Category: Politics

The Fallacy of Federalism

Conservatives frequently say that political power, and the development of political policies, should be devolved to the lowest level of government since that is closest to the people. This is one key aspect of “federalism,” idea seems simple enough. Local officials know their constituents. State legislators and city council members live and work among the people they represent, and so they are more likely to know their constituents and therefore more likely to actually know what the public wants. As a result they should be more attuned with local issues and problems, and more likely to be able to fashion a local solution based on the needs of the people.

The flip side of this is the idea that citizens are much more directly impacted by local issues and so are more aware of them, and much more likely to know more about the problems and possible solutions. And because they are more aware, they are much more likely to interact with their elected officials in a meaningful way. The result is that they are much more likely to know their local representatives than their national representatives, and so make more informed choices when voting.

But how true is that? Are people more involved locally? Do they know, and interact, with their state and local officials? One way to measure that is to look at the election of national, state and local officials. If voting trends and familiarity with elected officials are any indication, there is far less democracy at the local level than at the national level. Presidential elections typically get about 55% – 60% of the vote. (Good news, voting has been inching up lately, in part, I believe, due to increased political discussion on talk radio and coverage on cable news, and also due to the effect of social media.) In 2012, approximately 72% of registered voters actual cast ballots, but because not all of those who are eligible to vote are registered, the actually voting rate for potentially eligible voters was 54%.

In off-year national elections, for Senators and Representatives, the turn-out number is typically closer to 40%. In 2010 for example, voter turnout was 41% nationwide. In state specific elections voter turnout averages around 25%. In the 2011 Kentucky election in which all “Constitutional Officers” (meaning Governor, Secretary of State, etc.), turn-out was just over 28%. In the hotly contested Governor’s race in Virginia in 2013, turnout was about 37%. In local elections, for example for mayor, or for things like bond issues, voter turn-out is typically closer to 10%. In the recent city election in Houston (for mayor, city council, a ballot measure asking whether or not to tear down the Astrodome) voter turnout was about 13 percent.
By the measure of voting, local elections have far lower turnout than national elections: the higher the office on the ballot the greater the turnout. If the number of people at the polls are taken as a measure of democracy and citizen participation, then state and local elections are far less democratic than national elections. Based on these results, it is almost laughable to say that state and local elections are more democratic than national elections. It is laughable to suggest that people are more involved.

[Much of this data is from the George Mason University’s United States Election Project, available at http://elections.gmu.edu/index.html. See also, Information Please at http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html. And NonProfit Vote at www.nonprofitvote.org]

Most people are also much less familiar with their local elected officials than their national officials. In public opinion surveys, a surprisingly low number of people know the names of their elected representatives. While most people know the President, the numbers drop quickly from there. Only about 65% can name their state’s governor, and only about half can name their United States Senator, and barely 25% can name both Senators. [http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/america-already-is-europe/ ]

I suspect less than half can name their U.S. Representative and far fewer can name their state senator or representative. In my highly unscientific poll of my friends and neighbors, almost none know the name of their state senator or representatives. Fewer still can name their council members, though most know who the Mayor is. This despite the fact that most of my friends are highly politically engaged. And don’t even get me started on state or local judges.

So how is government closer to the people when most people have no idea who their state or local representatives are? How is it more democratic when fewer people actually participate? And what does this say about this particular conservative explanation of federalism? It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.
[See, http://www.people-press.org/topics/public-knowledge/. http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/ ]

There is also far less news coverage of state and local political issues. The local media reports on fires and robberies, but very little on governmental affairs. There is certainly some political reporting, but it is nowhere near the level as on the national stage. My local news paper (the Lexington Herald-Leader) reports on major issues when the legislature is in session, but it is rarely front page news. This is in stark contrast to the media interest in events in Washington DC. There are literally dozens of major news outlets watching every aspect of Congress and the Federal government, but only a few watching state government. And except for the big issues, almost none at the local level.

2014 is an election year for both state and national offices, but in Kentucky at least, most of the political news involves the U.S. Senate race between incumbent Republican Senator, and Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and the Democratic challenger, current Kentucky Secretary of State Alisson Lundregan Grims. It is certainly a big race, but it seems to take almost all of the ink away from most every other race.

This lack of knowledge and participation in the political process at the local level is not only less democratic, it leaves open a far greater possibility for undue influence. Take a local bond issue, for example. If less than 10% of the voting public participates, a group might be able to sway the results with a few hundred extra votes. And if prosecutions for political malfeasance is any indication, there is far more corruption at the local or state level than at the national level.

Because of the lack of knowledge and participation in state and local issues, a small group of influential people can have enormous sway over local elected officials and over local elections. That is one of the reasons that many activist groups have shifted their tactics to the state level. There are a number of conservative groups, like ALEC and the NRA, that are pushing many bills at the state level because they know that they have more influence, and are far less susceptible to opposition from an informed electorate. In many cases the public is surprised when certain bills get passed.

The reality is that if you want to influence legislation it is much easier to do it at the local level than at the national level. Most state legislators and local council members are part time politicians, so they have little time to invest in learning about complex issues. They generally have few staff members, and are generally poorly paid for the level of responsibility they bear. The end result is that they are much easier to influence than national level politicians.

So, basically, the conservative argument in favor of this aspect of federalism is simply false. And this makes me wonder whether their calls for “federalism” are really about democracy, or more about influence.

To Change Washington, Elect Women

[Note: This was submitted to the Herald-Leader but not published.]

If you want to fix Washington, elect women. It’s just that simple.

Many people are frustrated and deeply troubled by the bitter partisanship in the country and the widespread dysfunction in Washington that it has caused. There are all sorts of theories as to the cause, and lots of ideas about how to fix the problem (including mine). But the easiest and quickest way to fix Washington, to end the divisive partisanship, and to get government running properly again is to elect women.

When the government was shutdown in early October of this year, it was a bi-partisan group of women Senators who were able to work together and devise a plan that was marginally acceptable to both sides. This allowed Congress to fund the government and get it opened again. The Senators included Republicans Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Democrats Patty Murray of Washington, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Resolution of the budget impasse was just the most prominent example. According to a recent study, women are 31% more effective at advancing legislation in Congress than are men.

The success of women in government is not unique to the United States. According to some international studies, the more women in elected positions within a nation’s government, the fairer the political system, and the more effective the government. It is no coincidence that the nations with the highest standards of living – the Scandinavian countries of Europe – have the highest percentage of elected women in government, at just over 40%. Studies show that the more women in government, the more that rise to leadership in commerce and industry. This is important now that more women are college graduates than men.

The voters of Kentucky are fortunate to have a number of excellent female candidates running in 2014, particularly Alison Lundergan Grimes for Unites States Senate, and Elisabeth Jensen for Congress in the Sixth District in central Kentucky. Both are Democrats, as am I, so I realize that my reference may seem partisan. But that’s a problem for the Republican Party in Kentucky to address, not me. There are a number of intelligent, effective, and deeply conservative female politicians around the nation. This includes Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senatorial Candidate Liz Cheney of Wyoming, and Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. All are committed conservatives, but all have admirable track records of effectiveness. They are partisan, but not the hard edged, bitter and pugnacious partisanship of many male politicians.

I’m not suggesting that all women politicians are wise and effective, because they’re not. And I am not suggesting that women are not overly partisan, because clearly there are some women that are as divisive and mean-spirited as men. There are ineffective women politicians on both sides of the political aisle, and bitterly partisan women across the political spectrum.

But the reality is that, in the main, women have proven to be more interested in working on advancing policies than in fighting over ideas. They are willing to cooperate when necessary, and compromise when appropriate. The Republican Party would be well advised to find more competent female candidates. But in the meantime, the nation will benefit by electing those women who are running now.

The Two Faces of Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul has taken umbrage at the idea that he should have to answer for every crackpot idea of one of his supporters, allies, or intellectual forbearers. In an article in today’s New York Times, Paul was quoted as saying in an earlier interview “It loses its sense of proportion if you have to go through and defend every single person about whom someone says is associated with you.” [Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance, The New York Times.] There is a certain truth to that statement, although I should not that guilt by association has long been the stock in trade of political parties, and a tool particularly beloved by Republicans and conservative commentators. It is standard fair for FoxNews to suggest that any transgression by a Democrat somehow implicates every Democrat.

Senator Paul was particular upset by the fact that some people were suggesting that he somehow endorsed the racist views of a staffer (Jack Hunter AKA The Southern Avenger), even though he hired him knowing his views and record, and kept him on his staff for a while after his noxious views became public.

It is amusing, therefore, to see that while Senator Paul doesn’t want to take it, he can sure dish it out. While it is wrong, in his view, to level guilt by association, it is perfectly fine for him to use it as a sword. On Meet the Press today Senator Paul said that Hillary Clinton should be judges as a candidate and a politician based on what he called Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior towards Monica Lewinsky. [Rand Paul: The Clinton’s Should be Judged]

So it is wrong, wrong I tell you, to try to prove guilt by association against Rand Paul, but absolutely right for Senator Paul to tar Hilary Clinton by association. As Big Daddy once said, “mendacity.”

Through The Looking Glass

When Alice went through the looking glass she met a giant egg named Humpty Dumpty. After a brief discussion of their names, and what their names must mean, Humpty Dumpty informed Alice that “When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Conservatives call Obamacare “socialism.” The main component of Obamacare is the health care exchange, which is a web site where consumers can select insurance policies offered by a group of private insurance providers. The health care exchange is a marketplace of private insurance policies, and was developed as a conservative idea based on free market principles. Socialism began as the idea that the government controls the means of production, but has morphed into the idea that the government provides services once provided by private enterprise. Many countries have a national health service where the government runs hospitals, and therefore provides health services. That’s socialized medicine. A government website for private health insurance is little different than a city government providing a place for a farmers market. The fact that the Lexington Farmers’ market takes place at the city owned Cheapside Park doesn’t make it a socialist endeavor, any more than “Obamacare” is socialized medicine.

Many Republicans, including Representative Andy Barr, said that it was President Obama that shut down the government. This runs directly counter to recent history, which must be known to anyone who pays attention to the news. Conservative Republicans, led by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, said for months that they could extract concessions from President Obama by tying changes to the Affordable Care Act to the fight over funding the government. They explicitly talked about shutting down the government months ago. And then when it happened they blamed Obama. “We’ll shut down the government” became “he shut down the government.” Not only is that supreme chutzpah, it also makes mush of words.

The health care exchanges under Obamacare went live on October 1. On October 3 Kentucky Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul published an Opinion piece in the Kentucky business magazine the Lane Report, with the headline, “Kentuckians Not Buying Obamacare.” In the on-line version of the Lane Report the very next headline read: “Kentuckians file nearly 11,000 applications for health care coverage on kynect.” Kynect, in case you don’t know, is the Kentucky exchange set up under Obamacare. How does thousands buying coverage become “not buying”?

It seems pretty clear that Republicans’ words have no relationship to reality.

Imagine trying to live in a world where words have no fixed meaning. But we don’t have to imagine. We live in a world where the free market health care exchange is socialism, where “we’ll do it” become “he did it,” and where “not buying” means that thousands are buying. Buying is not buying, capitalism is socialism, up is down, black is white. As Alice said, it gets “curiouser and curiouser.”

But it’s not just amusing. There are serious problems when words lose their meaning. How can you agree on anything when the words you use have no fixed meaning? Precise definition of words is the foundation of the law, of contracts, and of most business relations. And, as many conservatives will tell you, a world where rules and values are subject to varying meanings is a dangerous world indeed. Conservatives often complain about moral relativism, or the idea that moral values have no fixed meaning but are relative to the situation or the person. How can values be absolute when the words that define those values are changeable? They can’t be.

Is it possible that Representative Barr and Senators McConnell and Paul are relativists? Anything is possible when you go through the looking glass into a world where capitalism is socialism, where black is white, and where right is wrong.

The Language of Gridlock

Fight, fight, fight.

I was in Houston a couple of weeks ago, just before the city council election. There was an ad in the paper for a Tea Party candidate who said he was going to “fight” for the people of Houston. Last week Andy Beshear, son of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, announced that he was going to run for Attorney General. In doing so he said he was going to “fight” for the people of Kentucky.

When we elect people who promise to “fight” for us, how can we be surprised when all they do is fight? How can we be surprised by the endless fighting in Washington, over just about everything, when the people we vote for promised to fight? Aren’t they just fulfilling their campaign promise?

Why is it a fight? Why is governing a “fight”? Shouldn’t governing be about rationally addressing issues, and working to solve them? I realize that there are matters of principle, and some principles are so important that they should not be compromised. I also recognize that even politicians should be willing to take a stand on principle, but the reality is that those issues are probably pretty few and far between. Most of the matters of governing are rather mundane, and probably only rarely implicate issues that can be considered matters of principle.

I understand that when politicians say they are going to “fight,” most of the time they are really saying that they are going to work tirelessly. Why can’t they just say that? And why can’t the voters see through this nonsense?

There’s a reason why our politics are stupid. It’s because our politicians talk like their stupid. It’s because political consultants and speech writers and advisers tell them to talk like their stupid. And, unfortunately, it’s because we keep electing people who talk like their stupid. If we want to stop the stupid maybe we should elect people who don’t talk like, and act like, they’re stupid.

The Decline of Coal and Eastern Kentucky

There was a news story in today’s paper discussing the continued decline in coal mining in Eastern Kentucky. [Kentucky Coal Jobs Decline] There are a number of reasons for the decline, and the paper notes most of them, which include a move to natural gas, competition from lower cost coal from other parts of the country, a reduction in the easiest to reach coal seams, and tougher environmental regulations.

This is devastating news to the people of the region, and some politicians, like Governor Steve Beshear and Representative Hal Rogers, are trying to address the issue in a reasonable and responsible manner. [Eastern Kentucky Economic Summit] But unfortunately other politicians are willing to use this economic hardship for political advantage. Far too many use it to whip up resentment of President Obama and what they deceptively call the war on coal. If there is a war on coal, the reality is that natural gas is winning.

I do not understand what politicians think they gain by giving people false hope. Employment in the coal fields will ebb and flow, but the overall decline will continue. The main problem is the low price of natural gas, and the environmental advantages of burning gas over coal. This reality is driving the move to gas, and not environmental laws. This trend is not likely to change, and it is unfortunate that many politicians are unwilling to tell people this. I think that leadership means being honest with people, not manipulating them for political gain.

There was one other issue addressed in the Herald Leader article on declining coal jobs, and that was the declining population of many eastern Kentucky counties. Leslie County Judge-Executive James Sizemore said that with the decline in coal jobs, many people will “have to leave to get work.”

I have no doubt that that is a gut wrenching decision for people, and for an elected leader in the region it must be an emotional blow. But the reality of the world is that, since the dawn of time, people have moved to find work. Most of the people in the United States are the descendants of people who left their homes and home countries seeking work, or better opportunities, in a new land. (The exceptions are the natives who were here first, and those brought here in bondage and against their will.) Westward expansion was driven by people looking for new and better opportunities. The move to the Sun Belt after World War Two was driven by people moving to find work, to find new opportunities, and to find a better life for themselves and their families. It is unfortunate that the people of Eastern Kentucky may have to move to find work, but it is a reality as old as human history.

The Battle of Ideas Placeholder Post

Most polls consistently indicate that the public supports policies and ideas supported by, and promoted by, Democrats. This is true even in conservative states. Despite this preference on the issues, Democrats are only able to eke out political victories. There are a number of reasons for this, which I plan to address in a series of essays under the topic heading of The Battle of Ideas.

This post is mainly to provide a link to an article from Salon.com which describes some of the polling data showing support for liberal policies. Here’s the article:

Even Right Wingers are Liberals  

The First Amendment and Campaign Finance Laws

One of the first cases heard by the Supreme Court this session was McCutcheon v. FEC, a case which deals with campaign finance laws. The main question is whether campaign contributions are a form of speech, and whether it is legitimate for Congress (through the Federal Election Commission) to place limits on the total amount that an individual can contribute in any election year.

This case raises two important issues regarding First Amendment rights, and by implication all constitutional rights.

First, all rights, even constitutional rights, are not absolute. There are many, many limits on our right to free speech. This is true, even though the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” There are literally dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of laws passed by the U.S. Congress, and by the states, that restrict or limit the ability to speak freely. Copyright laws limit speech, as do defamation laws (slander and libel), obscenity laws and broadcast decency laws. Localities have what are called “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech. These allow a city to prevent a person from driving around in a sound truck late at night blasting their message. A city also has the ability to limit and control parades, and limit demonstrations to certain locations. All of these laws, and many others, limit the right to speak freely, and seem to directly in the face of the explicit language of the First Amendment.

The reason that these laws can exist – as most lawyers know but most political commentators ignore – is that all rights, even enshrined constitutional rights, are subject to reasonable limitations. Otherwise there would be chaos. Imagine if your neighbor decided that he wanted to let his son’s band practice at full volume on the front lawn every night. There has to be some limit on rights, and the question is balance. For restrictions on First Amendment rights the balance is if there a reasonable opportunity to express an opinion and whether the restrictions are content neutral and not unreasonably burdensome?

This same balance should apply in deciding whether campaign contributions can be limited. The question in this case is whether there is a legitimate social interest in the restrictions on money in politics, and whether the ‘speaker’ (in this case the donor) has a reasonable opportunity to express an opinion and if the particular restriction is burdensome.

I honestly don’t know the answer to that, which brings me to my second point:

Just because something is allowed as a “constitutional” right doesn’t mean that it is automatically good. Even important rights can produce negative consequences. We know this from the First Amendment. We know that some speech, or some expression, can be harmful. That’s why we allow limits on obscenity.

The free-for-all of American culture is the byproduct of the First Amendment. And there is no doubt that vast segments of our culture are a squalid wasteland. The right may be valid, but that doesn’t mean that every by-product is inherently good. And so, in this case, the First Amendment may protect the right to give freely to political candidates, but that doesn’t mean the end result will be good, just that it is constitutional.
Finally let me note that this idea applies to all rights. All rights, even constitutional rights, are subject to reasonable restrictions. And just because something is allowed by the Constitution doesn’t mean that it is socially beneficial.

The Political Perpetual Motion Machine

For months and months Republicans have complained that the uncertainty of Obamacare was hurting the economy. And now, just a few days before the health care exchanges go live and the system starts to operate, what do they do? They vote to delay the implementation for a year. In other words they vote for more uncertainty.

Do they even listen to themselves? Do they have any sense of how completely inconsistent their actions and their words are? I doubt it.

But then again, maybe they do. Maybe they know that they are voting for more uncertainty, and they are doing it so that they can continue to decry the uncertainty. Never mind that they created it. Basically they have created the political perpetual motion machine.

Partisan Gridlock, Changing the System, and Third Parties

The Herald Leader published my Op/Ed today on ways to change the election system to help end partisan gridlock in Washington.

Third Parties Could Break Partisan Gridlock

This essay is based, in part on a much longer analysis, which is on my campaign web site:

Proposal to End Partisan Gridlock

And I wrote a number of essays on my blog talking about these issues:

An Antidote to Partisan Poison: This discusses a number of ideas for fixing the system, not just changing elections.

The Destructive Duality: This discusses how placing every issue in the Liberal versus Conservative paradigm is stupid, and makes us stupid.

The Roots of Poisonous Partisanship: This was an early essay that tried to get to the bottom of the problem.

The Roots of Conservative Rage: One of the main problems is the anger and intransigence of the modern conservative movement. This essay tries to explain why they are so mad.