Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that Democrats extended their streak in House special elections by holding on to the Pennsylvania 12th, John Murtha’s old seat. That makes ten straight special elections to fill House seats in which Democrats have either retained or stolen a seat. You have to go back to May 2008, when Steve Scalise replaced Bobby Jindal, to find a Republican victory. (Of course, Scott Brown won a special election in January. But the GOP probably has more realistic hopes of flipping the House in November if there is a genuine “wave” a la 1994.)

To review:

LA-6: Don Cazayoux (D) replaces Richard Baker (R), May 2008 (though Cazayoux lost the general election in November)

MS-1: Travis Childers (D) replaces Roger Wicker (R), May 2008

MD-4: Donna Edwards (D) replaces Albert Wynn (D), June 2008

OH-11: Marcia Fudge (D) replaces Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D), November 2008

NY-20: Scott Murphy (D) replaces Kirsten Gillibrand (D), March 2009

IL-5: Mike Quigley (D) replaces Rahm Emanuel (D), April 2009

CA-32: Judy Chu (D) replaces Hilda Solis (D), July 2009

CA-10: John Garamendi (D) replaces Ellen Tauscher (D), November 2009

NY-23: Bill Owens (D) replaces John McHugh (R), November 2009

PA-12: Mark Critz (D) replaces John Murtha (D), May 2010

I’ve italicized the elections that were hyped in the media and by national Republicans as referenda on President Obama and as potential warning signs of an impending Republican wave. Democrats won all of those elections, and yet the conventional wisdom continues to be that Republicans have a solid chance to take back the House in November.

Granted, Scott Murphy won by a hair, but the New York 20th is a conservative district that only became Democratic in 2006. Bill Owens’s victory in the longtime-Republican 23rd district should have challenged the desired Republican takeaway from the elections in Virginia and New Jersey, which was that they were harbingers of the midterm cycle rather than local elections based on local politicians and issues. If any race last November was truly nationalized, it was Owens’s.

So now why is it that everyone supposes that Republicans are experiencing a “wave” in their favor? Seats like the PA-12 are the kind that you win when there’s a wave: long-held by a Democrat but a swing district (went for Kerry, but also for McCain). I’m getting mighty sick of hearing pundits talk about the “anti-incumbent” mood without explaining that it’s not necessarily an anti-Democrat mood.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Jo Luck is President and CEO of Heifer Project International, a position she has held since 1992. Heifer, founded in 1944 and based out of Little Rock, Arkansas, provides livestock to impoverished families in over 125 countries.

HPR: What can you tell us about Heifer International’s approach to alleviating global poverty?

JL: Our approach is to involve the people on the ground and in communities to decide what are their goals, and what are their needs. And they always think, well do we want a cow? Well, you know they see the pictures of the cow and think well that would be great, but they don’t always have the land for that, so we sit down, and say we need to talk: What are your resources, what’s your environment, what’s your capacity? Then we require that you study how to care for the animal, how to care for the earth. We decide which families need the animals, we monitor, and we evaluate so if they’re not taking care of it we can take it away and give it to another family. We’re just there to support, share with them what we’ve learned. It’s really important that we have a conversation at the beginning about their core values that tie into their own cultures. We have our core values and cornerstones, but those may not be the same ones that their culture has, so they may add their own.

HPR: Heifer allows its aid recipients more autonomy, it seems, than another NGO might. What are the effects of that added freedom?

JL: What I love about it is they have the dignity. They’re doing it, they’re successful, and the passing on ceremony is one of the most awesome things you would ever experience in your life, that’s what everyone says. Especially in, say, Rwanda, with the genocide: A woman handing an offspring of her animal to maybe a man of another ethnic group. That sort of reconciliation is really a prerequisite to peace. And then they start to thinking about their goals. They build schools. When I interview women they all say that educating their children is their number one priority. And when these women know they’re going to have the resources to educate their children, they don’t have as many children. It has quite an impact on what I call population issues.

HPR: Accountability has been the critique of several NGOs, that perhaps there aren’t strong enough mechanisms in place to ensure that money that is given to organizations like Heifer is actually translated into development. What kind of accountability mechanisms does your organization have?

JL: I think accountability is critical. When we were looking at this about ten years ago, I said maybe we should consolidate our books from all our different regions. That sounds crazy and wildly challenging but if we don’t have the same procedures it’s so difficult, it’s like we have different standards. So we start going through each section, starting with Asia South Pacific looking at what their challenges are financially, then you know maybe the Americas, then I said a couple of years ago, it still isn’t right. We don’t want to make them do everything the west does things, but we want them to know general accounting principles. So we’re consolidating our books and we’re in the third year. Some people would call it a nightmare, because they’re all different, legally separate entities. Some don’t even have an accountant in the office. We’re doing it and we’re learning from the lessons and pretty soon our regional offices are going to be stronger financially. They’ll learn how to write grants, they’ll know how to handle their money, we’re trying to allow each country’s organization to become self-reliant just like we are with the families and communities. We’re doing it but it’s tough. And they’re coming in with a long laundry list, but what do you expect from these countries that are just coming out of communism, or some are struggling, the ones that you see on the news. But we’re working on it.

Sophie Angelis ‘13 is a Contributing Writer

Terry McAuliffe on the Democratic Party in 2009

Terry McAuliffe has been helping democrats get elected for decades. He formerly served as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ran for Governor of Virginia earlier this year. He is a visiting fellow at the Institute of Politics and recently sat down with the Harvard Political Review.

Harvard Political Review: You ran for governor in Virginia this year. What was it like to have your name on the ballot after so many years behind the scenes?

Terry McAuliffe: Honestly, there really for me wasn’t much difference. When you’re chairman of the party and you don’t have the White House you’re sort of the chief spokesperson for the party, going after the president. So I wasn’t too much behind the scenes. I was pretty visible out there. … The best difference is it’s my campaign and I did what I wanted to do. I didn’t have to rely on anyone else. I said “These are the important issues that I want to raise.” And I pretty much did what I wanted. I raised some big issues on green energy. I’m the first candidate to ever tell Dominion Power that I wouldn’t take their contribution. … Probably the hardest difference would be fundraising. I’m pretty good at fundraising, pretty good at asking for money, but it’s a little different when you’re asking for money for yourself.

HPR: If you ran again, what would you do differently? Would you do it again?

TM: Sure I would! I’d have to look at the circumstances. In an open primary, it’s a free shot for Republicans to come and vote against me. I don’t mind people voting against me in a general election, but I don’t like people coming into a Democratic primary and voting. I’m not a big fan of open primaries. I mean, why would you let the other party come in and help determine the nominee of the party they’re going to run against? But, look, I’ve always loved politics.  I loved running and had always wanted to run. I always keep all my options open. You never know what could happen in life.

HPR: Looking at the Democratic Party on a national level, are you optimistic about the future?

TM: Oh, very optimistic. I give President Obama a lot of credit. We all knew he was going to tackle these very rough issues. Health care was going to be hard. I lived through the 90′s with the Clintons. It’s a tough issue. There’s a lot of money involved. Insurance companies are making a lot of money and when there’s a lot of money involved the special interests are really going to get jacked up. And they’re fired up on this one! But I think Republicans are going to have a hard time now if you look at Electoral College maps. We picked up the coasts. We got Virginia, Indiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada. We won Florida. We won North Carolina. I think if you look at the population growth for the Hispanic community, the Pacific Islander community, the African American community — those are core constituencies of population growth who vote now overwhelmingly democratic. The Republicans are going to have a very hard time now. They’re going to have to reach out somehow to these growth communities or they’re going to find themselves in a very difficult position.

HPR: What do you expect to see happen in the 2010 mid-term elections? Will Democrats lose seats?

TM: I think in 2010 we’re going to see what is normal to see at the mid-term of a president’s first term — losing somewhere between 16 to 24 seats. In the Senate we’ve got 60 seats. Could we lose two or three seats? Definitely. We’ve got some tough races. Senator Dodd’s got a tough race. Arkansas is now a top race. The Republicans have retirements so we’ve got some opportunities. But all in all, I think President Obama has been doing exactly what he said he would do and Republicans are not offering alternatives, they’re just firing at him.

HPR: So you’ve been impressed with President Obama’s political performance so far?

TM: I have. I mean he came in, he did stem cells, and he addressed the Iraq issue. In two hundred days, it’s been all about the economy. Now, I’m not a big fan of bailouts, but we had to get some money injected into the system; we were on the verge of going off a cliff.

HPR: What do you think will be President Obama’s major vulnerabilities going into the 2012 elections?

TM: I think what we need to do is get health care done. Financial services regulation needs to get done. We have a 60 seat majority in the Senate, and we have a big majority in the House, so I’m a believer in, if we we’re going to do things, let’s do them right. If we do these things right, it’s better for businesses, it’s better for the economy. I don’t ever go to bed worried about my children having a catastrophic illness. But for most Americans, they do. At a minimum, we have to cover catastrophic illnesses for all Americans. So I’m big on a public option, but you don’t always get what you want. But I promise you, there is going to be health care legislation this year.

HPR: The youth vote has been such a tremendous force for the Democratic Party. How can you keep them engaged?

TM: It’s interesting when I talk to young people, and I ask them if they’re active, the general theme is “Well, not really. We won! We’re done now.” And I ask, what do you mean we’re done? Now the hard part starts! We really need to keep young people energized. Some are dispirited today because of the economy. A lot of the students I’ve met are worried about their prospects in the workforce, and they want to see results. I think in 2012 they’ll stay engaged. But the real challenge will be next year. Because if you look historically at the youth vote and the elderly vote, the proportion of the elderly represented in midterms goes way up. And those elections will really impact Obama’s ability to move his proposals forward. We’ve got our work cut out for us. The attitude for a lot of folks is “Yeah! It was a great ’08! We won, I can relax.” Forget it! We’re just starting!

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

So I ask, are these politicians completely detached from the interests of their constituents? Or do Sens. Kyl and Lincoln think that a tax cut for multi-millionaires is really how their constituents want them to spend $250 billion?

But maybe these questions are naive. In all likelihood, the people of Arizona and Arkansas will never hear about their representatives’ sop to the uber-rich, because it probably won’t pass and they’ve got other things to worry about. And so the real question is, how do we end up with politicians who think, in their heart of hearts, that the best way to spend $250 billion in the middle of a deep recession that is hurting middle-class families across the country (and especially in their home states) is to hand out more money to the sons and daughters of the richest of the rich?

UPDATE: Well, it looks like we might have an explanation for Sen. Lincoln’s behavior, at least. The Waltons, the Arkansas family whose patriarch founded Wal-Mart, are funding the estate tax campaign. Just for fun, I checked OpenSecrets.org to see what politicians the Waltons regularly contribute to. Most of the family’s largesse goes to Republican senators and senatorial candidates, as well as the NRSC, NRCC, RNC, and various state Republican causes. But they also sent $57,000 to something called the DNC Services Corporation and, yes indeed, three donations of $2,300 to Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln has an election coming up in 19 months. This, right here, is why I support public financing of elections.

The Democratic Party and California’s Proposition 8

On Nov. 4, millions of liberal voters celebrated the election of Barack Obama as America’s 44th president. However, the jubilation was, for many, dampened by the passage of Proposition 8 in California. This ballot measure defined marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, overturning the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage earlier this year.

In the aftermath of Election Day, pundits have speculated on how Barack Obama won California with sixty one percent of the vote while Proposition 8 passed by four percentage points. Theories abound about the impact of socially conservative black voters who turned out for Obama and voted against same-sex marriage, as well as the influence of outside groups such as the Mormon Church. Whatever the explanation, the passage of Proposition 8 is unlikely to undermine social liberalism or displace the LGBT community from its position within the party.

Democrats and the LGBT Community

According to Democratic strategist Elaine Kamarck, the passage of Proposition 8 does not have serious long term implications for the LGBT community’s future within the Democratic Party. “The support for gay issues of all sorts is strongly correlated to age,” she explained in an interview with the HPR. “If you look at longitudinal polling, this is the fastest-changing social issue ever; it is all about generational change.” As today’s young people make up a larger share of the electorate, same-sex marriage will begin to become less controversial as a political issue.

Others have expressed concern over whether Proposition 8 indicates a changing view toward social issues within the Democratic Party, worrying that the party may attempt to hold onto the financially motivated voters it brought on board in November by moderating or abandoning its traditional progressive social agenda. Kamarck believes social liberals have nothing to worry about. We are unlikely to see any real change on “culture war” issues by the Democrats, she noted, because those issues were not a major driver behind the success of Proposition 8. “Prop 8 passed in California due to huge turnout, but the people who were voting were not there to vote on this issue, rather they were there because of economic issues,” she remarked.

Despite inevitable disappointment with the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote, the LGBT community appears not to be overly discouraged and may use this defeat as a chance to modify its strategies going forward. In an interview with the HPR, Tim McCarthy, a Harvard Kennedy School lecturer and member of Obama’s LGBT council, cautioned against making too much of Proposition 8 and encouraged progressives to consider the broader significance of Obama’s victory for civil rights. “I find myself not getting very angry because we as a progressive group of people just had a stunning victory,” he remarked. “One of the things that’s been wrong with the left is that we don’t spend enough time celebrating our triumphs. I’m very optimistic about Obama, despite his stated opposition to gay marriage, particularly on the other issues important to LGBT people.”

Beyond Gay Marriage

Indeed, McCarthy views the singular focus of the LGBT community on marriage as a factor that undermines the public perception of its movement. “Marriage has become the signature issue of the leaders of the LGBT movement, and I think that’s overstating it,” he commented. “[Is] there a larger set of issues we need to be focusing on?” McCarthy believes the gay community has been too focused on marriage, and that other important issues of same-sex rights, such as adoption (which was recently banned for same-sex couples in Arkansas), visitation, inheritance law and non-discrimination legislation, have received too little attention and political effort.

While Proposition 8 represents a temporary setback in the push for expanded rights for LGBT individuals, it is important not to overplay its significance. It seems unlikely to have long-term ramifications for the progress of same-sex rights and does not foreshadow significant changes in the LGBT community’s place in the Democratic Party. Given the demographic reality of evolving attitudes toward gay issues, it appears that progress on LGBT rights is inevitable. As the Republican Party engages in serious soul-searching following the 2008 Democratic Party landslide, perhaps it will take note of these changing trends and begin to participate in a bipartisan coalition for expanded gay rights. Otherwise, it may find itself on the opposite side of an issue that gradually becomes social reality.