Watergate

 In the process of reading Garrett Graff's Watergate. It's a reminder of how we simplify our history--many reporters involved other than Woodward and Bernstein.

Farm Bill and Debt Limit

 The cynic in me applauds President Biden's tactic of inviting a bipartisan delegation to the White House to discuss the new farm bill.  Why am I cynical?  While negotiations over farm bill provisions got White House attention in the 1960's and 70's, they haven't gotten that much in recent decades.  

But this year the current farm bill is expiring just as the issue of raising the debt limit and cutting spending is at the forefront.  One of the things the House Republicans want to cut is food stamps (SNAP) which is a title in the farm bill.  IIRC if the bill the House passed were actually implemented, USDA would see its spending reduced to 83 percent of current. But farm state Republican senators, which likely includes them all, listen to their farmers so Biden is putting the squeeze on.  In effect he's saying two things: 

1. you need to help resolve the impasse over debt limit so we can move on to the farm bill, and
2. you need to oppose the provisions in the House bill to make cuts, particularly in SNAP, in order to get the Democratic votes you will need to pass the farm bill.

Well played, it seems, at least at this moment.

How Soon I Forget--Debt Ceiling

 Discussing the debt ceiling issue this morning I had completely forgotten that prior negotiations had included a "temporary suspension" of the ceiling in order to have more time to negotiate.

Good Old Days of Democratic Dominance

 James Fallows had a tribute to Jimmy Carter today, mentioning in passing that the Democratic margin in the House was 150!! I checked, it actually was 149 in 1977 and 122 in 1979.

As Fallows noted, the big fights were intra-party.

HIve Mind and the Mathew Effect

 Reading Hive Mind by Garret Jones. Finding it good through the first chapters, until he got to the "Ingredients for Good Politics" and the Coase Theorem.  A fast summary: if a state has people focused on the long term, and willing to accept the results of elections, there can be effective bipartisan deals to handle externalities (like pollution) using Coase.  Coase says that if you have good negotiators they can find a win-win solution without the need for regulation. 

Then I started thinking about the Matthew Effect.

An assumption in the discussion is that high IQ people are more future-oriented and more able to do tit for tat bargaining, without holding grudges which lead to mutual destruction. The problem when you apply the idea to politics is that those with the gold/assets are able to hire those with IQ (lobbyists and lawyers) to rig the bargain.

Maybe I Should See "Hamilton"?

 I know the musical is good but today I wrote a letter to the editor of the Post, in the course of which I looked up the lyrics of one of the songs--The Room Where It Happens.   Makes me think I should see it.  Is it available on Netflix? 

Passing of an Era--1980?

 Currently reading Sen. Leahy's memoir. He entered the Senate in 1974 and was barely re-elected in 1980. It's an easy read, anecdotal and more about persons than policy or procedure.

One point--Reagan's victory in 1980 swept out a bunch of Democratic senators; only Leahy and Gary Hart of the 1974 Watergate class survived in the Senate.  Was this the turning point to partisanship?  He mentions Carter's farewell address, which included a warning against single-interest organizations. I think the reality is that organizations trying to influence Congress have become more and more specialized over the years.  For example, we used to have the "farm lobby", composed of three big national organizations--Farm Bureau, Grange, National Farmers Union. But over time single commodity groups have become more important and more wide-spread.

I've got a couple books in my library queue about the growth of partisan politices; both of which I think go back to the 1990's, but not before.

Republican Hypocrisy--1990's and Now

 I may be one of the few who remember the scandal which plagues the Clinton administration in the 1990s.  No, not Monica, but Charlie Trie and John Huang.

Anyone interested can read this collection of Post articles, For those too lazy   busy to do the reading, the capsule summary is that the Democrats accepted donations from various individuals, either Chinese or Chinese-Americans, which might have violated or indeed did violate laws on permissible political donations.  The Republicans pointed at sleaze, claimed the money originated in China, were intended as bribes for favorable treatment and friendly attitudes by the government, and must be investigated by a special counsel.

If I recall, because I'm too lazy to research, the scandal eventually petered out with. Some cases ended in not guilty findings, some in plea bargains, some were more smoke than fire, some were fuzzy areas in the laws.

I'm now reading Andrew Weissmann's "Where the Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation".  I'll comment on the book another time, but what's striking is the degree to which the Trump campaign welcomed Russian aid, specifically the hacks of the DNC and DCC.  Granted there's a difference between money and other kinds of aid, but I don't remember Republicans criticizing the campaign for doing so.  

Forgotten History

Either the Post or the Times today had a piece on the effects of using primaries to select candidates, with the main argument being that primaries widened the gaps between parties and increased partisanship.  I don't have the patience to find the url.

The overall thesis may be right; I won't dispute it. But one sentence I did dispute--describing the time frame during which primaries became important.  It wasn't the 1980s, but earlier. 

For example, in the 1960 campaign, JFK and Hubert Humphrey were the main competitors in several state primaries. I acknowledge not every state held presidential primaries, but effectively JFK won the nomination by winning the primaries.  In 1960, and before, the selection process was a composite: "party bosses", the man in a given state or often a major citywho could sway the selection of delegates to the convention, and "favorite sons" usually the governor or highest elected official in the state who also could sway delegates.  (The "bosses" were behind the scenes; the "sons" might or might not have dreams of becoming the nominee themselves.)

Today states use primaries, in 1960 the bosses and sons relied on the primaries to assess the strength of candidates, rather like polls today. 

The Big Sort

[Note: I drafted this several days ago but didn't publish.  Then I wrote yesterdays post. Although I never added the links, I ]

I've played with the idea that our big sort  resulted from the proliferation of housing developments after WWII. 

Today from pieces in my two newpapers I'm more persuaded by another factor:

• The Post had a graphic showing how population had shifted--people had moved from the smaller states to the bigger states, presumably the big metropolitan areas within the states (i.e., Massachusetts, New York, DC, Texas, Florida, California.
• The Times had a graphic showing the party splits in presidential elections from 1988 to 2020.  You see some states moving to the Democrats (Virginia, Colorado, New Jersey) and some states moving to the Republicans, and other states become more of what they were before (especially Dakotas)

So my new idea is the younger Democrats are moving to economic opportunity. The nation has emphasized the value of higher education since the 1940's.  The jobs for college graduates tend to be in the bigger metropolitan areas, not in the more rural ones. 

Take a look at the rankings of states by education level.  Eyeballing the HS graduation, it looks as if the non-Southern Republican stats do very well. The South and NY (40th) are low  and CA ( is at the bottom. When you change to bachelors degrees the picture changes drastically.  NY has jumped from 40th to  10th, CA  to 14th, and the top is dominated by Democratic states.  When you go to advanced degrees the spread at the top widens a lot.

Where are the divisions? 

They identify four areas of gradually deepening division: economic inequality, political partisanship, and questions of identity relating to race, as well as gender and sexuality.

From wikipedia:

 Additionally, since the 1970s, income disparities have disproportionately increased in metropolitan areas due to the concentration of high-skilled jobs in urban zones.[10][11] For example, even though New York is the state with the highest inequality levels in the country, the upstate part of the state has a much lower rate of income inequality than the downstate, as the economy of New York City (Gini index 0.5469)[12] is highly reliant on high-salary earners.[11] States with better financial development tend to be more unequal than those with worse financial opportunities, but the trends go in the opposite directions for high-income and low-income states, with the former actually seeing more equality up to a certain level of development, beyond which the inequality rises non-linearly

Events Which Change Elections

NYTimes newsletter from Nate Cohn discussing election polls, also whether the Clinton indictment was a possible parallel to the impact of Dobbs on the campaign.

In comments there I suggested that Sputnik was in some ways comparable--a surprise event, raising the importance of a new issue, close enough to impact the 1958 elections in which Dems did very well --48 House and 15 Senate.

It helped that there was a recession in 58 and Ike was in his second term. It set the stage for JFK's pledge to get the nation moving and for the (false) concerns about "missile gap."

Big Boom Versus Slow and Stealthy

 I think there's a spectrum of political change/reform, perhaps along more than one dimension, but at least one--scope.

For example, Biden's forgiveness of student loans is big in scope.  I'd guess it's one of the biggest changes in the student loan program in recent years.  (IIRC the Obama administration did some significant changes, moving more to a government-administered program.)

LBJ's Medicare/Medicaid program was very big in scope.  In the years since there have been smaller changes: the biggest I recall now is GWB's addition of Medicare option D--the drug coverage. Previously there was GHWB's catastrophic insurance, which got repealed rather quickly.

But it seems most changes in programs occur with smaller scope and less attention--the slow and steathy path. 

Predicting 2024 Politics and Death

 Lots of speculation already about politics in 2024, particularly the presidential race and control of Congress.

I'll venture a prediction of my own.  The Grim Reaper will have a say. We have an old President, an old fomer guy, and a bunch of old people in Congress.  Between now and November 2024 one or more of these geezers is going to kick the can which will significantly change the odds of an important outcome.

You Can't Have It Both Ways?

 I've seen this expression recently, mostly in relation to people like Pence who are getting credit from liberals like me for doing his duty or Liz Cheney for her position on 1/6. 

For me, a half loaf is better than none.  Any time someone on the right does something good, it's fine.  I'd compare them to Sen. Ervin during Watergate, or Gov. Hogan's father, who was a member of House Judiciary Committee who voted for impeachment, which was surprising given his generally conservative record. 

Stanford Research on Farm Programs and Politics

 Here's a Stanford Phd candidate doing research on the relationship between participation in farm programs and political views.

Petroleum Reserve

 I'd support Biden's release of oil from the reserve if there was a provision for refilling it when oil prices are low.  (I'm thinking of a parallel with the old grain loan/storage program.)

What We've Lost--LWV and Local Papers

 My cousin, Marjorie Harshaw Robie, is recalling her days on the Ipswich School Committee by a series of posts Facebook page. 

Her initial run for the  committee was aided by two institutions which have faded since then: the League of Women Voters, which did two questionnaires of the candidates, and the local newspapers, which did interviews.

I assume it's not just Ipswich which has seen the fading, but general phenomena. 

How Our View of People Changes

 Over my lifetime many things have changed:

• Eisenhower changed from a middling president to something more, worthy of a monument on the Mall.
• Grant changed from a president presiding over corruption to a protector of black civil rights.
• Sadat changed from a tinpot dictator and Nazi lover to someone who risked and lost his life for peace.
• Bob Dole changed from a partisan hatchet man in the 70s to a well regarded last remnant of the Greatest Generation and a very funny man.
• Ian Paisley went from pope hater to almost a statesman working with the IRA.

I could go on but I think examples show two things: 

1. some people change over their lifetime, both as they change and their environment changes
2. how people are evaluated depends very much on who the evaluators are and what their environment is.

A New Day Dawning? Leahy

 Sen. Leahy has announced he won't run for reelection next year.  On the Newshour Lisa Lerer commented on the number of old farts who are in the Dem leadership of Congress, and their impending retirements.

There's likely a transition coming for Dems, certainly in the House, more probable in the Senate if the next two elections turn out awful for the Dems.  

Currently it seems as if the Reps are on a firm course: Trump the likely nominee in 2024, McCarthy as Speaker, but McConnell won't last past 2024 if Trump is elected. The Dems are less clear: will Biden run for election, if not can Harris get the nomination or will it be someone else. If there's primary fight for 2024 will the nominee be defeated by Trump, as Carter was defeated by having a divided party behind him. 

My guess would be that Pelosi leaves if Dems lose the House in 2022. 

Whither Bipartisanship?

 Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of Congressional Democrats to the climate change conference in the UK. 

I'm old enough to remember when we used to have bipartisan representation during many major international efforts.  I don't know when that stopped.