Centrist Pundits

(No, I’m not really back yet – new job and all – but I may post a bit this month.  I expect December to be when I start getting back in to this regularly.)

You know, the New York Senate was completely messed up this summer, and it barely made the national news.  But one not even particularly interesting Congressional race gets a bit weird, and suddenly, it’s everywhere.  I speak, of course, of New York 23, a bit north of where I live… but on my TV a lot these days.

Now, of course, normally, there would be no Congressional election this year.  But the previous Congressman is now the Secretary of the Army, and so a special election needed to be held to fill the seat.  Normally, this would be a remarkably open and shut case.  New York 23 is one of the more conservative districts in the state, and the area hasn’t had a Democratic representative since just after the Civil War, if  I understand it correctly.  Its Republican country until tomorrow.

Tomorrow, it may be Democrat country, or, more likely in this blogger’s opinion, Conservative country.    Now, I have no problem with a Conservative campaigning and winning an election (although he doesn’t live in the area, which I do have a problem with) but that’s not really the story.  The story is that a moderate – something that this website is interested in – was completely forsaken by the party – in favor of a conservative.

We all know the country, generally, leans to the middle, by most guesses, a little right of center, but towards the middle.  We also know that politics is completely defined by the two extremes of the political spectrum, both in their own self-definition and in their opposition’s definition of who they are.  Right now, the Republicans are looking towards their future, to figure out how they’ll define themselves.  And most of the bigwigs look like they’ve decided that they will define themselves as the far-right.

The vast majority of the party leaders said that the candidate for the Republican party (who is, admittedly, a moderate – but let’s face it, NY Republicans are never the standard bearers of conservatism – and who, admittedly, was not elected but appointed as the candidate by 11 NY Republican Party county chairs) wasn’t conservative enough to be a Republican, and endorsed the Conservative Party’s candidate.  I’m not one for blind party loyalty but I think the least one can expect when one is the candidate for a party is the endorsement of the party’s movers and shakers, whether its enthusiastic or not.  It seems pretty basic.

The Republican, Dede Scozzafava, on the other hand, isnt showing much loyalty to the ideals of the Republican party either.  Not because of her moderate stances on things like gay marriage – which isn’t nearly the issue here in NY that it is, say, in Oklahoma – but because when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat.  Again, not one for blind party loyalty, and she’d been rogered pretty badly by her party, but you probably shouldn’t endorse your party’s traditional opposition, as a general rule.

The parties exist, whether they should or not, because like minded people pooling their resources make for more power than a bunch of individuals.  In exchange, sometimes, you take one for the team.  If either part of that equation falters, the party suffers.  Right now, it seems like no one is remembering why parties exist.  I’d normally be okay with that, except I think at the moment it plays in the political extremist hands, rather than the rise of the center.

I suppose some might say that this is the beginning of the rise of a Conservative party.  And maybe they are right.  But if they are, is that good for conservatism in America?  If most Americans are center or center-right, does a stronger national party that always plays far-right get elected?  Or do they split the vote with moderates and start to consistently lose to Democrats?  When people say that parties are, by definition, big tents, they aren’t just saying that because they like to see a few people of color, a few women, and a few homosexuals around.  They are pointing out that you need to get to at least the plurality of votes.  A Conservative party that ignores moderates only works if moderates themselves go by the wayside.  Right now, it looks like the only two Republicans who realize that are Newt Gingrich and Meghan McCain.

The sad part about it is, this election isn’t some sort of bellweather.  If the Democrat wins, it is because the vote was split.  If the Conservative wins, it is because of outside influences.  If the Republican wins – which is basically impossible – it is because the district votes Republican by default.  There’s no… data… to be garnered from the results.  Just noise.  And noise is what those who endorsed the Conservative want – they want their names in the papers for their own ambitions – Palin, Pawlenty, Pataki and more.  Because if they can say “Hey, I don’t toe the line, I do what’s right, heck, I don’t even endorse my own party’s candidates if they are the wrong person” they can claim to be mavericks, free-thinkers, and movers and shakers, even if all they are is an ideologue.

JC National Politics, Political Parties, State Politics Congress, Conservative Party, elections, Palin, Pawlenty

I was going to write on the Mel Martinez resignation here, but… well, Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight did an excellent job summing it up.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/mel-martinez-to-resign-senate-seat.html

So I’ll just link it.

JC State Politics Crist, elections, Martinez, senators

Name recognition is a powerful thing.  A short while ago, news agencies started reporting that Jim Bunning wouldn’t be running for Senate again in 2010.  Bunning has cited a lack of funds and a lack of support from the NRSC as his main reasons.  This kind of shocked me, as I figured a senator who’s name I recognized so easily shouldn’t have any fundraising problems.

Except that while I may know his name, simple research in to him to remind myself of the details of his political career reveal that this shouldn’t be a surprise at all.  He’s always had a rocky relationship with the NRSC and the Republican leadership in general, and he’s never won his elections by large margins on his own merit.

He was a fairly popular Representative in his heavily-Republican district, but for his first Senate term he won only by half a percentage point.  His second term should have been an easy sailing in to office when his first opponent had a marriage scandal and his second was an unknown.  But then Bunning started saying stupid things, and apparently it turned off a lot of people (and the Democrats started pouring more money in to the race to capitalize on those stupid statements) and he only won by one point.  Wide-spread assumption is that he actually rode Bush’s coattails in to office, which is saying something, because Bush’s coattails were short and slippery.

His state openly talked about recruiting someone to run against him in the primary, and Bunning has suggested that lawsuits might be the solution to that.  He has ongoing financial disagreements with Republican fundraising bodies and leadership disagreements with, well, Republican leaders.

Time Magazine has called him one of America’s 5 worst senators – which ironically may be where my name recognition of him comes from, because I remember reading that article (it was in 2006).  His popularity is astoundingly low in a fairly Republican state, leading one to wonder just how badly one has to perform to be polling behind all of 4 Democrats interested in the seat… in Kentucky.

I saw the breaking news blurb about his choice not to run and originally thought it this was going to be a piece on how badly the economy is affecting candidates fundraising efforts, especially Republicans, if even someone I’d heard of like Jim Bunning was having trouble.  But upon rereading and analysis, the only conclusion I can come to is maybe, just maybe, Jim Bunning isn’t worth Kentucky’s… or America’s… time.  They have very clearly said he’s not worth their dollar.

JC Personalities, State Politics elections, fundraising, senators

There’s a lot going on in the world right now.  I suppose there’s always a lot going on, but right now, it seems like more.  Even domestically, we’re having serious debates going on for issues both new (the economy) and old (health care).  America is doing some important things, and that’s cool.

Greg and I started Centrist Pundits because we like discussing things, and we know that debate with each other and with others can both lead to new ideas and lead to the better arguments for those ideas we already have.  But there is another part to being politically active than discussion; you have to get involved.  The vast majority of people who read this political blog are never going to run for office, but that isn’t the only way to get involved.

Politician’s careers live and die on two inter-related things: money and the votes of the people.  Money feeds advertising to convince more people to vote for you, and a politician who regularly gets a lot of votes is a better investment than one who may be ousted in 2 years (for, say, a member of the House).  The problem is that half of this equation doesn’t serve the other half well.

Most of us reading this aren’t capable of gathering up enough money to make the kind of difference in policy that those with money can.  Only a few ultra-rich businessmen, or corporation, have that kind of money.  If you don’t believe that, take a look at the health-care debate in this nation.  The numbers of people who want health care reform are staggering, but reform is moving forward with only fits and starts because corporations – and their lobbyists – who donate big money to politicians are using as much effort as they can to make sure things don’t reform (or don’t reform that much).

If you don’t believe that one, there’s also the New York State Senate situation, where the Senate was plunged in to chaos because one New York businessman felt slighted, so he decided to work with a couple of politicians if they changed their tune and their affiliation.  The work on behalf of 19.5 million people disrupted by 1 man with money.

We can’t make a difference on money, but we can make a difference on the votes.  It’s called advocacy, and we here at Centrist Pundits support it.  If you feel strongly on an issue, write your representative and Senators.  Write your local paper.  If you have the time, volunteer with a group that supports your viewpoint.  In the healthcare debate, if you want a public option, make sure your politicians know.  If you want the coop plan, make that known instead.  Try to convince others, if you can without being pushy about it (seriously, don’t tick anyone off).  Be respectful, be adamant, and most importantly, make it clear that your vote rides on the issue (or a record of supporting your issues, if you like).  Make it clear that you keep informed on politics and that you will vote for someone else, whether or not fancy commercials are produced. 

For example, if you support the public option, let them know that no matter how much the health care companies donate to them, no matter how much air time that lets the politician buy, if they do not vote for it, you will vote for their opponent in the primary, and either for the other party, or a third party, or just not for them on election day.  In America, we’ve somehow allowed the money side of the equation to dominate influence, but let’s face it – their money dries up completely the moment they don’t get elected. 

Make the consequences of their actions clear to them.  Be vocal.  Be an advocate.

JC National Politics, Society advocacy, elections

Anyone who understands even the most basic parts of demographics knows that this country is shifting.  Shortly, within the next 20 years, the Latino vote will be amongst the most important demographic to appeal to if you want to remain in office, especially in states in the Southwest and in populous cities nationwide.

What will be interesting to watch will be how ideologies and practical politics collide.  We already see it at times, such as with the Sotomayor nomination.  Republicans have generally been very careful to avoid doing things that could be construed as racist.  For some, this is no doubt because they aren’t racist, and for some, it’s a matter of keeping their record clean.  Those Republicans who tried to pin the racism on Sotomayor herself have either reversed their position (Gingrich) or have moved on (Limbaugh). 

More interesting will be how the 2012 Republican platform takes shape.  Will hot-button issues for the Latino vote be downplayed?  What will be the fate of the Republican stance on amnesty for immigration, tighter border crossings, denial of access to services like health care, and English as the national language?

English as a national language might still be fair game, as long as its implemented with sanity.  Making people learn the common language of the nation for citizenship can be presented in a light that makes it not different than having to learn our history.  But you can’t just leave people to die in hospitals or go without legal representation in court because they don’t speak English.  Those things probably wouldn’t happen anyway, but that seems to be the fear raised when English as a national language crops up.  A more robust explanation of the party stance would be in order.  “English as a national language to facilitate communication, while acknowledging that emergency services must be granted despite language barriers” would be a start.

Denial of services like health care, education, and driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants will be a trickier one.  The question will be where the line is drawn.  No one seems to think much of denying driver’s licenses to people, but on the flip side, no one wants to see people at a hospital denied treatment because they aren’t an American (the common argument being they are still human).  Education is a hot-button middle ground.  Both parties will have to choose where they stand on this, but it is the Republicans who would tend to the more restrictive policies in the past, and will need to decide if these policies still represent their views in the future.  Similarly, amnesty for immigration will need to be examined.  The current view is that amnesties encourage illegal crossings, but if these amnesties would please potential voters by reuniting families, it may be worth it to abandon this plank.

Tight border crossing controls have a good backup in place.  The discussion will need to be turned, in the Republican point of view, from one of immigration to one of national security.  If the Republicans can convince Latinos that tight border controls are in place to keep terrorists out, not to keep their families out, then they might have a chance.  Of course, that will require the groups along the border who have taken it upon themselves to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border to not seem quite so stereotypically white, racist, and Republican.  Unity will be the watchword here.

What it boils down to is principle versus practicality.  I think there are many conservatives who honestly have a problem with amnesties, with tax money paying for services for people who don’t pay taxes, and with a porous border.  I even sympathize with some (but not all) of their arguments.  But the Latino vote is a rapidly growing segment of our population and unlike, say, the African-American vote, it isn’t inherently attached to either party, and probably won’t be, unless one party or the other makes a mistake.  So the question is, is sticking to those principles that will most likely drive a vote away from your party a mistake?

That’s an old political question – do what’s your heart says is right or your head says gets the most votes?

JC 2012 Election, National Politics, Political Parties 2012, elections, gop, immigration, Sotomayor

I beg your pardon for the terrible headline.

In a few hours, Iranians will go the polls to elect a new President.  Ahmadinejad, the current President, is in a tight race against Mousavi, who has held the post of Prime Minister before that position was eliminated.  Ahmadinejad is noted as the more conservative of the two candidates, while Mousavi considered more liberal.  It is important to note, however, that no matter who is elected, the ultimate political authority in Iran will remain with the “Supreme Leader” of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei.  (On the other hand, a religious council has to approve all candidates, so its not like Khamenei has any big problems with Mousavi).  Still, this is a notable election in some ways.

It has been noted in the past that despite what we see from the religious leaders of Islamic nations, America… or more precisely, American cultural items, are popular in these nations.  Iranians like wearing blue jeans, they like drinking Coca-cola.  It is therefore entirely possible that given the right leaders, relations between America and Iran don’t have to be frosty.  America – like him or loathe him – has elected a leader that understands more of the Islamic world than our previous Presidents by electing Barack Obama.  Iran could do its part by electing Mousavi; Ahmadinejad continues to make things more difficult then they need to be – his stance on the Holocaust being only one of the problems he has dealing with foreign leaders.

Ahmadinejad has a lot of support from the religious and those he’s funneled oil money to, and, perhaps surprisingly, the poor.  Mousavi has support from an energized youth vote.  I would never count on a youth vote in America, but maybe it will accomplish something in Iran.  Interestingly, this election has already been markedly different from previous Iranian elections, normally quiet affairs, with Mousavi and Ahmadinejad’s supporters being vocal and public (there are two other candidates that no one is paying attention to), and even nationwide protests and gatherings of Mousavi’s supporters in the last few days.

The Middle-East is a complex place and no one event will bring about positive change in the area, and I think he’s the longer shot to win, but I would be very interested to see how Mousavi would lead Iran, and how he and Obama would interact.  Will it happen?  Time will tell.  Not much time now.

Photo of Ahmadinejad by Daniella Zalcman, photo of Mousavi by Mardetanha (wikipedia username) – both photos were allowed to be used with proper attribution.  If our attribution is insufficient contact us and we will correct it.

JC Foreign Relations diplomacy, elections, iran

So, the talk around the beltway is still the defection of Arlen Specter from the Republicans to the Democrats.

It’s nothing new with moderates; it’s happened in both directions. Something that he said rang true for me, however:

As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party.

So, I’ve had conversations with myself along these lines as well. Indeed, since I turned 18, I’ve been registered as a Democrat, Republican, and an Independent. Since I live in a closed-primary state, I don’t like to be registered as a independent, since that takes me out of the primary process.

I, too, have seen the GOP be dragged to the right. And while I often see the Democrats taking positions on the issues that resonate more with me than the Republicans do, there are oh-so-many areas where the Democrats are just plain wrong.

So, what to do? I could leave the GOP completely behind, but for what? There’s little point in doing that unless I can find a viable alternative. And, unfortunately, in the centrist area, there aren’t any viable alternatives,

Eventually, I keep telling myself that the GOP needs all the moderates it can get. I would absolutely love the creation of a far-right party. Many people think that it would forever split the Republican votes — but I think that there are a large number of moderates who just don’t feel there’s room for them in the Big Tent of the Republican Party.

Because while that tent is big, it’s awfully narrow.

In the end, that’s what I will try to do — make it a bit wider. Sen. Specter doesn’t have that luxury — he admitted in his speech that his defection was as much about his inability to get re-elected as a Republican as it is about political ideology.

Fortunately, my career doesn’t depend on my political affiliation.

Greg Congress, Political Parties elections, gop, senators

One of the biggest pieces of political news of the year so far occurred yesterday.  Arlen Specter, long time Republican, has announced he is switching parties to the Democratic party.  This is, in some small ways, mind-boggling.  It psychologically puts the Democrats at their 60 votes, once Franken is inevitably confirmed.  (The truth is, that “60” to break a filibuster is still rather fuzzy, as a bunch of the votes are moderate to conservative Democrats who can’t be relied upon to vote with the party – including Specter – and there are a couple of Republicans left who might vote with the Democrats on the occasional issue).  And it is, in some ways, a continued indication of the ongoing shakiness of the Republican party.  And it’s going to make Coleman continue to take legal action in Minnesota until the last possible moment – though that was already likely.

Senator Specter is making no bones about why he left.  He made some soft effort at justifying it as a philosophical difference – that the party has moved right while he’s stayed at center – and he’s not wrong, but he’s pretty much flat out admitted that he felt he was facing a tough primary challenge.

I’m not sure things were as bad as he thought.  First of all, it is very early to make a call on how the race will go based on polling.  Right now, everyone is all ticked off about the stimulus and going to tea parties and so on.  If the stimulus works, though, then people will be in a more forgiving mood.  And the Republican party had said it would endorse / back Specter against his primary opponent.  And the voters may be kind of mad now, but they may be more forgiving when they remember that a powerful, long-term senator is a good thing.

On the other hand, assuming he doesn’t face a particularly hard challenge from the left – something I imagine the party bosses will do their best to ensure – he’ll more than likely remain Senator, Michael Steele’s bravado statements not withstanding.  Because Pennsylvania’s trends give every indication that it is, in fact, trending towards the Democratic party again, and he has the advantage of incumbency.  The Republican’s will try to make him out as a shifty, disloyal bastard… and they may be right… but I’m not sure that will resonate with anyone outside the Republican base.  “You can vote for the shifty, disloyal Democrat, or the conservative Republican” won’t fly as high as the Republicans might hope.  It has a chance of working – firing up Republican voters and keeping more neutral Democrats at home – but that part of the equation will also depend on how “moderate” and how “liberal” Specter acts.

The Democrats have mostly been cautiously welcoming, and most dissent has been fairly squelched.  A few squeaks of “Do we really want someone willing to betray his party” and “He’s not really a Democrat” have gotten out, but the vast majority of the response out there has been from Republicans.  And given the current state of the Republican party, it should be no surprise the response has been mixed.  Some of his Senatorial colleagues have expressed simple surprise and dismay, but not made further comment.  Moderate Republicans have expressed that it is yet another sign that a continued move to the right will continue to damage the party, while at the same time assuring people they are not leaving.  Michael Steele simply stated he thinks Specter’s time is up – that he’ll either be defeated in the primary or the general election in 2010.  Perhaps most amusing and disgusting… yes, at the same time… is Rush Limbaugh, who made a list of other people who should follow Specter, including the party’s last Presidential candidate, John McCain.

Those who are discussing the loss of the middle, and the move to the right, are probably the most correct.  As the party shrinks and moves right, the message plays better and better to those who remain, but sounds more and more out of touch to the middle (we’ll ignore the left here, who were never going to vote Republican anyway).  The Republican party is still struggling to define itself in the wake of a resounding loss and the collapse of the Neocons.  If the moderates mostly leave, they’ll have less influence over that definition, and if the party defines itself by who remains, they may have trouble being a big enough tent to bring in the needed votes to win.

JC Congress, Political Parties, State Politics elections, senators, Specter

Fivethirtyeight.com does a nice job with statistics, since that’s the day job of the site’s owner.  Its a shame that sometimes his clear liberal bias comes through on his commentary, because it creates a feeling that undermines the fact that his statistical work is fairly unbiased.

Still, I like the site, and sometimes, they offer up something very interesting.  I knew, instinctively, that Texas leaving the nation (which won’t actually happen) would be bad for the Republican party, but they did the math as to why:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/hey-rick-can-we-talk.html

Please, discuss.

JC National Politics, Political Parties, State Politics elections, Texas

I’d be mad as hell about this if I lived in Minnesota. Five months after the election, and they still only have one Senator in Washington.

It’s not just being mad at Coleman for fighting this (or Franken, when he was behind, for that matter). It’s also a state election law that doesn’t list a point at which some decision has to be made. The day before the oath of office is administered, perhaps they should do a coin toss or something.

Also, read what the good people over at The Moderate Voice say about it.

Greg Congress, National Politics, Political Parties Coleman, elections, Franken