A Chicago Blog

This is the second in a series of entries about David Frum’s new book.

Frum makes an interesting observation on page 32. He writes: “On their domestic policy records, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush rank as middle-of-the-road presidents, far less radical than say, Ronald Reagan or Harry Truman. Yet both Truman and Reagan drew support from across the partisan spectrum, while Clinton and Bush polarized the country.”

Frum explains this phenomena by arguing it is precisely because Bush and Clinton are so close on policy issues that they inspire such polarizing politics. But I’m not so sure. I wonder if both their centrist policies and their polarizing politics are symptoms of a bigger cause.

They both are evidence of the “dealignment” of the party system. Since Nixon, more and more people have refused to self-identify with either party, viewing both institutions as self-serving and corrupt. This has ironically lead to an intensification of partisanship as the parties seek to fortify their positions against the encroaching cynicism. They’ve become more ideological and have demanded more coherency than ever before.

But candidates, in order to win still have to reach out to those “dealigned” voters. This outreach leaves the partisans even more resentful and more set on party purity. Though, the majority of voters don’t respond to the hyper-partisan rhetoric, they have no common voice to offset the intense partisanship of each party base. Thus, the increase of polarization is evidence of a dysfunctional party system trying harder and harder to justify itself each election cycle.

Take McCain for example. The discontent he inspires in the Republican base is more a product of his refusal to be “partisan” than it is his specific positions on policy. Sure there are some principled libertarians angry over McCain-Feingold, and rightly so. But McCain’s biggest sins were his refusal to back the “nuclear option” during the debates over judicial nominees and his relatively moderate (and Reaganesque) position on immigration, hardly a point of traditional conservative orthodoxy.

As the parties become weaker, the demands for party loyalty become louder and louder. But demands for party loyalty, in turn, shrink the base even more.

We have to wonder whether there is a third party within the American electorate that has no way of organizing itself because of various efforts from the right and left to destroy access to the ballot, through campaign finance reform, through redistricting, and through ballot access laws.

Frum scratches the surface of this deep political dysfunction, but then explains it away as evidence that the modern Republican party is simply out of touch.

I picked up a copy of David From’s Comeback and will be be posting a series of blogs over the coming weeks with my thoughts on the book. The short version of From’s argument is that Republicans have to get over Ronald Reagan. According to From “Reagan Republicanism offers solutions to the problems of forty years before, not to those of the twenty-first century.” Indeed, he makes a compelling case that after years of economic expansion and tax cuts, the public no longer responds to a Republican agenda that focuses on tax cuts, especially while budgets deficits sore. He sites one poll from 2006 that found Americans opted 2 to 1 for balancing the budget instead of cutting taxes.

If From’s thesis right, it raises serious questions for the Republican coalition. The glue that held the movement together has always been fiscal issues, especially taxes. To some degree, the mid term elections of 2006 were an example of what happens when fiscal issues are not the forefront of GOP agenda. Having lost credibility on budget issues, and having already substantially cut taxes, Republicans became mired in internal debates about foreign policy and immigration. The fracturing depressed turnout and allowed for significant defections of moderate Republicans to the Democrats.

So From may be right that Reaganism is dead, but the question is does its passing also doom the Republican Party?

Did winner-take-all primaries cost Romney (and conservatives) the nomination? A buddy of mine put together a pretty good chart demonstrating that they did. Download a PDF of it here.

If Republican delegates had been assigned proportionally, Romney would have actually led McCain by 8 delegates on Feb. 7–the day he suspended his campaign. Instead, McCain led Romney by 441 delegate, which made the former governor’s calculus pretty clear. The table below shows the delegates as they were after Super Tuesday, and as they would have been had the GOP gone to a proportional system.

One potential argument for winner-take-all is to avoid the brokered convention that Democrats now seem destined for. Indeed, if the GOP can win the presidency, it might be argued that the primary election system was a key reason why. But is it worth it? The appearance of consensus around McCain doesn’t change the fact that there are deep fissures within the GOP. In fact it makes them worse by disenfranchising the rank & file.

Many on the left think a brokered convention would be so bloody as to scar the party for decades. But isn’t their some nobility in it? Isn’t it a good thing that factions are forced to duke it for control of the party?

I’m heading back to Chicago tomorrow, so I was checking the weather and saw that we’re getting MORE SNOW. This is certainly the snowiest winter since I moved here in 1999 but it definitely isn’t the snowiest ever. Just ask Tom:

I actually grew up in Tennessee, at least part time. I’m visiting on work right now. I’m going to hit a brewery tonight. Pictures are forthcoming.

From Nature Reports:

Last month Jean Ziegler, the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, called biofuels a “crime against humanity” and asked for a five-year moratorium on the practice of using food crops for fuel1.

It was only the latest voice in what seems to be turning into a backlash against biofuels. In September, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development issued a sceptical assessment of biofuels, warning that they could cause more problems than they solve2.

Hat Tip: Harold Henderson

GOP voters can’t really figure out who is the “Reagan” candidate, if there is one. But maybe they are looking in the wrong party.

Hat Tip: Backyard Conservative.

I putting this in my Hammacher Schlemmer gift registry! Will it do bottles?

There’s some risk in the Cub’s choice to pick up Jon Lieber, but his numbers are good and he knows how to pitch at Wrigley so it’s hard to imagine anything negative about this move. It’s about time Hendry started going after pitching. I hope we can pick up one more vet before March.

There is NO money for the CTA, but PLENTY of MILLIONS to go around for a hospital construction and an auto dealership…yes, that’s right, a PRIVATELY OWNED auto dealership is receiving YOUR tax funds to build a new dealership at North & Clybourn. How is this happening?!

Ron Huberman needs to start lobbying for the CTA to be a designated TIF district.