I’m still trying to wrap my head around the results of the midterm elections. But one result I hope I’m seeing is the beginning of the end of “wedge issue” campaigns that get right-wing extremists elected.
Consider same-sex marriage. It’s true that seven of eight states passed same-sex marriage bans on Tuesday. However, these ballot initiatives — which in the past brought enough hard-Right voters out of the woodwork to swing elections — seem not to have impacted House or Senate races at all. Andrew Romano, Lee Hudson Teslik and Steve Tuttle write for Newsweek.com:
Three of those states—South Carolina, Idaho and South Dakota, all of which voted for bans—were reliably Red, and no Republican candidates needed the boost. In Wisconsin (which voted 59 percent to 41 percent in favor), gay marriage had no bearing on the outcome: incumbents won across the board, with a Democrat, Steven Kagen, taking the only contested House race. A similar story played out in Colorado, which voted 56 percent to 44 percent for the ban: the lone Republican to win a key race was an incumbent. In Tennessee (80 percent to 20 percent in favor), the measure wasn’t much of a wedge, despite a crucial Senate win for Republican Bob Corker. Both he and his Democratic opponent, Harold Ford, opposed gay marriage.
Another ban passed in Virginia, but it appears Virginians elected Jim Webb anyway. In the House, Virginia incumbents, mostly Republican, all won; no seats changed parties. Perhaps the ban impacted some close House races and kept the Webb-Allen contest closer than it might have been, and had a more liberal Democrat been running against Allen the wedge tactic might have worked. But you know what they say — woulda, shoulda, coulda.
And Arizona narrowly rejected a same-sex marriage ban. If “gay marriage” has lost its usefulness as a wedge issue, I predict the national Republican Party is going to be far less interested in it in the future.
Arizona also rejected a slate of immigration hard-liners in favor of candidates with more moderate positions on immigration. This is from an editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times:
… voters in the state demanded a more nuanced and pragmatic solution than that being offered by the most virulently anti-illegal immigration candidates. The best illustrations came in the races for two House seats, one representing the sparsely populated border counties in southeastern Arizona and the other representing some upscale suburbs east of Phoenix. A six-term Republican incumbent, J.D. Hayworth, and a former Republican state representative, Randy Graf — both known for their firebrand stances on border security — lost to Democrats Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords, who had aligned themselves on immigration with McCain.
Make no mistake; Arizonans have not gone “soft” on immigration. The editorial says Arizona voters —
… overwhelming support Tuesday for ballot initiatives to deny bail, curtail subsidies for education and childcare, limit civil damage awards for illegal immigrants and make English the state’s official language. Voters backed all these proposals, reflecting a widespread belief that illegal immigrants impose a variety of burdens on taxpayers.
But the voters might have had enough of the bullying extremists. Via David Neiwert, Kynn Bartlett reports,
In the morning on voting day, two men — anti-immigrant crusader Russ Dove and his cameraman — showed up at precinct 49 in Tucson, at the Iglesia Bautista church, 4502 S. 12th St. Their plan: To harass and intimidate Spanish-speaking voters by using an “English-only” petition to screen for “illegal immigrants” trying to vote, videotape them, and post their likenesses on the Internet. Roy Warden also came, armed with a gun — as he usually does — and the trio started approaching a small number of people. MALDEF monitors were there, to observe the effect of Arizona’s new requirement for ID to vote, and observed the attempted intimidation tactics.
The trio left around noon to head to other polling places, then gave up after talking to only a few people. MALDEF reported this to the authorities, who are investigating; MALDEF has photographs of the men from when they were there.
MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) reports other intimidation tactics at the polls. Be sure to read all of David’s and Kynn Bartlett’s posts to get the full picture. (And may I say the thought of some extremist thug showing up at a polling place with a gun gives me the willies.)
In Missouri, the embryonic stem cell initiative worked as a wedge issue in Claire McCaskill’s favor. As the Newsweek.com article linked above says, “The issue divided Talent’s Republican supporters, many of whom favor stem-cell research for its potential to boost a local economy increasingly reliant on biotechnology firms.” Since a big majority of Americans nationwide support federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, I believe the national Republican party will be very cautious with this issue going forward. (They should have known better than to cross Nancy Reagan.)
South Dakota voters handily defeated SD’s draconian abortion law, which banned all abortions with no exceptions for rape and incest and only the flimsiest thread of an exception for a woman’s health. In spite of this, SD’s whackjob Republican governor, who was behind the ban, was re-elected by a wide margin. Still-red SD also voted to ban same-sex marriage and rejected a medicinal marijuana initiative. The Fetus People vow to continue the fight in SD and re-introduce the abortion ban in the future. But the several other state legislatures considering similar bans may be having second thoughts. Meanwhile, Oregon and California voted no on proposed laws that would have required parental notification when minors seek abortions.
In California, voters dumped an anti-environment extremist incumbent. Michael Doyle reports for McClatchy newspapers:
The “Western rebellion” that propelled California Republican Rep. Richard Pombo to power now has receded, leaving many of its most important goals unmet and possibly beyond reach. …
… The Western rebellion, also known as the Sagebrush rebellion, involves people in the West who think that the federal government oversteps itself on property rights issues, especially regarding enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. They also chafe over the fact that half the West is owned by the federal government instead of privately.
Pombo’s surprisingly resounding loss to wind energy consultant Jerry McNerney, 53 percent to 47 percent, made the onetime rancher the only one of 19 Republican committee chairmen in the House of Representatives to go down in defeat Tuesday.
Nationwide —
Of 13 lawmakers identified by the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen” campaign, nine lost Tuesday. They included Rep. Charles Taylor of North Carolina, whose Democratic opponent, Heath Shuler, likewise benefited from the organization’s ads. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, another ad target, also lost.
Why electing a Democratic majority matters:
The probable new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. She’s one of the Senate’s most liberal members; the current chair, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, is among the most conservative.
The changing cast of characters will play out in many ways:
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil-and-gas drilling perennially championed by House Republicans won’t go anywhere in the next Congress. Drilling off the coast of Florida or other states becomes a real long shot.
Other controversial ideas that Pombo once toyed with – such as selling 15 little-visited National Park Service sites, including playwright Eugene O’Neill’s home in the California city of Danville – are down for the count.
The Endangered Species Act, which Pombo built his career on combating, has a new lease on life. The Democrat who’s poised to become House Resources Committee chairman, Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, voted against Pombo’s Endangered Species Act legislation. The League of Conservation Voters gave Rahall a vote ranking of 92, compared with Pombo’s score of 17.
Take that, Naderites!
Minimum wage increases passed in all six states it appeared on the ballots. However, Tuesday was not a sweep for liberalism. Per the Newsweek.com story linked above, Michigan banned affirmative action. Initiatives in Colorado and Nevada that would have decriminalized private possession of small amounts of marijuana were defeated. But on the whole, Tuesday’s elections did more than turn the House and Senate over to the Dems. It also took the wind out of the extreme Right’s sails.
See also: The “Top Five Winners and Losers.” The article actually lists the top six winners and losers, but there’s plenty of winning and losing to go around this week.
America say no to wedgies. Hilarious title. Good one.
I agree that we are looking at a rejection of Republican wedge issues. It wasobseved that ballot initiatives did unusually well. IMO this reflects the voters inclination to bypass the state legislature and get action in issues which were important.
The Dems need to recognize, this is not an endorsemnt of a liberal agends. At best, it is not a rejection of liberal ideas. Democrats need to step up responsibly over the next 2 years. That means oversight, not a vendeta. It means answers which reflect the popular will of the people, not a fringe element. We have a turn at bat. May the Force be with us!
Hmm, why are you hate’n on “Naderites”? Presumably it is because “Naderites” often said that the differences between Dems and Repubs are insignificant; yes? Does that mean you believe “Naderites” should stick only with the two-party system and work to effect change from within the Democrat party? Is it also the case that you do not identify with the Republican party and “Conservative” ideology? So really there ought to be just one party: Democrats? And it is not that you do not more closely identify with “Naderite” philosophy/politics, so “Naderites” should work to move the Dems left from within? Or do you believe “Naderites” are too leftist?
I suppose I meant: ‘And it is not that you do not more closely identify with “Naderite†philosophy/politics, SO “Naderites†should work to move the Dems left from within?’ to really be ‘And it is not that you do not more closely identify with “Naderite†philosophy/politics, BUT THAT “Naderites†should work to move the Dems left from within?’.
Hmm, why are you hate’n on “Naderitesâ€?
Mostly because they’re a herd of sheep who have no clue how Washington actually works. Also because Nader’s demagoguery over the alleged lack of difference between the two parties — like there was no difference whatsoever between Bush and Gore in 2000 — is holding progressivism back. Trying to affect progressive change by grandstanding and court challenges, rather than through populism and elections, worked for a while in the 1970s but on the whole has been a disaster for liberalism and progressivism in America and is a big reason the Right took over the whole show in the 1980s and 1990s.
And if you can’t see that with your own eyes, you’re an idiot.
It’s not as much about parties as it is about populism. The decoupling of liberalism with populism ca. 1970 (which is what I mean by “Naderism”) was a disaster for all of us. In American politics popular support, sooner or later, rules.
I’ve written about “Naderism” in the past, such as here.
I just read the link and in the section where you speak about “Naderism” the essay you quote says: “Legal reformers initiated what, in regulatory terms, was almost a second New Deal between 1964 and 1977. Ten new regulatory agencies were created. Regulatory battles over everything from product safety to energy conservation took the shape of class conflict but–fatally for post-New Deal liberalism–without mass support.” and you write immediately after: “The decoupling of liberalism and populism is still hurting us now.” I hope I am not being too much of an idiot; you are saying you believe that the “legal reformers” and the “ten new regulatory agencies” have had a net negative affect for/on America correct?
You also said “Trying to affect progressive change by grandstanding and court challenges, rather than through populism and elections”; is that what “Naderites” were doing in the 2000 and 2004 elections (I was
The final bit of that post was: (I was less than 10years old in the 70s.)?
>
I hope I am not being too much of an idiot;
You are, but I’m giving you one more chance.
you are saying you believe that the “legal reformers†and the “ten new regulatory agencies†have had a net negative affect for/on America correct?
No. That is not what I or the article I quoted said. The nature and purpose of the agencies were probably just fine. I probably approved of them. America probably needs them. That’s not the point. Go back and read this paragraph again:
Legal reformers initiated what, in regulatory terms, was almost a second New Deal between 1964 and 1977. Ten new regulatory agencies were created. Regulatory battles over everything from product safety to energy conservation took the shape of class conflict but–fatally for post-New Deal liberalism–without mass support. Without that support, the new liberalism, an alliance of lawyers and other professionals with minorities, was politically vulnerable.
Reflect upon the phrase “politically vulnerable.” Then put the two ideas together:
1. The regulatory agencies were good for America. However,
2. The regulatory agencies were politically vulnerable because they lacked mass support.
Any neurons firing now?
Ok, sorry about still not understanding. I like your blog (along with those on your blogroll) and I will keep reading but will keep silent. I would like to understand, maybe if you ever have the time to shoot me an email ….
QC — OK, I will try not to be such a snot. The Nader approach to political activism makes the same basic mistake that “movement conservatives” make, which is they think it doesn’t matter how you get your agenda put into effect. One group thinks they can get their way with an end run around politics, and the other thinks they can get their way by lying and cheating and bullying. And in the short run, this works. But in the long run, it doesn’t.
Awesome! That I get, thanks!! In 2000, I was 30 and voted for Nader here in Oregon (which I did not consider in jeopardy for Gore). I really felt I was voting for the Greens — and if I were in FL I would be regretting my vote (and will also admit I did not get how bad Bush would be, and I thought he would be pretty bad!). I really did not mean to vote for Nader beyond that I do think the Green Party better reflects my beliefs — certainly not to encourage “end runs” around politics via the legal system. Does any of that make me a “Naderite”? I assume so, which is why I initially commented.
I suppose I believe that the Dems are not a progressive party and the Greens are (more). Anyway, you are probably rethinking about reissuing that “idiot” charge about now — grin!
The previous exchange between Maha & QC was timely. ‘We’ Democrats have some power, significant power since we captured the Senate also. This is a chance to build popular support and carry momentum into ’08. You build on ‘populism’ and ‘mass support’.
It took years of failure in Iraq for the voters to see the light. It will take a while for voters to understand the violation of Constiutional principles Bush is guilty of. I am referring to Congressional Oversight, and I don’t care if the bastard is impeached or not if a majority of voters understand what he did to the rule of law.
To achieve populism, Dems need to hitch the party to popular ideals. I suggested fair taxes; they have named raising the minimum wage; I mentioned fair redistricting; they are avoiding the word ‘impeachment’ (good), but holding true to the ‘obligation’ they have of oversight. (damn good). They need to ask out loud what exactly ARE the limits of ‘harsh’ interrogation which goes beyond the Geneva Convention and are not torture. Don’t go to socialized medicine right away (which I favor), but offer coverage for all children, strengthen the quality of care for vets and roll back the gift to the pharmacudical industry. Deliver success there and the ‘average’ voter will let us go further. Don’t go to amnesty for illegal aliens, but do go for border security and REALLY go after employers who are using illegals to drive down wages in non-ag industries.
IMO, the reason that the wedge issues aren’t affecting candidates is that the voters are taking away those options from the candidates by passing state referendums. Once a state decides “no gay marriage”, it doesn’t much matter what the candidate prefers on that issue since the voters have already spoken. I think this is one case where Rove didn’t understand how this could backfire on Republican candidates. When the wedge issue is removed from the candidate’s platform, then the voter starts looking at all the other issues, like Iraq, the economy, health care, education. Not a positive situation for the Republicans. There’s a lesson here for Democratic candidates: when asked about a wedge issue, say that you think the decision should be left up to the state’s voters and you’ll neatly steal all of the Republican candidate’s thunder.
Hopefully, not dragging this out too much, but I pretty closely follow the whole Evolution vs. Intelligent Design stuff. Nearly all that is being resolved in the courts or with litigation threats (from the science side). But, it could be that most Americans either believe in ID or want it taught in class. Would you consider this “end-runs” around policy? Just curious ….
Nearly all that is being resolved in the courts or with litigation threats (from the science side). But, it could be that most Americans either believe in ID or want it taught in class. Would you consider this “end-runs†around policy? Just curious ….
I make a distinction between civil liberty issues and policy issues. If civil liberty is being violated — and teaching “ID” in public school classrooms is a direct violation of the First Amendment, IMO — then court challenges are appropriate. If we had waited until “popular opinion” was ready for desegregation, for example, we might still be waiting.
However, when interest groups use lobbying or court challenges to establish regulatory agencies or enact policies not involving civil liberties, even if they are really good agencies and policies, those agencies and policies become easy targets for demagogues.
And for that matter, desegregation became an easy target for demagogues. A big reason Republicans took over government was white backlash against the civil rights movement. Sometimes you can do the right thing and still lose. But racial discrimination is too terrible to leave to the caprices of public opinion. The Constitution must be respected.
Back during the Franklin Roosevelt and Truman administration, progressive policies had wide popular support. Through the 1970s and 1980s, progressive policies lost much popular support. Since the 1970s, people like Nader and many other progressive advocates have tried to enact progressive policies without trying to rebuild popular support. This works sometimes, but most of the time it doesn’t. And even when a progressive policy becomes enacted, it’s vulnerable to being smacked down after the next elections.
What a lot of us have come to realize — including people like me, who used to be Nader supporters a century or so ago — is that if we want to turn the nation in a progressive direction we must do it by winning elections and building a broad, progressive political base. As I wrote in the post, Tuesday’s election promises to make a substantial and dramatic difference in environmental policies, more so than Nader has been able to achieve for many years.
Thanks! This is why I read your blog!
>>You also said “Trying to affect progressive change by grandstanding and court challenges, rather than through populism and electionsâ€; is that what “Naderites†were doing in the 2000 and 2004 elections
>>Quentin Crain – November 9, 2006 @ 1:43 pm
Thanks, Quentin. As I remember, 2000 was an election year, and Nader ran a campaign in accordance with campaign laws in all 50 states, and his message was populist.
I know hindsight is 20-20, but it’s necessary for a longer view of events, and for cultivating intelligent compassion for our neighbors and momentary leaders. Part – only part – of the Nader campaign’s populist message was, “Democrats need to realize that by remaining a complacent partner in a corrupt two-party system, they have failed Americans on the environment, social justice issues, and the economy. As a consequence, they will not have our vote.†(My words, not N’s.)
For decades, Nader “worked from within†to get such problems addressed. In 2000, he saw that by going public – populist, in an election – could he really focus people’s attention on issues and allow the dissenting public to create and hold a position that the R&D candidates could not ignore.
From the 2006 election returns, it looks like the effort was not wasted.
Of course, we could not have arrived here in 2006, celebrating, relieved, far more awake and battle-ready, without the help of a certain Chimp & Co., whose actions have made it crystal clear what was always at stake, in 2000 and long before, when Nader and those like him were “working from within.â€
You’re welcome. 🙂
BTW, now that Nader can walk around at major political events and be ignored, it should be clear that there is no such thing as a “Naderite.â€
We are simply people who think for ourselves, and were glad that a brave man stepped up to be a lens for our outrage.
Sorry if that pisses you off.