From the desk of Bob Keefe
Washington, D.C.
November 15, 2009
Political Update
It was not easy. It was not big. But it was a win… And President Barack Obama and the Democrats really needed it. By the narrow margin of 220-215, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. When, after a majority had been recorded, Rep. Joe Cao (R-LA) voted “yes,” he made the vote bi-partisan.
Health Care reform is not yet a done deal. But it is moving. Speaker Nancy Pelosi took personal responsibility for its passage and her persuasion; her strategies; and her power pushed the bill forward. Now it goes on to the Senate where it faces another massive test. Getting 51 votes for a bill looks easier now… But they will need 60. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to begin consideration of Health Reform sometime next week. The Senate, being the Senate, will not do it quickly. If they are able to get a final vote on the bill before Christmas, I will be surprised.
I am convinced that a substantive health care reform measure will be enacted.
What did the elections tell us?
So much big news has been happening, it is hard to believe that the off-year elections were just eleven days ago… Before we forget them completely, let’s look at them to see if there are any significant trends developing. The Democrats lost a couple of big ones… the governors’ races in Virginia and New Jersey. The Republicans continued their string of losing special elections for the House of Representatives – losing one in New York and one in California. The two candidates who spent their personal fortunes wildly had problems – New Jersey Governor Corzine losing and New York Mayor Bloomberg squeezing out a narrow victory.
It is clear that the Republicans are not dead in the water. Their brand is tarnished, but they proved that they can mount significant challenges with good candidates. And the Democrats problem cannot be blamed entirely on their current weakness among Independents. The excuse that the growth of self-identifying Independents comes from Republicans calling themselves Independents, but continuing to vote like Republicans, does not wash.
When I began my political career, the Democrats counted on the Solid South for the big chunk of the votes needed to win national elections and control the Congress. Democrats depended on hawkish, culturally conservative, populist white voters. We began to lose that group of voters in the 1960’s when the Party began to cultivate the support of blacks, liberals and union members. President Bill Clinton took this new group and was able to convince enough of the Roosevelt voters to support him. When he promoted fiscal conservatism and social moderation, he broadened the party’s appeal in the Border States and northern suburbia.
When the party nominated Barack Obama last year those old coalition members from the Solid South days abandoned the Democrats. Obama won without them because he was able to raise the level of interest and intensity in the new base and – faced with the results of the Bush years – suburbanites and other moderates supported the non-Bush candidate.
So here is the challenge for Democrats in the years just ahead. The election of the first Black President has happened and will not happen again. The coalition of suburbanites, poor blacks and upper class liberals is not a comfortable base from which to govern. Clearly the enthusiasm that built the Obama majorities last year was absent this year. With the intensity that the extreme right is demonstrating, the next elections will be difficult, hand to hand combat on a myriad of issues.
So much of the party’s prospects depend now on the persona of the president. It seems unlikely that a Democrat can run away from him. But running with him may not be easy…If he can achieve more success with his big issues, the enthusiasm Dems need may return.
The Inconvenient Issue
The insolvable issue of abortion has come again to the forefront of the public policy debate in the United States. This time, it threatens the effort to revamp our flawed health care system. It has, in past times been a stickler for solutions in other policy debates ranging from education to welfare to military questions.
The issue is more than difficult. It is a genuine “no win” policy for the political world. It pits the sanctity of life against the free will, and sometimes the health, of an individual. It has strong religious overtones. It brings out the most demonstrative emotional reactions from individuals and groups.
Abortion was not a significant issue in American politics before the early 70’s. The Roe versus Wade decision rendered on January 23, 1973 provided a legal basis for the medical abortion procedure. That action stirred the hopes of those who support it and ignited the vigorous opposition of those who oppose it. There quickly formed “Right to Life” and “Right to Choice” forces which have grown and prospered over the years. The court decision came at the time that the women of America began to stir politically and fought for their equal rights. Abortion became a prominent element in their platform.
The political world was forced to react. With the electorate split widely on the subject, every politician was forced to explain his position in terms that satisfied the group whose side he chose while creating the least amount of antagonism among others. I have seen many versions of the answer, from both those who choose Life and those who choose Choice. The most common pro-choice phrase used is one that I credit President Bill Clinton with crafting. It is:
“I believe that abortion should be legal and rare.”
That precedes a discussion of how to make it rare…. Better counseling, better pregnancy prevention techniques… etc. It is an answer that tries to bridge the chasm of emotional positions of the electorate… It is a rhetorical band aid…. There is no perfect answer. The issue defies compromise… it is black or white, making it a very difficult issue for politicians to address.
The first major exposition of the issue in the political world came in Louisville, Kentucky at an issues conference sponsored by the Democratic National Committee in late 1975. The conference was designed to expose potential candidates for the presidency in 1976. I was there with my candidate. Sen. Henry Jackson. The conference presented an excellent panel on the abortion issue covering the medical, legal and moral aspects of abortion. Leaders from both sides and real experts made presentations. When the conference was over and we were driving away, one of our advisors turned to the Senator and said, “Scoop, I don’t know where you stand on this abortion issue, but I have made up my mind. I believe that abortion is murder…and I am for it.” Scoop did not accept this advice.
Beware of the Early Polls
The 24 hour news cycle has produced such a demand for news that speculation on politics has become a standard fare. Ollie Quayle, a top pollster once told me that he was very skeptical of the “what if” polls that media like to promote. He said early polls make no sense. If the election were being held today, the campaign would have happened over the past month and the information of the voter would be totally different.”
But “what if” polls are principal courses on all talk television menus. A couple of seasoned and wise political consultants wrote an article about the efficacy of early polls that I really enjoyed… and saved. Here is what Mike Murphy and Mark Mellman wrote on this subject. They were commenting as the 2008 campaign was just about to start.
It is reminiscent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle we all heard about in high school physics class. Professor Werner Heisenberg postulated that “the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known.” Applied to a political race, this suggests that the more we measure how the candidates stand now, the less we may know about where things are going to end up — because the measurement itself can render the findings inaccurate.
The noisy onslaught of public opinion polling in the media so early in the process would amuse the good professor, because the numbers are really little more than a vain attempt to measure something that hasn’t happened. Because voters are not required to make a decision until election day, they remain open at the early stage in the race to new information, alternative perspectives and late-breaking developments — all of which render today’s poll results, to one degree or another, meaningless.
Consider this: More than two-thirds of the Democrats who voted in the 2004 Iowa caucuses didn’t decide who to vote for until a month before the caucuses. Iowa’s Republican caucus-goers are no different. In 1996, nearly a quarter chose their candidate on caucus night or in the preceding two days.
Meanwhile, the press ignores Heisenberg’s principle — that the measurements themselves, printed in bold type on Page 1, create their own distorted results, inaccurately advantaging some while disadvantaging others. By creating a potentially illusory sense of momentum or of failure, these pseudo-measures affect the extent of media coverage, fundraising, endorsements and the willingness of volunteers to engage.
The result is a cycle. Early national polling is used to declare winners and losers. Those declarations affect the flow of money and coverage, which is then reported as winners and losers, thereby driving the next polls.
Why?
The massacre at Fort Hood this past week again raises the question: Why are weapons of mass murder so readily available in our nation? Why do we allow anyone to acquire “Cop Killer guns and ammunition?”
The weapon used by the assassin was legally purchased at Guns Galore, a gun shop in Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood. The gun is a FN Herstal Five-Seven Semi-Auto Handgun described as a “one cop killer” gun. What makes the Five-Seven different from other handguns is that it is essentially a pocket-sized assault rifle. It can carry a 30 shot cartridge and fire them semi-automatically within seconds. The Brady Campaign says it bought and test-fired a Five-Seven, and that it successfully penetrated a police vest.
Pray tell me what civilian use can there be for such a weapon? It was developed for use by military air crews and drivers for their defense. But what use is there for such weaponry by the average citizen. Certainly it is not a hunter’s gun. It’s power is totally unnecessary for marksmen . It was designed and is built to kill people. That is all it is good for. So, why is it available in your neighborhood gun shop and on the internet? It makes no sense at all.
Meanwhile, our Wars Continue
Lest we forget, Americans keep dying and keep being injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. The official count as of October 31, 2009, of the dead since our involvement in Iraq began on March 23, 2003 is 4,362; The dead from the war in Afghanistan from its beginning in September 2001 is 920. The count of American service personnel wounded in Iraq is now 31,557; in Afghanistan 4,434, according to the Department of Defense.
By the time I have to rework these totals in the next Political Update, President Obama will likely have unveiled his new policy for the Afghanistan problem. I wish there were good options, but I fear there are none. I am glad he took a holistic look at the situation…not just a review of troop requirements.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Robert J. Keefe
TKC International, Inc.
1776 I Street, NW, Suite 900 – Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone: 202 255-8161 – E mail: rkeefe@tkci.com
Past issues of Political Update available at www.bobkeefedc.com
Leave a Reply