Healthcare politics outside the court

Posted on March 31, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Most public attention to health care reform turned to arguments in front of the Supreme Court.  But while journalists and analysts interpreted every question, pause, and eye roll from the Supreme Court justices, activists took health care politics outdoors, offering clearer messages.

Initially supporters of the Affordable Care Act were visible in greater numbers, demonstrating the benefits of the law under challenge–even though most of it still hasn’t gone into effect.

By the second day of hearings, however, opponents of the reform were also out in numbers, expressing their opposition and their fealty to one vision of the Constitution.   At left you can see the opposition arguments in crystallized form: the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the flag, and charges that the Obama administration is socialist and immoral.

Meanwhile, demonstrators are using the occasion to put forward their vision of the most important issues in the bill; it’s another chance to demonstrate on abortion rights, for example, outside the Supreme Court.

What’s going on here?

Although it’s possible that some of the activists on each side believe their demonstrations will affect the Justices or a stray clerk by raising a new argument not present in the pounds of briefs filed by each side (the New York Times reports that advocacy groups filed a record 136 amicus curiae briefs), it’s hard to imagine many having faith in this notion.

The Justices may acknowledge the influence of many factors, not the least of these the Constitution.  Justice Clarence Thomas says that they won’t be distracted by the protests, because they, like basketball players shooting free throws, learn to block out the noise to focus on the task at hand.  Besides, any Justice could find a sympathetic demonstrator to justify whatever decision she or he chose to make.

But while the Justices ostensibly focus on legal arguments, the rest of the United States is focused on the Supreme Court.  Activists want to crowd into that field of vision, knowing that their protest will get more attention from the broader public than any of the mountains of text in the legal briefs.  And whatever the Supreme Court decides, the health care battle is far from over.

Supporters of the Affordable Health Care act wanted to show that the reforms had tangible–and positive–consequences.  Note above the uniforms; at the demonstrations, there were plenty of stories.  They won’t go away if the Court strikes down all or part of the law, nor will the 50 million or so Americans without health insurance.  The costs of health insurance and health care will continue to increase, comprising the largest–and fastest growing–obstacle to controlling the deficit.

And if the Court upholds the law?  All of the Republican presidential aspirants have promised to repeal what Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich call “Romneycare,” and will surely campaign on the issue.  And health care costs will continue to increase while opponents continue to insist on their vision of the appropriate interpretation of the commerce clause.

The demonstrations are reminders of these political realities, played more for a broad political audience than the Supreme Court itself.  More than one side has taken to the streets.  Ironically, there’s probably more discussion across those sides outside the Supreme Court building than in the Justices’ conference room.

Paradoxically, the loser in the Court is likely to gain the initial advantage in the streets.  Striking down the law will rob opponents of their unifying focus and shift the emphasis in questions to Republicans on just what they will replace the reform with.  (Not even the most optimistic and ideologically committed advocates think any of the proposed market-based reforms will extend health care coverage to more than a sliver of the uninsured.)

And it will energize those who have been working for health care reform–or benefiting from the first bits to come into effect–and provide them with a sharper political focus.  Watch particularly for the reactions from the 2.5 million young adults (under 26) who have been able to continue to benefit from their parents’ insurance; watch for their parents reactions as well as they contemplate allowing their underemployed offspring fend for themselves in the insurance market.

If the Court upholds the law, opponents will be able to avoid the debate of what to do instead, and focus instead on the law as it exists.  Every unhappy bit of news from the health care system will be evidence for their view of the laws inadequacies.  And, at least for the short run, they will focus very directly on the upcoming elections.

I don’t know how to read Justice Kennedy’s vote from his questions or tone of voice, but I am certain that this issue isn’t going away any time soon–whatever the Court does.  The demonstrators outside remind us all.

Posted in countermovements | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Cesar Chavez 2012

Posted on March 30, 2012 by David S. Meyer

I’m typing from my office today, March 30, but campus is quiet in honor of Cesar Chavez Day.  Below is a repost on the occasion:

On my campus, we commemorated Cesar Chavez Day early, yesterday, rather than March 31 (his birthday), by closing.  The state established the holiday in 2000, and six other states have followed suit.  In California, the legislature calls upon public schools to develop appropriate curricula to teach about the farm labor movement in the United States, and particularly Chavez’s role in it.

A campaign to establish a national holiday has stalled so far (The Cesar Chavez National holiday website seems to have last been updated in 2008), but last year President Obama issued a proclamation announcing a day of commemoration, and calling upon all Americans “to observe this day with appropriate service, community, and education programs to honor Cesar Chavez’s enduring legacy.”

Political figures have many reasons for creating holidays, including remembering the past; identifying heroic models for the future; recognizing and cultivating a political constituency; and providing an occasion to appreciate a set of values.  Regardless of the original meaning, the holidays take on new meanings over time.  Columbus Day, for example, is celebrated as an occasion for pride in Italian Americans (e.g.), and commemorated and mourned as a symbol of genocide  and empire (e.g.).

Cesar Chavez’s life and work is well worth remembering and considering, particularly now.  His career as a crusader was far longer than that of Martin Luther King discussed (here and here) and he was far more of an organizer than Fred Korematsu (discussed here).  Chavez’s Medal of Freedom was awarded shortly after his death in 1993, by President Clinton, but many of his accomplishments were apparent well before then.

Dolores Huerta, 2009

As a young man, Chavez was an agricultural worker; by his mid-twenties, he became a civil rights organizer, working for the Community Service Organization in California.  With Dolores Huerta, in 1962 Chavez founded the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers.  Focusing on poor, mostly Mexican-American workers, Chavez’s vision for activism was right at the cornerstone of racial and economic justice.  Establishing an organization, however, is a long way from winning recognition and bargaining rights as a union.

Chavez was a tactician, a public figure, a charismatic, and something of a mystic.  Modeling his efforts after Gandhi’s successful campaigns, Chavez was an emphatic practitioner of active nonviolence.  He employed boycotts, strikes, long fasts, demonstrations, long marches, and religious rhetoric in the service of his cause.  He also registered voters, lobbied, and worked in political campaigns.  He was a tireless and very effective organizer for most of his life.

But holidays are best celebrated with an eye to the future, rather than the past.

On Cesar Chavez Day this year, we can think about the large and growing Latino community in the United States.  The 2010 Census reports that Latinos now comprise roughly 1/6 of the American population, and more than 1/3 of the population in California. This is the youngest and fastest-growing population in America today, and they are severely underrepresented in the top levels of politics, education, and the economy.   The civil rights map is at least as complicated as at any time in American history, but not less important or urgent.  (The struggle about the DREAM Act is reminiscent of the debate about Voting Rights 45 years ago.)  The future of American Latinos is very much the future of America.

And Chavez saw the civil rights struggle as a labor campaign.  When Chavez and Huerta started their campaign, nearly one third of Americans were represented by unions.  The percentage now is now just about 10 percent, and less in the private sector.

And public sector workers, even if represented by unions aren’t doing so well.  The ongoing conflict in Wisconsin is all about weakening unions that are already making very large concessions on wages and pensions.  The campaign in Wisconsin is part of a larger national effort, which is playing out in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, and elsewhere.  Even in states where anti-union forces are weaker, state employees face lay-offs, wage cuts, and increased health and pension costs.  Importantly, we need to remember that you can’t attack teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters without hurting the people they serve: us.

Or should I say, US?

Cesar Chavez’s birthday is an opportune time for thinking about Latinos, civil rights, and American labor, and not just the start of Spring.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Protest makes it harder to ignore injustice

Posted on March 26, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Full Disclosure: I started wearing hoodies in high school and they’ve been a staple part of my wardrobe since.

That’s not the only reason, of course, I was disturbed when Geraldo

New York State Senator Eric Adams, "I am Trayvon Williams."

Rivera suggested that Trayvon Martin’s attire was responsible for an armed neighborhood watch volunteer killing him.

Why is Geraldo even talking about the killing of Trayvon Martin?  And why is a New York State Senator wearing a hoodie in the Senate chamber?  (If he were cold, wouldn’t a Santorum style sweater vest be more appropriate?)

Putting on the hoodie is one way people have expressed their outrage with the killing of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old high school student in Sanford Florida, a month ago on February 26.

George Zimmerman, a zealous neighborhood watch volunteer who dreamed of becoming a police officer, saw the boy, judged him to be suspicious, called the police, ignored directions to leave him alone, assessed Martin as dangerous, and shot him to death.  (Reports that Zimmerman says Martin hit him are just beginning to circulate.)  Zimmerman claims self-defense, citing Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which protects people who use force, even deadly force, when they are threatened.

There are a lot of stories here that will continue to unfold for a long time.  The important one now is that there IS a national story.  Martin’s death got little attention from the Sanford police, much less the national media, until activists were able to use social media to spread the story–emphasizing the George Zimmerman was not arrested, or even detained, by the police.  Trayvon’s parents used change.org to circulate a petition calling for Zimmerman’s arrest.  As I write, it bears well over two million signatures.

The petition, along with protests and the ensuing media coverage, kept the story alive, and preserved the possibility that something else might come out of the tragic shooting of a child.  A month after the killing, there have been demonstrations across the United States, including virtually every large city in America.  Activists used the tragedy as a piece of a much larger story about widespread social problems.

Miami Heat players in hoodies

Parents of African American and Latino youth saw the killing as an instance of racism, recounting the detailed instructions they give their children in dealing with authorities, particularly police.  “The rules,” one mother explained, mean knowing “who you are.  You can’t do everything they do.”

Most of the stories emphasize the inherent dangers young black and Latino men face in dealing with police, who are armed and charged with facing dangerous situations.   (As your friends about their stories of encounters with police.)  But George Zimmerman wasn’t a police officer.

He was, however, armed.  Another grievance is the easy availability of guns in the United States generally, and even moreso in Florida.  Neighborhood watch patrols are normally equipped with flashlights and phones.  George Zimmerman was carrying his own gun–legally.  It’s doubtful that he would have pursued Martin without it.  Certainly, he couldn’t have shot him.  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the shooting demonstrates the need for gun control.

Zimmerman hasn’t, at this writing, been arrested, ostensibly protected by Florida’s “Stand your Ground” law.  John F. Timoney, formerly Miami’s police chief, published a piece in the New York Times, explaining why he and other police chiefs opposed the law.  Essentially, police officers can be trained and held accountable.  There is supposed to be a formal investigation every time a police officer fires a weapon; why should there be less than this for someone who hasn’t been subject to training?

Activists are trying to bring meaning to a senseless tragedy.  You know the story because they would not let it fade away.  By itself, this is a victory of sorts.  And it’s not enough.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The truth in fiction

Posted on March 19, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Fiction, labeled as fiction, can be every bit as powerful as good journalism for stirring the imagination and mobilizing support.  In yesterday’s post, I cited Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin as example, but obviously there are many many more.  Philip Cohen (at Family Inequality) identifies Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, which was instrumental in promoting regulation of the meat industry.  (To my knowledge, even the libertarians support keeping meat inspection as a federal responsibility.)

Peter Weir’s Gallipoli is the most powerful antiwar statement I’ve ever seen, but it was no documentary.  The screenwriter, David Williamson, invented two sprinters (Mel Gibson and Mark Lee) and made them messengers at the British siege.

George Orwell, who wrote polemics and journalism as well, is best known today for his anti-totalitarian fiction, most notably 1984 and Animal Farm.

I wonder if a work of fiction requires a higher level of artistry and execution to be a powerful mobilizer.

Probably not.

My Congressman, John Campbell (R) reports that he gives copies of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged to departing interns, and that Rand’s rather artless novels were the inspiration for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisconsin) political career.  Rand’s fiction was obviously an effective conduit for her ideas.

You can list your favorites.

In the meantime, call it a novel or fantasy or allegory if it’s moral truth, rather than factual accuracy, that you’re after.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The value of truth

Posted on March 18, 2012 by David S. Meyer

I want to believe that telling the truth matters.  Advocates who have any belief in democracy as a value have to think that if people only knew what they know they’d agree.  Activists take on a public education job when they take on a cause, and they should have little reason to lie.

This past week, however, shows both the temptations and risks of cutting corners on the facts.

First, there was the extraordinary Kony 2012 video, sponsored by Invisible Children.  Dozens of people from diverse networks forwarded me links to the viral video, and I wasn’t alone.  At this moment, youtube counts more than 82 million views.  This is amazing.  Justin Bieber, with 18 million followers of his own, tweeted in support of a campaign to stop Kony, and forwarded the video, as did other celebrities.  This was certainly the first many Americans heard of Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army.  Kony is a true villain by any definition, and awareness IS important.

But: the video isn’t exactly accurate on details, and maybe not as helpful as it could be about describing potential courses of action.  In a transparently manipulative way, the filmmaker, Jason Russell, described Kony’s abduction of children to his preschool son on camera.  The video overstated the size of the LRA, and ignored Uganda’s success in driving Kony’s forces out of the country.  The prime strategy for action was donating money to Russell’s organization, Invisible Children.

But 82 million hits??? Are some corners worth cutting or facts worth shading to get the story out to so many people?  Surely, they’ll be in a position to learn more eventually.  But the public debate quickly turned away from Kony to the distortions in the video, and ultimately to Russell himself, who hurt the cause by appearing naked on the streets of San Diego.  It remains to be seen whether all the awareness he generated evaporates in confusion or disgust.

Another variant of this problem is Mike Daisey’s story about the production of iphones in China.  Daisey had been performing a monologue ostensibly detailing his investigations of the lives of Chinese workers making the iphone.  This American Life, a wonderful weekly radio show, excerpted Daisey’s show and presented it, generating more attention than any previous episode in more than ten years on the air.  Partly as a result, activists staged protests about Apple’s labor practices to coincide with the release of the Ipad 3.  (By itself, this opportunistic protest should have been good fodder for politics outdoors.)

Daisey dramatically portrayed the difficulties and dangers Chinese workers face, including extremely long shifts, unsafe factory conditions, low wages, and child labor.  None of the wrongs were invented out of whole cloth, but the monologuist fabricated interviews, visits, child workers, poisoned workers, union organizers, and telescoped dates and events.

This American Life issued its first retraction.  Although the show often presents fiction, it is always labeled as fiction.  (Indeed, fiction labeled as such can be extraordinarily effective in dramatizing a cause.  Harriet Beecher Stowe could readily acknowledge inventing Uncle Tom without compromising the moral truth of her story.)

In the full hour devoted to explaining and apologizing for running the story, host Ira Glass interviewed Daisey, who repeatedly announced that he was apologizing, but explained that he stood by the “theatrical truth” of his monologue.  It’s about generating attention and a feeling, he said.  He’s not a journalist, he explained, but an emotional storyteller.

Again, the spotlight shifted from Apple, outsourcing, and labor practices to the veracity of the narrator.  Is buying from Apple as bad as lying?

These are particularly dramatic examples of a practice that just isn’t that unusual: distorting truth to craft a story that generates support for your side.  (Indeed, the recently departed Andrew Breitbart, was proud of his skills at taking snippets out of context to present a dramatic–and less than accurate–slice of reality.)  The temptation to improve a story to make a point you judge to be more important is obvious; the risks of doing so are forfeiting your credibility and undermining your cause when the distortions come out.

Let me confess that my job as a professor biases my outlook; I’m completely invested in finding real answers and in using accurate information.  I want to believe that telling the truth helps in the end, and that lying will ultimately backfire.

Alas, the evidence isn’t really all that strong.  It’s one thing to use harsh and nasty language about your political enemies; that’s a seamy part of the deal of engaging in public life.  And well-intentioned people can differ about appropriate responses to climate change, the most just or advantageous level of taxation or the morality of abortion.

But honest and well-intentioned people can agree about the scientific consensus on climate change or on historic levels of taxation.  Agreeing on the facts makes meaningful political debate possible.  To the extent that advocates offer distortions or lies that deem to be advantageous for the short-term, they undermine the prospects for real democratic governance.  Unfortunately, they may help themselves by doing so.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

George Clooney does politics outdoors–and indoors

Posted on March 16, 2012 by David S. Meyer

George Clooney was arrested this morning in Washington, DC, protesting outside Sudan’s embassy.  They trespassed to call attention to President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir’s military blockade preventing food and humanitarian aid from getting to people on the border of Sudan and South Sudan.  (See reports here, here, here, and here.)

Clooney wasn’t alone.  The police also slapped plastic handcuffs on his father, Nick Clooney, as well as activists John Prendergast (Enough Project), Benjamin Jealous (NAACP), and Martin Luther King III.  The arrested also included Democratic members of the House of Representatives James Moran (Virginia), Jim McGovern (MA), John Olver (MA), and Al Green (TX).

Clooney himself had testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the same issue on Wednesday.

There are a couple of obvious and interesting questions here:

Why is George Clooney, who’s made his reputation and his money in the entertainment industry, becoming the most visible person calling for new policies toward Africa?  Should we pay attention to celebrities on difficult and complicated issues?  And why do people who have access to mainstream politics institutions resort to civil disobedience to make their claims?

Celebrities in American political life, of course, is nothing new.  Making a good living as an actor, athlete, or singer doesn’t mandate the sacrifice of one’s responsibilities and liberties as a citizen.  And people with disproportionate access to money and

Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, and Charlton Heston at the March on Washington, 1963.

publicity can do more than most citizens to bring attention to an issue, alternative, or organization.  (ABC’s Dana Hughes uses the Clooney story to discuss the larger issues of celebrities in politics, which includes some comments from me, misidentified as “David Meyers.”)  A star like George Clooney brings a spotlight with him, and here Clooney has decided to use it to turn attention to Sudan.

George Clooney has never been elected to anything.  He can’t demand to testify before a Senate committee, nor can he compel the Senate to pay attention.  But Foreign Relations Chair Senator John Kerry (D-MA) knows that his ideas will get more attention coming out of the famous actor’s mouth than his own–and Clooney cooperated.  This is smart politics for everyone concerned.  They didn’t stop there.

Why the arrest?  Clooney was heard in Congress.  Presumably, even members of the minority in the House can be heard as well.

There’s a battle for public attention that is every bit as important as the battles within Congress, and it’s even more difficult than campaigns about health insurance or birth control to get public attention.  By taking politics outdoors, to the steps of Sudan’s embassy, George Clooney and his allies brought attention to their concerns not only to network news and large newspapers, but also People magazine.  Americans who can’t locate Sudan on a map will learn the name of Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, creating possibilities and pressures for further campaigns and political action.

The windows of possibility don’t open very wide or very often on policy toward Africa, but a campaign like this creates a moment.  George Clooney’s presence means it will reach a little more broadly into American life and list a little bit longer than it would without him.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Portland and the future of social movements

Posted on March 13, 2012 by David S. Meyer

I’m excited to participate in a discussion on the future of social movements and citizen power tomorrow night.  Oregon Humanities is sponsoring the event at the Mission Theater and Pub, 1624 NW Glisan St., Portland, part of its “Think and Drink” series.  I’ll be talking with Bob Liebman (Portland State University, sociology and urban studies) and Rich Read, a Pulitzer prize winning journalist at The Oregonian.  I expect it to be hyper-interesting and fun.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Who’ll Occupy education?

Posted on March 8, 2012 by David S. Meyer

Protests against tuition hikes and program in public education and service cuts have become more frequent and more intense as state budgets have tightened.  It’s awful everywhere–and worse in California (e.g. ), where an old tradition of the state supporting access to a low (or no) tuition/high quality education for its top students has been eroding for some time.

On Monday, in coordination with a national day of action on education, several groups staged protests in Sacramento about current–and proposed–cuts to spending on education.  Thousands of protesters, including the formal groups representing California students at the community colleges, state colleges, and state universities, as well as labor groups and numerous Occupy groups, participated, bringing shared concerns and sharp differences on long term goals and tactics.  At least 70 students were arrested for refusing to leave the Capitol.

Governor Brown, who has already cut spending for every level of public education in California, sees more cuts on the horizon, as state revenues have fallen below projections.  He expressed sympathy for the students, and tried to turn the protests to his own purposes.  He released a statement pointing those concerned with education to his proposal for new temporary taxes to balance the state budget:

The students today are reflecting the frustrations of millions of Californians who have seen their public schools and universities eroded year after year.  That’s why it’s imperative that we get more tax revenue this November.

Some of the student groups support new taxes, but have rallied behind an alternative proposal which earmarks the new revenue for education.  Others are trying to avoid specific proposals, and just trying to urge the Legislature–as forcefully as possible–to fund education adequately.  Some of the students lobbied legislators, and were pleased to have elected officials speak to them and offer support.

Others, including Refund California and Occupy Education California, were wary about the legislators’ support and politics as usual.  To be sure, polls suggest that approving a new tax, even a temporary one, through a referendum will be an uphill battle.

Occupy brings new energies and new activists into the campaign for education funding, but it does more than that.  By framing the education campaign as part of a larger struggle against inequality, the Occupy protesters make for a more ambitious movement, one that won’t be willing to fund education at the expense of, for example, the already stingy Medical program.  (Governor Brown has been lobbying, unsuccessfully, for the Federal government to allow him to cut Medicaid spending even more sharply.)

Old school interest group politics is based on focusing narrowly on your organization and constituency, letting government sort out competing pressures.  Occupy pushes for a larger political vision, one which seeks to stop their government from playing one vulnerable constituency against another.

It’s a better analysis.  It remains to be seen if it’s a more effective strategy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Occupy education: uniting university student protest

Posted on March 2, 2012 by David S. Meyer

University and college student protest returned yesterday (here and here).  Across California, at UC, Cal State, and even some high school campuses, students protested tuition hikes and program cuts, even as schools are raising tuition and cutting programs everywhere.  Now, the student protests are called “Occupy.”

You can see the broad trend in tuition below (from the College Board):

But it’s worse than this.  In public institutions, tuition hikes are accompanied by cuts in services, courses, and faculty, resulting in a, uh, compromised, educational experience.  Students who are working more hours off-campus to fund their educations are finding themselves closed out of classes they want or need, sitting in more crowded lecture halls, navigating reduced library hours and offerings, and seeing greater personal debt and dimmed career prospects on the horizon.

Access to high quality education, higher and otherwise, is a core equal opportunity issue.  Whatever Senator Rick Santorum says about snobbery or liberal professors indoctrinating youth, young people with college degrees are less likely to be unemployed than those without them; they’re still likely to earn more money and enjoy more stability as well.  (Of course, it’s worse for college grads than it used to be.)

When Occupy left public parks, usually not by activist choice, it spilled out into the range of issues and arenas that organize American life.  “Occupy” provided the language for a wide range of campaigns to reduce political and economic inequality.  The campus-based protests yesterday aren’t anything new, but framing them as part of a larger campaign for justice and reform is.

In Santa Cruz, Occupy turned out hundreds of students, made some interesting pictures, and canceled many classes.

Across California, the LA Times reports, turnouts were vigorous, but relatively small.  It’s a little early in the tuition hike cycle for student protests to take-off.  The challenge for Occupy is to find ways to inspire larger numbers of people to take up specific parts of the cause in the places they know best: housing, finance, work, and certainly, education.  The promise is of a multi-faceted, diverse, and powerful movement.

The risk is that these diverse efforts fail to generate the inspiration and attention of the Occupations.

It’s early yet.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 15 Comments

When the Snowe flies: Tea Party overreach?

Posted on March 1, 2012 by David S. Meyer

When Senator Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican, announced that she would not run for reelection, she demonstrated another of the difficult challenges that movement activists face when they engage electoral politics.  Senator Snowe would cut deals with the Democratic majority, and showed unpartisan flexibility in dealing with process, schedules, and budgets.  At the same time, she voted with the Republican Party almost all the time, and certainly on matters of organizing the Senate.

Apparently her vision of pragmatic conservative politics was compatible with Maine voters; experts, like 538’s Nate Silver, saw her reelection as extremely likely.   She had raised plenty of money already, and was hugely popular in the state.  (Silver notes, however, that the seat is now extremely likely to go to a Democrat, jeopardizing the Republican effort to take control of the Senate.)

For social movements, putative allies judged insufficiently resolute are attractive targets.  Conservatives call their more pragmatic members “RINOs,” that is, Republicans in Name Only, and have targeted them in primary campaigns.

Attacks on the least doctrinaire Republicans, like those who can win in swing districts, was one of the critical stories of the 2010 elections.  Sometimes, as in Utah (Mike Lee) and Kentucky (Rand Paul), conservatives replaced the choice of party regulars with more conservative alternatives and won.  In other cases, however, including Nevada, Delaware, and Colorado, they succeeded in nominating very conservative candidates who lost winnable races against Democrats.

Pragmatic politicians want numbers, and can work out details about loyalty later.  They understand that majorities organize the legislature and make policy, while resolute minorities can make statements and try to stall their opponents.

But primary challenges can have additional effects, and not only on those directly challenged.  Fearing a primary challenge, moderates are more likely to protect their flank, eschewing compromise and votes that might later need to be explained to a fundamentalist core that turns out to vote in primaries.

Senator Snowe was facing a primary challenge from a Tea Partier (Scott D’Amboise), like her colleagues Richard Lugar (Indiana) and Orrin Hatch (Utah).  Unlike Senator Snowe, Senators Lugar and Hatch would never have been called anything but conservative until this odd moment in American life.  They did, however, try to govern.  But the primary challenges worked: all three tacked to the right legislatively, paying attention to winning the support of their party first.  Senator Hatch even warned that if the Republicans gained the majority without him, Olympia Snowe would be chair of the Senate Finance Committee.

The primary challenges play out differently, depending upon context.  While Maine now seems primed to elect a Democrat to the Senate, Utah is virtually certain to elect a Republican senator, even if their candidate isn’t Orrin Hatch.  And Indiana is somewhere in between.

Few professional politicians would prefer to be part of a disciplined and unified minority than to participate in a broader coalition that governs.  Republican Senator Jim DeMint (South Carolina) is one of them.  Politico quotes Senator DeMint:

I don’t want to be in the majority if we don’t have bold ideas and that we’re going to reform government…I think the problem we have as a party is when we are so afraid of losing elections that we’re afraid to do the right thing. That’s what hurts us as Republicans. I think it’s the principles that people relate to.

The challenge we have is not that there’s not room in the party for different people, but there has got to be a party that recognizes that somehow we need to transition toward a smaller, less expensive government…And if there are people in the Republican Party who don’t think we have to do that, there’s probably not room for them.

If Republicans lose this election, Senator DeMint’s position on the longstanding purity versus pragmatism debate will become less and less popular.  Tea Party enthusiasm will have cost the Republican Party a seat in the Senate, and compromised its prospects for winning the Senate.  In the halls of Congress, Republican legislators are muttering about the need for activists to grow up and get realistic.

Voters, of course, face the same choices that movements do.  Holding your nose and voting for the “lesser evil” is another way of saying that you’re making pragmatic choices.  (Occupiers looking at President Obama in the Fall will face exactly that purity versus pragmatism choice.)  It’s not always pretty or appealing, but this is also what democracy looks like.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments