Last night the Republicans maintained control of the Wisconsin State Senate by winning 4 of 6 recall elections. For critics of Governor Scott Walker and the Republican legislature's blatant disregard for "small r" republican principles, the results were a major disappointment.
When the recall drive started, I honestly thought the Democrats would take at least 4, and possibly all 6 of the contests. I also thought they would win most of them by wide margins. So what happened?
First, let's stipulate that in any two party partisan election, the Republican and Democrat both start off with about 30% of the vote each (this is called "the base."). The remaining 40% are not "moderates;" rather, they are independents for whom campaign rhetoric matters. Winning campaigns are able to secure the base and the majority of independents.
In February and March I thought that the Republicans had been so disrespectful of basic rules of governance that the Democrats in recall elections would not only win the independents but also cut into the Republican base. That didn't happen, even though the Dems ran some excellent candidates. Pundits and Dem operatives will blame the media, or outside spending, or the fact that the elections took place in August, or any number of external factors, but I think at root the problem was ineffective Democratic messaging.
Most voters, especially the independents, believe (correctly) that elected officials should not be recalled simply for taking tough votes. I personally would not vote to recall an elected official just because he or she took a vote I disagreed with.
Unfortunately, the moment Democratic Party advertising started focusing on the fact that the Republicans had voted for massive cuts in school aids, voted for tax cuts for the rich, etc. etc., they allowed the Republican candidates to assume a victim pose: "I am being punished for taking tough votes." The independent voters, I am convinced, do not approve of the governor's budgets . . . but neither do they approve of removing an official from office simply for voting for those budgets.
An independent voter WILL vote to recall, in my judgement, when it can be shown that the elected representative did not meet his or her responsibility to REPRESENT constituents. A representative refusing to represent is most certainly exercising misconduct in office. This is especially true for state and federal elected officials, who are confronted with legislation that is often the product of narrow lobbies (e.g. ALEC) whose interests conflict with the representatives' constituents.
To represent does not mean to poll constituents and always vote the majority's wishes. But it does mean to listen genuinely to all sides, to be responsive to requests for information, to be willing to change one's mind when clear and compelling evidence requires it, to advocate for the most transparent government possible, to slow down the deliberative process when it is clear that insufficient debate has taken place, to do whatever is in one's power to prevent a vote on major legislation until sufficient public hearings have been held, and be a role model of respectful communication with all constituents.
The principles outlined in the last paragraph are "small r" republican; they are what we should expect from all elected officials regardless of party affiliation or office held. What Democrats needed to show in these recall elections was that after the election of Scott Walker the Republicans stopped being republican. Instead, the Republicans acted like apparatchiks; rubber stamping the governor's agenda, dividing the state by pitting public employees against the private sector, shutting down debate at the time when debate was most needed, and simply failing to communicate with their constituents.
My view is that every Republican on the ballot yesterday deserved to be recalled because they failed to uphold the basic principles of republicanism. To violate ALL these principles, as the Republicans most certainly did over the last 8 months, is most certainly malfeasance in office. Thus their behavior would fall under the strict recall language of the state of Georgia endorsed by the Oshkosh Northwestern today.
In short, when Democratic advertising started to critique the Republicans for their votes, they took the focus off of the Republicans' heavy handed governing procedures. Those procedures showed open contempt for some pretty basic rules of republicanism, and should be opposed by all civic minded people regardless of party or platform.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm sure the Dem message was poll-driven, and that voters were more concerned with issues than process.
People's expectations got unreasonably high. Consider that the whole game was played on the GOP home court, in very Republican districts.
The seats being recalled represented 288 combined consecutive years of GOP representation. Luther Olsen’s district has been represented by a Republican since 1896; Sen. Randy Hopper’s seat -- which we won -- has been in Republican hands since 1936. Senator Rob Cowles’ seat near Green Bay was last held by a Democrat 61 years ago, in 1950.
Given that these were GOP districts, and that the incumbents won in 2008 despite Obama's landslide victory in Wisconsin, winning two seats was remarkable. I, too, would have liked 3 or more. But we should not be surprised at this outcome.
Thanks for the feedback Bill. Poll driven politics doesn't work for Democrats; never has and never will. Indeed the New Deal, Great Society, Civil Rights legislation, etc. etc. would never have been possible if the Dems had been poll driven in those days. (If the Dems were a values driven party, we could have gotten national health care in 2010 or at least a "robust public option." The poll driven Democratic Party gave us a private insurance industry bailout; i.e. "Obamacare."). The late Paul Wellstone said all of this more eloquently than I ever could.
In the mid 1980s I was living in Detroit. I think it was 1985 that Darrell Evans, a veteran player, hit 40 home runs for them. That was quite remarkable. The next year, manager Sparky Anderson in spring training said he was thinking about platooning Evans. Evans was indignant:
"I hit 40 home runs and I'm going to be platooned?!?!" (I'm paraphrasing his remarks from that year.).
The great Sparky said in response (again paraphrasing): "He hit 40 home runs, and we finished in third place."
So I am happy that my friend Jess King defeated Randy Hopper, and I don't want to minimize the significance of it. I also think that Jess and Jenn Shilling will make some excellent contributions to the Senate, and I guess it's a positive that the so-called "moderate" Republicans like Dale Schultz might be empowered by the results.
But "remarkable?" The Dems (especially the progressive Dems) are still in a distant third place behind Walker and the Fitzgerald Brothers.
Finally, I think a more cynical interpretation of why the Democrats avoided the process issues is because they have not always upheld sound "small r" republican principles. It would have been too easy to show the hypocrisy.
Finally, I do think that in the long run the choice to enable the narrative that officials were being recalled because of their votes is going to have terrible consequences for progressive legislators and legislation. Someday (hopefully in our lifetimes), a courageous Democratic governor will call for a radical rewrite of our tax code to make it genuinely progressive, and she will have majorities in the Senate and Assembly ready to vote for the overhaul in the face of massive opposition spurred on by WMC and other establishment propaganda machines. As a result of the way the recall campaigns this year were run, those Democrats in my hypothetical example would be fair game for recall because they took a tough vote.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Post a Comment