The Power and the Money

North Carolina in historic and geographic perspective

Political events over the past few years in North Carolina have been quite depressing. Extreme gerrymandering diluted representation. In 2012, the Democrats won the popular vote for the federal House but lost most of the seats. In 2016, a 53% GOP margin for House votes won them 77% of seats; a 55% margin for state senate turned into 68% of the seats; in the state lower chamber, 53% of the vote got them 62% of the seats. (See here. For maps showing the power of gerrymandering in the state, see here.) 

Then, when the Republican governor lost re-election in 2016, the legislature moved to strip the Governorship of most of its power. 

But this is not unprecedented.

First, let us compare across space: Maryland is as gerrymandered as North Carolina, only in favor of Democrats. Is is true that Republicans benefit more nationally from gerrymandering (only Illinois and Maryland have a strong Democratic bias) but N.C. is not at all unique.

Second, the legislative power grab after the election is unique in the 21st century — the Maryland legislature did not try to strip Governor Hogan of his power in 2014 — but it is not unique across American history. First, consider Louisiana under Huey Long. For all the shenanigans, Governor McCrory did not move to destroy the opposition when he was in power the way Long did back in 1928-35. 

More ominously, consider Redemption in North Carolina. In the 1868 election, Republicans solidly trounced the Conservative Party. In 1870, however, the Conservatives managed to come back by effectively casting themselves as the white people’s party ... and using terror tactics by the Ku Klux Klan. Governor William Holden called out the militia to fight the KKK, but the Conservative nonetheless won the legislative elections. They first moved to prevent legislators from being seated from districts where the state militia arrested KKK terrorists. They then impeached Governor Holden. In 1876, the Conservative Party renamed itself the Democratic Party, becoming part of the national Democratic coalition. It took them until 1898 to fully disenfranchise the black population. (See also here.)

By those standards, North Carolina has so far been quite civilized. No riots, no extrajudicial killings or warrantless arrests, no declarations of martial law, and the courts have reined in the lame duck power grab and may reverse the gerrymander. Vigilance is warranted. Protest is warranted. And political mobilization is needed. But worse things have happened and worse has been overcome. 

Elections have consequences, but not all consequences are equal

Sometime it seems that every single election of my lifetime had been more important than the one before. But is that really true? What follows is a first take at that question: I hope it provokes a long and contentious comment thread. (Hope, as we again realized ten days ago, really does spring eternal.)

Let’s start a little before I was born.

1960:  Not important, even in retrospect. Would Nixon have backed the Cuban exiles? Would Nixon have tried a Keynesian tax cut? Would either have mattered in the long run? There may have be knock-on effects on the struggle for African-American equality, but those are contingent and impossible to predict.

1964: Yes, very important, but such a blow-out that it’s not worth commenting upon.

1968:  Massively important, both as it seemed at the time and (even more so) in retrospect. A Humphrey administration would have brought universal health care and universal day care, for two things, let alone the implications for American political culture from avoiding Watergate.

1972: See 1964.

1976:  Not important, with a caveat. Gerald Ford would not have been appreciably different from Jimmy Carter. Ford, however, would not have been eligible to run in 1980 under the terms of the 22^nd amendment. (He took office before January 1975, therefore serving “more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President.”) If a Ford term wracked with inflation and recession (which it would have been) allowed Kennedy to beat Reagan in ‘80, then the consequences of having liberal Democrats in office during the subsequent boom might have been very large. But that is speculation; at the time, the stakes were low.

1980:  Unknowable. First, it wasn’t really that close. (See 1972.) In that sense, it’s hard to care about the counterfactual. Second, the American ship-of-state remained remarkably steady under the Reagan administration, given the rhetoric. Finally, its importance hinges on way too many unknowables. (See 1976.) In other words, it probably mattered a lot in the long-run but it really is not easy to say how.

1984: See 1972.

1988:  Not important, really, unless you believe that a Dukakis administration would have ignored the invasion of Kuwait. If you believe that then it was massively important.

1992:  Hard to say. The re-election of George H.W. Bush would have slowed the radicalization of the Republican Party. But at the time, the election didn’t seem earth-shattering save for the issue of health care … and those reforms failed to materialize.

1996:  Yawn.

2000: Massively important … but only in retrospect. Sure, a Gore administration would have kept federal finances in better shape, but that isn’t important. Slightly higher marginal income taxes would have meant slightly lower growth of inequality, but not by much. A Gore-driven Medicare expansion would not have required the fixing that Dubya’s did, but Dubya’s expansion was in fact later fixed. The massive consequences from that election were not foreseeable at the time.

2004:  Not sure. A Kerry administration would have had a rough time disengaging from Iraq. It might have headed off the 2007 financial collapse, but I doubt it. It would have appointed some Supreme Court justices which might have some large consequences going ahead. And then it would have ended with the election of John McCain in 2008. There is a strong case to be made that the stakes were not as high as they seemed at the time.

2008: Too soon to tell. You can make a case that America and the world would be in better shape had John McCain won. (Although his Veep … gulp.) But that hinges on McCain passing a big stimulus, something like Dodd-Frank, a climate change bill and heading off the election of the current President-elect. He would need to hit the quadrifecta while avoiding foreign policy missteps. How likely was that? Moreover, I think the political consequences of having had an African-American president will become clearer in the future, as will Barack Obama’s particular historical role. NOTE: had the 2016 election gone the other way, then I would be more certain in stating that ’08 was an important election, if not 1968-level important.

2012: Important. Obamacare and the Clean Power Plan, for two things. Of course, neither may survive the upcoming administration. See 2008.  

2016: Oh my God. America will change dramatically, or so it seems. 

If this analysis holds water, then two things stand out. First, the only massive future-of-the-Republic election we’ve had up until 2016 happened in 1968. Second, most elections seem less important in retrospect. 

It is possible that 2016 will turn out to be a blip, a strange election prompted by a reaction to the first black president combined with noxious social declines in parts of white America. That will not, however, happen on its own. Opponents of the administration-to-be will need to work very hard and very smart.

Thoughts? Counter-arguments? I would like this to generate discussion; these conclusions are far from firm.

Unpublished post from August 22, 2013: The GOP, Latinos, and Chris Christie

There is a bit of a controversy over the GOP and immigration reform. Mitt Romney did terribly among Latinos, as do Republican candidates in general. The question is why. Many observers, including many Republicans, ascribe it to Republican immigrant-bashing, also known as racism. “Self-deportation” and all that.

There is a counter-argument, advanced by both liberals and conservatives, that the problem lies in other GOP policies. To get Latinos to vote Republican, either the internal demographics of Latinos would have to change or the GOP would need to alter core political stances other than their incessant dog-whistling to white nationalists. In that view, then, the dog-whistling is a pure plus: it gets white votes that might otherwise go uncast without losing many Latino ones.

I go back-and-forth on this. On the one hand, I know a lot of Latino conservatives who are put off by GOP insanity. On the other hand, I also know a lot of non-Latino conservatives who are put off by GOP insanity.

So ... one test case is New Jersey. There, Governor Christie leads among white voters, but is slightly behind among Latinos, 41-43 against Barbara Buono.

Thing is, Governor Christie has not engaged in any racist dog-whistling. And his persona goes over well with Latinos. This above picture is me in front of Mr. Otero’s house in Queens. Mr. Otero has told me that he likes Governor Christie. But ... I have trouble believing that he would vote for the man. (And no, not just because he does not live in New Jersey.) Why? Well, look at this picture of the house, without me taking up space:

Close-up:

You see a lot of those stickers in Queens.

Immigration reform? A good thing. And probably a net gain for the GOP. But I am not sure that it would drastically change much of anything. The party has other problems.

Does gerrymandering matter now? A question for political scientists

There is a political science literature that gerrymandering, as an empirical matter, has had less effect on American politics than the pundits like to claim. There is little past evidence that gerrymandering leads to more polarization or less competitive elections. The U.S. Senate provides perhaps conclusive evidence about polarization: you cannot gerrymander state boundaries, but the Senate is just as polarized as the House. Politicians are polarized because the U.S. now has polarized ideological political parties.

Still, it is hard for me to reject the hypothesis that gerrymandering is very important. Why is that? Well, two things:

1. California: it moved to nonpartisan districting, and Democrats pulled out a two-thirds supermajority. Of course, there could be other explanations: nonpartisan primaries, continuing Mexican-American population growth and leftward shifts in public opinion. It certainly seems as though the new cleaner districts helped the Democrats pick up Congressional seats;
2. The GOP seems to have lost the overall Congressional popular vote, but maintained its majority.

I do not know, but it seems as though gerrymandering may have made a very large difference in this election. What does the literature say? Anyone?

Oh, well, that’s all right, then

I am trying not to comment about the presidential race. In this case, though, I am perplexed. After all that noise and yelling, we now have the GOP nominee saying that:

1. He is going to replace Obamacare with Obamneycare! No, really. He wants to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. “I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.” 
2. He is not going to cut taxes on rich people. “I want to make sure people understand, despite what the Democrats said at their convention, I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers.”
3. He is not going to alter Medicare, not even the way it reimburses providers. “No change,” he says. Of course, that last applies only if you are over 55, but still. And us younger folk will still have traditional Medicare as an option.
4. He won’t repeal the immigration order, he will supercede it.

Etch-a-sketch, indeed. Or perhaps just actual small-c conservatism? Maybe confusion. Or confabulation. (See #3.) Still, I would imagine it all makes it very confusing for a Republican voter to know exactly what it is they are supporting when they check the (R) box.

Leave Clint alone!

Seriously, people, it was funny. My wife is a Democrat, and she thought it was hilarious. So did the Obama campaign! And now the world has “Invisible Obama.” Leave Clint alone!

It was not super respectful, but it was not out of bounds. And believe you me, gentle readers, I am hypersensitive about that sort of thing. I get angry at the use of “this” instead of “the” to refer to the President. I was no fan of President George Bush the Younger, in fact I was the opposite of a fan, and I didn’t even like to call him “Bush” instead of “President Bush” or “George Bush” because that did not show the proper respect. You gotta respect the President, man, even if you wish he would leave office yesterday. I think Governor Jan Brewer owes the current President an apology, a grovelling apology, as does Bill O’Reilly. (You ... do ... not ... interrupt ... the President!) The Congressman who yelled during the State of the Union should be made to beg forgiveness. And oh Sweet Mary has President Obama had to put up with stuff that no person should have to put up with, let alone the President of the United States. I take this stuff serious, old pre-hipster Brooklyn serious. And my wife more so.

So when we say that Clint was fine, then Clint was fine. Leave the man alone!

Anyway, if you were wondering how it played in Farsi, go here.

You lie!

I am ignoring the electioneering. Icky jokes from the Romster, wild accusations from El Reid. Same old, whatever.

Now, I have to add that this is not 1996. There are issues at stake, we know what they are. And even if it were a 1996-like election, well, I thought 2000 was a 1996-like election, and didn’t that turn out to be stupid!

Still, it is quite feasible to ignore all the electioneering while still paying attention to the election.

But ... it is a little jarring to hear Rick Santorum just straight up lie when he says that President Obama has waived the work requirement for TANF. You can find the executive order in question here. Condensed:

“HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families. ...

“States must develop evaluation plans that are sufficient to evaluate the effect of the proposed approach in furthering a TANF purpose as well as interim targets the state commits to achieve. States that fail to meet interim outcome targets will be required to develop an improvement plan and can face termination of the waiver project. ...

“As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.”

I find this kind of thing quite annoying. The big thing that the states might do is cut the number of hours of work down from 30. It also would keep states that fail to place 50% of recipient families in work.

I should add that I grew up on AFDC, with a mother who railed against the program because she had to work off the books. She even had to study off the books. Switching to TANF was a great thing. Handing flexibility to governors does not repeal the work requirements.

(Oh gosh. Now Nikki Haley is making stuff up about immigration policy. But she is right that the Administration blocked photo ID requirements to vote and interfered with Boeing’s attempt to move production to South Carolina. I am not sure that she understands the definition of “mack-daddy,” though. I mean, what does it mean for an airplane to be a mack daddy? Does the phrase have a different meaning in South Carolina than it does in South Florida?)

OK, back to my real work.

Pointing out the obvious

 OK, I don’t comment a lot about American politics these days, but I just want to point out that Condoleeza Rice is not going to be the next vice-president of the United States, no matter who wins in November.

The left-wing success of a McCain administration?

 It is hard to see how John McCain could have won the 2008 election. Unlike 2000 or 2004, it was not a close-run event. But still, what if he had? (And with, say, Vice-president Pawlenty, not Palin.)

If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, then it is a no-brainer. Similarly, if you believe that President McCain would have let the auto industry go hang, then it is a no-brainer. But if the Supreme Court throws out the first and you do not believe (as I do not) that McCain would have done the second, then it is worth asking. Would a McCain administration have been better or worse?

The is one giant gain from a McCain administration: we would probably have a carbon ceiling and a carbon price. Assuming that the ACA does not survive, and that Detroit would have, what Obama administration accomplishments would have fallen by the wayside under a President McCain?

1. Passed the stimulus ... but McCain would have passed one as well. It would be more weighted towards tax cuts, but similar in size;
2. Passed Wall Street reform ... but some sort of bill was inevitable, what with a Democratic congress, and McCain was not a particular friend of Wall Street;
3. Killed Osama bin Laden ... but honestly, if the opportunity arose, a McCain administration would have handled that as well as President Obama. McCain was not George Bush;
4. Ended the war in Iraq ... thing is, I am not convinced that the Iraqis would not have kicked us out in 2011 anyway, given the political realities in Baghdad;
5. Abolished “Don't Ask, Don't Tell”;
6. Stopped torture ... oh, come on! Of course McCain would have done that;
7. Kicked the banks out of the federal student loans;
8. Boosted fuel efficiency standards ... but with a climate bill it would not matter that much. Plus, I think this is the kind of policy where the old pre-2004 McCain might have resurfaced, a safe way to be mavericky;
9. Passed mini stimuli in 2010 and 2011 ... they would have been bigger under McCain. The Democratic Party is structurally less-disciplined than the GOP, and I know that McCain’s advisors are foxhole Keynesians. Put his election at risk, and we get them;
10. Halted the construction of new coal plants ... but again, not necessary with a climate bill;
11. Signed the New START treaty.

Monetary policy would have been about the same. And both Souter and Stevens would still be on the Supreme Court. No difference there, at least as of early 2012.

So what have we got? No equal rights for gay Americans to serve their country; the vampire squid continuing to suck blood from federal student loans; and no START treaty. Plus some greater risk of a catastrophic economic mistake.

On the other side, a market for carbon! And, ironically enough, possibly more stimulus. But a market for carbon! A weak market, with big caps, and no permit auctions ... but a market.

The difference seems not huge once you take the ACA and auto bailout off the table. (I am assuming that Libya would have gone similarly and that when confronted with the military and diplomatic reality, President McCain would have stayed out of Syria.)

I must be missing something. Can somebody help me out and tell me what?