

[Lord Jim]

Well, I think the problem may be that Sue is defining as "right" anyone even slightly to the right of Michael Harrington....

[Big RR]

Jim--how many people accused of being "left" or "liberal" by pundits/politicians with a penchant for doing so would have been called the same in 80s, let alone the 60s or 70s? Not many I can think of.

[Sue U]

Jim, what happened to Christie Whitman, Tom Kean, William Weld, Dick Thornburgh, Chris Shays and Mike Castle, for example? The GOP will never see another Millicent Fenwick in our lifetimes.

[Big RR]

Sue, you're right, but Whitman shifted her politics when she got in the EPA.

[Lord Jim]

Well, I'll agree with you to this extent, Big RR....(and Sue)

Some folks in Tea Party/Palin faction of the party (and those pundits who identify with them) have definitely gone overboard in terms of who they tag as being "liberals"...(Geez, some of those dudes and dudettes are even calling Orin Hatch a "liberal" fercrissakes.... )

You definitely have some hardcore types who are on some sort of politically nihilistic ideological purification crusade...

But while they are quite noisy, and get a lot of press attention, (and have some influence beyond their numbers because their success in knocking off incumbents in low-turnout primaries has really got a lot of GOP politicians who ordinarily would be more reasonable badly spooked.) I don't believe those folks are representative of the party as a whole...

[Big RR]

Jim--I agree that they probably don't represent the party as a whole, but it's far easier to characterize Bill Clinton or Obama as a "liberal" when you let them set the defintion than if you use the definition from even 15 years ago.

[dgs49]

Only in a forum like this could such claptrap be seriously considered.

Let's consider a few of the major political movements of the past couple decades.

In the 1990's, a strong BI-PARTISAN majority in Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was signed by a Democrat President. Now the President and VP both come out in support of gay "marriage" (ignoring the overriding issue of Federalism), in direct contravention with prevailing federal law. And the political Right is lambasted with all sorts of epithets ("bigot," "homophobe") for basically taking public positions that are consistent with current federal law. And we are told that it's the Repubicans who are becoming "more extreme." When the concepts embedded in DOMA are put to a vote in the various states, those who vote to uphold them (a strong majority of the population, by the way) are condemned as being "partisan."

Shortly after the election of WJC, it was proposed that the U.S. implement some sort of a national health insurance requirement, basically patterned after the state requirements for auto liability insurance - basic coverage for everyone, with a mandate for those who refuse or neglect to participate. Although it failed the political battle, the CONCEPT had considerable bi-partisan support (as it would today), and was actually endorsed by the Heritage Foundation. Now we have a national mandate, not for BASIC health insurance, but for mandatory coverage of even ridiculously routine medical expenses including - symbolically - birth control pills - an expense so routine that it has no business in ANY health insurance coverage, let alone a mandatory package. Resistance to this totally-unprecendented, perverse, and unconstitutional scheme is said to be based on nothing more than Republican "partisanship."

In the 1980's and 90's there was a national, bi-partisan consensus that immigration must be controlled, and a system of various kinds of visas, quotas, and so forth were written into the law by a bi-partisan majority in Congress. Now we have Democrat politicians using descriptors like, "racist," "bigot," "Anti-immigration zealot," to describe people who merely favor ENFORCING THE EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS of the United States. Anyone not favoring amnesty (in violation of U.S. law) is just being "partisan." Anyone who fights giving illegal aliens the full panoply of benefits of U.S. citizens and citizens of the various states is just being "partisan." We are told that it is the political Right that has changed its position on immigration.

Over the past 30 years, the U.S. Senate, in bi-partisan and unanimamous fashion, has consistently REJECTED the Kyoto protocols and refused to ratify that treaty, based on a unanimous consensus that it would severely stifle U.S. economic growth for little or no benefit to the climate or otherwise. Now we have a Presidential Administration that is, bit by bit, seeking to impose carbon caps on the U.S. - and particularly on coal-fired power plants (our most efficient power source) - by manipulation of environmental regulations, and suppressing the issuance of various sorts of permits. People fighting his usurpation of power are "partisan," and it's the Republicans who have changed their position to be more extreme.

And on and on. The Left keeps getting loonier, the Right tries to maintain the status quo, and the source of the problem is the "extremists" on the Right. Total, absolute bullshit.

But I could be wrong, of course, I'd be interested to read some examples of issues on which the Republicans have moved further to the political right over the past few decades, and the Democrats are trying to preserve the traditional viewpoint. I'm not holding my breath for the examples.

I respectfully disagree with Lord Jim's assessment of the political trends in this country. As the political class moves more and more to the Left, the average citizen is forced to reconsider his own self-assessment of his political views. Not so long ago, people who would support things like voter ID laws, fiscal responsibility, restraining the growth of government, and traditional marriage, could consider themselves to be in the political "center." Now, with the Democrats having gone so far to the left, many people who used to consider themselves moderate recognize that their views are far to the right of the President and the liberals in Congress. So they now identify as "conservative."

[oldr_n_wsr]

Please join us Friday, May 18 at noon in the IGS library (109 Moses Hall), for a special session of the Research Workshop on American Politics with authors Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein.

Wanna trade?, here on LI, we have "Snooki" at a book signing this friday.

ETA
I stilll haven't figured out what a "Snooki" is. Something to do with New Jersey

[Sue U]

I stilll haven't figured out what a "Snooki" is. Something to do with New Jersey

Absolutely nothing to do with New Jersey, I assure you. That thing is a New York creation.

[Andrew D]

Yes, the Republicans are the problem. In the past four decades, the Republicans have moved (at least) twice as far to the right as the Democrats have moved to the left. Democratic Presidents have tended to take positions in line with the ideological center of the Democratic party, whereas Republican Presidents have tended (with notable exceptions) to take positions in line with the extreme ideological right of the Republican party.

There is an interesting article here which says, in part:

[ T]he more challenging question ... is how the parties’ positions have shifted over time.

The authors of DW-Nominate argue that their system can be used to address this question. At their Web site, and in books like “Ideology and Congress”, they argue that the preferences of individual legislators are relatively stable across time, so shifts in the ideological preferences of Congress can be measured by how newly elected legislators vote as compared to the old ones.

According to the system, both parties have been on a trajectory toward more “extreme” positions since roughly 1970, the natural result of which is more polarization. However, the parties do not quite share equal responsibility for this: Republicans have moved about twice as much to the right as Democrats have to the left. Also, while the Democrats’ leftward shift was essentially a one-off event, the result of many moderate, Southern Democrats losing their seats in the early 1990s, the Republicans’ rightward transition has been continuous and steady.



The authors of DW-Nominate argue that their system can be used to address this question. At their Web site, and in books like “Ideology and Congress”, they argue that the preferences of individual legislators are relatively stable across time, so shifts in the ideological preferences of Congress can be measured by how newly elected legislators vote as compared to the old ones.

According to the system, both parties have been on a trajectory toward more “extreme” positions since roughly 1970, the natural result of which is more polarization. However, the parties do not quite share equal responsibility for this: Republicans have moved about twice as much to the right as Democrats have to the left. Also, while the Democrats’ leftward shift was essentially a one-off event, the result of many moderate, Southern Democrats losing their seats in the early 1990s, the Republicans’ rightward transition has been continuous and steady.



By contrast, there has been no consistent pattern among Democratic presidents. Mr. Obama, according to the system, rates as being slightly more conservative than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy, but slightly more liberal than Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman — although all of the scores among Democratic presidents are close and generally within the system’s margin of sampling error.

Another finding is that the Democratic presidents, including Mr. Obama, have often adopted a different strategy than Republicans. Whereas Democratic presidents usually have scores fairly close (but just slightly to the left of) the median Democratic member of Congress, Republican presidents — with the very clear exception of Eisenhower — articulate legislative positions that are equivalent to those held by one of the most conservative members of their party.

We need to be careful in interpreting these results. The positions that presidents advocate on Congressional roll calls can be subject to a number of tactical considerations, and may not be entirely representative of their ideology.

Nevertheless, there is some support for the notion that Democratic presidents take positions that — while still quite liberal — are at least somewhat more amenable to compromise. By contrast, Republican presidents push as hard as they can to the right and let the chips fall where they may.

(Emphases added.)

Add to that the obstructionism-for-the-sake-of-obstructionism policy of the Republican minority in the Senate, and one thing becomes strikingly clear: Having gotten us into our current mess in the first place, the Republicans in Congress are hell-bent on keeping us there as long as possible (at least through November of 2012).

And with respect to Obama, there is this:

There is no question that Barack Obama is one of our most enigmatic presidents. Despite having published two volumes of memoirs before being elected president, we really don’t know that much about what makes him tick. The ongoing debate over the deficit and the debt limit is clarifying what I think he is: a Democratic Richard Nixon.

To explain what I mean, I first have to tell some history.

Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was a transformative president, partly because of his policies but mainly because he presided over the two most disruptive events of the 20th century: the Great Depression and World War II.

By the time Dwight Eisenhower took office, people craved stability and he was determined to give it to them. This angered his fellow Republicans, who wanted nothing more than to repeal Roosevelt’s New Deal, root and branch. And with control of both the House and Senate in 1953 and 1954, he could have undone a lot of it if he wanted to.

But Eisenhower not only refused to repeal the New Deal, he wouldn’t even let Republicans in Congress cut taxes even though the high World War II and Korean War rates were in effect. He thought a balanced budget should take priority. Eisenhower also helped to destroy right wing hero Joe McCarthy and worked closely with liberals on civil rights.

Eisenhower’s effective liberalism was deeply frustrating to conservatives. Robert Welch of the John Birch Society even accused him of being a communist. But after Republicans lost control of Congress in 1954, he was the only game in town for them.

By 1964, conservatives got control of the GOP’s nominating process and put forward one of their own, Barry Goldwater, to complete the unfinished work of repealing the New Deal that Eisenhower refused to do. But he lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, who quickly capitalized on his victory by doubling down on the New Deal with the Great Society.

Although Johnson was done in by Vietnam, his domestic liberalism was as popular in 1968 as the New Deal had been in 1952. Nevertheless, conservatives deluded themselves that Nixon would repeal the Great Society. But just as Eisenhower cemented the New Deal in place, Nixon accepted the legitimacy of the Great Society. His goal was to make it work efficiently and shave off the rough edges. Nixon even expanded the welfare state by expanding its regulatory reach through the Environmental Protection Agency and other new government agencies.

Conservatives were infuriated by Nixon’s betrayal, but lacking control of Congress they were stuck with him just as they had been with Eisenhower. Not very many were upset when Watergate pushed Nixon out of office.

Conservatives finally got the president they had always hoped for when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. But by then, key New Deal/Great Society programs like Social Security and Medicare were so deeply embedded in government and society that he never lifted a finger to dismantle them. Reagan even raised taxes 11 times to keep them funded.

Liberals initially viewed Bill Clinton the same way conservatives viewed Eisenhower – as a liberator who would reverse the awful policies of his two predecessors. But almost immediately, Clinton decided that deficit reduction would be the first order of business in his administration. His promised middle class tax cut and economic stimulus were abandoned.

By 1995, Clinton was working with Republicans to dismantle welfare. In 1997, he supported a cut in the capital gains tax. As the benefits of his 1993 deficit reduction package took effect, budget deficits disappeared and we had the first significant surpluses in memory. Yet Clinton steadfastly refused to spend any of the flood of revenues coming into the Treasury, hording them like a latter day Midas. In the end, his administration was even more conservative than Eisenhower’s on fiscal policy.

And just as pent-up liberal aspirations exploded in the 1960s with spending for every pet project green lighted, so too the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton years led to an explosion of tax cuts under George W. Bush, who supported every one that came down the pike. The result was the same as it was with Johnson: massive federal deficits and a tanking economy.

Thus Obama took office under roughly the same political and economic circumstances that Nixon did in 1968 except in a mirror opposite way. Instead of being forced to manage a slew of new liberal spending programs, as Nixon did, Obama had to cope with a revenue structure that had been decimated by Republicans.

Liberals hoped that Obama would overturn conservative policies and launch a new era of government activism. Although Republicans routinely accuse him of being a socialist, an honest examination of his presidency must conclude that he has in fact been moderately conservative to exactly the same degree that Nixon was moderately liberal.

Here are a few examples of Obama's effective conservatism:

His stimulus bill was half the size that his advisers thought necessary;
He continued Bush’s war and national security policies without change and even retained Bush’s defense secretary;
He put forward a health plan almost identical to those that had been supported by Republicans such as Mitt Romney in the recent past, pointedly rejecting the single-payer option favored by liberals;
He caved to conservative demands that the Bush tax cuts be extended without getting any quid pro quo whatsoever;
And in the past few weeks he has supported deficit reductions that go far beyond those offered by Republicans.

Further evidence can be found in the writings of outspoken liberals such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has condemned Obama’s conservatism ever since he took office.

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

Actually, Obama made substantial changes to Bush's national-security policies, ended the Iraq war, and is ending the Afghanistan war. And numerous polls showed substantial majorities favoring a single-payer system. As succinctly summarized in the report of a New York Times/CBS News poll from June of 2009: "Sixty-four percent said they thought the federal government should guarantee coverage, a figure that has stayed steady all decade."

The Bush tax cuts have, of course, been an economic disaster: They cost almost two-and-a-half-trillion dollars ($2,105.7 billion) by 2010, with more than half (52.5%) of that going to the richest 5% of taxpayers. The two-year extension through 2012 cost more than another half-trillion dollars ($571.5 billion), and extending them another ten years (2013-2022) would cost ($5,428 billion). All in all, if extended, the Bush tax cuts for the rich will cost America more than eight-trillion dollars ($8,105.2 billion). (See, e.g., here and here.)

With respect to partisan polarization, our dysfunctional Congress, health-care policy, and tax policy -- and many other things -- the bottom line is clear: The problem is the Republicans.

[Big RR]

Andrew--after Obama sanctioned the hunting down and execution of an American citizen without trial in Yemen (anwar al-awlaki) last year, and the attorney general defended it as legal, I really don't see all that much difference between W's security policies and his. this was an out and out execution, not killing in a fire fight or any other situation where capture was even attempted. When president can order the execution of a US citizen without a trial, the government has clearly gone crazy. I expected this from W and his "justice" department--Obama has really just given us more of the same in the name of "national security".

[Grim Reaper]

And the political Right is lambasted with all sorts of epithets ("bigot," "homophobe") for basically taking public positions that are consistent with current federal law.

And people advocating slavery were taking positions that were consistent with then-current federal law. That didn't stop them from also being racists.

Resistance to this totally-unprecendented, perverse, and unconstitutional scheme is said to be based on nothing more than Republican "partisanship."

Most of the "unconstitutional" health care plan was built on proposals that used to have Republican approval. Yet they decided to not compromise on anything proposed by Democrats while President Obama is in office. All in a rather transparent attempt to hamstring him so they can jump and shout about he doesn't do anything.

Now we have Democrat politicians using descriptors like, "racist," "bigot," "Anti-immigration zealot," to describe people who merely favor ENFORCING THE EXISTING IMMIGRATION LAWS of the United States. Anyone not favoring amnesty (in violation of U.S. law) is just being "partisan."

That's because we have states like Arizona that have made it legal for cops to detain people for not having the right skin color. Just because they might be illegal immigrants.

People fighting his usurpation of power are "partisan," and it's the Republicans who have changed their position to be more extreme.

That's because Republicans have changed their position, they've embraced the "global warming is a hoax" nonsense and refuse to listen to any scientific findings that say otherwise. And trying to make the world a better place is apparently a bad thing now. Apparently we need rivers catching fire again before people start realizing that maybe the environment is something we should be trying to improve.

[Lord Jim]

Actually, Obama made substantial changes to Bush's national-security policies, ended the Iraq war, and is ending the Afghanistan war.

Obama has made some changes in national security approach from the Bush Administration, a number of which I agree with. Though in the two examples cited, he "ended" the war in Iraq by following through on the agreement Bush reached with the Iraqis in December of '08, and of course before he began ending the war in Afghanistan, he first ramped it up. (A decision I agreed with, but which does not appear to have had much of the desired effect.) I also fully support the ramping up of drone attacks. (I also support the attack that took out the bomb making American traitor)

The major change he's made that I fully agree with is the way we have become much more forward leaning in going after terrorist basing in countries (like Yemen and Somalia) that are either failed states, or which do not exercise sovereign control over large portions of their territory.

It seems pretty clear to me that if we want to avoid "future Afghanistans" where the terrorists achieve such a strong basing presence that we wind up having to go in with a large number of troops, that the most intelligent and prudent course is to use a mixed bag of tools, (special ops, training and co-ordination with local forces, air strikes, etc.) to keep up suppression on terrorist operations any where we find them on the globe as early as possible, so they never metastasize to that level.

This requires constant vigilance and the ability to act nimbly, but the cost in terms of both lives and treasure is far less than the alternative.

Big RR, I think that you and I pretty much agree about what Obama has been doing to prosecute the WOT...

Where we disagree is that I fully support it and you fully oppose it...

I guess it goes without saying that when Obama is pursuing a policy that makes me happy, it's bound to make you unhappy....

[Lord Jim]

One thing I will say for the Tea Party...

When it comes to the tedious but essential nuts and bolts of local ground game politics, (like canvassing precincts, identifying your favorables, manning phone banks, getting your people to the polls on election day, etc.) they really excel....

This is why they've managed to make an impact. Putting together an effective operation in these areas is particularly impactful in a low turnout Congressional or Senate primary, especially if the rules allow for a plurality winner.

The main reason they've been so good at this is the fact that they have a number of people involved with them at the grassroots level that have been involved in local politics for years, and who have the knowledge and skill to put these things together and co-ordinate them effectively. (You combine that with some enthused worker bees, and you have a formidable operation.)

I seriously question whether many in the Fleabagger movement have the comparable level of skill, focus, and "stick-to-it-ness" to achieve similar results on the other side. (They seem to be more about pontificating and getting attention for themselves than achieving results.)

But if they really want to become "players" and have politicians take real notice of them and their positions, they are going to have to develop these skills. Squatting and drum banging ain't gonna get the job done.

It's not glamorous or showy, and I'm sure it's a lot less exciting than running down the street breaking car windows, but it's the way you get a politician's attention. Nothing more wonderfully concentrates the mind of a politico than the fear of a primary opponent who has the organization to beat them.

[Gob]

ETA
I stilll haven't figured out what a "Snooki" is. Something to do with New Jersey

Snooki is the American dream, the epitome of excellence, the symbol of the zeitgeist, FAR more important than Obama vs Romney, and a more intellectual, meaningful and wonderful matter for study. For shame on you O-n-W! Get with the program.