Zachary Sheinberg
Sunday, November 27, 2011
I ran the loop in Central Park this morning. As I made my way north up the East Side of the trail, I felt very thankful for the park and those who spearheaded the effort to create it. In 1853, the New York State Legislature set aside the original 700 acres, from 59th Street to 106th Street (today, Central Park extends north to 110th Street), to create Central Park.
Prior to 1853, several earlier efforts to create a park failed. Given this fact together with the reality of how politics works (i.e. complete unanimity of opinion rarely, if ever, exists), is there any doubt that people opposed the creation of Central Park? For whatever the reason. Is there any doubt that people lobbied members of the State Legislature to vote against the bill? Is there any doubt that people thought it was a terrible idea?
Yet today, almost one hundred and sixty years later, I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find anyone in New York City who thinks Central Park is a bad idea, who wishes that Central Park was developed with skyscrapers, parking lots and townhomes.
So to those who fought for Central Park in Albany all those years ago and won, hail to the victors. I’m grateful they fought for the park and won. Because now I can run there whenever I want.
The reason I raise the origin of Central Park is that decisions made long ago that we take for granted today, at the time that those decisions were made, that those votes were taken, most if not all were controversial.
Does anyone today question the right of women to vote? Of course not. A Constitutional Amendment that would allow women to vote was first introduced by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1878. But the 19th Amendment was not ratified until 42 years later, in 1920. Which makes clear that, during the intervening years, granting suffrage to women was controversial.
Change is always controversial. Because change changes the status quo, to which so many people have become accustomed, with which so many people are comfortable, in which so many people are invested (both financially and emotionally).
So is it any surprise that all the major accomplishments of President Obama, universal healthcare, financial regulation overhaul, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the economic bailout, have been controversial? Even the recent decision to continue funding the Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees air traffic and air safety, was controversial! Congressman Ron Paul went so far as to suggest that we abolish the FAA and leave coordination of air travel to the individual states (which, objectively, is a horrible idea).
Do you think the decisions by President Obama that led to the policy changes I mentioned above were good decisions? Before you answer the question, consider the following.
There is a difference between a right decision and a good decision. Every decision is right, wrong or indifferent as well as good, bad or neither here nor there. In many cases, we know, based on law, societal norms and our personal ethical codes, whether a decision is right or wrong immediately. But very often, we do not know whether a decision is good or bad until later. Sometimes many, many years later.
In 2003, President Bush decided to invade Iraq. Most people had an opinion on whether this decision was right or wrong. From the perspectives of international law, international relations and some parts of national security, this was probably the wrong decision. From the perspectives of human rights and other parts of national security (which includes physical security as well as energy security), this was probably the right decision.
But was President Bush’s decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein by force a good decision?
I posit that we do not yet know. If Iraq becomes a robust democracy, a staunch US ally, a reliable trading partner, an effective counterbalance to Iran and a voice of non-radical Islam, then the decision will turn out to be a good one and well worth the costs (financial, prestige, foreign relations, etc.). If enmity against the United States among Sunni Muslims persists, if internal strife continues among the ethnic groups in Iraq, if Iraqi democracy recedes back to totalitarianism, if none of the things listed above happen, then the decision will turn out to be a bad, and very costly, one.
But we cannot yet determine whether the decision was a good one. And even if it turns out that it was a good decision, that still does not mean that it was the right decision.
I sincerely hope that the war in Iraq, universal healthcare and all the other controversial decisions made by Presidents in my lifetime, even those that I thought and continue to think were wrong decisions at the times made, turn out to be good decisions. And hopefully decisions as good as the decision to create and maintain Central Park. If they do, I will happily salute those who can claim victory for having made those good decisions. I will happily hail those victors. As well as the Maize and Blue on this day.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
SHOULD WE TEST CANDIDATES?
Zachary Sheinberg
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A few weeks ago, I suggested to the New York Times the idea of requiring candidates for federal office to take an exam as part of the election process. The purpose of such an exam would be to assess the level of knowledge that candidates have on the prevailing issues. Nothing on the level of testing whether candidates know the history of the Shi’a-Sunni divide (although I hope at least some elected officials understand this). But more on the level of testing whether candidates know that a divide exists and how it affects geopolitics in the Middle East. Because if members of Congress are legislating foreign policy, this, among other things, is something we might want them to know.
The New York Times posed the question on its website in its Room for Debate feature last Thursday (http://nyti.ms/uHRb5L). Four of the five contributors disagreed with the concept of a candidate exam.
Norman Ornstein titled his response, “It’s Up to the Voters.” He wrote, “Campaigns are like extended job interviews; at least for those running for visible, higher offices, the combination of debates, journalists' questions, opposition advertising and the pressure that comes with campaigning give a pretty good window into the qualities, including basic knowledge, that candidates have.” On the Presidential election level, I agree with Mr. Ornstein. Running the gauntlet of a Presidential campaign inevitably will expose the knowledge gaps of candidates (as it has this year for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain). But how about candidates running for the House and Senate? Media scrutiny is sparse. Voters pay scant attention. And as a result, we elect candidates who don’t know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni and monetary policy and fiscal policy. And it is these elected officials who write the laws that govern these issues.
Linda Chavez, of the Reagan White House and the 1986 Republican Senate nominee in Maryland, wrote an interesting response. As someone who knew public policy cold, she still lost the Senate race to Barbara Mikulski, who, Ms. Chavez wrote, knew much less. Ms. Chavez wrote, “Raw intelligence, or even specific knowledge about policy and current events, doesn’t guarantee good judgment. Voters generally want someone who shares their values. They pick their elected officials based not on what the candidate knows at a given moment but on how they think the person will go about making decisions in the future. Character, temperament and values matter more to most voters than test scores.” Since the left-leaning views of Ms. Mikulski better lined up with Maryland voters, Ms. Chavez seems to argue, Ms. Mikulski should have won the election (which she did).
What Ms. Chavez wrote is true. Although I was not suggesting that we have an election or a test. I was suggesting that we have an election and a test. And certainly not a test with a “passing” score. Simply a test that provides a common metric by which all candidates can be judged by voters. Simply one more data point to add into the election mix.
There is no question that how a candidate will make decisions in the future, meaning the quality of the candidate’s judgment, is critical. But how can an elected official make good decisions on issues without a minimum level of knowledge of those issues? Would you want a lawyer making a decision on whether to do open heart surgery? And in races for Congress, without the intense media scrutiny and the voter interest of Presidential elections, how can voters know whether candidates have this requisite knowledge? The answer is that they cannot.
Lara Brown, a political science professor at Villanova, wrote, “A qualifying examination for elective office is far removed from the philosophy of the framers and far from constitutional.” The first part is true. The only Constitutional requirements for running for Congress are age (candidates must be at least 25 years old for the House, 30 for the Senate), citizenship (candidates must be U.S. citizens for at least 7 years) and district residency.
Ms. Brown cites the illegality of poll taxes and literary tests to support her claim. However, poll taxes and literary tests apply to voting, not to running. This is an important distinction because the several States (constitutionally) impose various requirements for candidates seeking election to Congress including filing fees and petition requirements. Ms. Brown seems to overlook Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The claim that imposing an exam requirement on candidates for federal office is “far from constitutional” is incorrect. Especially because, as far as I know, courts have never ruled on this issue.
I very much enjoyed the response written by Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University. Though I want to draw a distinction between the firefighter test he mentions, which test has largely excluded African Americans from positions with the New York City Fire Department, and the test that I suggest. Applicants must achieve a minimum score to obtain a position with the NYCFD. The test I propose has no “passing score,” but simply a score by which voters could judge the base of knowledge that a candidate has. Voters would be left to decide whether a candidate “passed” the test. The test would also be made public after candidates took the exam to allow voters to see the questions, which ones candidates answered correctly and which they answered incorrectly.
Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant, wrote the fifth and final response. He raises a valid concern about a test for candidates, which the title of his response, “Who Tests the Testers?” makes clear. In referencing the SAT, Mr. Schnur wrote, “While striving for as unbiased a measurement as possible as part of the college admissions process is absolutely necessary, it’s questionable whether a similar standard for our political leaders could ever be developed or implemented in an impartial way.” Put simply, how can we create a fair test, one that solves the problem, that gets the answers we want, that does not become political? The answer is, very carefully. We make the panel that drafts the exam independent. And we focus on the basic knowledge that every federal elected official simply must know. Like how our Social Security program works. Like what nations possess nuclear weapons. Like where Egypt is on a map.
As an electorate, we should want as much information as we can get about the intelligence, motivation and values of candidates running for positions of public trust.
We should want to know that candidates know what inflation is, what causes it and how to combat it. Because how can members of Congress legislate fiscal and monetary policy, how can they vote on bills that will affect our economy, without having that knowledge? Further, if candidates have not spent the time reading and learning about these issues before becoming candidates, if they cannot, in the eyes of voters, “pass” the test that I propose, they simply are not taking seriously the awesome responsibility of governing the United States of America that will fall to them if ultimately they win election.
Recently, Herman Cain stumbled badly when asked whether he supported the way that President Obama handled Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc). In part because of his poor command of many public policy issues, Cain will not win the Republican nomination. But I have no doubt that if he ran for Congress, he easily could win.
Toward the end of his response, Mr. Schnur wrote, “Even if candidates who performed poorly on such an examination were still permitted to run [as they would be], they would begin their campaign at a significant disadvantage given the scarlet failing grade next to their name on the ballot.”
Indeed. And that is the point.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
A few weeks ago, I suggested to the New York Times the idea of requiring candidates for federal office to take an exam as part of the election process. The purpose of such an exam would be to assess the level of knowledge that candidates have on the prevailing issues. Nothing on the level of testing whether candidates know the history of the Shi’a-Sunni divide (although I hope at least some elected officials understand this). But more on the level of testing whether candidates know that a divide exists and how it affects geopolitics in the Middle East. Because if members of Congress are legislating foreign policy, this, among other things, is something we might want them to know.
The New York Times posed the question on its website in its Room for Debate feature last Thursday (http://nyti.ms/uHRb5L). Four of the five contributors disagreed with the concept of a candidate exam.
Norman Ornstein titled his response, “It’s Up to the Voters.” He wrote, “Campaigns are like extended job interviews; at least for those running for visible, higher offices, the combination of debates, journalists' questions, opposition advertising and the pressure that comes with campaigning give a pretty good window into the qualities, including basic knowledge, that candidates have.” On the Presidential election level, I agree with Mr. Ornstein. Running the gauntlet of a Presidential campaign inevitably will expose the knowledge gaps of candidates (as it has this year for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain). But how about candidates running for the House and Senate? Media scrutiny is sparse. Voters pay scant attention. And as a result, we elect candidates who don’t know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni and monetary policy and fiscal policy. And it is these elected officials who write the laws that govern these issues.
Linda Chavez, of the Reagan White House and the 1986 Republican Senate nominee in Maryland, wrote an interesting response. As someone who knew public policy cold, she still lost the Senate race to Barbara Mikulski, who, Ms. Chavez wrote, knew much less. Ms. Chavez wrote, “Raw intelligence, or even specific knowledge about policy and current events, doesn’t guarantee good judgment. Voters generally want someone who shares their values. They pick their elected officials based not on what the candidate knows at a given moment but on how they think the person will go about making decisions in the future. Character, temperament and values matter more to most voters than test scores.” Since the left-leaning views of Ms. Mikulski better lined up with Maryland voters, Ms. Chavez seems to argue, Ms. Mikulski should have won the election (which she did).
What Ms. Chavez wrote is true. Although I was not suggesting that we have an election or a test. I was suggesting that we have an election and a test. And certainly not a test with a “passing” score. Simply a test that provides a common metric by which all candidates can be judged by voters. Simply one more data point to add into the election mix.
There is no question that how a candidate will make decisions in the future, meaning the quality of the candidate’s judgment, is critical. But how can an elected official make good decisions on issues without a minimum level of knowledge of those issues? Would you want a lawyer making a decision on whether to do open heart surgery? And in races for Congress, without the intense media scrutiny and the voter interest of Presidential elections, how can voters know whether candidates have this requisite knowledge? The answer is that they cannot.
Lara Brown, a political science professor at Villanova, wrote, “A qualifying examination for elective office is far removed from the philosophy of the framers and far from constitutional.” The first part is true. The only Constitutional requirements for running for Congress are age (candidates must be at least 25 years old for the House, 30 for the Senate), citizenship (candidates must be U.S. citizens for at least 7 years) and district residency.
Ms. Brown cites the illegality of poll taxes and literary tests to support her claim. However, poll taxes and literary tests apply to voting, not to running. This is an important distinction because the several States (constitutionally) impose various requirements for candidates seeking election to Congress including filing fees and petition requirements. Ms. Brown seems to overlook Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The claim that imposing an exam requirement on candidates for federal office is “far from constitutional” is incorrect. Especially because, as far as I know, courts have never ruled on this issue.
I very much enjoyed the response written by Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University. Though I want to draw a distinction between the firefighter test he mentions, which test has largely excluded African Americans from positions with the New York City Fire Department, and the test that I suggest. Applicants must achieve a minimum score to obtain a position with the NYCFD. The test I propose has no “passing score,” but simply a score by which voters could judge the base of knowledge that a candidate has. Voters would be left to decide whether a candidate “passed” the test. The test would also be made public after candidates took the exam to allow voters to see the questions, which ones candidates answered correctly and which they answered incorrectly.
Dan Schnur, a Republican political consultant, wrote the fifth and final response. He raises a valid concern about a test for candidates, which the title of his response, “Who Tests the Testers?” makes clear. In referencing the SAT, Mr. Schnur wrote, “While striving for as unbiased a measurement as possible as part of the college admissions process is absolutely necessary, it’s questionable whether a similar standard for our political leaders could ever be developed or implemented in an impartial way.” Put simply, how can we create a fair test, one that solves the problem, that gets the answers we want, that does not become political? The answer is, very carefully. We make the panel that drafts the exam independent. And we focus on the basic knowledge that every federal elected official simply must know. Like how our Social Security program works. Like what nations possess nuclear weapons. Like where Egypt is on a map.
As an electorate, we should want as much information as we can get about the intelligence, motivation and values of candidates running for positions of public trust.
We should want to know that candidates know what inflation is, what causes it and how to combat it. Because how can members of Congress legislate fiscal and monetary policy, how can they vote on bills that will affect our economy, without having that knowledge? Further, if candidates have not spent the time reading and learning about these issues before becoming candidates, if they cannot, in the eyes of voters, “pass” the test that I propose, they simply are not taking seriously the awesome responsibility of governing the United States of America that will fall to them if ultimately they win election.
Recently, Herman Cain stumbled badly when asked whether he supported the way that President Obama handled Libya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAGGpK7bSWc). In part because of his poor command of many public policy issues, Cain will not win the Republican nomination. But I have no doubt that if he ran for Congress, he easily could win.
Toward the end of his response, Mr. Schnur wrote, “Even if candidates who performed poorly on such an examination were still permitted to run [as they would be], they would begin their campaign at a significant disadvantage given the scarlet failing grade next to their name on the ballot.”
Indeed. And that is the point.
Friday, November 4, 2011
ARE COMPETITIVE DISTRICTS A GOOD THING?
Zach Sheinberg
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Last Thursday night (November 3, 2011), Andrei Cherny, Chair of the Arizona State Democratic Party, appeared as a guest on Hardball to discuss with Chris Matthews the recent move by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, to remove Colleen Coyle Mathis, a registered Independent, as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (more information at http://nyti.ms/uyKPhV).
Governor Brewer claimed that the new Congressional map the Commission drew was unconstitutional and improper, as it made Democratic districts safer and Republican districts more competitive. Mr. Cherny claimed that the map maintained the status quo, four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats and two competitive seats, and made the new ninth district (that Arizona picked up because of population growth in the 2010 Census) a third competitive district. It would seem that this approach is precisely what one might hope a panel called the Independent Redistricting Commission would do.
I must take this opportunity to mention how typical this exchange between Governor Brewer and Mr. Cherny is of modern Republican and Democratic political interaction. Governor Brewer, the Republican, stakes out an extreme position with spurious, if any, evidence (i.e. claiming that Ms. Mathis, who again I must mention is a registered Independent, committed “gross misconduct” for several reasons, none of which come even close to that standard). Mr. Cherny, the Democrat, responds with an argument based in logic; specifically that the redrawn map preserved the Congressional delegation balance of power. In politics today, emotion trumps logic. The Republicans learned this lesson many years ago. The Democrats either have yet to learn the lesson (which means they’re stupid) or continuously disregard the lesson because they want to play fair (which means they’re naïve). Republicans don’t ascribe to the same school of thought. Which is why Republicans are so much more effective at politics and so much better at getting what they want. Because Democrats play by the rules. And Republicans do whatever they think is necessary to get what they want. Think conventional warfare versus dropping nukes.
But I digress. In his comments, Mr. Cherny said, and I’m paraphrasing, that he wished that all Congressional districts were competitive.
My question is, would having 435 competitive Congressional districts, in fact, be a good thing?
I know what you’re thinking. Of course competitive districts would be a good thing! If we had competitive districts, members of Congress would be more accountable to voters because the Republican incumbent or the Democratic incumbent would actually fear losing a reelection race. Further, members would have to appeal to the moderate center, the group that, in the case of competitive districts, would decide the election winners.
Greater competitiveness seems like a no brainer. But is it?
Let’s examine the vulnerability argument.
Logically, the more competitive a district, the easier for voters to remove an unfit, unpopular or power-abusing officeholder. Which is a good thing if the officeholder is Mark Foley or Bob Ney or Bill Jefferson. But a bad thing if the officeholder is a Profiles in Courage-type of legislator (although these days, competitive districts might have no effect because I fear too few, if any, even exist).
But if we make incumbents perennially more vulnerable, what will they do? They’ll do whatever they must to minimize their vulnerability. First, they’ll spend even more time raising money. Challengers on average will raise more money because they have legitimate chances of winning. Which means incumbents will have to raise even more money. Competitive districts could set off a fundraising arms race. Second, members will pander even more to voters. They’ll obscure their positions further and never take a stance on an issue that might alienate even one voter. Basically, they’ll spend all their time raising money and bs-ing us.
Now the polarization argument.
There is no question that more competitive districts would push candidates to the center. Because in any given election, only one voter matters: the median voter, who’s the individual who sits at the middle of the partisan spectrum. Whichever candidate the median voter picks wins every election. In conservative-leaning districts, the median voter is farther to the ideological right; in liberal-leaning ones, farther to the ideological left. With more competitive districts, the median voter moves toward the center.
But would shifting the median voter to the center make any difference? I’m unconvinced that the degree of conservative or liberal-leaning among members is the root cause of the gridlock and the do-nothing-goodness in Congress. Rather, I think they are the result of an unwillingness of members to compromise, which intransigence is driven by the blind faith of members in the righteousness of their personal ideology. I'm right. You're wrong. End of discussion. To borrow a term from negotiations, there is no zone of agreement. Historically, liberals and conservatives have compromised. Liberals and conservatives, even far right and left-wingers, can compromise if they put nation before ideology.
Consider a few other issues.
If we made all districts competitive, how many new members would Congress have every two years? Might competitive districts regularly sweep large waves of new members into office? And if so, could Congress function effectively when populated with new members who don’t know the ropes? (Though this question is not entirely fair as I imagine it cannot function less effectively that it does now.) But do we want masses of new members learning on the job every two years? Might that lead to even greater influence by lobbyists as the knowledge gap between them and members likely would widen significantly?
Are primary races a good enough mechanism for competitiveness? Even if competitiveness is missing in general elections, one can always run against the incumbent in a primary. Although doing so is difficult because almost invariably, the incumbent will have the backing of the party, high name recognition and substantial fundraising, all components of the “incumbency advantage.” Further, few voters participate in primaries, which exacerbates this advantage.
If members run in non-competitive districts and need not worry about losing reelection, would they not spend less time fundraising and more time governing? Could they not make unpopular decisions more easily (though this could be a good thing or a bad thing) and pander less as they are better insulated from retribution at the polls?
If Congressmen were enlightened, if Congress had a high approval rating (as opposed to 9% in the latest CBS News/NYTimes poll), if the unemployment rate equaled the natural rate, a discussion of competitiveness in Congressional elections would be interesting (at least for me) but mostly unimportant. But we have the discussion now because competitiveness is an obvious way to remove non-performing members of Congress, many of whom prove every single day, as they cure not one of our national ailments (and in many cases make them worse) that they are ill-suited to the task of leading our nation.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Last Thursday night (November 3, 2011), Andrei Cherny, Chair of the Arizona State Democratic Party, appeared as a guest on Hardball to discuss with Chris Matthews the recent move by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, to remove Colleen Coyle Mathis, a registered Independent, as chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (more information at http://nyti.ms/uyKPhV).
Governor Brewer claimed that the new Congressional map the Commission drew was unconstitutional and improper, as it made Democratic districts safer and Republican districts more competitive. Mr. Cherny claimed that the map maintained the status quo, four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats and two competitive seats, and made the new ninth district (that Arizona picked up because of population growth in the 2010 Census) a third competitive district. It would seem that this approach is precisely what one might hope a panel called the Independent Redistricting Commission would do.
I must take this opportunity to mention how typical this exchange between Governor Brewer and Mr. Cherny is of modern Republican and Democratic political interaction. Governor Brewer, the Republican, stakes out an extreme position with spurious, if any, evidence (i.e. claiming that Ms. Mathis, who again I must mention is a registered Independent, committed “gross misconduct” for several reasons, none of which come even close to that standard). Mr. Cherny, the Democrat, responds with an argument based in logic; specifically that the redrawn map preserved the Congressional delegation balance of power. In politics today, emotion trumps logic. The Republicans learned this lesson many years ago. The Democrats either have yet to learn the lesson (which means they’re stupid) or continuously disregard the lesson because they want to play fair (which means they’re naïve). Republicans don’t ascribe to the same school of thought. Which is why Republicans are so much more effective at politics and so much better at getting what they want. Because Democrats play by the rules. And Republicans do whatever they think is necessary to get what they want. Think conventional warfare versus dropping nukes.
But I digress. In his comments, Mr. Cherny said, and I’m paraphrasing, that he wished that all Congressional districts were competitive.
My question is, would having 435 competitive Congressional districts, in fact, be a good thing?
I know what you’re thinking. Of course competitive districts would be a good thing! If we had competitive districts, members of Congress would be more accountable to voters because the Republican incumbent or the Democratic incumbent would actually fear losing a reelection race. Further, members would have to appeal to the moderate center, the group that, in the case of competitive districts, would decide the election winners.
Greater competitiveness seems like a no brainer. But is it?
Let’s examine the vulnerability argument.
Logically, the more competitive a district, the easier for voters to remove an unfit, unpopular or power-abusing officeholder. Which is a good thing if the officeholder is Mark Foley or Bob Ney or Bill Jefferson. But a bad thing if the officeholder is a Profiles in Courage-type of legislator (although these days, competitive districts might have no effect because I fear too few, if any, even exist).
But if we make incumbents perennially more vulnerable, what will they do? They’ll do whatever they must to minimize their vulnerability. First, they’ll spend even more time raising money. Challengers on average will raise more money because they have legitimate chances of winning. Which means incumbents will have to raise even more money. Competitive districts could set off a fundraising arms race. Second, members will pander even more to voters. They’ll obscure their positions further and never take a stance on an issue that might alienate even one voter. Basically, they’ll spend all their time raising money and bs-ing us.
Now the polarization argument.
There is no question that more competitive districts would push candidates to the center. Because in any given election, only one voter matters: the median voter, who’s the individual who sits at the middle of the partisan spectrum. Whichever candidate the median voter picks wins every election. In conservative-leaning districts, the median voter is farther to the ideological right; in liberal-leaning ones, farther to the ideological left. With more competitive districts, the median voter moves toward the center.
But would shifting the median voter to the center make any difference? I’m unconvinced that the degree of conservative or liberal-leaning among members is the root cause of the gridlock and the do-nothing-goodness in Congress. Rather, I think they are the result of an unwillingness of members to compromise, which intransigence is driven by the blind faith of members in the righteousness of their personal ideology. I'm right. You're wrong. End of discussion. To borrow a term from negotiations, there is no zone of agreement. Historically, liberals and conservatives have compromised. Liberals and conservatives, even far right and left-wingers, can compromise if they put nation before ideology.
Consider a few other issues.
If we made all districts competitive, how many new members would Congress have every two years? Might competitive districts regularly sweep large waves of new members into office? And if so, could Congress function effectively when populated with new members who don’t know the ropes? (Though this question is not entirely fair as I imagine it cannot function less effectively that it does now.) But do we want masses of new members learning on the job every two years? Might that lead to even greater influence by lobbyists as the knowledge gap between them and members likely would widen significantly?
Are primary races a good enough mechanism for competitiveness? Even if competitiveness is missing in general elections, one can always run against the incumbent in a primary. Although doing so is difficult because almost invariably, the incumbent will have the backing of the party, high name recognition and substantial fundraising, all components of the “incumbency advantage.” Further, few voters participate in primaries, which exacerbates this advantage.
If members run in non-competitive districts and need not worry about losing reelection, would they not spend less time fundraising and more time governing? Could they not make unpopular decisions more easily (though this could be a good thing or a bad thing) and pander less as they are better insulated from retribution at the polls?
If Congressmen were enlightened, if Congress had a high approval rating (as opposed to 9% in the latest CBS News/NYTimes poll), if the unemployment rate equaled the natural rate, a discussion of competitiveness in Congressional elections would be interesting (at least for me) but mostly unimportant. But we have the discussion now because competitiveness is an obvious way to remove non-performing members of Congress, many of whom prove every single day, as they cure not one of our national ailments (and in many cases make them worse) that they are ill-suited to the task of leading our nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)