Daniel Larison makes a point that should be blindingly obvious were it not for the need for our talking heads to turn every single election into a referendum on the talking heads’ own framing of the President’s agenda:

“What we have been seeing in all of the elections over the last year is a readiness on the part of the electorate to oust the parties that have traditionally held sway in the district or state in question….The candidates that could best address the local concerns of voters prevailed. Those identified with distrusted political establishments or discredited national parties failed.”

I assure you, the average New Jerseyan is smart enough to recognize that their state governor has approximately no relevance to the President of the United States.  I am quite certain that the foibles of the New Jersey state Democratic Party and of former Governor Corzine, and the state’s own economic problems had about 1000 times more to do with why there is a Republican in the Governor’s Mansion right now than anything related to President Obama or Democrats in Congress.  As early as March or April of last year, Democrats in this state were already certain that Corzine would lose.  Indeed, Christie led in every single poll taken between January and September of last year, almost always well outside the margin of error.   Even casting aside that this was a governor’s race, it seems rather unlikely that New Jersey voters were already looking forward to sending President Obama a message a week after he was sworn, and less than 3 months after they had overwhelmingly voted him into office. 

 It was only in September and October, when it became clear that Christie was just another establishment Republican, that Corzine caught up in the polls and turned it into a meaningful race again.  Ultimately, Christie pulled it out by four points, but this was a far cry from the 10-15 point leads he was consistently polling in July and August.  For anyone who had actually been following this race, the shocking thing wasn’t that the People’s Republic of New Jersey elected a Republican; it was that a Republican with a reputation for fighting political corruption almost blew an opportunity to rout a Democratic Party and administration known primarily for its corruption and incompetence.  Yet somehow the meme that came out was something along the lines of “New Jersey Voters Send Obama a Message.”

But most importantly, as Larison points out, when times are tough, voters blame incumbents.  They don’t just blame the party in power in Washington – they blame the people who are supposed to represent them, they seek out more competent candidates, or they savage the establishment of whatever party is most relevant.  That’s what happened in NJ, it’s what happened in NY-23 (both with respect to Hoffman’s destruction of Scozzafava and the Dems’ ultimate victory), and it’s at least arguably a big part of what happened in Massachusetts, where angry voters combined with a terrible Dem candidate and a very good Republican candidate to create a perfect storm. 

To the extent voters are sending a message to Washington, it’s simply this: It’s not all about you.

(cross-posted from my blog)

If you look at the breakdown for the House’s vote on health care reform, you’ll see that of the 39 Democrats voting against reform, 24 were Blue Dogs.  Nearly each of the Blue Dogs voting against reform came from districts that supported John McCain in 2008, and of those, fourteen were freshmen Democrats defending seats in districts that went for McCain by at least ten points.  Most of those districts are predominately rural, and it’s very likely that they rank on the low end of most socio-economic indicators.

All of this is apropos of low-tech cyclist’s discussion of “Blue Doggism” or the tendency on part of Blue Dogs to adopt positions and support policies that hurt their districts economically.  The health care bill stands prominently, but there are dozens of smaller, equally egregious instances of Blue Dogs signing on to legislation that benefits the wealthy and privileged at the expense of the folks they actually represent.  Low-tech cyclist blames the Blue Dogs themselves for this behavior, and while that explanation holds water for some Blue Dogs — see: former Rep. Harold Ford (TN-9) — I’m not sure if it’s true of each Blue Dog.

Looking at the data from the health care vote, my hunch is that the majority of Blue Dogs are actually reflecting their constituents’ preferences.  I’m certain that if you were to look at each of the Blue Dogs that voted against health care reform, and polled health care reform within their districts, you’d find that their constituents are significantly (if not overwhelmingly) against the legislation.  Yes, your average Blue Dog is a corporate lackey, but he also represents aconservative district and in all likelihood, is reflecting the preferences of his constituents.

When it comes down to it, the problem isn’t that Blue Dogs are spineless, it’s that a large swath of rural America –disproportionately poor and disadvantaged — has decided that its interests are best served by conservative policies. Which, at the moment, amount to little more than giveaways to the wealthiest and most privileged Americans.

While I don’t think Corzine’s been as bad for New Jersey as most people seem to think (the Dems in the Assembly and Senate being a much different story), there was never any chance I was going to vote for him this year on divided government grounds.  Since I’ve become something of a proud proponent of divided government, this would seemingly make Chris Christie (who’s not only a firstie-firstie, but a firstie-firstie girlie-girlie) the only realistic option.  But then a third party candidate, Chris Daggett started making a sizable dent in the polls.  Meanwhile, I could never figure out what Christie was actually for beyond some platitudes about lower taxes, eliminating “wasteful” spending, and ponies for everyone.  Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that even with divided government, Christie will still be a mess as a governor, for pretty much the same reasons that Bush was a mess as a President even with divided government.  This pretty well explains why:

Lonegan didn’t disappoint. The crowd in the VFW hall, fueled by hot dogs and beer, went wild as the former Bogota mayor launched into his typical Tea Party  tirade against big government. Next up was Kim Guadagno, the No. 2 on the ticket. Guadagno, who grew up in Iowa, started by praising the country music played by the excellent band on the stage behind her. Then she spotted me in the audience. “Hello, Paul,” Guadagno said. “I’m going to tell you a little  bit about the plan we have here in New Jersey. We have a plan.”

A property-tax plan? I’d been pestering her and Christie to come up with one since summer. Better late than never, I thought. But it was not to be. She changed the subject and before long the band was playing country music again.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: until Republicans figure out what they’re for, they’re going to continue having serious problems with good governance.

Compare that to Mr. Daggett (especially here).  While I’ve got my share of disagreements with the guy, I’ve got little difficulty figuring out what he’s for, and every reason in the world to think he’d be an effective governor even with a potentially hostile legislature.

UPDATE: Extra credit for the first commenter to figure out the cinematic origin of the term “firstie-firstie girlie-girlie.”

In my recently concluded interview with Publius from ObsidianWings on the role of the administrative state, a central question was how citizens can better hold the executive and legislative branches accountable and prevent regulatory capture.  It seems clear to me (although Publius may disagree) that these issues are closely related to the issue of growth of executive power in recent years, as Congress increasingly abdicates responsibility for the quality of government to the regulatory state and we increasingly view the President as something of an omnipotent legislator-in-chief. 

I. The Problem

The result of this abdication is largely an inability for citizens to hold government accountable for its actions or inactions.  Congress winds up blaming the Executive Branch for just about everything as a means of justifying its own inaction to remedy past mistakes.  The President blames Congress for failing to pass his legislative agenda while largely ignoring the way in which the regulatory state that he oversees gets captured by narrow interests. 

Meanwhile, the President winds up being the sole person we are willing or able to hold accountable….if the economy is good, we credit the President; if the economy is bad, we blame the President.  We dislike Congress, to be sure, but high incumbent re-election rates show that we are unwilling to actually place blame on our own members of Congress.  At best, we vote out a couple members of Congress in swing districts as a proxy for the President’s popularity (which is in turn a proxy for the state of the economy and the perception of our geopolitical status). 

The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader are hardly immune from criticism and are certainly higher profile than just about any other member of Congress, but even there, we have little ability to hold them accountable for how well they are doing their jobs as long as they remain reasonably popular in their home districts and states. 

II.  The Solution: Turn On The Speakers

There is a simple, if perhaps only partial, solution to this twin problem of abdication of responsibility by Congress and lack of accountability for the administration of the regulatory state: nationalize the election of the Speaker of the House. 

[Read more →]

I’ve been trying to catch up on what happened over the weekend in Iran, and is continuing to happen now.  One thing that I’ve noticed is just how little we seem to know and how much everyone seems to think they know. 

I guess that puts me firmly with Freddie and Jason Kuznicki, at least for the moment:

Let us show that we understand the power of example, and the power of restraint. Let this be the moment where our belief in democracy and liberal values is not enacted, but embodied. Please. This is the time.

But for the long haul, I’ve got no idea what should be done in response to the situation, largely because we’ve got such a limited handle on what has happened and will happen over there in the next few days, weeks, and months.

To be sure, I suspect that there was widespread fraud of some form, although the limited scientific polling data from the weeks leading up to the election would seem to suggest that Ahmadinejad was looking unbeatable all along (but see this compilation of unscientific poll data and Juan Cole’s thorough critique of the scientific polling).  The numbers just seem too suspicious and erratic, particularly when compared with data from previous elections. 

That said, for once I’m fully in agreement with Sonny Bunch on an international relations issue: we need to calm down a bit and stop jumping to conclusions based on every stray missive or new theory.  That’s not to say that we should stop caring about what’s going on – just that we collectively need to do a better job of putting this information into context and trying to process it more rationally.  Sonny is also correct in suggesting that, even if you are generally an interventionist, the situation as we currently know it leaves the US between a rock and a hard place – how do you support the protesters without playing right into the hands of those who argue that they’re merely pawns of the West?  The only thing that you really can or should do is nothing.

The dilemma is that this situation is fluid, and there is very little we know for certain.  As James Joyner noted in his must-read post today:

Given the dearth of Western journalists, the regime’s tight coverage of information, and the biases of those Tweeting and blogging and otherwise getting text and video out of the country, it’s impossible to accurately assess what’s going on in Iran.  Protests of some significant size are ongoing; how big, we don’t know.  The regime is cracking down; with what severity, we don’t know. 

To that we can add that we’re pretty sure that there was some kind of widespread vote-rigging, and even if there wasn’t, there are plenty of clear markers of massive voter intimidation.

But the unanswered questions are the most important, things like:

1.  Who actually won, and with how much of the vote? 

2.  Who orchestrated the fraud, and why?  Is this a coup or a power play by Ahmadinejad vis-a-vis some of the clerics, as some have pondered?  Or is it a combined attempt by both the clerics and Ahmadinejad to permanently crush the reformists?

3.  How much support do the protesters really have?

4.  What kind of assistance, if any, do the protesters want from the West?  What do the ”silent majority” of Iranians think about this?

5.  Are other countries intervening on Ahmadinejad, et al’s behalf to support the crackdown?

6.  How severe is the crackdown and how much support does it have amongst the regular police and military (as opposed to the Basij and Revolutionary Guards)?

There are a few things I know for certain.  First, until proven otherwise, Obama needs to exercise extreme caution before taking any kind of an act to support the protesters – we absolutely cannot ignore that the US is still not very popular amongst Iranians, with only about 30 percent taking a positive view of the US and 38 percent declaring the US to be the biggest threat to Iran (combined with another 44 percent who name Israel the biggest threat).  If that position begins to change significantly as a result of the current events, then we can re-evaluate our involvement.  Given those numbers, we also need to recognize that, even if there was massive fraud and Mousavi was the real victor, the cause of that sentiment likely has little to do with a rejection of Ahmadinejad’s positions.

If, however, it becomes apparent that what we are dealing with is in fact a coup or a successful play for more Presidential power by Ahmadinejad, then that creates an entirely different set of problems.  At that point, the interests of various foreign governments including not only the US but more importantly most of the “pro-Western” governments of the Middle East become directly affected.  Ahmadinejad’s rants then cease to be mere attempts to get his name in the paper and become instead potential statements of official policy.  My inclination would still be against almost all possible forms of intervention, but the fact is that this would remove one of the best Iran-specific arguments against military action to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to wit that Ahmadinejad doesn’t control foreign policy.

All that said, despite my initial reactions to the contrary, I’m increasingly coming to the opinion that Ahmadinejad would have won by a comfortable margin even without any fraud, though I’m not sure it would have been enough to avoid a run-off…but more on that later.

So given that Iraq had largely peaceful provincial elections this past weekend, in which voter turn out was much higher than in 2005, where a certain proportion of the seats up for grabs were allocated to women who ran in the election, and where no one seems to be disputing the results, let me propose a highly contingent hypothetical.

If this is a trend that continues and increasingly results in a lowering of violence that both adds to the stability of Iraq and enables American troops to come sooner rather than later, and if the democratic process in Iraq presents the conditions under which a greater degree of civil society is able to take greater hold better integrating Iraq into the global economy and thereby raising the general quality of life for Iraqis and imporiving the degree of stability in the region, would we not count that as a positive development for Iraq and the world generally?

Now, let me say that in posing that question I’m not intending to be an apologist for the Bush administration and its decision to invade Iraq. It remains clear that the decision was based on the manipulation of information and the public, that it was accompanied by significant infringements of civil liberties, that it has contributed to dire economic consequences, and that the most heinous interrogation techniques and treatment of enemy combatants have been utilized in the overall “war on terror”. There is much that has been wound up in the invasion of Iraq and the corresponding war on terror that is despicable and to be condemned.

However, some time ago I made an argument for a sort of developmentally based interventionism wherein said intervention should only seek to remove undue barriers to the development of nations,

To my mind, the key in formulating an acceptable approach to interventionism is to decouple notions of modernization and evolution from ideas of westernization. It seems relatively evident to me that cultures and nations do in fact go through a process of evolution: these entities are dynamic and change over time. I would also be willing to suggest that the deeper structures of that evolution are the same across cultures and nations – which is to say that cultural and national evolution is, in fact, a teleological affair: it has a directionality. But I’m also inclined to suggest that each unique instance of culture and nation will instantiate that evolution in different surface structures. The evolution of China will not look the same as the evolution of America, or India, for that matter–though the direction of their evolution will roughly approximate one another. It is in regard to these surface structures that I think we need to pay the most attention when talking about intervention.

The break from neoconservative interventionism, then, is a move away from remaking nations in one’s own image. Rather, responsible interventionism is action directed at removing unwarranted impediments to the deeper forces of evolution. I say unwarranted because, of course, there are challenges that any culture or nation will face in manifesting its own evolution. But it is also the case that there are often brutal and corrupt forces that stand in the way of such a natural evolution, often against the will and desires of peoples within those cultures and nations. Such impediments seem to stand out in terms of their overt use of force and suffering to impede an evolution against which they stand to lose power and influence.

While it is true that the Bush administration’s  foray into Iraq is perhaps a text book case of how not to do this, I have to wonder if the potential evolution of Iraq demonstrates that, even accidentally, such interventionism can achieve its end goal.