The Political Bundles are Too Darned Big.
What better way to demonstrate that than to bundle two political books from authors with differing perspectives as Book Reviews No. 2 and No. 3?
There are plenty of books who have argued that one of the major parties is in the position of developing a lasting presidential, and perhaps governing, majority. There was Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority, years ago, and he, after events overtook his analysis, filled the bookstores with volumes explaining why the correlation of forces was not favorable. Never mind, as late as 2004, there were Republican court intellectuals suggesting that a coalition of compassionate conservatives and security moms could coalesce as a majority. Oops.
Democratic strategists John Judis and Ruy Teixeira offered a nod to Mr Phillips with their The Emerging Democratic Majority, only when that failed to materialize they had the opportunity to wrote Where Have All the Democrats Gone? (The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes), and that pretty well suggests where their argument will go. Patrick Ruffini, who argues with but mostly votes for Republicans covered similar ground in Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP. (Right now, dear reader, Amazon is offering a bundle including these two books, and the authors have filed mutually complimentary reviews!)
The fault lines within the major parties have been visible for a long time, perhaps beginning when the industrialized countries devastated after the War started to recover, while the United States looked strong enough to do anything (Interstate highways! Voyage to the Moon! Win in Vietnam! Abolish poverty!), and it was bye, bye, Ms American Pie, and she took the Victory Dividend with her.
Welcome to the reality check. "I'm a big fan of separation of powers, in part because I'm not persuaded elections, no matter what rules determine the winners, are useful for revelation of preferences, particularly among large policy bundles being voted on by large electorates."
In both major parties, the political economy of public policy has failed to build coalitions. Mr Ruffini appears to be endorsing James Carville's "faculty lounge" complaint about Democrat thinking, when he writes, page 193,
So often policies advanced by progressives in the name of marginalized minorities have caused factional strife instead, from the war on merit in education to defunding the police. Often, these policies make the underlying problems that they purport to solve even worse. Relaxing grading standards in schools doesn't help underserved communities who need a quality education to overcome economic barriers. Decreasing the police presence doesn't protect Black communities, but makes it more likely that they and others will be victims of crime. Using the terms "Latinx" or "Latine" does nothing tangible at all for Hispanics, except signal inattentiveness to the tangible quality of life issues Hispanics care about. Race-conscious policies might make sense as a Democratic campaigning strategy if members of racial and ethnic minorities thought of themselves first and foremost as members of identity groups, rather than as normal citizens who want safer streets, better schools, and more job opportunities.
But Democrats, at least at the national committee level, encouraged that sort of thinking. Here's Judis and Teixeira analyzing, at page 24, how the "normal citizens" got crowded out.
In Washington and in the Democratic Party, labor had to share power and influence with a host of interest and advocacy groups, many of which had originated in the sixties and were seen as being on the left or center-left. They were dubbed the "New Politics" faction of the Democratic Party.
We don't have to call the roll of the rent seekers, it's abortion and the environment and civil liberties and the alphabet people, and "many of the groups were preoccupied with social or environmental causes or with the welfare of particular constituency groups."
Both books raise a common point, which is that popular Federal policies are policies that majorities or large pluralities of voters perceive benefits therefrom: thus Medicare or Social Security, even unto the fiscal cliff these are about to fall off of; thus roads and bridges, even though the latest highly touted bipartisan bill doesn't make good the continued deterioration of the existing roads or bridges; never mind that these areas of mutual interest are areas of wishful thinking, and that people live lives apart from their commutes and their retirements. Thus the problem: to win elections, particularly at the national level, the Democrats seek to cobble together a coalition of people who oppose the death penalty, whilst favoring abortion, sex change operations, and easy immigration. The Republicans seek to cobble together a coalition of people who favor the death penalty, whilst opposing abortion, sex change operations, and easy immigration. For both parties, that cobbling works only up to a point. A better policy bundle for the Democrats might be more about the kitchen table issues and less about the boutique multiculturalism; but that is also available to Republicans with the right way to take on the social and political status of the degreed Professional Managerial Class. Thus the broad areas of agreement among those authors: in the view of all three, the electorate is very much up for grabs. At the presidential level, though, we're drifting toward a rerun of 2020.
Cross-posted to Cold Spring Shops.
There are plenty of books who have argued that one of the major parties is in the position of developing a lasting presidential, and perhaps governing, majority. There was Kevin Phillips's The Emerging Republican Majority, years ago, and he, after events overtook his analysis, filled the bookstores with volumes explaining why the correlation of forces was not favorable. Never mind, as late as 2004, there were Republican court intellectuals suggesting that a coalition of compassionate conservatives and security moms could coalesce as a majority. Oops.
Democratic strategists John Judis and Ruy Teixeira offered a nod to Mr Phillips with their The Emerging Democratic Majority, only when that failed to materialize they had the opportunity to wrote Where Have All the Democrats Gone? (The Soul of the Party in the Age of Extremes), and that pretty well suggests where their argument will go. Patrick Ruffini, who argues with but mostly votes for Republicans covered similar ground in Party of the People: Inside the Multiracial Populist Coalition Remaking the GOP. (Right now, dear reader, Amazon is offering a bundle including these two books, and the authors have filed mutually complimentary reviews!)
The fault lines within the major parties have been visible for a long time, perhaps beginning when the industrialized countries devastated after the War started to recover, while the United States looked strong enough to do anything (Interstate highways! Voyage to the Moon! Win in Vietnam! Abolish poverty!), and it was bye, bye, Ms American Pie, and she took the Victory Dividend with her.
Welcome to the reality check. "I'm a big fan of separation of powers, in part because I'm not persuaded elections, no matter what rules determine the winners, are useful for revelation of preferences, particularly among large policy bundles being voted on by large electorates."
In both major parties, the political economy of public policy has failed to build coalitions. Mr Ruffini appears to be endorsing James Carville's "faculty lounge" complaint about Democrat thinking, when he writes, page 193,
So often policies advanced by progressives in the name of marginalized minorities have caused factional strife instead, from the war on merit in education to defunding the police. Often, these policies make the underlying problems that they purport to solve even worse. Relaxing grading standards in schools doesn't help underserved communities who need a quality education to overcome economic barriers. Decreasing the police presence doesn't protect Black communities, but makes it more likely that they and others will be victims of crime. Using the terms "Latinx" or "Latine" does nothing tangible at all for Hispanics, except signal inattentiveness to the tangible quality of life issues Hispanics care about. Race-conscious policies might make sense as a Democratic campaigning strategy if members of racial and ethnic minorities thought of themselves first and foremost as members of identity groups, rather than as normal citizens who want safer streets, better schools, and more job opportunities.
But Democrats, at least at the national committee level, encouraged that sort of thinking. Here's Judis and Teixeira analyzing, at page 24, how the "normal citizens" got crowded out.
In Washington and in the Democratic Party, labor had to share power and influence with a host of interest and advocacy groups, many of which had originated in the sixties and were seen as being on the left or center-left. They were dubbed the "New Politics" faction of the Democratic Party.
We don't have to call the roll of the rent seekers, it's abortion and the environment and civil liberties and the alphabet people, and "many of the groups were preoccupied with social or environmental causes or with the welfare of particular constituency groups."
Both books raise a common point, which is that popular Federal policies are policies that majorities or large pluralities of voters perceive benefits therefrom: thus Medicare or Social Security, even unto the fiscal cliff these are about to fall off of; thus roads and bridges, even though the latest highly touted bipartisan bill doesn't make good the continued deterioration of the existing roads or bridges; never mind that these areas of mutual interest are areas of wishful thinking, and that people live lives apart from their commutes and their retirements. Thus the problem: to win elections, particularly at the national level, the Democrats seek to cobble together a coalition of people who oppose the death penalty, whilst favoring abortion, sex change operations, and easy immigration. The Republicans seek to cobble together a coalition of people who favor the death penalty, whilst opposing abortion, sex change operations, and easy immigration. For both parties, that cobbling works only up to a point. A better policy bundle for the Democrats might be more about the kitchen table issues and less about the boutique multiculturalism; but that is also available to Republicans with the right way to take on the social and political status of the degreed Professional Managerial Class. Thus the broad areas of agreement among those authors: in the view of all three, the electorate is very much up for grabs. At the presidential level, though, we're drifting toward a rerun of 2020.
Cross-posted to Cold Spring Shops.