The State of the Union has hindered the 112th Congress

After Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives last November, they vowed to repeal major legislation passed by the previous Congress and satisfy the Tea Party, whose conservative votes and voices lifted them to victory. However, despite months of rancorous debate on topics ranging from health care to the notorious debt ceiling, Congress has not accomplished much.

Bills pass one branch of Congress only to be immediately shut down by the other. This phenomenon has characterizes many previously divided Congresses, but today’s historic polarization signals a shift in how the government functions. Analyzing the circumstances surrounding this impasse provides a glimpse into political debate in the near future.

Business as Usual

A cursory glance at history indicates that Congress has seen similarly dire circumstances before. Midterm elections have often ushered in legislatures dominated by reactionaries hostile to the incumbent president. Yet it is unfair to lambast this Congress with the ‘Do-Nothing’ label, as Harry Truman did to his Republican opponents in the 80th Congress. Joseph Postell, professor of political science at the University of Colorado, told the HPR, “It’s hard to define what it means to be a do- nothing Congress. It seems like obviously compared to the Congress before it…this Congress has done much less. It’s certainly a do-less Congress.”

Yale Professor David Mayhew asserts, “Generally speaking, major enactments come later in a Congress under divided party control. It takes longer to cool down the antagonisms and make the deals.” This indicates that any greater progress under divided Congresses this early would be surprising. “The current Congress seems more or less typical in actual enactments,” continues Mayhew. Indeed, this session’s major achievements remain limited to free trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and the debt compromise, which, while controversial and tricky in its negotiation, eventually passed.

A Different Political Climate

Several factors underlie the dearth of progress. Postell believes these include, “greater polarization, the Tea Party, and the circumstances in which the country finds itself.” The current economic crisis has dominated Congressional attention, preventing most other issues from emerging. Reaching meaningful compromise on the incredibly broad issue of economic recovery has been difficult. While the American people hope for quick remedies, both parties are careful to not upset their bases with fiscal or economic heresies. Members of the Tea Party, for example, have been particularly vocal in their emphasis on shrinking the size of government. Liberals, likewise, have consistently refused to reform entitlements: the problem which economists agree will become the largest driver of future deficits. A growing focus on ideological purity, including GOP pledges to not raise taxes, has stalled negotiation by forcing legislators to toe the party line or face primary challenges.

The changing Republican base has also made compromise with the Democrats increasingly difficult. Theda Skocpol, Harvard government professor, maintains that Republicans, “have a huge Tea Party- oriented caucus that has really made it impossible for Speaker Boehner, even if he wanted to, to make any kind of compromise.” While party feuding has occurred since time immemorial, Skocpol believes that “Republicans in both the House and the Senate are determined to do nothing at all. Their top priority is to defeat President Obama in 2012… I don’t think the Republican Party can go a whole lot further to the right.” The data support Skocpol’s claim. According to National Journal, the 112th Congress is the most polarized in modern history. The moderates of years past have largely disappeared, wiped out in wave elections and replaced with dogmatic ideologues.

Compounding this scenario is a rather perplexing occurrence: the American people may not even know what they want. Postell thinks that “At this point no one knows exactly what the public mood is… Maybe the public is still waiting to see what the economic stimulus and health care acts produce.” History has shown that the country’s mood can rapidly swing when dissatisfaction is widespread. When no dominant voice of the people emerges, however, Congress treads cautiously. Indeed, despite the fact that Congressmen and Senators typically have their own clear-cut agendas, Skocpol states, “Voters in general often don’t know what to do when they’re disillusioned with things.” Representatives in Washington can only sit and wait while their constituents make up their collective mind.

The Eternal Campaign

The lens through which the public sees its representatives has also shaped the discussion, or lack thereof. The sheer volume of media analysis and criticism continuously assails Americans, overwhelming all other discourse. Postell believes there is great significance in “the amount of political commentary the people are subjected to these days.” As pundits offer constant reminders of Congressional gridlock, general dissatisfaction with the political system becomes an unavoidable outcome. While intense scrutiny of politicians before an election is nothing new, this focus is now relentless. Immediately after new legislators win elections, the next campaign cycle begins.

Augmenting this obsession with campaigns, a core to conservative politicians’ plans for 2012 is convincing the public that the Obama administration bears the blame for continued economic distress. While opposition to a president by the opposing party in Congress is standard practice, Skocpol believes that “what we’re seeing under Obama is new. The Republican popular base…outright hates and fears Obama.” Delivering any major legislative victories would increase Obama’s standing, creating a conundrum for GOP leaders seeking to leave their mark. Others feel that contention has simply become the new norm, with Postell citing the deep-seated opposition liberals had against President Bush. However, he does believe, “There is a problem here with the constant campaign.”

Eyeing 2012

With an increasingly conservative Republican base and outrage surrounding the sour economy afflicting both parties, the current legislature is certainly a “Do-Less Congress”. The media’s fixation has fired up partisans of every stripe. In this toxic environment, national policy-making has stagnated. Regardless, America is facing major changes.

Skocpol says that “the 2012 election is probably one of the most pivotal in American history; [if the Republicans win, they] will restructure the role of government in society.” A sweep of the House, Senate, and White House by Republicans would constitute a national mandate for overturning of Obama administration policies. However, if Obama wins reelection, Skocpol believes, “The Republicans may take a step back and realize that they have gone too far.” Such a victory would constitute an endorsement of the President and a rebuke against the ‘Do-Less’ Congress’s policies and practices.

John Prince ’13 is a Staff Writer. Thomas Esty ’14 is a Contributing Writer.

Photo Credit: House GOP Leader, Flickr

“I think I have time for one more visit.”

Starstruck, my group eagerly scooped up a handful of signature green pocket Constitutions and took turns offering pleasantries and “fight the good fight”s. The line reached me.

“I sympathize with many of your views, Dr. Paul.”

The room fell silent. On our way out, a friend turned to me and explained: “You’re supposed to support him!”

Ron Paul … deserves your consideration. Although I’m possessed of too many caveats to offer an explicit endorsement, his unique and genuinely interesting candidacy merits all the sympathy it can get from both sides of the aisle – especially during a primary season light on dissent, ideological diversity, and intellectual rigor.

Like most qualified defenders of the Paul candidacy, I have little patience for gold standard nostalgia or immigration nativism. But I infinitely appreciate having around the only voice in American politics (perhaps besides Dennis Kucinich) who understands the destruction wrought by the senseless war on drugs, can remember a foreign policy from before jingoism became the norm, and believes in genuine limits on executive power.

To be sure, Paul does not reach many of these conclusions the way that I would: I share with him neither a zeal for constitutional originalism nor a radically libertarian vision for the size of government. But like many of his more liberal supporters, I’ve come to appreciate Paul for speaking truth to power – for bringing stark reason to an arena where only slick political truisms are allowed to play.

Many politically ‘radical’ planks on Paul’s agenda are simply taken for granted in the realm of experts. Council on Foreign Relations task force reports, former Latin American heads of state, and economists alike support the normalization of illegal drugs. Despite differences over foreign aid and domestic policy, field experts writing in Foreign Policy have offered more praise for Ron Paul’s quasi-realism than for nearly any other political voice on foreign policy.

Moreover, Ron Paul is of the rare class tuned in to the grievances of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, touching upon the conclusion that government and corporations need to be held accountable for the socioeconomic crisis at hand. Unlike the rest of the Republican field, whose lip service to free markets ends at the door of monopolistic corporations, Paul carries through with an orthodox take on economic conservatism that aims to privilege the rights of individuals over the rights of corporations.

Whatever his platform amounts to on balance, Ron Paul has much more to contribute in the way of unique substance than any other Republican candidate – and would force a reconsideration of Barack Obama’s tepid record as a defender of civil liberties. On these points, I suggest reading either of Conor Friedersdorf’s excellent qualified defenses of Representative Paul in The Atlantic.

And as it happens, the business of considering Ron Paul is no longer just an intellectual exercise. The Texas congressman is effectively tied for second place in Iowa, and has inched into the upper teens in New Hampshire. As Romney and Gingrich spar over the fickle, dissatisfied mainstream of the Republican electorate, Ron Paul’s loyal, well-organized base of supporters stands out as a rare asset that could surprise big on caucus/primary day.

Let’s hope that it does: support or merely sympathize, it’s high time for someone to shake up politics as usual. Give Paul a chance.

Penned by our Founding Fathers 224 years ago, the Constitution has long been construed differently by political forces to justify their own political agendas. Conservatives in particular have been active in using this document to advocate for fundamental changes in government policy. Their efforts have culminated with congressional proceedings questioning legislation’s constitutionality, an effort led by Republicans like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who told the HPR that “The resurgence of constitutional conservatism has to do with the growth of the federal government.”

The roots of “constitutional conservatism,” the term applied to the GOP’s recent rhetoric, trace back to Barry Goldwater’s emphasis on individuals rather than government as the driver for prosperity. Though Reagan’s smashing electoral success brought this fashion into the norm, today’s conservatives have strayed from Goldwater’s and others’ original intent.

Conservative Discontent

As Peter Berkowitz of Stanford’s Hoover Institution wrote in January 2009, renewed focus on the constitutional question originated with the Republican Party’s immense losses in 2008. The devastating setbacks inflicted on Republicans rallied an ideologically narrow base and fostered new rhetoric. Further, the libertarian sect of the Republican Party had grown discontented with President Bush, whose administration had substantially increased the government’s purview over fiscal matters and civil liberties. Once President Obama began to implement his agenda, conservatives began to rally against a president they viewed as guilty of fundamentally unconstitutional actions. Trevor Burrus, a legal associate at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, told the HPR that the bailouts were “the main culprit.” Conservatives, unable to defeat the President’s agenda in Congress, attacked legislation on constitutional grounds.

This appeal has manifested in many forms. Presidential candidate and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has hallmarked her campaign as one motivated by constitutional conservatism, which includes  repealing  “Obamacare.” The current House, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), mandated that every piece of legislation passed by the lower chamber identify the relevant portion of the Constitution that provides legal legitimacy. Even more, Joe Miller, the 2010 Tea Party-backed Senate candidate in Alaska told the HPR, “In 2010, a number of Tea Party candidates, including myself, self-identified as constitutional conservatives in order to differentiate ourselves from ‘compassionate conservatives’ who nearly bankrupted the country while leading us into wars and nation building.”

Though Miller narrowly lost his election, over the past two years, constitutional rhetoric has become winning vocabulary and spurred a movement that, according to TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson, has “decided to follow in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King” in peacefully accomplishing   goals   and   gaining “the attention of our leaders.”  Some, however, are more dismissive. Ian Millhiser, political analyst for the Center for American Progress, tells the HPR, “This notion that the primary purpose of our Constitution is to handicap our national leaders’ ability to solve national problems has been around, and it rears its ugly head every now and then.”

Constitutional Rigidity? 

Prominent conservative minds like the late political philosopher Frank Meyer and National Review founder William Buckley promoted a certain constitutional conservatism that, as Berkowitz suggested, is accurately  grounded “in America’s founding ideas, and the intellectual coherence of the alliance…between partisans of freedom and partisans of tradition.” Berkowitz adds, “It’s a characteristic…of  conservatives to respect the wisdom of the past contained in tradition.”

Nonetheless, as Georgetown professor Jeffrey Rosen suggests, “Citizens disagree plausibly and legitimately as to the meaning of the Constitutional text.”  For instance, though many conservatives view universal health care legislation as unconstitutional, there are few who would argue for complete repeal of New Deal programs such as Social Security. Offering a different perspective, Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus and Constitution Party founder, suggests that conservatives “are cautious about the political impact of being comprehensively critical of Social Security.”

Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon notes that, in interpreting our Constitution, those on the “left, right, and center all think that if people knew more about the Constitution then we would have a better polity than we have now.” But, Fallon adds, the “vast majority of what Congress does is constitutional…and  these numbers do not vary much from administration to administration.” The political tension over interpreting the Constitution has seen the right challenging what  it perceives to be overly expansive legislation and liberals deferring to the vagueness of constitutional wordage. This debate, which Burrus views as revolving around “the very important principle…that the Congress cannot have unlimited power,” is  challenged by those who naturally resist against substantial changes. Fallon notes, “The fact that, when Congress does something dramatic of a kind it has not done before, people ask the question of whether or not it is constitutional is not a surprise.”

Gone Astray?

The Tea Party movement, citing the Constitution as the basis for smaller government, has also received considerable criticism. Rosen, when asked about the Republican presidential candidates, argues that hypocrisy exists in that “those same candidates that hope that the courts will strike down health care reform and much of the welfare state…then bash those same courts for judicial activism.” Rosen also critiques the conservative employment of constitutional arguments, saying, “There is too quick a tendency on the right to run to court to reverse their political defeats by invoking the constitution.”

Neither has the constitutional issue reconciled the conservative and libertarian GOP wings. Berkowitz says, “I don’t think there has been a philosophical meeting of minds of the two conservative camps.” Indeed, one might well wonder whether the constitutional conservatism espoused by today’s Republicans has strayed from the roots originally examined by Meyer and Buckley, and put into practice by Goldwater and Reagan.

As the pseudonymous W.W. wrote in The Economist in June 2011, liberals, when speaking about the constitutional movement, often hint “at a far more radical agenda than meets the untrained eye.” Yet, some like Joe Miller advocate for this radical approach, saying, “Time is not any patriot’s ally in this fight. Moderation in advocacy and delay in reform will almost certainly fail in its attempt to save the Republic.”

What the Future Holds

By Robertson’s estimation, “The job of the Tea Party is far from over because we have a lot of work to do before we are able to bring back a constitutional  form of government.”  Senator Lee adds, “What happens in 2012  in the direction of constitutional conservatism is going to make what happened in 2010 look like a Sunday picnic.” However unsettled the debate over the significance and intent of constitutional conservatism may be, conservatives have found a winning electoral message, even while legal scholars anguish at its usage.

Tom Gaudett ’14 is the Circulation Manager. Simon Thompson ’14 is the Interviews Editor.

Photo Credit: Flickr (Gage Skidmore)

It goes without saying that the outcome of the 2012 elections will have serious implications for many of the issues that Occupy protesters have highlighted.  These include the future of the social safety net, the ongoing fight over President Obama’s health care law, and the potential cuts to entitlements from the Congressional super-committee.  Tax rates for “the 1%” and corporations remain on the table, as is obvious by the ongoing fight over the Bush tax cuts and Obama’s “Buffett rule”.  The Dodd-Frank law and repeated attempts to weaken it continue to spark heated debate over regulation of Wall Street.  The battle is also on-going over consumer protection and Elizabeth Warren’s brainchild—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

However, weighing in on these issues may become more difficult.  In advance of the 2012 elections, many states have passed or are considering tighter voter ID laws.  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, eight states (compared with two at the beginning of 2011) have so-called “strict photo ID” laws, which require voters to show a photo ID in order to vote.  Seven more states have less strict photo ID laws in which voters are asked to show a photo ID but may provide other information instead.  Overall, in 2011, voter ID laws have been introduced in twenty states that did not previously have them.  Fourteen states that already had voter ID laws, but did not require a photo ID, considered or are considering proposals to add a photo ID requirement.

Supporters of these laws argue that they are needed to combat voter fraud and that they are not unduly burdensome.  However, cases of voter fraud are few and far between.  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the voter fraud rate in 2004 in Ohio, a crucial swing state, was a whopping 0.00004%, about the rate at which Americans are struck and killed by lightning.  Ohio did not require a photo ID then, but it is considering doing so now.  Meanwhile, the photo ID requirements disproportionately impact key portions of the 99%: the poor, minorities, and the elderly.  Some have suggested it is no coincidence that these constituencies tend to vote Democratic, while the photo ID laws are generally being pushed by Republican legislatures and governors.

Unfortunately, voter ID laws have yet to figure prominently (if at all) into Occupy’s list of grievances.  Indeed, many Occupy protesters, out of frustration with “the system,” seem to reject voting as a means of effecting change.  Pro-Occupy signs posted on streets near Harvard declare:  “Our system is out of balance and my vote doesn’t change things.”  The Crimson recently reported that IOP volunteers who tried to register voters at Occupy Boston’s Dewey Square encampment found that many protesters were not interested in registering or voting.  As long as Occupiers decline to vote, politicians will not take their demands seriously.  Case in point:  when warned by a protester that he would soon be out of office, Oakland City Council President Larry Reid (who called for the Oakland tents to come down in the wake of a shooting on November 10^th) responded, “You didn’t elect me.  You probably ain’t even registered to vote!”

Frustration with current Washington politics is understandable.  However, it is difficult to argue that voting cannot change Washington.  The Tea Party began as a loosely organized protest movement.  However, it quickly focused on the 2010 midterm elections, with impressive results.  The influx of Tea Party-backed representatives and senators has shifted the debate in Congress to the right, helped bring the deficit to the top of Washington’s agenda, and made traditional Republicans reluctant to vote against the movement’s agenda, lest they face a Tea Party-backed primary challenge.  Some have noted a philosophical irony here.  The Tea Party is largely an anti-government movement, yet worked through the system to change the government.  Many of Occupy’s core demands can only be met through government intervention, yet the movement seems disinterested in participating in the political process.  Moreover, if Occupy truly is the voice of the 99%, then surely those people (provided they can obtain voter IDs) would support its agenda.

Furthermore, if the Occupy movement attempted to translate the energy it has generated into power at the polls, it would probably be forced to confront some of its other problems along the way.  It would need to develop a clearer, more focused platform by honing in on its central grievances and moving from identifying problems to proposing solutions.  This would help respond to those who argue that the movement’s goals are vague and unrealistic, or that they differ from day to day and from city to city.  In the process, it would have to distance itself from some of its more extreme and controversial supporters—helping to combat the growing image of urban Occupy camps as havens for anarchists, drug dealers and addicts, and troublemakers in general.  A more cohesive organizational structure would also develop, both within individual camps and between camps in different cities.

Ultimately, the only way to change Washington is by working through the political process—a task that will best be achieved when all voices are heard at the polls.  Admittedly, it is a daunting task to sort through various state laws to ensure that as many of the 99% as possible can cast their votes.  However, protesters who have left their homes (or their dorms) and braved the cold while living in tents have shown a willingness to sacrifice comfort.  Perhaps they should now devote some of their time and energy to the surely more productive task of working to register some of the countless eligible voters who are not currently registered, especially where voters may need help acquiring photo IDs.  Instead of just speaking for the 99%, help them speak for themselves at the polls.

An Old Debate

Claims of constitutionality are no new phenomenon in American politics. In 1832, President Jackson famously decried the Bank of the United States as unconstitutional in validating his opposition to the institution. Over one hundred years later, the Supreme Court struck down several of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs under a similar rubric. Labeling legislation as at odds with the will of the founders is as old as the Constitution itself, as Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet, told the HPR. “It’s always been the case that people say that controversial policy proposals they oppose are unconstitutional.”

Further, constitutional arguments have a cyclical nature. Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe asserts, “If you go back some decades, it was common to attack lots of attempts to use federal power… as an unconstitutional excess.” These past few years have been a throwback of sorts. “We’re simply going into another cycle in which people are questioning the extent to which the movement from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution really did give the central government such types of powers,” Tribe continues. While Tushnet and Tribe are correct that the Constitution has long been relevant to American politics, a perfect political storm in today’s environment has heighted the import of constitutional debate.

The Great Revival

Politicians seeking reelection in the polarized political climate have faced extraordinary fundraising and ideological demands. Policy arguments alone frequently fail to satisfy the base. Recognizing this limitation, politicians have capitalized upon the fact that Americans appear to align the morally good with the constitutionally permissible. As Harvard Law professor Richard Fallon elaborates, “The more sharply divided people become… then the more people are likely to roll out the heavy guns of constitutionality.” Politicians, seeking the ammunition that the Constitution provides, seek to take advantage of the moral weight of the founding document. Already, such claims paid huge dividends for Republicans in the 2010 elections, propelling firebrands like Allen West to Washington.

The never-ending media cycle adds fuel to the ideological fire. “How did the debate play out 200 years ago in a newspaper people read once a week because it was delivered to them by pony?” asks Roll Call editor Christina Bellantoni. “Now we have a debate at warp speed because of the Internet and 24/7 news media.” Steven Hayward, a political commentator and policy scholar, succinctly profiled what has become of national debate. Referring to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statement “Are you serious?” when asked about the constitutionality of the health care law, he reflected, “In a century, we’ve gone from three days [of discussion] to three words.” Because short sound bites are far more likely to garner attention than detailed policy speeches, substantive discussion about whether legislation is constitutional is almost impossible. Even the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates would likely be summarized into several succinct sentences by today’s media.

Moreover, the endless news cycle has allowed the Tea Party to play a significant role in elevating the Constitution in the public discourse. Bellantoni offers her perspective, stating that “The Tea Party sort of burst on the scene; they put on colonial garb and used the Constitution as their sort of weapon. And once that happened… you just got more and more lawmakers echoing what they heard at those rallies.” With the Tea Party championing a revival of the Constitution and the pressures of fundraising frenzies, invoking the founding document has become difficult to avoid for those seeking public office. Tea Party sympathizers and opponents have similarly been drawn into this discussion, laying the groundwork for continued heated rhetoric.

Who’re You Calling Unconstitutional?

Increased references to the Constitution, however, do not conflate with greater legitimacy. The debate over who has the right answers to these important constitutional questions rages on. Representatives Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Ron Paul (R-TX), among others, have called everything from the EPA to Obama’s health care policy unconstitutional. Scholars like Hayward nonetheless defend both claims. With regards to the EPA, Hayward fears that, “more and more we’re governed by administrators rather than by Congress,” which could have implications for the separation of powers. Regarding health care, he explains that, “with something like Obamacare, we are testing the limits of what is left of the Commerce Clause… if Congress has the power to [mandate that all citizens buy health insurance], what don’t they have the power to do?” Here, Bachmann and Paul’s constitutional arguments are rooted in deeply held ideological beliefs that government has exceeded its powers.

Yet others feel that such views run contrary to the very spirit of the Constitution. Tribe, for instance, views such positions to be “both ahistorical and functionally problematic.” Bachmann and Paul espouse, “a kind of literalist reading which would cripple the economy and which one couldn’t accept without, in fact, dismantling the entire federal structure.” Tribe goes so far as to label such rhetoric as “Neanderthal” emphasizing that the demands of modern society make such views antiquated. Indeed, opponents to landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act similarly claimed that the Acts were unconstitutional.

Regardless of where the answer lies, broad discussion of constitutional values has some inherent value, simply because public discourse promotes civic awareness. Unfortunately, however, the heightened rhetoric has generally not translated into a deeper understanding of the Constitution among the American populace. In fact, Bellantoni explains, “most young people don’t have as much familiarity with the Constitution… as they did 30 years ago.” Ultimately, today’s intensely partisan rhetoric has created a toxic environment in Washington, with the result that the 112^th Congress is on track to becoming one of the least productive ever, a particularly dire situation, given its incredibly challenging tasks. For all the attention America has given the Constitution in recent years, Americans have failed to follow the founders’ wish to amicably resolve our differences.

Daniel Ki ‘15 and Jacob Drucker ’15 are Contributing Writers

The result parallels a larger trend. State-level Republicans’ campaigns against President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress demonstrates the growing influence of national parties in state politics. This influence, the product of internet messaging, increased investment in state parties by the national parties, and political polarization, has weakened the ability of state politicians to carve out their own distinct political identities. As a result, the ideological diversity common in state legislatures has declined, potentially degrading the efficacy with which politicians represent their constituents.

Ideological Homogenization

Even though national parties have always affected state politics, the influence has most recently hurt moderate politicians at the state level. Indiana proves a case in point. In 2008 and 2009, Senators Evan Bayh (D) and Richard Lugar (R) had the most similar voting record of any two senators of opposing parties from the same state. As the political ideologies of the national parties diverge, however, voters may suffer less tolerance for differing viewpoints within parties. Under pressure from Republicans and Democrats for either supporting the President or not supporting him enough, Bayh retired in 2010, and was replaced by Tea Party member Dan Coates. Dan Parker, Chair of the Indiana Democratic Party, told the HPR, “In 2010, the Democratic Party forgot that elections in the United States are determined by moderates.”

National party ideology nonetheless seems to play a less significant role in local governance. Edward Glaeser, Director of Harvard’s Taubman Center for State and Local Government, asked, “Would you know that Michael Bloomberg was elected as a Republican or that Richard Daley was elected as a Democrat? There’s no Republican or Democratic way to take out the trash – it’s much less ideological.” Citing a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics by Joseph Gyourko and Fernando Ferreira, Glaeser indicated party affiliation bore almost no effect on the policies enacted by mayors or other city officials, but mattered significantly for state legislators.

The 50 Federal States?

The growing influence of the national parties has likewise made it more difficult for state parties to create distinct identities. Ray Buckley, Chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party asserts, “With the internet, the national message and the national narrative reach every nook and cranny of the country. As more people watch CNN and Fox News rather than read their local newspapers, voters in California receive the same message as voters in Maine.” Similarly, Rick Farmer, of the University of Akron, found that state party websites in the 2000 election often simply linked to national party websites. Although state party websites have advanced since, people are still more likely to receive party information from the national website, while new technologies have standardized each party’s message at the state level.

National parties have also begun to play a more direct role in legislative campaigns and elections at the state level. Programs like the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee constitute a national clearinghouse in which state staffers learn the latest techniques in organizing, messaging, and fundraising. Buckley termed this “the professionalization of legislative campaigns and state politics,” and noted that these tools were not available to states in the 1990s, when legislative campaigns were mostly locally run.

Partnerships with the national party provide state parties with financial and strategic benefits in their own elections. In 2005, DNC chairman Howard Dean proposed the “fifty-state initiative,” which committed national party resources to districts previously perceived as unviable. While initially controversial, the plan proved useful to many states. Parker noted that he “needed to rebuild Democratic support in Southern Indiana, and the grant from the fifty-state program allowed [him] to create a more stable, robust infrastructure.” Similarly, when asked about his strategy for the 2012 election, Buckley indicated that first and foremost, his goal would be to “collectively encourage folks to be involved in the President’s reelection—the stronger President Obama is in 2012, the more likely Democrats will pick up seats.”

One Nation, Under Parties

The current political polarization in Washington has broadened the divide between parties at the state level as well. Americans now have a more clear choice at the polling booth as the parties grow apart. Gerald Wright, Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, maintains that state parties have become more ideologically driven, like their national counterparts. Yet Wright told the HPR that while moderates may feel that politicians neglect their views, the drive towards ideology may benefit most citizens on the whole. “For a long time, voters were saying it’s sad that parties aren’t more dissimilar.” But now that polarization provides a consistent choice of parties, Wright argues, “the electorate has a clearer directive.” Even when considering the decried stalemate and rancor of our current congressional scene, Wright views these difficulties as simply results of the peculiarities of American democracy, like split-party government and the filibuster.

Nevertheless, growing ideological homogeneity could prove detrimental to public debate and the growth of new ideas. Farmer noted that state politics are characterized by the struggle of the state party leaders and grassroots movements. “Campaign finance regimes and ideological alignment make the state party leaders and national party officials interdependent,” claims Farmer.

Democracy Disintegrates?

The growth of national parties has caused tension with certain local movements, particularly grassroots campaigns. Such efforts, like the Tea Party movement, have grown powerful. State parties face the conflict of balancing the benefits of national organization with homegrown initiatives. Farmer offers some comfort, stating, “We need a government that is powerful enough to rule, but responsive enough to be held in check. The tension between grassroots and party leadership is where it’s at. This is a healthy thing for our democracy.” Unfortunately, current conditions seem to indicate that American politics is losing this very dynamic: the balance between local, state, and national movements. As national parties play a larger role in dictating how state parties legislate and conduct campaigns, the political views unique to different localities begin to disappear.

Our first system of governance granted individual states considerable autonomy from the national government, yet now state parties have become mere puppets of their national counterparts. With Congress in shambles, almost incapable of performing its most basic duties such as passing a budget, national parties have never been seen in such a poor light. If America is to tackle its most pressing national and local issues then, a necessary first step may be revitalization of the local state party.

Yet the extent to which economic factors derive political ones remains complex. While some democracies with high inequality vote in favor of redistributive policies, political polarization and economic inequality in the U.S. largely maintain each other. The growing income gap drives the rich and poor into political and social conflict, pushing them into polarized positions in separate parties.

From Inequality To Polarization?

The relationship between inequality and political polarization is not constant, but an outgrowth of the political climate. Economic inequality in the United States has ballooned since the 1960s, yet today’s polarization stands as a historical anomaly. Bart Bonikowski, assistant professor of sociology at Harvard, told the HPR that the political opinions of the general public remain largely moderate, despite the visible exploits of extreme movements like the Tea Party. Instead, the inequality revealed by the economic crisis has only recently fueled disapproval with the political process. “There’s always been inequality,” Bonikowski said. “But when times were good, the people who weren’t suffering didn’t notice. Now that we’re in this Great Recession, everyone notices. That causes frustration and resentment.”

Evidence from recent social movements and the changing compositions of Republican and Democrat constituencies suggest that political elites may citizens’ ire to advance their own agendas, leading to the perceived increases in polarization. Bonikowski suggests, “Economic crises create the perfect conditions for the political elite to drive opposing social movements.” In particular, the Great Recession, and the apparent lack of recovery therefrom, have allowed political elites to capitalize, through their party platforms, on a public desperate for solutions. Such strategies have historical roots. For instance, before the right-wing “Moral Majority” of the late 1970s, abortion was much less politicized. With the development of interest groups, abortion supporters and opponents, once split relatively equally between Republicans and Democrats, began to identify with one party or the other. The need to be different in order to win voters has become a major theme of modern campaigns, as evidenced by debates over economic recovery between low-tax Tea Party members and social-safety-net Democrats.

From Polarization To Inequality?

While perceptions of economic inequality depend on the political climate, polarization can also prevent the government from effectively combating inequality. According to Nolan McCarty, professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University, polarization can lead to more extreme policies that sway the relative welfares of competing groups, causing gridlock and paralyzing the decision making process.

McCarty believes that polarization is a severe problem in the U.S., where a supermajority in Senate is often required to pass legislation. “In Europe, where there are many smaller parties and where parties often form coalitions, political polarization is less of a problem. But because the United States has a polarized two-party system that can only take action in supermajorities, gridlock has much greater severity.”

Changing The Policymakers

While inequality and polarization are both complex problems, policymakers still enjoy the ability to affect the root causes. David A. Moss, professor at the Harvard Business School, points to evidence that there is a “correlation between increased civic engagement and declining income inequality.” After World War II, inequality declined significantly. Many theorize that the vast rise of civic engagement and the ensuing interactions between usually disparate groups during this period provided the impetus for this change. As Moss argues, “There are alternatives to the traditional policies such as tax cuts and government spending, which attempt to directly target income inequality.”

Andrew Liu ‘15 and Benjamin Lopez ’15 are Contributing Writers

The day he announced his candidacy, Rick Perry was the darling of the Republican Party. The Texas governor quickly galloped to the top of national polls, seemingly emerging as the ideal conservative challenger to President Obama. After months of lamenting the GOP field as insufficiently conservative or lacking in passion, many Republicans saw in Perry their ideal candidate.

But then, as Harvard Kennedy School professor Matthew Baum puts it, “he started talking.” To be sure, as Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder and CEO of Tea Party Patriots, points out, “Everyone seems to be very optimistic about anyone new who enters the race at first, giving them the benefit of the doubt.” Yet this pattern has already occurred with aspirants and characters alike, ranging from Sarah Palin to Donald Trump. Since the bounce afforded by novelty receded, Perry’s odds of victory have fallen steeply. Yet the governor’s problems are more fundamental. Perry will ultimately fail to win the Republican nomination because he inadequately appeals to social and business conservatives alike.

A Conservative Challenge

Perry’s meteoric rise and fall base on similar causes. Martin believes that “this time around…voters are looking for what the candidate’s track-record really is and not just what they say they’re going to do.” As Martin claims, Americans are taking a hard look at “candidates’ background and qualifications.” Unfortunately for Governor Perry, his conservative bona fides stand far from what they seemed just two months ago. Two issues in particular have allowed fringe opponents to portray Perry as unfaithful to the conservative principles: immigration and vaccines.

Attacks on his immigration record, especially his support for in-state college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants, have seriously eroded the GOP’s faith in Perry’s values. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s attacks found their mark during a GOP debate, “Four years of college, [that’s an] almost $100,000 discount if you are an illegal alien and go to the University of Texas… that doesn’t make sense to me.” Though some Republicans have criticized Romney for being too liberal, exchanges like this one leave GOP primary voters wondering who the real conservative is.

Conservatives such as Representatives Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul also criticize Perry’s stance on a controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine mandate for elementary school girls that he signed as governor. Although HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer, Bachmann and Paul see such a requirement as a serious infringement of parents’ rights. Bachmann even insinuated that Perry received financial inducements from Merck, the vaccine’s manufacturer. Harsh attacks by Tea Party heavyweights cast doubts on Perry’s viability as a candidate. Further, Perry’s willingness to engage with candidates well outside the political mainstream has prevented him from effectively challenging Romney, his chief rival for the nomination.

The Establishment Strikes Back

In an election centered on jobs and the economy, Perry’s track record on job creation is his most valuable asset. Unemployment continues to weigh down President Obama, and many Americans have lost their patience with the present administration. Nonetheless, Perry’s gubernatorial history has proved less fruitful than one might have presumed. Rival candidates and independent news analysts have torn apart Texas’s statistics. In Perry’s debate debut, for example, Romney attacked, “George Bush and his predecessor created jobs at faster rate than you did, Governor.” The skepticisms wears broader than just his rivals. Martin confirms that people are looking into whether, “it’s really [Perry]” responsible for Texas’ exemplary job growth.

The emphasis on governing records makes Perry vulnerable to Mitt Romney’s claims that forces unrelated to Governor Perry are responsible for Texas relative economic success. Indeed, critics assert that the groundwork for the “Texas Miracle”–low taxation and minimal business regulation—existed well before Perry’s ascent.  While Perry’s relationship with his state’s economy remains tenuous, his viability against Obama will prove doubtful.

Perry’s central problem has become clear: instead of the candidate who can unite a socially conservative base and business-oriented mainstream, Perry has become distasteful to both. Already, many voters view him as an unelectable Texan caricature, reminiscent of George W. Bush in all the wrong ways. As his gaffes accumulate and his inflammatory statements such as describing Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” continue to dominate the headlines, voters will grow wearier of the Texas Governor.

A Dogfight for the Nomination

Nonetheless, Republican media consultant Steve Grand cautions against writing Perry off too soon. While Perry may have suffered major setbacks, a candidate’s debate gaffes rarely finish a campaign. Grand says Perry is a “very good retail campaigner”, well suited to personally meeting with voters in early states like Iowa. Of course, he must showcase his leadership capacities to the electorate and shed the image of the somewhat befuddled debater, an outcome that has so far proved beyond reach. Grand also points to the employment of Dave Carney, one of Perry’s top consultants, as a sign that the governor’s campaign still has promise. Despite his late entry, Perry enjoys a viable campaign team capable of establishing a nation-wide campaign on short notice. His $17 million third quarter fundraising haul also signals that Republican bundlers and donors maintain some faith in Perry’s ability to secure the nomination.

Yet political tides are fast turning against Perry. Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain has recently assumed the mantle of the conservative firebrand and alternative to Romney. Cain’s long-term prospects and political seriousness are certainly questionable, particularly given recent harassment allegations, but Cain’s rise reflects the full extent to which Perry has squandered his own base of support. Cain’s “9-9-9” tax plan and charismatic speeches express the simple conservative message that Perry should have conveyed earlier.

Yet the biggest beneficiary of Perry’s fall may be Mitt Romney. Baum believes that unless Perry can recover, voters will end up flocking to Romney “by default” because he is a known quantity who can beat President Obama. Jenny Beth Martin likewise suggests the GOP base and Tea Party might be able to stomach Romney’s 10^th Amendment argument about the state-based nature of Romneycare. And given his campaign’s record, it is difficult to foresee Perry finding the necessary political discipline to lure fiscal conservatives away from Romney, or igniting sufficient enthusiasm amongst social conservatives. It is early in the race, and Governor Perry will certainly not concede anytime soon. Yet the governor’s few conservatively unorthodox policy positions, dubious job creation record, and gaffe-prone rhetoric will almost certainly doom his chances.

Photo Credit: Flickr (Gage Skidmore)

We had our team of US writers take on the Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. They assess the divide between Democrats and Republicans, the causes for the Super Committee’s current impasse, and potential solutions to the problems that the committee faces.

Daniel Backman ’15 — Staff Writer

Deficit reduction proposals from both Democrats and Republicans have been disappointing, and predictably so. In terms of the ratio between spending cuts and revenue increases, Democrats came up with a plan farther to the right than either Bowles-Simpson or Gang of Six plans, both of which were bipartisan plans. The Democrats, in their attempts at compromise with Republicans, have again merely compromised their own beliefs to craft a proposal that Republicans will not go along with anyway. And lo and behold, Republicans summarily rejected the plan, claiming it was a “non-starter” for many reasons – not least of which being that all of the Republicans on the committee have signed Governor Norquist’s pledge for no new taxes. Their proposal relies heavily on spending cuts, with only minor revenue increases that skirt the edges of any real tax reform.

Indeed, the number one thing missing from both of these proposals is comprehensive tax reform. The Bowles-Simpson plan released in December 2010 outlined bold moves to broaden the tax base, eliminate many tax expenditures, and lower overall corporate and individual rates, all while increasing revenues by $785 billion by 2020. This is no small number in itself, and the benefits of tax reform go beyond just deficit reduction.

The current tax code is riddled with tax expenditures, exemptions, and loopholes, forcing individuals and companies to spend heavily just to file their taxes. With tax accountants and lawyers in abundance, some companies have found ways to evade taxes altogether. The example of GE, which pays no corporate taxes, is one of many. This has led to unevenness and uncertainty among individuals and businesses, and it reduces our competitiveness in the world market. One-shot solutions like the Republicans propose will do little to decrease this uncertainty and create a more clear tax code for Americans to follow. The Democrats’ plan, in its reliance on tax increases for the rich, will likely make America less competitive, not more. While broadening the tax base and eliminating many corporate and individual exemptions would increase the burden on the rich in a similar way as the tax rate increases Democrats propose, the elimination of administrative costs and uncertainty – and the overall decrease in statutory tax rates – provided by the Bowles-Simpson plan are far more favorable.

There has been some talk between Boehner and Obama, among others, about some of these tax reforms, but Republicans are limited if they insist on considering tax reform as “new taxes.” Economists across the political spectrum, from Larry Summers to Greg Mankiw to Jeff Miron, agree that broadening the tax base is a good idea – I asked them while conducting interviews for a forthcoming article about Obama’s jobs proposal. Republicans and Democrats must put pandering aside and get serious about real reform.

Humza Bokhari ’14 — Staff Writer

When the US spends so much money on everything and still doesn’t see results, the question should be: are we spending it right? Does government spend money as carefully as we would our own?

It doesn’t look like it. That being said, the super committee shouldn’t be hesitant to slash across the board, without worrying about the political implications for things like cuts in education and infrastructure. Don’t get me wrong – both are extraordinarily important. But when the country is spending so much on education and still doing worse than countries that spend much less, well, maybe we need to see where the money is going. Tighter budgets might equal more accountability.

It’s here where I’d call out the Democrats, because they keep appealing to people’s emotions when it comes to cuts. We need cuts, and a lot of them.

I’m not saying the Republicans are perfect either. Calling the rich “job creators” isn’t a good enough excuse to prevent increases in taxes. Revenue holes need to be filled in somehow. It makes more sense that American citizens fill them in than the Chinese, who have already been super nice to us.

So the super committee needs to be aware that cuts and tax hikes are necessary, without worrying about voter blocs. These are not politicians who should be concerned with 2012. (Which is why Patty Murray’s presence raises a giant red flag.) They’re supposed to be secret, bipartisan, and dedicated to doing something for America. Let’s hope they do.

Matt Shuham ’15 — Staff Writer

The one thing that the Super Committee has made painfully clear is how out of touch our Congress really is. Grover Norquist, K Street, and a handful of billionaire bank rollers now have as much power as the American public. Polls have shown again and again that Americans support tax increases to take care of budgetary problems. By the way, this sentiment is shared by Republicans, the rich, and the very rich.

So why isn’t Congress (specifically, GOP and Tea Party members) reacting to popular opinion? Many lawmakers realize that the people that donate to them and buy their political ads are part of the minority of Americans that see “tax” as a dirty word, except when Ronald Reagan does it. Most of the lawmakers that are refusing to mention tax cuts realize they can still get re-elected, even if they know they are being irresponsible. In 2012, when the economy is still recovering and income disparity is still at an all-time high, they will ask their constituencies for another chance, this time faulting the EPA, Wall Street regulation, and health care reform. They know that Americans supported all of those measures when they were introduced, but they also know that unless they tow the line of conservative interests, their campaign coffers will be empty the next time around.

Frank Mace ’14 — Staff Writer 

To argue that the GOP and Tea Party members are failing to react to “popular opinion” by opposing tax increases is to forget that the 2010 midterms happened. Matt contends that those who see tax as a “dirty word” are “part of a minority of Americans,” yet in 2010 this minority showed up in enormous numbers and propelled the GOP to the largest midterm electoral gains since World War II. The poll that matters most is the election, and the historic victory for candidates opposed to tax increases is driving the conservative opposition to tax hikes in democratic fashion.

Daniel

That would assume that voting trends represent public opinion on any one issue.  People vote for candidates based on a whole range of issues, and often based on non-policy criteria from charisma to experience to the proverbial “who I’d like to have a beer with.”  Elections are reflections of political trends, which brings in all these unquantifiable criteria as well, not merely policy beliefs.  Hence the point of this super committee, which is supposed to transcend politics and make the best policies. Deferring to the past election to make decisions would be wholly misguided.

James Alver ’15 — Staff Writer 

If elections in favor of a particular party don’t indicate support of that party’s platform (The anti-tax Tea Party was a huge motivator last year, and the GOP candidates almost unanimously opposed tax increases), then what’s the point of democracy? Sure, we’d like our politicians to have entirely neutral, rational reasons for everything they do, but politics just doesn’t work that way; politicians are elected because they have a bias.

The looming failure of the SC to accomplish anything is due to the fact that, like it or not, everyone on the panel is a politician, and both sides were given equal representation on the committee. Party-line type voters tend to see compromise as “caving” on the issues, so congressmen running for re-election, especially in the increasingly common “safe” seats where the primary is the election, are more afraid of being attacked for wavering on their values than for being an obstructionist. The very nature of politics has made this result almost inevitable.

Daniel

Perhaps my point was a little idealistic. But my fear is that saying simplistic things like “Americans voted for the party of no new taxes” prevents compromise on nuances that should really appeal to both parties. I go back to my original point: tax reform that raises revenue yet lowers overall tax rates, including 12 percentage points in corporate taxes, should appeal to Republicans. But because the simplistic view exists that all revenue is the same, we get oversimplified, partisan non-solutions instead of real reform. Once we boil the complexity of elections down to three words, “no new taxes,” we’re undercutting our own ability to innovate and reform, the very things that made America number 1, and the lack of which holds us back.

James

I agree that there are a lot of ideas being floated that both parties should be in favor of, but refuse to agree to in order to politick. The political climate (brought on by voters and activists, not necessarily party platforms) that punishes compromise definitely needs to change, but the current crop of Congressman is a result of that climate.  We should be disappointed, but not surprised in the least.

Paul Schied — US Online Editor

I also think, perhaps idealistically, that the cycle that James talks about can be broken by true courage and true leadership, instead of the pandering that we’ve seen.

And while I fully agree that the political climate is disconcerting, there are some glimmers of hope for a productive deal. Areas like farm subsidies should provide both sides with a chance to compromise, and I think that the larger disagreements over taxes are serious but not irreconcilable. The fact that 40 Republicans have urged the committee to consider revenue increases is telling. Republicans realize that they can’t continue to look like the stubborn ones, in part because 2012 is a presidential election, and independents will be coming to the polls.

A deal that includes broadening the tax base and reforming some entitlement programs could push Republicans to relent on closing tax loopholes and other revenue increasing measures. The Democrats are right to try to avoid showing up the Republicans so far. If they can work towards making a deal that doesn’t require the Republicans to completely abandon the tenets that were affirmed in the midterms, this committee might just pull it off after all.

photo credit: www.ncpssm.org

The looming failure of the SC to accomplish anything is due to the fact that, like it or not, everyone on the panel is a politician, and both sides were given equal representation on the committee. Party-line type voters tend to see compromise as “caving” on the issues, so congressmen running for re-election, especially in the increasingly common “safe” seats where the primary is the election, are more afraid of being attacked for wavering on their values than for being an obstructionist. The very nature of politics has made this result almost inevitable.