To Gerrymander Or Not To Gerrymander?

Gerrymandering is a decennial and highly partisan sport for American politicians and consultants.  And nowhere has it been more so than in three states, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Texas.  Indeed, so partisan has it become that Democrats have convinced an appellate court to side with their interests and force the state of Wisconsin to appeal to the Supreme Court (oral arguments are scheduled for next month).

Gerrymandering can take many forms, some insidious, some partisan, and some plain racial.  In Wisconsin, new territory is being charted in the form of a map that is too partisan.  No Supreme Court ruling has found a map can be too partisan.  The drawing of Congressional and legislative lines is by its very nature a partisan action.

In Wisconsin specifically, GOP officials in 2011 drew a map that locked in their assembly majorities from 2010.  Under unified GOP control the state drew lines that locked Democrats into political irrelevancy (kind of like Illinois, but Democrats did it there so it is fine).

For example, in 2008, the state legislative lines had a slight GOP lean.  That election, Democrats won 57 percent of the assembly vote and garnered 52 seats to the GOP’s 46 seats with 43 percent of the vote (a conservative Independent caucused with Republicans).  In 2012, the changed maps showed their effects.  Democrats won 53 percent of the assembly vote but won a mere 39 seats to the GOP’s 60.  In 2016, Republicans won 53 percent of the assembly vote and an eye-popping 64 seats.

Such results have prompted liberal scholars to come up with mathematical tests to assess whether a map passes the partisan smell test.  In prior court rulings, all but one conservative jurist, Anthony Kennedy, have closed the door on ever saying a map is too partisan.  Liberals would say maps should be non-partisan and ram it down the states throats if they could get away with it.

Using mathematical tests to assess partisanship is fine and all but determining at which point it crosses the line is the difficult part.  More so, can the mathematical model account for partisan or cultural changes over time?

For example, just look at the state of West Virginia (a mostly white state like Wisconsin).  The current map was passed in 2011 by a Democratic Governor and a Democratic legislature.  Last year, every single legislative district voted for Trump.  Today, those Democratic maps have produced a GOP majority in the legislature, an all GOP US House delegation and a GOP Governor.  The mathematical tests used to assess partisanship and violation of one’s 1st Amendment rights would say West Virginia violates this idea.  But one could easily argue, in turn, West Virginians made the choice to vote Republican irregardless of partisanship.  That’s the tricky nature of determining what is and is not too partisan.

Voters move, opinions change over time and it is unlikely a mathematical model of any kind can account for this.  Plus, it would be hard to rationalize being able to meet other state and legal redistricting requirements (compactness, keeping communities of interest together, etc.) on top of this one without seeing some tortured legislative districts.

Certainly, Wisconsin’s situation is unique but one thing it is not is racially based.  The state is more than 90 percent white meaning the map is based exclusively on partisanship.  The same cannot be said for maps in the South.  Specifically Texas and North Carolina (though Alabama deserves a mention here to).  In both states, legislative and Congressional maps have been shot down by the courts over their racial intent.

Unlike partisanship, racial mapmaking has been a big no, no in this country for decades as first defined by the Voting Rights Act.  As a result, many states had to get “preclearance” from the Department of Justice if any electoral changes were made in the state (think changing precinct lines.  Yes, I kid you not).  The Supreme Court saw fit to strike down this aspect of the VRA in 2013 but left the rest of the law intact.Not surprisingly though, the history of race dominated their processes.

In Texas, the state has seen a booming population due to the influx of Hispanics and Asians.  Easily 50 percent of the population growth in the state from 2000-2010 was Hispanic.  But the state GOP, having controlled all statewide offices since 1994 and the legislature since the new millennium worked hard to draw lines that locked in their majorities.  As a result, the Congressional lines of the state resulted in a 24-12 GOP Congressional delegation and lopsided legislative majorities.

Democrats and civil rights groups cried foul even before 2012 and a San Antonio District Court in 2011 found the lines were a racial gerrymander.  The District Court drew temporary lines for 2012 but the Supreme Court struck them down for imposing a burden on the state.  In 2013, Texas made much of the 2011 District Court map permanent.

But a flurry of new rulings have again brought racial gerrymandering to the forefront.  Earlier in the year, a different District Court found the 2011 maps were unconstitutional and soon after the same court found the current 2013 lines were as well.  Specifically, the District Court found two Congressional districts (could have been much worse for the GOP) were racial gerrymanders for splitting up Hispanic communities.  In turn, the GOP appealed to the US Supreme Court and in a one-page order, Justice Alito ordered a stay on the District Court’s ruling.

Similar to Texas, North Carolina’s legislative and Congressional maps have been the subject of racial line drawing.  Interestingly, due to a quirk in state law that allows the legislature to approve new lines without the Governor’s approval the new legislative GOP majorities in 2011 rammed through a partisan map in the fullest.  For decades, Democrats in North Carolina who controlled the legislature did the same thing and now the GOP was returning the favor.

The 2012 results highlighted the significant change.  That year, Democrats won the Congressional and legislative vote 51-49 in the state.  But, the 6-5 Democratic Congressional majority turned into a 10-3 GOP majority and the party gained seats in the legislature (Romney did also win the state).

Due to this the GOP gained a super-majority in the state legislature and with Governor McCrory helming the state the GOP ushered in a plethora of conservative legislation.  However, a series of lawsuits making their way through the courts came to a head this year when it was ruled the state had racially gerrymandered 28 state legislative districts.  Failing an appeal to the US Supreme Court and getting no help from the state’s new Democratic Governor, the legislature redrew the lines and explicitly argued the new lines were meant to emphasize partisanship and not race (a strange admission but one so far the highest court in the land has accepted).

Complicating matters further in many Southern states is the fact race and partisanship go hand in hand.  When 95 percent of blacks support Democrats it is easy to pack them into one district or a handful of districts arguing they can elect the “candidate of their choice,” while maximizing your partisan gain.  The Supreme Court in recent years has handed defeats to Virginia and Alabama based on overturning these arguments as opponents of the maps have cited how it limits the ability of black voters to maximize their voting power.  Such is the contradiction of the Voting Rights Act.

In turn, the Voting Rights Act is showing its age.  No longer is the country divided along two major colors (black and white).  As the country becomes more diverse, courts will continue to disagree with each other and the Supreme Court will find it hard to keep their decisions rational and logical.

Gerrymandering is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.  For all the cries of non-partisan redistricting commissions, many state legislatures are opposed to handing over such power.  Additionally, in states like Illinois and Maryland, the courts often short-circuit such efforts (where efforts are actually led by Republicans).

In sum, two major themes run through American political redistricting.  The first is redistricting is partisan in nature but at what point does partisanship infringe on the right to free speech and association?  Secondly, how does one disentangle race and polarization in an era in the South where 90 percent of whites in some states vote Republican and 90 percent of blacks vote Democrat?

The next few years could go a long way in determining the answers to these questions.

The Consequences Of White Identity Politics

After Nov. 8, Nate Cohn of the New York Times tweeted that for the first time whites formed an identity politick and they represented 40℅ of the electorate.  The result was a damning indictment of democratic policies over the last 8 years.

Of course, not all whites are the same. College educated white women either almost or did back Hillary. College educated white men were far less likely to back trump compared to Romney.  But, among downscale and non college educated whites the story was different.

Obama managed to hold his own with white voters lacking a degree, particularly in the north and Midwest. This preference among no college educated whites separated them from their more conservative southern neighbors.  This splitting of the white vote in 2012 made Romney’s 20 point victory among all whites meaningless.

This go-round, Trump made non college educated whites behave in a way they never had before in national elections. For the first time, this block voted like Hispanics or Asians for a Republican candidate.

This allowed trump to ditch the Romney/McCain coalition of 08 and build a narrower but deeper coalition anchored by non college educated whites.

Why It Mattered

Just as all whites aren’t the same neither are states.  Clinton’s wins in diverse, educated states netted her a popular vote win but little else.  Indeed, Trump ran strongest in the white communities that supported Obama.

Trump, by contrast, in cleaning up so strongly in downscale whites communities overpowered democratic margins in the cities and suburbs in many Obama supporting Midwestern states.

So powerful was Trump’s win among non college educated whites he almost overcame a 40 point deficit with minorities in Nevada and won Florida despite a 500,000 vote hole in Southern Florida.

What This Means Going Forward

The 2018 Senate map is brutal for the party. It will be defending 10 seats in state’s Trump won (many predominately rural and blue-collar). The party has good incumbents in every state but even that may not be enough.

But take West Virginia for example.  Prior to George Bush’s first win in the state in 2000, the state had a Democratic governor, all blue federal delegation and a deep blue legislature. Today, the legislature is deeply red and short of the governor and Joe Manchin the machinery of power is held by Republicans. Oh, and the state voted by 40 percent for Trump.

This shift is not unique to West Virginia alone. From rural Maine to Northern Florida the exodus of non college educated whites to the GOP has grown. Last year, it became a flood.

Beyond the Senate, this has huge ramifications for every other elected office in 2018 and beyond. November showed if it is a battle of attrition between urban, liberal votes and ruby red rural areas their is no guarantee of victory for Democrats.

Indeed, it seemed last year Democrats finally maxed out their vote in urban Philly, Detroit and elsewhere. While they made gains in the suburbs they were either in deeply red states or outvoted by rural areas.  In short, massive Democratic margins in urban cities finally did stopped saving the party.

Where Democrats Went Wrong

Over at RealClearPolitics, chief elections analyst David Byler proposed an interesting hypothetical, would John Edwards coalition have been better than Obama’s?  His point is not to say one is/would be better but underscore the current Democratic coalition requires the party to alienate itself from rural, white voters.  These are not consistently Republican voters (just ask rural voters in Pepin County, Wisconsin) but the voters that have historically split their votes.  Until recently.

Back in 2002, “The Emerging Democratic Majority” was coined by Democratic strategists Ruy Texiera and John Judis.  Judis has backed away from the theory more recently than Texiera due to the identity politics conundrum it has created for the party.  But, the theory argues that Democrats could create a permanent majority if they managed to appeal to white-collar, upscale men and women, held around 70-75 percent of the minority vote and at least received 40 percent of the blue-collar, white vote (the book posited 50 percent).

Obviously Democrats have never paid attention to the chart below showing the GOP margins among the blue-collar white vote (borrowed from Byler) increasing since 1998.  If they had the party might have done more to re-calibrate after 2004 or, more recently, 2010 and 2014.  Because, Democrats have come nowhere close to hitting Judis and Texiera’s blue-collar support benchmark since the theory was penned.

Instead, what Democrats have done is create a coalition heavily dependent on college educated women, minorities and affluent, coastal elites.  Byler posits the EDM theory would have looked like a cleaned up John Edward’s, explains why and then points out he is not sure this would have won Democrats the election last year but helped them come close.  I argue it would (but that is an article for another day).

Edward’s was a candidate who could appeal to almost anybody.  He was an economic progressive in the mold of older, Southern Democratic populists and focused on economic inequality.  He was pro-LBGT rights and abortion but he also was an adamant supporter of the death penalty and supportive of gun rights.  In his bid in 1998, Edward’s ran much better than any statewide, federal Democratic candidate since.  Whereas Clinton relied on urban cores and a few college counties in the state, Edward’s won by winning a fairly diverse set of voters.

A fairly large number of Democrats in 2006 and 2008 won election by running Edward’s like campaigns that managed to coalesce a diverse socially liberal, fiscally centrist, urban and rural coalition.  But, with the nomination of Obama in 2008 (as opposed to Clinton or Edwards) the party decided to take a different course.

Democrats went all in on winning the minority and urban vote.  They embraced cosmopolitanism and its values including shoving gay marriage, abortion, and LBGT rights down Middle America’s throats.  Even after 2010, no effort was made to move to the middle on rural/urban issues or even social issues.  Democrats managed to maintain their urban coalition at the increasing cost of their rural support.  If not for Obama’s populist appeal in 2012 he might well have lost to Romney.

The 2016 election was the fulfillment of the choice Democrats made to craft a supposedly unassailable coalition of minorities, urban and college educated voters.   But, the consequences of that decision are now blindly obvious.  Democrats have a massive number of safe Congressional seats due to geographical variables and self-sorting.  The party is ensured of winning at least 15 states in the Electoral College (and about 200 votes) and is getting increasingly strong in Sunbelt, red states.  But, in the meantime, their hold on increasingly rural and red Midwestern states has finally slipped.

The Result Is Trump and His Blue-Collar Coalition

Alienated from the Democratic Party, the ultimate irony of 2016 is that blue-collar, white voters backed a rich, white guy who bragged of having gold plated toilet seats in his New York Penthouse.  In Trump, these alienated voters saw a champion.

In massive numbers in dozens of counties across the Midwest, Pennsylvania and rural Maine, Trump dominated by unheard of margins.  Exit polls show he won blue-collar whites by 40 points nationally.  Critically, in blue-wall states, Trump was the first Republican to see support in rural areas and the suburbs finally outweigh Democratic support in urban cores.

Due to the coalition Democrats have assembled they now face an existential crisis.  Do they oppose Trump, these blue-collar voters champions, in an effort to win over some of these critical voters or do they en-masse oppose The Donald to keep their progressive and minority base?  As I recently pointed out, there are many different opinions in the party on this front.

As more data comes out from the election we should know more about how blue-collar voters behaved in critical counties and states.  But, if exit polls are to be believed, as well as county and precinct level results, Trump built a coalition based on Democratic alienation decades in the making.

As for Judis and Texiera, their theory of the EDM has fallen flat.  Judis argues it has turned the Democratic Party into a minority based, identity politics party and Texiera has said little about it since 2003.  The white voters the theory relied on to stay in the Democratic camp have only been with the party in a few elections (2006, 2008 and 2012) since the new millennium.

Republicans have their issues but Democratic problems run much, much deeper.  They encompass virtually every aspect of American politics and thus cannot be solved overnight.  If nothing else, maybe this will make Democrats re-calibrate.

Revisiting the Marriage Gap

Ballotpedia noted an interesting trend from the 2016 election among singles.  Specifically, they shifted strongly to Donald Trump relative to the 2012 and 2008 contests.  However, in my humble opinion, Ballotpedia’s analysis of why this occurred is lacking.

According to Ballotpedia, the “Marriage Gap” shrunk significantly from 2012 to 2016.  In 2012, the marriage gap was a whopping 41 points (Romney won the married 56-42).  The article posits that the institution of marriage might lead people to be less dependent on government (certainly plausible) and that single men and women might have become less trusting of government after 8 years of Obama (also plausible).

Hillary Clinton did not just run as Obama’s 3rd term but she also ran as the most progressive candidate in history.  Meanwhile, her husband ran as the most centrist Democrat in a generation, well, a generation ago.

But, let me posit some more likely reasons for why the marriage gap shrunk in 2016.  It has little to do with ideology and more to do with education, income and electoral geography.  Afterall, from the 2016 election we have seen the parties somewhat resort themselves away from their traditional coalitions.

The Marriage Gap 2012 and 2016

Share of electorate 2012/2016	Marriage status	Obama ’12 /Clinton ’16	Romney ’12 /Trump ’16	Independent ’16	GOP margin
58% / 60%	Yes	42% / 43%	53% / 53%	3%	+14 / +10
42% / 40%	No	62% / 55%	35% / 38%	6%	-27 / -17
29% / 29%	Men Yes	38% / 37%	60% / 58%	4%	+22 / +21
30% / 31%	Women Yes	46%/ 49%	53% / 47%	3%	+7 / -2
19% / 18%	Men No	56% / 46%	40% / 45%	8%	-16 / -1
23% / 23%	Women No	67% / 62%	31% / 33%	3%	-36 / -29

First-off, let’s start with the table above.  It is clear from national exit polls that Trump did slightly worse than Romney among the married and significantly better among single men.  Trump even did better among single women.  Again, what probably drove this was education and geography.

Trump’s victory was fueled by his surge in the Midwest.  He captured dozens of counties the GOP had not won in a generation and held down Clinton’s margins in many other ancestrally blue areas.  This is what fueled his surge among singles, especially single men.

The proof can be found in statewide exit polls for many of these states.  In Michigan, Trump performed better than Romney, losing singles only by 23 points compared to Romney’s 34 points.  Notably, Trump did better among single men than women by 11 points.  In Wisconsin and Iowa the same trend shows itself.  In Iowa, Romney lost singles by 28 percent, Trump  a mere 11 percent.  In Wisconsin, Romney lost singles by 24 percent, Trump a mere 8.  Again, Trump did better among single men than women.

These states are not unique among the Blue Wall states Trump captured.  He managed to garner bigger margins among singles than Romney virtually everywhere in this Democratic leaning region.  In downscale regions of many states, including those Trump lost, he ran better than Romney according to county level results.

Now, in politics, for every reaction there is at least an opposite reaction.  That reaction was Trump doing worse than Romney among married voters.  Trump ran 4 points behind Romney nationally among these voters and there are a few reasons we can hypothesize for this shift.

First, Trump’s coalition was primarily down-scale and Trump did much better among younger voters than Romney.  Both down-scale and younger voters are much less likely to be married.

Secondly, Trump’s entire candidacy was based on shock politics.  He said crass things, attacked people, etc.  To a married voter ensconced in a relationship this might rub them the wrong way.  Additionally, a thrice-married candidate might not have the same curb appeal to traditional, socially conservative married families (Utah being a prime example of this).

Thirdly, Trump did better among blacks and Latinos and worse among Asians compared to Romney.  Asians are much more likely to be married than blacks and Hispanics.  So, those small differences (according to exit polls) could have had an impact at the margins.

Lastly, education was highly correlated with the results of this election.  Marriage and education also are highly correlated.  Married couples tend to have higher education levels than singles.  As a result, Trump performed marginally worse among married individuals.

The last point might not continue to carry over however.  Some debate whether marriage will continue to alleviate social ills and ensure educational and economic progress for individuals.  Additionally, demographers have found the number of singles who are simply cohabitating has dropped over the last decade (to say nothing of married couples).

Admittedly, this is all very, very preliminary analysis.  Until more Voter File Data becomes available we will not know the exact characteristics of many voters.  Exit polls are good to a degree but self-reporting tends to have its own built-in biases.  Still, for now it will have to do.

 

 

Will Identity Politics Last?

Republicans have long bemoaned the Democrats success at playing identify politics.  After all, Democrats have successful turned blacks into the discriminated class, Hispanics the ignored class, Asians the educated class, etc.  Obama’s campaigns and themes were deeply intertwined with connecting to voters on racial identity, ie. a us vs. them mentality.  Republicans have tried not to follow suit but they have.  In 2014, Republicans across the country played up the urban/rural dichotomy.  Instead of race being the defining identity it simply switched to place.

But Republicans are ill-suited to win these identity battles.  The party is largely white and thus seen as representing the interests of the powerful majority.  Further, as demographics show whites are shrinking as a percentage of the population meaning the party cannot keep ignoring minorities.  On social issues the party used to see as winners they are increasingly trying to turn the page.

But perhaps the GOP may eventually be saved by the melting pot of America, well, fully becoming a melting pot.  Consider this article (which infers whites are racist for not being more racist).  Fewer Millennials than ever focus on the identifying feature of race and this includes blacks and Hispanics.  Further, intermarriages are on the rise.  According to a 2012 Pew survey about 15% of all new marriages in the United States in 2010 were between spouses of a different race or ethnicity from one another. Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9% of whites, 17% of blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians married out. Looking at all married couples in 2010, regardless of when they married, the share of intermarriages reached an all-time high of 8.4%.  Combined with data suggesting Millennials are most likely to have one immigrant parent and you have the potential for identity along traditional political lines to fall.

Of course, if old identity political lines fall new ones will replace them.  But how this will impact the parties political coalitions is unclear.  Consider the Democratic Party today is largely composed of minorities (race) and upscale whites (class). These voters are socially liberal and embrace things such as the LGBT community and gay marriage. The GOP generally wins college educated and blue-collar whites and Asians (2014).  But what happens if race fails to be as polarizing as it once was and class takes over? Likely, we will see a weakening of racial support for each party.  Instead, it is more likely the parties will become hodgepodges of support as is more the case in Canada and the UK.  Regional support could still be prevalent depending on the overall demographics of the region/state/locality.

Still, by far it is Democrats who would most suffer from the fall of identity politics.  The party has largely been galvanized in the era of Obama by identity politics and it is already playing out in key 2016 races.  Harry Reid has endorsed a Hispanic, Coretz Masto to run for his seat even as he knows Las Vegas (white) Congresswoman Dina Titus considers running.  In Maryland, a fight is brewing between Congresswomen Donna Edwards, an African-American woman, and Chris Van Hollen, a white male and member of Democratic House leadership.  In a state where over 40% of the Democratic electorate is black and over 50% in the primary Van Hollen faces a tough challenge.

Democrats realize they have an issue.  That’s why they have tried in recent years to expand the diversity of their ranks but it has been hard under Obama.  During his Presidency numerous minority state and local officials have been defeated.  Now, the party is settling on former, white males to carry their banners in minority turnout driven Democratic victory states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Gee, wonder why nobody is challenging Clinton other than O’Malley?  Here is exhibit A.

Fortunately for Democrats, identity politics seems here to stay.  This assumes it remains based on race or gender.  The GOP does not do badly when it is based on geography.  Whether it is over social issues tied to gay rights, race or something else or class voters will always identify with one political party over the other due to the issues.  The good thing for the GOP is that once race and gay rights largely fade from the scene and the electorate gets younger the party can more easily connect with voters.

 

 

 

What McCutcheon vs. FEC Means for Democracy

Last week the Supreme Court delivered a resounding victory for free speech in McCutcheon vs. FEC.  A revisiting of sorts to Citizens United, the case challenged campaign finance limits.  More specifically, the case challenged aggregate spending limits for individuals.  A little explanation might be in order here.

Any individual in the US can donate up to $5,200 to a candidate in any given election; $2600 for the primary and $2,600 for the general.  The individual contribution limit was not at issue in the case.  What was at issue is that an individual can only donate a TOTAL number of dollars per election cycle.  That limit stood at $48,600 for candidates and $74,600 for state party committees.  These spending limits were created when campaign finance reform, by the name of McCain-Feingold, passed in 2003.

Businessman and Republican committeeman Shawn McCutcheon objected to the limits and brought the lawsuit.  In an expected and contentious 5-4 ruling the court rightly ruled that it was an infringement on the 1st Amendment’s right to Free Speech to limit an individual’s total spending per election cycle.  The minority four leftist judges blasted out a dissent piggybacking Democratic talking points that it would lead to more corruption and heaven’s to betsy more money in politics.

Ironically, this ignores the fact that there remains an individual spending limit on contributions.  Let’s do a little math here.  If an individual were to donate $5,200 to a candidate in a general and primary campaign for the House they would still cap at (435 x $5,200) $2,262,000.  This is not an insignificant chunk of change by any stretch and one must keep in mind this ignores spending on legislative and statewide executive races.  But the argument that it means politics will be even more controlled by moneyed interests is laughable.  This argument becomes even more absurd when the people pushing it (Democratic leaders) are some of the wealthiest members in Congress.  Keep in mind, an individual candidate can spend as much of his/her money as she wants on a campaign.  Yes, I just bet a challenger can go toe to toe with Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi  self-funding (insert witticism here).

In writing for the dissent, Justice Breyer argued that the government had a compelling interest in limiting corruption in politics.  Enough to justify an infringement on a 1st Amendment right to speech though?  What is missing is that democracy means being able to spend your money how you choose, even in the realm of politics.  Liberals have never been able to see that money is a form of speech; except when they want to, say, boycott Chick-Fil-A for supporting traditional marriage organizations.

Conservatives largely credited the decision as an affirmation of the 1st Amendment, as I do, but even some on the left and in the center acknowledge that it might actually help limit corruption by minimizing the impact of less transparent SuperPAC’s.  Now, more candidates and state party committees can solicit for funds in a more transparent, and regulated process, than before.  This argument is unlikely to sway hardcore liberals who believe in campaign finance but it is an intriguing argument I had not heard of until recently.

McCutcheon is unlikely to significantly impact American politics or democracy in the short-term.  Democrats parrot the talking point the SCOTUS just handed Republicans a sure-fire advantage in the next few election cycles but what they will not say is they will adapt to the ruling as well, probably before 2016.  Expect Democratic candidates and officials to run nationwide to grab dollars.  By 2011, Democrats already had adapted to Citizens United and founded several third-party groups and SuperPACs to fund their political ambitions.

McCutcheon is yet another sign that American democracy is healthy and vibrant.  A society that prizes our Constitution would see that money equals speech (I have a list of examples on the tip of my tongue) and recognize that spending limits hurt speech.  It is not for the government to judge what equals an unequal voice in politics.  Heck, liberals want to do that by silencing big business in the form of the oil industry and agriculture (minus the interests of a few red state Democratic Senators who feel differently).  Rather, government should promote speech in all its forms.  This, is but one positive step in doing so.

 

 

Is Healthcare an Issue Democrats are Willing to fall on their Sword over?

While perusing the internet blogosphere I came upon an interesting post by Sean Trende over at RCP.  In it he posited that repeal of Obamacare in the short-term is near invincible for several reasons but one reason in particular stood out to me.  The reason being that Healthcare may be an issue that many Democrats are willing to go down over (just look at how many did in 2010).

This of course brings up an even deeper and more interesting question.  Why?  Assuming Trende’s theory is true why would Democrats be willing to go down with the ship on Obamacare, ie. Healthcare reform.  Now certainly there are many Democrats who are running away from the law yet many more sitting in Democratic leaning but not wave safe districts voted against the Upton bill arguing it would undermine the law.  Perhaps they feel safe knowing the President would never back off defending his signature appointment.

To understand the Democratic Party’s deep fascination with Healthcare it might be illuminating to consider some history.  Both parties have had a number of progressives in their ranks.  For Republicans it was Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower (in his own way he was).  Democrats have had Wilson, FDR and now Obama.  But neither Roosevelt or Eisenhower were willing to go into or grow the entitlement state while FDR and Obama have gone full speed ahead with the idea.  Heck, we can thank LBJ for giving us Medicaid.

FDR established Social Security and work programs like the TVA that exist to this day.  Other elements of his New Deal package also still stand.  LBJ gave us the “War on Poverty” and with it Medicaid, Medicare, and the origins of CHIP.  Obama gave us, well, Obamacare.  Just looking at these three Democratic Presidents we can see the party is rich with history on the welfare/entitlement state.  Still, there were a number of Democrats that never agreed with this mentality.  I speak of Southern Democrats and even Jimmy Carter.  Keep in mind Southern Democrats were crucial in 93 and 94 in killing Hillarycare. Yet, when push came to shove in 2010 many Southern Democratic Congressmen and women voted for the bill (twice) and thus ensuring their political downfall.

I would posit that Healthcare is a signature issue to the Democratic Party, even its less progressive members, because the issue is connected to their party’s political history at a base level.  Democrats cannot simply walk away from this and still call themselves Democrats.  What would be the point?  Might as well be an Independent or a Republican instead.  I would also hazard a guess that Healthcare is linked to the party because of changing demographics (or steady).

Many of the Southern Democrats who voted for the bill were entrenched incumbents.  More importantly though was that many of them resided in poor, majority-white districts where the law was originally thought to be a benefit.  So perhaps some thought they could survive a wave, just as they did in 1994, and others thought they were taking care of their constituents.  Democrats residing in safer, more urban districts likely voted for the law for many reasons.  Among them one must assume was that it would help low-income individuals and single women and parents.  Indeed, until recently these groups were some of the biggest supporters of the law.

Recent and past history as well as political context seems to only explain the Democratic fascination with Healthcare so much.  All the reasons I have laid out for the Democratic Party’s obsession with Healthcare, history, context, public policy,  I can poke holes in.

The answer might be more simplistic though.  Just as Republicans have focused in on taxes and spending issues like a laser Democrats have done the same with Healthcare and to a lesser extent education.  It is impossible from a 40,000 foot view to know how individual actors have shaped the Democratic Party’s views and actions on Healthcare but it seems to have driven the party to fight tooth and nail for reform.

Today they have that reform.  Whether it is something Democrats are willing to fall on their sword over or abandon to fight the battle another day will be determined in the months ahead.