Sunday, April 19, 2020

Oklahoma City and Political Parties

Twenty-five years ago today, domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168  and wounding more than 600 in the worst U.S. terror attack before 9/11.

In class, we briefly touched upon the implications for party politics.

A decade ago, Peter Keating wrote about Bill Clinton's response:
Oklahoma City that first allowed him to step forward as a national leader. As speechwriter Michael Waldman [parent of a CMC alum] wrote in his book POTUS Speaks: “It was the nation’s first exposure to Clinton as mourner in chief … In fact, it was the first time Clinton had been a reassuring figure rather than an unsettling one.”

Even more than that, Oklahoma City created a huge political opportunity, which Clinton quickly seized. On April 27, a little more than a week after the bombing, Dick Morris, then a little-known but influential Clinton adviser, presented the President a fantastically naked political memo that, as you can find in his book Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds, said: “Permanent possible gain: sets up Extremist Issue vs. Republicans.” Morris suggested using “extremism as issue against Republicans,” not by “direct accusations,” but via a “ricochet theory.”
 Clinton should “stimulate national concern over extremism and terror,” Morris wrote, and then “implement intrusive policy against extremist groups.” Morris predicted that radical right-wingers would write their local Republican congressmen, and that in turn “this will provoke criticism by right-wing Republicans which will link right-wing of the party to extremist groups.”
“Net effect,” Morris concluded: “Self-inflicted linkage between party and extremists.”

The Clinton Justice Department didn’t go as far as Morris wanted, but it didn’t matter. Republican members of Congress soon made fools of themselves defending militias. And Clinton found his voice. At a Michigan State commencement address shortly afterward, he told graduates, “There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.”

In his memoirs, Clinton didn’t mention the Morris memo, but wrote: “The haters and extremists didn’t go away, but they were on the defensive, and, for the rest of my term, would never quite regain the position they had enjoyed after Timothy McVeigh took the demonization of government beyond the limits of humanity.” Indeed, Oklahoma City gave Clinton the chance to pull his presidency together by advancing a positive agenda of triangulated social issues. And that strategy reached full flower in his 1996 State of the Union speech, where Clinton introduced a man named Richard Dean, a Vietnam vet who had worked in the Oklahoma City Federal Building and who re-entered the building four times to rescue people after it blew up. As everyone, including Republicans, stood to applaud, Clinton went on:
But Richard Dean’s story doesn’t end there. This last November, he was forced out of his office when the government shut down. And the second time the government shut down, he continued helping Social Security recipients, but he was working without pay … I challenge all of you in this chamber: Never, ever shut the federal government down again.
That’s how much Clinton got it: He explicitly linked the terror of Oklahoma City to the federal shutdown, and both to the Republican Congress. After that, Clinton barely needed to look over his shoulder to get reelected.
For your last paper, you might compare and contrast the militia groups of 1995 with today's corionavirus activists.   Might it be that politicians who side with the activists are setting themselves up for backlash in case the protests have bad consequences?

Saturday, April 18, 2020

Shutdown Conflict in State Capitals

Christopher Cadelago at Politico
Republican legislators in multiple presidential battleground states are amping up pressure on Democratic governors to reopen their economies — clashes that are certain to shape the views of a critical slice of the electorate in November.
Democratic officials across Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota are resisting overtures to roll back public health closures: Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers just extended his state’s stay-at-home order despite legal threats from Republicans, and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf recently announced he will veto a GOP bill to expand which businesses are deemed too important to shutter.
The showdowns between emboldened Republican officials and Democratic governors are emerging as an undercard to the fall contest between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The GOP drumbeat comes as Democrats are seizing on Trump’s uneven handling of the virus to win the presidency and flip several statehouses.
Trump himself is stoking the angst on the right, urging in a Friday tweet to “LIBERATE” Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia. Those are among the states where protests of stay-at-home orders issued by Democrats are unfolding. But at the state level, the partisan standoffs are complicated by a tangle of Democratic directives that Republican lawmakers have struggled to unwind.
...
Minnesota is the last state in the country with a divided Legislature: Democrats won a majority in the state House two years ago and need just two seats to win the Senate. [SEE CLASS DISCUSSION FROM APRIL 9.]

AND NOTE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE NETWORK OF OUTSIDE GROUPS:

Salvador Hernandez at Buzzfeed:
While thousands of demonstrators swarmed the Michigan State Capitol to protest the governor's stay-at-home order Wednesday — honking horns, waving flags, and bringing traffic to a halt — dozens of Facebook groups were already springing up to organize similar rallies across the country.
"Indiana Citizens Against Excessive Quarantine," "Operation Gridlock Tennessee," and other groups with similar names drew people calling an end to stay-at-home orders, measures that health officials say are essential to stopping the spread of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus.
Protests against the guidelines are being planned across the country. The Michigan Conservative Coalition, the same organization that planned the Lansing protest against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Wednesday, is helping organizers.
...
Organized by the Michigan Conservative Coalition and the Michigan Freedom Fund, the protest has drawn criticism over its links to Betsy DeVos's family.
"I think it's really inappropriate for a sitting member of the United States president's cabinet to be waging political attacks on any governor," Whitmer said, referring to the education secretary.
The Michigan Freedom Fund was founded by Greg McNeilly, a political adviser to the DeVos family, who has provided financial support to the organization.

...
Meanwhile, more groups organizing protests across the US continue to show up on Facebook. Some have garnered only a handful of supporters, while others have quickly built up hundreds of followers.
"Pennsylvanians Against Excessive Quarantine" has garnered more than 48,000 members, while "Minnesotans Against Excessive Quarantine" has more than 17,000.
Both groups have nearly identical descriptions...And while some groups are receiving guidance from Michigan about how to organize their own protests against stay-at-home orders, they too are passing the playbook to other states, urging them to replicate the demonstrations.

Avoid the Passive Voice

Friday, April 17, 2020

Research Paper: Messaging & Public Opinion on Congress as an Institution

Congress is unpopular: I know, surprise surprise, right?

Public approval of Congress has not exceeded 30 percent in a decade and researchers have connected this disapproval to increased gridlock, partisan polarization, and increased media coverage. However, there is a dearth of studies on the effect of partisan conflict on public opinion on Congress as an institution. By exploring how the increased usage of messaging and message votes could affect public opinion on Congress as a democratic institution through an overview of existing research and two case studies, we can further understand the impact of partisanship on the American people’s faith in democracy.

Here is what researchers have found so far:

  • The more knowledgeable Americans are about Congress, the less they believe Congress is doing a good job. However, higher education level is also related to more support for Congress from a purely institutional standpoint.
  • The main policy complaint on Congress as an institution is not its partisan lean, but its ineffectiveness.
  • The public punishes Congress with lower approval when it engages in interbranch and intra-institutional conflict.
  • In the aggregate, citizens’ view of Congress responds negatively to veto overrides, intra-Congress conflict, and the passage of major bills.
  • Most people believe that Congressmembers do not often take responsibility for mistakes and that Congressmembers behave unethically at least some of the time without facing serious consequences. They also have less confidence that Congressmembers care about people, provide fair and accurate information, and handle resources responsibly than others also in positions of power such as public school principals, police officers, and religious leaders.
  • There has been a substantial increase in social media presence by Congressmembers and a surge in oppositional language in Congressional social media posts in the past five years.
Taken together, these findings suggest that there could be a connection between messaging and lack of faith in Congress as an institution.

Next, I explored two case studies, the Affordable Care Act and tax cuts in 2018. Both cases are examples of messaging campaigns where one party actively worked to make the system ineffective, negatively impacting the American people and contributing to the perception that Congress is nonfunctional and untrustworthy. 

Therefore, existing research demonstrates a plausible connection between increased partisan messaging and lack of faith in Congress as an institution. Without further research, it is impossible to prove correlation or causation; however, this exploration of the current research reveals a significant hole in the literature. If causation or correlation were found, it would imply that partisan conflict not only is counterproductive to party interests, but could weaken American democracy. 

Last Assignment, Spring 2020

Pick one:
  • For responsible party government to happen, writes Hershey (p. 350), "all the elected branches of government would have to be controlled by the same party at a particular time." [Emphasis in the original.]  This situation existed in 2017 and 2018.  So did we have responsible party government?  Explain with reference to class readings, discussions, and outside research.
  • Lee finished her book before the 2016 election.  Write an update.  Explain how subsequent events either confirm the chapter's argument or raise new questions that the author does not address.
  • Should the United States adopt structural reforms to encourage a multiparty system?  Explain why or why not.  And if not, what kinds of changes would be necessary?
  • This article suggests a parliamentary system for the United States:  https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-needs-parliament-17220.  Agree or disagree?  Explain.
  • How will COVID-19 change the party system?  Will it diminish polarization or increase it?  Will it strengthen, weaken, or transform either party?
  • Pick a relevant topic of your choice, subject to my approval.  If you have a passion that bears a plausible connection to American political parties, write about it.
The specifications:
  • Essays should be typed (12-point), double-spaced, and no more than four pages long. I will not read past the fourth page. Please submit papers as Word documents, not pdfs.
  • Cite your sources. Please use endnotes in Turabian format. Endnotes do not count against the page limit. Please do not use footnotes, which take up too much page space. 
  • Watch your spelling, grammar, diction, and punctuation. Errors will count against you. Return essays to the Sakai dropbox for this class by 11:59 PM, Wednesday May 6. 

Polarization, States, and Coronavirus Response

A release from Notre Dame:
If you identify as blue in a red state or red in a blue state, you might not be complying well with advice given by your governor that is meant to keep you healthy during the coronavirus pandemic. Notre Dame Assistant Professor of Economics Kirsten Cornelson and her co-author Boriana Miloucheva of the University of Toronto found that in states with governors who won by close margins, compliance with stay-at-home orders and other health advice is lower among people with the opposite party affiliation.

The researchers surveyed about 1,000 individuals across 12 states using Amazon’s Mturk crowdsourcing platform, and resurveyed about 200 people they initially surveyed in 2019 about political polarization. Cornelson noted that they intentionally used data from states where elections were barely won by the leading party, so that they could compare the response among people in the same party, who lived in similar political environments.
The Mturk sample was roughly 60 percent Democratic and 40 percent Republican and skewed young. The researchers asked them questions about travel outside their homes in the past 48 hours and what those trips entailed (to deem if travel was essential or not) and what kind of measures they were taking to prevent the spread of the virus, such as increased handwashing.
“Approximately 20 to 30 percent of the sample reported leaving their home for non-essential travel in the previous 48 hours. Both Democrats and Republicans report leaving home more often in Republican states, although the difference is larger for Democrats,” they write.
Regarding increased handwashing, use of hand sanitizer and staying home, both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to report these behaviors when living in states run by the other party. Cornelson and Miloucheva found no consistent opposite-party pattern regarding some other measures including limiting contact with high-risk people and wearing masks or gloves.
Their research into other variables like differences in attitudes about the severity of the crisis, the need for social distancing and even mistrust of medical organizations shows no significant difference between members of the two major parties, yet compliance levels are different.
“We believe that the most probable explanation for this pattern is that individuals are simply less willing to cooperate when the leader of their state — and the person who is typically the public face of efforts to combat COVID-19 — is from the other party.”
The authors showed that the response to an opposite-party governor was strongest in the states where political hostility was highest prior to the pandemic. Interestingly, however, this was not true for individuals; when the authors gauged individual respondents’ hostility toward the opposing party, they found the response to an opposite-party governor is strongest among those who report lower levels of relative hostility to the other party. “It may therefore be perceptions of the hostility of other people, rather than an individual’s own hostility, that undermines cooperative behavior,” they write.

As an economist, Cornelson is concerned about what this might mean for the bigger picture regarding people’s willingness to give toward the public good through taxes, levies, philanthropic contributions and other means.
“A lot of what we accomplish in society depends on people’s willingness to cooperate and contribute to the public good,” Cornelson said. “Most of us have a sense of civic duty — a sense of buy-in, that we’re connected to wider society. When we have these fractures in society, people might not want to contribute, which hurts economic growth.”

Thursday, April 16, 2020

State Politics and Policy

Grossmann, p. 9: "Republicans, as the more nationalized of the two major American parties, had developed mature institutions – such as think tanks, state legislator associations, and grassroots networks -- to promote conservative goals."

Hertel-Fernandez & Skocpol
Across much of America, conservatives can mount powerful state legislative campaigns through three well-funded networks that operate as complements to one another. Think tanks affiliated with the State Policy Network (SPN) spew out studies and prepare op-eds and legislative testimony. Paid state directors and staffers installed by Americans for Prosperity (AFP)sponsor bus tours, convene rallies and public forums, run radio and television ads, send mailers, and spur activists to contact legislators. And inside the legislatures themselves, many representatives and senators, especially Republicans, are members of ALEC, which invites them to serve alongside business lobbyists and right-wing advocacy groups on national task forces that prepare “model” bills that the legislators can advance at the state and local level, with assistance from ALEC staffers.

AND THE IRON LAW OF EMULATION CONTINUES...

Tom Steyer and The State Innovation Exchange 

The Troika:
The Policy:
State polarization (update from p. 46 of Grossmann)

The obstacles:
  • Path dependence, or as Robert Frost wrote, "way leads on to way."
  • Retrenchment is harder than enactment.
  • Feds encourage growth of state government.
  • Courts may hinder activism.
  • MARC:  Americans are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal.  See earlier post on coronavirus