Big Sky Political Analysis

2012-02-17T09:34:00.001-07:00

Two articles of note have appeared in the media over the last week. In my opinion, both should be read by each and every student of politics.

The first is James Fallow’s analysis of the Obama administration – Obama, Explained. It is the cover story of this month’s edition of The Atlantic. He has three themes in the piece. First, the behavioral and psychological Obama. Second, how do we view the administrative successes and failures of the last 3+ years. Third, a temporal look. For the last, he references a memo written by James H. Rowe Jr., at the time a young official at the Bureau of the Budget (what is now the Office of Management and Budget) to President Harry Truman. Rowe’s memo could be written today and still be mostly accurate about the political setting in which Obama finds himself today. The lesson is twofold – the political strategy of opposition (by Republicans in both cases) is totally predictable and, given the political strategy, political stalemate is inevitable. If Obama is going to enjoy a second term, we can pretty much predict how the campaign will unfold no matter who the Republican nominee is.

The second piece appeared in the New York Times last week. The Geography of Entitlements interactive map is illustrative of the hypocrisy of much of the political debate in the current primary season. Those areas that most depend on federal funding for social programs, retirement benefits, Medicare and Medicaid and other federal benefits are, in large part, the same parts of the country that support candidate that would reject government in general. The map does not show military spending but trends would be the same.

In his NYT column today (3.17.12), Paul Krugman cites work by Aaron Carroll of Indiana University. Carroll points out that “in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as ‘most conservative’ received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.” For those economists that assume rational economic man, they need to explain why large parts of country are willing to vote against their economic self-interest.Others have written about this seemingly illogical political stance - notably Ben Barber, Walt Whitman Professor of Political Science Emeritus, Rutgers University.

Psychologists tell us that when cognitive dissonance gets bad enough, we typically seek to resolve it. I’m waiting for the collective dope slap from supporters of Rick Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney but I’m not holding my breath.

Tester Tells Rehberg: No Thanks

2012-02-14T19:23:00.004-07:00

The Tester camp rejected Congressman Rehberg's Made in Montana pledge late yesterday. Rather than provide an analysis and commentary, I'll simply post the Tester campaign's press release and let you judge for yourself.

Rehberg rejects Tester’s plan to keep third-party ads out of Montana

Out-of-state organization spends another $190,000 attacking Tester

BILLINGS, Mont. – Montanans for Tester campaign manager Preston Elliott today released the following statement after Congressman Dennis Rehberg rejectedJon Tester’s proposal to keep all third-party TV and radio attack ads out of Montana:

“Jon offered Congressman Rehberg a simple, good-faith effort to keep secretly funded ads out of this race, and Congressman Rehberg rejected it because he's relying on these ads as we speak.”

Elliott added that Rehberg’s “response” to Tester’s proposal was “just more dishonest politics” from Rehberg designed only to keep third-party, out-of-state TV ads running on Rehberg’s behalf.

“Montanans can't trust Congressman Rehberg to keep his promises. He gave himself five pay raises after campaigning against them, he hid tens of thousands of dollars he's taken from lobbyists, and he's broken every clean campaign pledge he's signed. Montanans won't fall for yet another promise Congressman Rehberg knows he can't keep.”

Immediately after Tester’s proposal last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a secretly funded organization not affiliated with local chambers of commerce—spent another $190,000 on TV ads in Montana attacking Tester (fact check HERE).

Below is a summary of why Montanans can’t trust Dennis Rehberg. A full reports is available online HERE.

Rehberg promised Montanans no pay raises for himself…

Rehberg Promised Never to Vote for a Pay Raise. In a 1996 campaign ad, Rehberg said he “has never voted for a pay raise, and [he] never will.” [Rehberg Campaign Ad]

Rehberg Flier Claimed He Had Never Voted for or Taken a Pay Raise – And Never Would. In a 1996 campaign flier, Rehberg boasted, “Rehberg has never voted for or taken a pay raise and he never will.” [Rehberg 1996 Campaign Flier]

2000: Rehberg Promised to Oppose Pay Increases. In 2000, Rehberg “said he has always opposed pay increases as an elected official and would do so in Congress.” [Helena Independent Record, 10/12/00]

…Then he voted for five of them

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $3,300 in 2006. In 2006, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,300 to $168,500.Rehbergvoted to kill an amendment that would block an automatic pay hike for members of Congress. By killing the attempt to block the pay raise, Rehberg voted to receive a 2 percent increase and an annual salary of $165,200. The effort to block the anti-pay raise amendment passed 249-167. (H RES 865, Vote #261, 6/13/06; Congressional Research Service, Salaries for Members of Congress: Congressional Votes) NOTE: This pay raise was later blocked by the Democratic Congress in 2007.

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay $3,100 in 2005. In 2005, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,100 to $165,200. Rehberg voted in favor of a measure intended to prevent the introduction of an amendment blocking an increase in the annual salary for House members by $3,100 to $165,000. The House blocked a bid by Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) to force an up-or-down vote on the pay raise. The effort to block the anti-payraise amendment passed 263-152. (HR 342, Vote #327, 6/28/05)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $4,000 in 2004.In 2004, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $4,000 to $162,100. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $89.8 billion in fiscal 2005 for the departments of Treasury and Transportation and related agencies. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 235-170. (H Res 770, Vote #451, 9/14/04)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $3,400 in 2003.In 2003, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $3,400 to $158,100. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $89.6 billion in fiscal 2004 spending, including $27.5 billion in discretionary spending, for the departments of Treasury and Transportation and related agencies. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 240-173. (H. Res. 351, Vote #463, 9/4/03)

Rehberg Supported Congressional Pay Raise, Voted to Raise His Own Pay by $4,700 in 2002. In 2002, Rehberg voted to raise his own pay by $4,700 to $154,700. Rehberg voted in favor of a motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on adoption of the rule to provide for House floor consideration of the bill that would appropriate $35.1 billion in fiscal 2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations. If the motion had been defeated, an amendment to block the Congressional pay raise would have been allowed. The motion passed 258-156. (H. Res. 488, Vote #322, 7/18/02)

Rehberg hid tens of thousands of dollars in lobbyist money

HEADLINE – Rehberg’s Lobbyist Cash Unreported. [Helena Independent Record, 2/6/2012]

HEADLINE – Rep. Rehberg Under Fire After Report Uncovers Lobbyist Contributions. [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg’s Campaign “Took A Hit” After Discovery Of Unreported Lobbyist Contributions. In February 2012, The Hill reported: “Montana congressman Denny Rehberg's bid to unseat Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) took a hit Sunday after the Associated Press uncovered lobbyist contributions to the Republican hopeful's campaign.” [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg’s Campaign Received About $20,000 From Three Dozen Undisclosed Lobbyists. In February 2012, The Hill reported: “The AP reports that Rehberg's campaign received about $20,000 through October from three dozen lobbyists who didn't reveal their place of employment on federal disclosure records. The revelation could hurt Rehberg because he has relentlessly attacked Democratic first-termer Tester for being the top recipient of lobbyist campaign funding.” [The Hill, 2/5/12]

Rehberg violated campaign pledges he signed

Rehberg Signed Clean Campaign Pledge in 1996… Then Broke It. On June 27, 1996, Rehberg and Sen. Max Baucus signed a Clean Campaign Pledge to “maintain the highest ethical and moral standards in the conduct of my campaign” with a positive campaign focused on the issues. [Rehberg Clean Campaign Pledge, 6/27/1996]

Rehberg Signed Pledge in 1996, Later Violated the Promise. As reported by the Billings Gazette, “In 1996, Sen. Max Baucus and Republican challenger Denny Rehberg signed a pledge, but that didn't prevent acrimony. By autumn, the candidates were accusing one another of violating the promise and arguing over how to word a letter urging supporters to behave. [Billings Gazette, 6/8/2004]

2000 Senate opponent: Rehberg Violated Clean Campaign Pledge. In October 2000, the Great Falls Tribune reported: "In recent days, both Republican Denny Rehberg and Democrat Nancy Keenan have proclaimed that the other candidate violated the clean campaign pledge each signed in April." According to the report, "Keenan entered the fray Wednesday, saying she is 'outraged at an offensive and misleading' television ad 'run in coordination with Dennis Rehberg's campaign' questioning her commitment to safe schools and a positive learning environment. She was referring to an ad claiming she opposed notifying teachers when a student has been convicted of a criminal offense and that she supported Playboy magazine in school libraries. Keenan demanded Rehberg pull the 'misleading and untrue ad,' and charged that he 'has reverted back to the negative tactics that were the hallmark of his failed bid for the U.S. Senate in 1996' against U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont." [10/5/00]

Keenan Accused Rehberg Of Breaking Clean Campaign Pledge, Said That Montanans "Expect More From This Campaign." In October 2000, PBS reported: "Keenan argued that as school superintendent she was constitutionally prevented from banning books and magazines. She accused Rehberg of misrepresenting her record and breaking their clean-campaign pledge. In a letter to Rehberg, she fired back, saying Montanans "expect more from this campaign than the typical political mudslinging that dominated your '96 Senate campaign." [PBS, 10/26/00]

###

Congressman Rehberg Responds to Senator Tester

2012-02-10T14:16:00.003-07:00

Well, I was right. Congressman Rehberg did offer his own pledge to Senator Tester. I just got off a conference call with the Rehberg campaign and sure enough, they have their own pledge they want the Tester campaign to sign. And, you know what? It is tougher and more rigorous than the pledge proposed by Senator Tester. By far.

"The Made in Montana Pledge" essentially allows only Montana money to be spent in the Senate race. Both campaigns will pledge to take money only from Montana residents. Neither campaign can accept PAC money nor money from registered lobbyists (whether registered in Montana or not). The campaigns will have to return any money from donors or special interest groups received to date. Neither campaign is allowed to coordinate with any party or third party group. And, no third party organization will be allowed to spend money on express or issue advocacy launced as a print, web, broadcast, or satellite ad. The penalities are similiar to what Senator Tester proposed: the campaign must donate the cost of the expenditure to the charity of their choice.

Congressman Rehberg has long noted his support for transparency in government. This pledge does Senator Tester one better and is quite bold. I will be interested to see the Senator's response.

Senator Tester's Crusade Against Citizens United

2012-02-09T13:48:00.005-07:00

Senator Tester has railed against the Citizens United decision since it was announced in 2009. He and Senator Baucus have jointly sponsored a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, and the Senator has been on the receiving end of a large amount of outside money assaulting him on various votes he has taken while serving in the Senate. The advertisements began in the spring on the Debit-Credit Card Swipe fee issue, they continued this summer over raising the debt ceiling and healthcare, and today the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced another the launch of another set of advertisements highlighting Senator Tester's connections to President Obama and his agenda. You can watch the latest set of ads here (scroll down to Tester).

Congressman Rehberg, too, has felt the sting of outside interest group money: a group of Montana Hunters and Anglers bought spots attacking the Congressman for his plan to allow the U.S. Border Patrol waivers from a variety of federal regulations when operating on public land. American United for change also sponsored some spots telling the Congressman to keep his hands off of Medicare. You can view these spots here and here.

I have in the past written about how all this outside money drives candidates crazy because they lose control of their message. Senator Tester has a solution to the problem: he is offering Congressman Rehberg a pledge to disavow any third party advertising expenditures. The pledge, according to a Tester campaign release, is as follows:

THIRD-PARTY ADVERTISING AGREEMENT

1) By signing this agreement, both Jon Tester and Denny Rehberg, and their respective Senate campaigns (Montanans for Tester and Montanans for Rehberg) publicly reject and work to prevent the broadcast of all third-party radio and TV ads from date of signature through 8:00 p.m. MST on November 6, 2012, when polls in Montana close on Election Day.

2) Any cable, satellite or over-the-air broadcast of a TV or radio advertisement funded by a third-party—either negative or positive—that specifically mentions or references either candidate, through narration, text or images, shall result in a one-time penalty for the other candidate’s campaign (see #5), and this agreement is then nullified. For example, if a third-party organization airs an ad attacking Congressman Rehberg, Montanans for Tester must pay the penalty, and all third-party organizations are then free to advertise without penalty.

3) A third-party is defined as any organization other than Montanans for Tester or Montanans for Rehberg. Both campaigns are free to run their own advertising as allowed by law. Examples of third-party organizations include but are not limited to the Montana Democratic Party, the Montana Republican Party, The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, American Crossroads or Crossroads GPS or any of their affiliates, labor unions, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A third-party may also be a single person responsible for funding a broadcast ad.

4) Any effort by a third-party to undermine the spirit of this agreement by running a disingenuous advertisement meant only to trigger the penalty for either campaign will result in a penalty and nullification of this agreement. For example, if an organization that actually supports Sen. Tester runs an ad attacking Sen. Tester only to incur the penalty for Montanans for Rehberg, then Montanans for Tester must pay the penalty and the agreement is then nullified. In the event that a previously unknown third-party organization or person runs an advertisement, both Montanans for Tester and Montanans for Rehberg will ask broadcasters to immediately pull the ad, and it will be subject to a review and a challenge before any penalty is incurred.

5) The Penalty: If a third-party organization that funds or broadcasts any TV or radio advertisement that specifically mentions or references either candidate, through narration, text or images, then the opposite candidate must pay a one-time penalty equal to the cost of the ad buy to the Montana charity or charities of the penalized candidate’s choice. The penalty shall not be greater than $250,000 and must come from a candidate’s campaign coffers.

The Billings Gazette wrote about this pledge in today's paper (read the article here). In it, I mentioned that this type of pledge is a variation on an old theme. In 1980, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC) launched an aggressive advertising strategy aimed at defeating nine liberal Democratic senators. 7 of the 9 senators targeted lost reelection and NCPAC took credit (Senators Cranston and Eagleton of California and Missouri, respectively, survived). The incumbents who were at the receiving end of the advertising barrage attacked NCPAC as an outside organization who was trying to buy elections, and often the incumbents would ask their opponents to disavow the organization. In the 1990s, when independent expenditures and soft money exploded on the airwaves, candidates would also ask their opponents to sign pledges asking outside organizations to stay out of campaigns. Most notably, Senator Russ Feingold--author of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act--successfully convinced his opponent, Congressman Mark Neumann, to disavow soft money advertisements and to agree to overall spending caps. Neumann, who was first elected in the Republican landslide of 1994, had already refused to accept any PAC donations. Feingold went on to win that very close race. More recently, Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren have also agreed to "curb political attack ads from outside groups" (see article here). In fact, it seems that the Tester pledge is largely based on the pledge that the Massachusetts candidates worked up.

Do I think this is the right political move for Senator Tester? Yes. The Senator's campaign narrative is a populist one and this pledge fits squarely within that narrative. Montanans are skeptical of big corporations and the big federal government. The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld the state's strict campaign finance laws barring corporate and labor union contributions, and Senator Tester applauded the decision. This is another way in which Senator Tester is attempting to highlight how his record, beliefs, and values are consistent with those most Montanans hold. Congressman Rehberg also has a strong record of supporting transparency, and this pledge--by disavowing outside money--prevents organizations like Crossroads GPS that accept campaign contributions but do not disclose them from using that money on advertisements. It puts the Congressman in a bit of bind.

Do I think the pledge will work if Congressman Rehberg agrees to sign it? I am doubtful because I'm not sure what the incentive is for outside groups to hold their fire in this race. I am also not entirely convinced that the pledge helps Senator Tester in the long run. Sure, it would seem that the amount of money being spent nationally favors Republican candidates right now. On the other hand, there will be all kinds of organizations spending money to support Democrats--especially given the President's apparent blessing of SuperPACs. And that money might not be plainly visible because it may not be spent on television but on other equally effective activities, such as voter mobilization.

Will Congressman Rehberg sign the pledge? If I were a betting man, I would suspect that they will make a counter-offer before Senator Tester's self-imposed deadline on Friday.

If you want more information on SuperPACs and how they work, I would highly recommend listening to NPR's Morning Edition on February 9th, which discusses the Crossroads set of organizations in particular and features commentary from fellow political scientist, Robin Kolodny, at Temple University.

Final Fourth Quarter Fundraising for Tester-Rehberg Senate Race

2012-02-09T13:41:00.004-07:00

I reported recently that Senator Tester raised close to $1.2 million in the final quarter of 2011. Congressman Rehberg raised substantially less for the quarter, bringing in only $656,000. For your information, I provide a graph of the money each campaign reported raising for each quarter in 2011 for your information. I also recommend that voters inspect each campaign's year end reports, available at the FEC.

I have some other posts in the works...look for them soon.

Montana Senate Race: Final 2011 Fundraising numbers coming in...

2012-01-26T12:30:00.003-07:00

Senator Jon Tester continues to raise substantial sums in his reelection campaign. In the final FEC reporting quarter for 2011, he raised more than $1 million--as he has every quarter during the year. Read the story here.

When Congressman Denny Rehberg's numbers are available, I'll post that information.

Keystone and the Montana Senate Race

2012-01-18T18:22:00.007-07:00

Yesterday, the White House announced that it is rejecting the proposed Keystone pipeline project (read the story here). Keystone was to carry oil generated from Canadian tar sands across the mid-section of the United States to refineries in Texas. The pipeline promised to create a large number of construction jobs and reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but objections were raised by environmental organizations concerned about the pipeline crossing a major aquifer in Nebraska and the huge carbon footprint caused by tar sands extraction procedures. In particular, the pipeline split two key interest groups important to the Democratic Party: unions, interested in the construction jobs, and environmental organizations interested in moving away from fossil fuels.

The pipeline was set to cross Montana, and--generally speaking--has received widespread support from both Democrats and Republicans in the state. Both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg have expressed support for the pipeline project, and both quickly released official statements expressing their disappointment about the Obama Administration's decision.

Senator Tester released the following statement on the Keystone decision:

“I am disappointed in the President’s decision. Just as I have supported Montana’s renewable energy jobs, I have long supported responsibly building this pipeline with the highest safety standards and with respect for private property rights. Oil, coal, natural gas, wind, geothermal and biofuels all provide good jobs in Montana. I will continue to champion Montana’s role in securing America’s energy future.”

Congressman Rehberg's official statement was a bit more forceful. It reads in part:

"Today’s shameful decision by President Obama to put his re-election ahead of thousands of jobs for American families shows just how much this Administration and its allies have bought into the radical anti-job agenda of environmental extremists like the League of Conservation Voters."

The campaign reaction has been a bit different. Congressman Rehberg's campaign released, in part, the following statement:

"Today's job-killing decision by Tester's allies in the Obama Administration hands a victory to the radical environmental obstructionists who bankroll Tester's re-election campaign, and strikes a harsh blow to Montana workers and families who would have benefited from thousands of pipeline jobs and a projected $7.5 million in revenues added to Montana's state treasury."

The Rehberg folks have been attempting to tie Tester to an unpopular Democratic president and his administration in an effort to show that Senator Tester is not, as political scientist Dick Fenno would term it, "one of us" but "one of them". In particular, they cite a statistic saying that Senator Tester has sided with the Obama administration 97 percent of the time (based on an analysis by Congressional Quarterly of Senate votes in 2010). More on all of this in an upcoming post.

The Tester campaign's response to the Rehberg campaign's press release? Aaron Murphy, Tester's spokesman, replied in an e-mail sent to reporters covering the campaign:

"Congressman Rehberg is the only member of Montana's congressional delegation who has voted against the Keystone XL pipeline. In other words, he "failed to stop himself from blocking Montana jobs.

On Tuesday, December 20, Congressman Rehberg followed orders from his party bosses and voted against the Keystone XL pipeline, and against a tax holiday for working families (read more HERE)."

The Tester campaign has been attempting to show how Congressman Rehberg looks out for himself and represents the interests of the Republican Party nationally, not Montana. Rehberg is "not one of us" but "one of them"--a tool of the Republican Party bosses. Senator Tester, according to this narrative, is an independent, bipartisan voice for the state. The Tester campaign pushes back, saying that Senator Tester is his own man and not beholden to President Obama, noting the instances where he has broken from the administration and national Democrats (e.g, the administration's job bill or the DREAM Act).

This is what we call framing in the business. Campaigns seek to advance particular narratives and discuss events in terms of that narrative. What is interesting in the Montana Senate race is how important it is in a rural, agricultural state like Montana to be perceived as "one of us" by the voters. Politics is about identities, and the identity of who is most like Montanans is an important point that the campaigns have contested from the very beginning of this race. Part of being "one of us" is making decisions that a regular Montanan would make in Washington. And both campaigns claim that they do a better job of doing on Capitol Hill what the average Montanan would want.

Both campaigns responded to the Keystone decision rapidly, and Montana Republican Party has even sent out an e-mail in an attempt to raise funds. Both sides used the opportunity to return to their core narratives of who is doing the best job in Washington and who has Montana's interests best at heart.

It should be noted that the Obama administration did not cancel the project on the merits, but argued that the 60-day deadline imposed by Congress did not allow for a full review of the project. The Canadian company can apply for a permit again, but the delay will certainly prevent any construction jobs from going online before the fall election.

Which version of the events will Montanans find most credible? That's for the voters to decide, and we'll find out over the next 11 months.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska Retiring

2011-12-27T18:38:00.003-07:00

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska is forgoing reelection in 2012, opting instead for retirement. Read the story at Politico here.

This makes the math for the Democrats to hold the Senate exceedingly difficult. Nebraska is Republican state and there's no clear Democratic candidate other than former Senator Bob Kerrey. While Kerrey was quite popular, he has lived in New York City for the past 11 years--not exactly a plus in the Cornhusker State.

All of this means that the Montana Senate race, already one of the tightest and most important in the country for determining party control of the chamber, just became--that's right--even more important.

Hold on to your hats!

New Poll in MT Senate Race

2011-12-01T20:43:00.004-07:00

There's a new poll on the Montana Senate Race tonight by Public Policy Polling. Read the results here.

Four quick points about the poll:

1. The race has been dead even since the very beginning. There has been hardly any change in the numbers in this new poll.

2. This consistency is NOT surprising. You have two candidates who are well-known and are well-defined. It will be hard to move public opinion with campaign advertising in such an environment. In order to move voters in such a situation, absent either an external event that shakes up the race or a mistake by one of the candidates, lots of money will have to be spent on advertising to have any effect on voter opinion at all.

3. The fact that a significant amount of money has already been spent by outside organizations further underscores the second point. That said, money spent on advertising this past summer was not generally targeted at Montana voters (many of whom were spending their precious warm days outside and away from television), but at the political elite and the donor base. This advertising served to get the base excited and perhaps get them to give money. The organizations that did spend money on advertising were also sending signals to other political organizations about the importance of this race and the effort they plan to expend in the upcoming months on the Montana Senate race. This signaling can cause other organizations to take note and decide that the Montana Senate campaign is worth their time and attention as well.

4. Given that the fundamentals of this race have changed very little thus far, I expect--like most close congressional races--that this campaign will boil down to the enthusiasm of each candidate's base and the ground game. For all the money that is spent on advertising, more important and more significant are the resources and efforts spent on connecting with voters personally and through social media.

Don't Throw Those Out: The Travesty of Eliminating Political Records

2011-11-19T20:31:00.003-07:00

As someone who is writing an extensive book on Senate campaigns using archival materials, this story about Governor Romney's disposal of gubernatorial records is disturbing. See here.

Yes, Governor Romney abided by state law. And yes, Governor Romney did preserve some of those records and sent them on to the state archives. But in the end, posterity and history have lost. The State of Massachusetts should establish clearer and firmer guidelines on the preservation of political records, similar to those established by the United States Senate and the United States House. These materials are absolutely invaluable to the researcher, and essential for government transparency. Issues of privacy can be easily worked out by establishing clear restrictions on particular types of materials and closing such records for an extended period of time.

How can we ever hope to learn from our mistakes and successes if we aren't allowed to study them?

Legislative Effectiveness: Moving Beyond Bill Sponsorships

2011-11-15T21:22:00.006-07:00

This past spring, I tried to answer the knotty question of legislative effectiveness. Both Congressman Rehberg and Senator Tester have spent—and will continue to spend—a considerable amount of time making the case that they are more effective than the other. The question, of course, is critical to answering the question of who best represents Montana in the ways in which they do their Washington work. What is interesting, of course, is both have records as incumbent legislators which only further serves to muddle the picture for the average voter.

My earlier analysis focused purely on bills sponsored by Rehberg and Tester, and what was the “final disposition” of that legislation. I put “final disposition” in quotes because the measure of final disposition I used whether the law as sponsored achieved an up/down vote on the either the Senate or House floor and became law. It is this analysis that became the basis for my recent comments in the Bozeman Chronicle which suggested that neither Senator Tester nor Congressman Rehberg have particularly distinguished legislative records. And, as I pointed out in my initial blog, it is really hard for freshmen legislators in the Senate to establish a long record and the rule of seniority makes it hard for individual House members to stand out from their colleagues.

The problem with that metric and my comments as they were reported, however, is that they provide an incomplete picture of both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg’s legislative record. Legislative ideas have lots of ways of wending their way through the process and becoming law. The main thrust of a sponsored bill can get wrapped up into another bill, or the idea in a piece of sponsored legislation can be tacked onto another vehicle through an amendment. Unfortunately, these other vehicles are hard to easily quantify and measure.

In short, looking at bill sponsorships and whether the bill got voted on may not be the best way to determine legislative effectiveness. As a recent press release from the Tester campaign points out, with fewer bills being passed each year, legislative ideas are increasingly emerging in longer omnibus style legislation—particularly in the Senate.

In a press release dated November 7, 2011, the Tester campaign put out a fairly comprehensive list of Senator Tester’s legislative record to date. Note that most of the legislation initiated by Senator Tester became public law by either amendment or being rolled up into other legislative vehicles. According to this press release, then, Senator Tester’s legislative record is much more robust than looking at sponsorship patterns alone. I reproduce the press release from Senator Tester’s campaign below for your review:

Key legislation by Sen. Jon Tester now public law

The following is a partial list of bills and amendments either authored or co-written by Sen. Jon Tester that are now Public Law. Since 2007, Congress has often incorporated smaller legislation into larger bills, thus resulting in fewer “stand alone” bills being signed into law.

VETERANS & HOMELAND SECURITY

The Disabled Veterans Fairness Act of 2007 (S.994): Nearly quadrupled the VA’s mileage reimbursement rate for disabled veterans—the first increase in 30 years. Included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pubic Law No. 110-161).

Rural Veterans Health Care Improvement Act (S.658): Made numerous improvements to health care benefits for veterans in rural states like Montana. Included in the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act (S.1963, Public Law No. 111-163).

Project Access Received Closer to Home (ARCH) for Veterans (part of Rural Veterans Health Care Improvement Act): Expands access to VA health care in rural areas. Included in the Veterans’ Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law No. 110-387).

Amendment requiring an investigation and report to Congress on the vulnerabilities of America’s northern border (S.Amdt 3117): Part of the Improving America’s Security Act of 2007 (Public Law No. 110-53).

Project SHAD Veterans Health Care (S.2937): Provides VA care to participants of the military’s Shipboard Hazard and Defense program. Included in the Veterans’ Mental Health and Other Care Improvements Act of 2008 (Public Law No. 110-387).

Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2011 (S.894): Resulted in a cost-of-living increase in veterans’ benefits. Awaiting enactment.

MONTANA’S OUTDOOR HERITAGE

Delisting Gray Wolves to Restore State Management Act (S.321): Removed Montana’s gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act and returned their management to the State of Montana. Included in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (Public Law No. 112-10).

Wolf Livestock Loss Mitigation Act (“Wolf Kill Bill”) (S.2875): Reimburses ranchers whose animals are killed by wolves; improves wolf kill prevention measures. Included in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (S.22, Public Law No. 111-11).

Preservation of the Second Amendment in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges Act (S.816): Allows law-abiding Americans to transport firearms through national parks. Included in the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 (Public Law No. 111-24).

Cooperative Watershed Management Act (S.3085): Improves management of clean water resources through collaborative input from local stakeholders. Included in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (S.22, Public Law No. 111-11).

ON THE SIDE OF CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS

Amendment ending a $25/week bonus in government benefits, resulting in a savings of $6 billion for taxpayers: Part of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312).

Universal Default Prohibition Act of 2009 (S.399): Prohibits credit card companies from unfairly changing terms on customers. Included in the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 (Public Law No. 111-24).

AGRICULTURE

Biofuel Crop Insurance Pilot Program (S.1242): Established a crop insurance program for farmers who grow biofuel crops, such as camelina. Included in the Farm Bill of 2008 (Public Law No. 110-246).

Amendment removing family farmers and small food producers from federal regulations they don’t need and can’t afford: Part of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Public Law No. 111-353).

RURAL AMERICA

Amendment requiring Amtrak to examine the feasibility of restoring the North Coast Hiawatha route through southern Montana: Part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (Public Law 110-432).

Amendment guaranteeing at least 20 percent public health grants goes to rural communities: Part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law No. 111-148).

INDIAN COUNTRY

Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 (S.797): Improves law enforcement and prosecution of criminal activity in Indian Country. Public Law No. 111-211.

Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2009 (S.375): Ratified the Crow Tribe’s longstanding water rights settlement. Included in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law No. 111-291).

Finally, Senator Tester just came off an important legislative victory. On Thursday, the day before Veteran's Day, the Senator shepherded the passage of a significant veterans jobs bill, which combined his own veterans' jobs proposals and tax credits recently proposed in the President's American Jobs Act. Tester's VOW to Hire Heroes Act passed 95-0. This is an important accomplishment for the Senator, one for which he is justifiably proud.

In a separate blog, I will discuss Congressman Rehberg's legislative accomplishments that go beyond the bills he's sponsored. The take away message I want my readers to have is that the ways political scientists measure legislative effectiveness--such as looking at sponsorship patterns and whether those sponsored measures move directly to a floor vote--are incomplete metrics and do not tell the whole story of a legislator's effectiveness.

Tester-Rehberg: The Third Quarter Fundraising Numbers

2011-10-14T11:16:00.005-06:00

And now Rehberg's numbers for the third quarter are out. Looks like he raised just under $700,000 and Tester raised more than $1.2 million. See Matt Gouras' story here.

Much of the emphasis will be on how Tester continues to outraise Rehberg. That story line is less important: incumbents typically outraise challengers. There are three key questions that must be asked:

1. Does Rehberg have enough money to carry out his plan?
2. What kind of outside support will both candidates get?
3. What's each campaign's burn rate?

I'll look at that information in an upcoming post. Bottom line: both candidates will be well-funded and will have the resources they need to win. Remember, many of the challengers who toppled incumbents in 2006, 2008, and 2010 did not spend the most money. The critical question is this: is there enough money to make the race competitive?

Tester-Rehberg: Third Quarter Fundraising

2011-10-13T14:10:00.003-06:00

The first hints of how third quarter fundraising went for Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg are now available. According to AP, Tester continued his torrid pace and again raised more than $1 million dollars. See the story here. Congressman Rehberg's numbers are not yet available.

This is further evidence, folks, that the Senate race between these two is likely to break fundraising and spending records here in Montana.

More later when the Congressman's numbers are announced.

Tripartite Representation: Congressional Representation in Small States, Part I

2011-10-06T15:01:00.009-06:00

Wyoming's Congressional Delegation: Who Calls the Representational Dance in Small States?

In preparation for my book on the Montana Senate race, I’ve been doing some reading not only about the American West generally and Montana history specifically, but about representation. The key question driving my interest in the campaign is how two candidates—both of whom represent the same geographic entity—represent the state differently. Political scientist Richard Fenno discusses representational strategies from the perspective of senators and representatives extensively in his public work and I’ve written on this subject in the past (Parker and Goodman 2009; Goodman and Parker 2010). Essentially, Fenno says that members assess the various constituencies within the geographic constituency and use particular groups to build an electoral coalition.

The problem with Fenno is his conceptualization of constituencies began with a study of House members representing one district alone. What happens when the problem becomes one of dual representation—or in the case of small states like Montana—tripartite representation? How do senators and the lone congressman carve up the same geographic, election, and primary constituencies? Do they strive to develop independent representational relationships or do they “ride” on the representational relationships of their colleagues?

Wendy Schiller’s excellent book, Partners and Rivals, provides some answers to this question. According to her research, senators develop their own areas of legislative expertise in developing independent reputations. In particular, Senators from the same party are pushed to differentiate themselves from their senatorial colleague in order to receive attention from the media and develop unique impressions among their constituents. Dr. Schiller looks at an impressive range of data to buttress her findings, looking at the committee assignments pursued by senators, patterns in bill sponsorship and co-sponsorship, and coverage by the local media of Senate delegations.

I’ve decided to put Schiller’s model to work in helping me to better understand the representational dynamics that occur in states where three elected officials represent the same geographic constituency: that is, those states with two senators and only one member of Congress. These states are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Before adding the wrinkle of House members, let’s first look at the Senate delegations in these states. Do we see a similar pattern in these small states that Schiller finds among all senators—that is, do we see senators attempting to develop distinctive and largely independent legislative portfolios? For this analysis, we are going to look only at Senate delegations from the states above between 2007 and the present. Second, in this first cut, we are going to limit ourselves to examining the committee assignments pursued by the senators. If Schiller is right and the state size doesn’t matter, we should expect to see little if any overlap among the committee assignments pursued among the Senate delegations.

Table 1: Senate Committee Overlap in Small State Senate Delegations, 2007-2011

Table 1 lists the seven states in alphabetical order and the committee assignments among delegations where there is overlap. Note that overlap is exceedingly rare and unusual—a pattern which is similar to what Schiller observes among all Senate delegations between 1988 and 1992. Only in North Dakota do we see overlap, and in the case of Indian Affairs, the overlap is on a minor committee. One caveat is in order: Senate rules prohibit senators from the same party in a state from serving on the same committee (exceptions are made for minor committee assignments). Glancing at the table, four of the six Senate delegations share the same party, so even if overlap were desirable it is exceedingly unlikely to occur.

Given that Senate delegations in small states act very much like Senate delegations in other states, what happens when we add another representative to the mix? Is there this same effort to by the representative to generate a legislative portfolio that’s distinctive from the Senate delegations?

I see two competing hypotheses which could explain the committee assignment decisions of House members where they share the geographic constituency with both senators. First, the Diversity Hypothesis. Even in small and relatively homogenous states there are a diverse range of interests which need to be represented. Members of the House of Representatives, both to represent those issues for the benefit of the state and to carve out distinctive reputations, seek committee assignments to represent those under-represented interests.

Second, the Protection Hypothesis. Small states perceive themselves as particularly vulnerable politically in the chase for federal dollars. Most small states receive more money from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes, but those dollars are always at risk politically from the larger states that lose in this deal. In addition, those federal dollars are especially important in the smaller economies of these states and their loss would get noticed quickly and negatively by constituents. To protect those dollars and the interests of the state, House members are apt to seek committee assignments to “protect” the work and deals made by the senatorial colleagues on their committees.

The Diversity Hypothesis would suggest the House member’s committee assignments will not overlap with the committee assignments of the Senate delegation, and the Protection Hypothesis suggests that the House member’s assignments will overlap to some degree with the Senate delegation in that state. It is important to note that the committee portfolios of senators will always be larger and diverse when compared to House members—both chambers have essentially the same number of committees, but the Senate has fewer members. Senators often serve on six or seven committees, while House members serve on two or three.

Table 2: House and Senate Committee Overlap in Small States, 2007-2011

Table 2 lists the committees in each state where the House member overlaps with the Senate delegation. Although the committees are slightly different in both chambers, it is not too hard to identify jurisdictional matches. The first thing you should notice is that while Senate overlap is rare, House members do seek committee assignments which overlap with those of their Senate delegation. The second thing to note is this overlap is often on authorizing committees and not necessarily on prestige committees. This has to do with two key factors. First, it is incredibly hard to get onto a prestige committee in the House. Second, membership on a prestige committee often requires that the House member give up their memberships on other committees—reducing the opportunities for overlap.

Table 2 cannot definitely answer whether the Protection or Diversity hypothesis provide a better explanation for patterns in House committee assignments and their overlap with Senate delegations. In order to provide some hints a relative measure of overlap is required: how much total overlap might we observe in a congressional delegation and how does this maximum possible overlap compare to the overlap actually observed? Table 3 provides a crude measure of this. The measure is crude because, quite simply, the size of committee portfolios is not a constant. Some senators and representatives have many committee assignments, others have fewer—and the patterns differ from state delegation to state delegation. To deal with this, I calculated three statistics for each congress: the percentage of Total Overlap, the percentage of House Overlap, and the Maximum Possible House Overlap. These are described as follows:

Maximum Possible House Overlap: The number of committee assignments held by the House member multiplied by two divided by the total number of committee assignments of the entire congressional delegation. For example, the Alaska congressional delegation collectively hold 11 committee posts in the 112^th Congress. The state’s Congressman, Don Young, serves on two committees. If Young’s committee assignments overlap perfectly with the Alaskan Senate delegation, this would create two pairs of shared assignments—which yields a value of four for the numerator and a Maximum Possible House Overlap of 36%.

Total Overlap: This statistic is calculated in a similar manner, but the numerator represents the total number of committee assignments which overlap in the entire congressional delegation. For example, if two senators serve on the same committee and a House member serves on a committee that jurisdictionally matches with one of his Senate colleagues, the numerator would be four (two Senate committee assignments that overlap plus the House member’s committee assignment and the senator’s committee assignment).

House Overlap: Same as above, but the statistic only calculates the committee overlap produced by the House member’s committee assignments. This allows us to quickly evaluate how much of a state’s committee assignment overlap is produced by House, as opposed to Senate, overlap.

Table 3: Measures of Relative Committee Overlap in Small States, 2007-2011

What does Table 3 tell us about representation in small states on committees? First, the data confirm the findings of Tables 1 and 2: committee overlap in small states is largely driven by House members appearing on committees jurisdictionally overlapping with the committees of their Senate colleagues. As Schiller notes, senators do appear to represent the diverse needs of their states and carve out distinctive legislative portfolios. Although there are distinct differences between congressional delegations, the data also seem to provide more support for the Protection Hypothesis than the Diversity Hypothesis concerning the choices made by House members. One third of the time, the Maximum House Overlap and House Overlap statistics are the same value. On only four occasions are the House Overlap values zero, and the rest of the time there is at least some committee overlap between the lone member of the House and her Senate colleagues. This seems to suggest that while the Senate is a place that pushes individual senators even in small and relatively homogenous states to represent a range of interests in their states, House members do not necessarily feel compelled to carve out distinctive reputations or represent other interests that may not be represented by the Senate delegation. One might conclude that the Senate delegation adequately represents the range of interests, but that conclusion is unlikely. Even the smallest states will have interests that go unheard and unheeded in the Senate. More likely, House members in single-member states either hope to “co-op” the legislative accomplishments of the Senate delegation by seeking similar committee portfolios or to demonstrate clout by seeking committee assignments to allow them to receive singular credit for protecting a state’s interests. It might also demonstrate the importance of legislative cooperation necessary for small states to maintain their outsized clout in Washington—a cooperation that is well-understood by representatives and senators representing thinly-populated states that are extra-reliant upon federal dollars.

This post represents my first cut at the question. I welcome feedback, and will continue to explore this issue with additional data in upcoming posts.

Everyone's Excited about Elizabeth...

2011-09-21T09:24:00.006-06:00

The 2012 Senate elections look exceedingly tough for the Democrats. Maintaining their majority will be difficult largely because they are "overexposed": Democrats need to defend a total of 23 seats--six of them open because of retirements. Many of those seats are held by freshmen elected in 2006, and many are in states that are either swing or decidedly red in their political persuasions. Republicans, conversely, must hold 10 seats--and most of those seats are in fairly friendly territory.

Enter Scott Brown, he who unexpectedly defied the predictions of pundits and captured the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by liberal lion Ted Kennedy. If there's a seat Democrats need to pick up--and should--it's this one.

There are lots of things Democrats have going for them. Brown's victory came under unusual circumstances: it was in a special election where voter demographics tend to work in the favor of Republicans, the Democratic nominee--Martha Coakley--was particularly inept as a candidate (she refered to Red Sox pitcher and 2004 World Series hero as "another Yankee fan" and didn't seem interested in doing the spadework of retail politics), and conservative groups were able to concentrate immense amount of resources on this race. Add to this the fact that Massachusetts is--well--MASSACHUSETTS. It is one of the--if not the--bluest state in the country. Obama carried the state by 25 points (making it the sixth best state for Obama), all ten members of the House of Representative representing Massachusetts are Democrats, the Governor is a Democrat, and there are only 32 Republican state legislators in a legislature consisting of 200 representatives and senators total. Add to THAT the fact 2012 is a presidential election year, which should boost voter turnout among Democrats. Both macro- and micro-level trends seem to point to an overwhelming Democratic advantage.

Enter Elizabeth Warren, former Harvard law professor, President Obama's appointee to create a Consumer Protection Bureau, and now candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Republican Scott Brown. Several of my Facebook friends excitedly point to a recent poll taken less than a week after Warren announced her decision to run which shows her taking a narrow lead over Brown (see here). Liberals are thrilled--she's very popular among the base and she can raise loads of cash, according to another friend of mine. Scott Brown will be consigned to the dustbin of history, right?

Not so fast, folks. I am not convinced that Elizabeth Warren is all that and a bag of chips as a Senate candidate. To be blunt, she's an amateur--she's never held elected office, knows nothing about retail politics, and--despite her "super-star credentials"--is not what I would call a quality candidate as political scientists define the term. She's not even what I would call an ambitious amateur. She doesn't have widespread name recognition, she doesn't have (as far as I know) a huge source of personal wealth to draw upon, and she's never even run for office before. These are exactly the types of candidates that are prone to make mistakes and underwhelm the electorate once they are placed under the harsh glare of the media spotlight.

But what about candidates like Ron Johnson, who came out of nowhere to beat incumbent Senator Russ Feingold? Lightening can strike--but it does so infrequently. Feingold had never really built a deep and enduring connections to voters in Wisconsin and was highly polarizing due to his iconoclast ways. Brown has some assets, too, that are worth noting:

1. His job approval ratings are tepid, but Brown has strong favorability ratings (above 50 percent according to the PPP poll referenced above). If Brown can focus on his personal characteristics and get folks to either forget or downplay his partisan affiliation, this bodes well for him.

2. He can argue that he'll be in the majority party given the Republicans have a fair shot at retaking the majority, and Massachusetts will benefit from having a Republican senator in that majority representing them.

3. While Scott Brown is certainly to the right of the Democratic-leaning electorate in Massachusetts (see this plot of member ideology relative to state ideology at Voteview), he's certainly one--if not THE--most liberal Republican in the Senate. At least, work done by Professor Royce Carroll at Rice University using current voting records demonstrates this is the case (see this plot of Scott Brown relative to other Republicans in the Senate here).

4. If Scott Brown is so vulnerable, one might wonder why so many other experienced and capable Democratic politicians with actual records took a pass on the Brown race. This includes the entire congressional delegation with such capable individuals like Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch, John Tierney, Ed Markey, and Michael Capuano. And don't forget Congresswoman Nicki Tsongas, who has the valuable asset of a well-known and respected last name in addition to her own work in Congress since she was elected in 2006.

Scott Brown is an experienced politician who's run for office before, understands how to put together a successful campaign, and has defied the odds before. He should not be written off. I am not convinced that Elizabeth Warren is the formidable candidate some claim she is. Her "surge" in the polls is likely attributed to the fact that she has a "D" after her name and simply reflect the partisan advantage any Democratic candidate in a state as blue as Massachusetts would enjoy. Once the campaign begins in earnest, we'll see whether she's truly the top-tier recruit national Democrats would have us believe.

Community Resiliency and the Built Environment: Innovations and Policy Issues in Montana

2011-09-14T08:25:00.002-06:00

From the Editor: I am posting this blog below for my colleague, Paul Lachapelle. --Dave Parker

As an MSU Extension Faculty member in the Department of Political Science and housed in the MSU Local Government Center, my responsibility is to provide Montana citizens with unbiased, research-based university information and resources on a host of community development issues. An issue facing many communities is how to address their built environment needs and demands. The built environment refers to the human-made physical structures and supporting infrastructure that provide the setting for human activity. In Montana, these surroundings shape our economic, social, environmental, and public health outcomes.

As Editor of the Montana Policy Review, we have devoted our latest issue, Vol. 15, No. 2, titled, Community Resiliency and the Built Environment: Innovations and Policy Issues in Montana to this important issue. With so many community resiliency and built environment policies, programs and projects, we felt it important to highlight the many innovative initiatives currently being designed and implemented across Montana. Citizens and local government leaders from all types of communities—from urban to rural to tribal—want to achieve the best possible outcomes while making the most effective use of limited resources. Policy decisions regarding transportation, land use, and community design influence many aspects of daily living: the distances people travel to work, school, parks, shops, and other destinations; the choice of transportation and housing options; the convenience of purchasing (or growing) healthy foods; the safety and attractiveness of neighborhoods for active living; and the economic and environmental resiliency of the local economy and place.

In Montana, there are many unique case studies that showcase how the built environment influences quality of life and economic prosperity. This issue of the Montana Policy Review presents a series of articles on this topic and identifies best practices, policies and strategies to help communities build safe, healthy and resilient places. In the 13 articles, you will read about community resiliency and the built environment from the people who coordinated or actively participated in all or many facets of the community programs and initiatives. With personal insights and professional learning and wisdom, the stories, narratives, and academic pieces provide the most complete analysis to date of built environment initiatives in Montana from the people who have designed, developed, and delivered the programs and plans. The first few articles present an overview of specific programs related to mapping, master plans, and related land use planning that provides a vision and framework for healthy active communities; these are followed by a set of articles examining issues associated with building and maintaining parks and trails in, near or connecting communities as an economic development and public health strategy; next are a set of articles on the role of transportation in building safe, healthy, and resilient communities with specific case examples of the processes and policy outcomes affecting people and places in the state; the last two articles provide insight on the economics of the built environment with tools and techniques for planning for and funding community initiatives.

In addition to printed to copies, we offer this issue on-line so that readers can click web links, view and download maps and pictures, and disseminate the publication to a far-wider audience than possible in the past. Go to: www.msulocalgov.org/publications to download this current issue. For more information about the Local Government Center or the MSU Extension Community Development Program, please contact me at commdev@montana.edu

Paul Lachapelle, Assistant Professor

Department of Political Science

Have Members of Congress become...Ferengi?

2011-08-31T11:55:00.004-06:00

The Ferengi Bartender Quark from Star Trek: Deep Space 9

Played by Armin Shimerman

One of the many misperceptions about members of Congress is that congressional recesses are playtime for politicians. Nothing could be further from the truth—particularly the August recess. Members spend much of August travelling their districts and states getting feedback from constituents. Officially, the recess is known as a district or state work period. Members hold office hours, work on constituent problems, and often hold town hall meetings with the public to get their thoughts and feedback. This is an essential part of the representational connection, and is essential to legitimacy in a republic. Both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg have been travelling Montana in August to connect with their constituents. And both come back to the state often even when Congress is in session to stay in touch with the folks back home.

Imagine my surprise when I read this article in the Politico, which notes that some members of the House are not holding any public town hall meetings with constituents during the August work period. Even more shocking is the fact that these same members are participating in events where the public can attend and ask questions in a face to face format FOR A FEE. Other outlets have picked up on this (see related stories here, here, and here, and here, and at least one member--after public outcry--agreed to hold an open town hall meeting with his constituents (see here).

Yes, that’s right. You can have access to your member if you are willing to cough up some dough.

One of my favorite television shows is Star Trek—in particular, Deep Space 9. One of the main characters in that show, Quark, belongs to a race of uber-capitalists called the Ferengi. The Ferengi developed a culture that makes Ron Paul’s version of the free market look overly regulated. Everything--and I mean everything—has a price for the Ferengi. You want a government regulator to look the other way? Pay a bribe. If you want to visit a friend in their home, you are expected to pay a fee. The Ferengi society is governed by a series of dictates collectively known as the Rules of Acquistion that help guide individual Ferengi to great profit. There are 286 rules. Here are a few:

Rule 1. Once you have their money--never give it back.
Rule 21. Never place friendship above profit.
Rule 98. Every man has his price.
Rule 285. No good deed goes unpunished.
(Source: The DS9 Encyclopedia,

So, if you want to see your Member of Congress, pay first--up front. In a world where even basic customer service requires a fee, it is sad to see our democratic process become so debased and disconnected from reality. This is certainly not something the Founders ever intended. It would seem that some members of Congress are more interested in learning the Rules of Acquisition than attending to their solemn responsibilities as representatives to meet and learn from the voters who put them in office.

But what is even worse, in my view, is the cognitive dissonance members avoid when walling themselves off from their constituents. Individuals prefer to avoid conflict and opposing viewpoints because it upsets their own personal worldview. The last thing we need is to have members become deaf to the voices of dissent among the folks back home. To use the words of E.E. Schattschneider, the scope of conflict needs to be broadened in politics, not narrowed. Otherwise, policy decisions and outcomes will be made by a select few and not necessarily in the best interest of the whole and of the constituency.

Members who refuse to listen to the voice of the voters and their constituents are not only cheating their constituents, they are cheating themselves. The good news? Voters have an easy remedy at their disposal for members who refuse to engage their constituents come November 2012: the ballot box. And that's a message that any member will be able to hear--constituent town hall or not--loud and clear.

Polarized America--or not.

2011-08-12T12:40:00.005-06:00

Read this interesting piece in The New York Times on the August recess and visits members of Congress are having with their constituents. Read it here.

Are Americans polarized like the representatives and senators who represent them in Washington? Recent research suggests, no, they are not. See Professor Morriss Fiorina's work as perhaps the most complete and accessible of the genre.

But here's the kicker. Americans may not be polarized, but the voices of moderation from the middle--the independent voters--may not be heard by those serving in Washington. There's an amazing bit of self-selection going on when it comes to writing their member and showing up at neighborhood meetings with them. Psychologically, individuals try to avoid what is known as cognitive dissonance, which simply means they do not want to have their views challenged and will dismiss information not consistent with their pre-exising views. People who disagree with their members simply stay away. More often than not, members of Congress are preaching to the choir at these gatherings and not really being challenged on their positions.

The moderates--the independents--tend to be less engaged politically. They tend to vote less. They participate in political routines less. The public may not be polarized, but those who engage in the political debate tend to be. The long and short of it is this: until the great middle decides to show up, it is unlikely that the tone and tenure of the political debate will change. Compromise is a dirty word to the ideologically committed.

Unfortunately, politics is--by definition--compromise. The Constitution itself is perhaps the best example of compromise in American politics.

Here's my plea: if America is truly about moderation and compromise as Fiorina's research suggests, then independents and moderates need to start showing up and engaging your members of Congress--or you will never get the change you want. And to those who are on the left or the right, try engaging in folks from the other side of the aisle. If you're a liberal, read The National Review. If you're a conservative, give The American Prospect a try. Never be afraid of ideas. Engage!

An Observation by Hunter S. Thompson

2011-08-02T16:02:00.004-06:00

Over thirty years ago, the astute political observer Hunter S. Thompson wrote: “One of the basic laws of politics is that Action Moves Away from the Center. The middle of the road is only popular when nothing is happening.” Well, something is happening or happened in Washington politics today and President Obama’s ratings are on the downswing. It isn’t because he is leading and so unpopular – quite the opposite. It is because while he played chess with the Republicans in Congress, they were playing hardball to win. Chess is not a game in which you lead – even if it is multidimensional as some of the President’s people claim. Chess takes a careful, often subtle approach – usually too subtle for the opponent to notice. Hardball is played in the dirt and besides strategy, sometimes requires brute strength to hit one out of the park. Chess and baseball have something in common though – both are zero sum games. Winners and losers emerge. The problem with games though is that in the end, no one is really better off for the experience. To misquote UCLA football coach Henry Sanders – winning is the only thing.

The alternative to the zero sum game is a non-zero sum outcome. In these matchups, we can all be winners. We are better off for the experience and hopefully – a synergetic relationship that results in benefits for everyone.

The zero sum/non-zero sum perspective in politics is a dilemma. On one hand, we need a winner in the process – and a loser. A classic zero sum solution. On the other hand, we can’t function as a society when one half stridently disagrees with the other half and no one seems willing to compromise. Traditionally, we look to our political leaders, victorious from a hard fought but substantive election, for affirmation of societal goals hoping that a rising tide will lift all our ships – a non-zero sum solution. It is the difference between Thomas Hobbs’ “war of all men against all men” or Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” and Robert Kennedy’s “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” The first two are inherently zero sum, the second non zero.

The problem is, of course, modern elections are not substantive in nature and great political ideas are not much discussed. It appears to most outsiders that politics is a game without end, without rules, and where everyone seems to lose. How did we get to a place where party identification defines “the other”. Originally a Hegelian term, Edward Said refers to it as the act of emphasizing perceived differences for use in marginalizing people in power relationships. “Othering” can be done with any racial, ethnic, religious, or geographically-defined category of people; the other is different than us. The vitriolic flack columist Conor Friedersdorf, an associate editor at The Atlantic, caught from supporters of Sarah Palin after he reviewed the movie is a case in point (see comments here). Friedersdorf, a young libertarian, should be a natural ally of Palin. Instead, he was mindlessly castigated by her admirers as an “enemy of the state (of Palin)”. The attack was aimed not to move the political dialogue forward but to put down an insurrection. This is the politics of zero sum.

The debt limit debacle is the most serious case in point. Set aside the weeks of dithering and deal making. A look at the final vote reveals a pattern of…… not much. Long time Senators, those who should represent leadership, voted for and against the bill in no discernable pattern except the competiveness of their seat in the next election, freshmen voted for and against, tea party members – the contemporary protectors of the values of our founders, expressed a mixed voting pattern as well; it seems that TP members exhibit the same flexibility in policy positions as other, less principled politicians. Consistency will only take you so far in politics. Fully one quarter of the Senate found a reason to vote against a deal that will supposedly save the republic from foreclosure by China. We can hopefully look forward to some in depth analysis by David Parker on this site soon.

The recent ~~debate~~ mess is classic zero sum. In this case in particular, as evidenced by a poll from CNN – no one liked watching it and no one feels better. Let’s hope for better as we move into the fall campaign season.

The Public Debt Limit, Part II

2011-07-13T09:44:00.004-06:00

It would appear congressional Republicans and the Obama Administration are getting nowhere in their budget talks despite the looming August 2nd deadline. If the two sides cannot agree by then, the United States will be in default on its loans. Who knows what would happen next? Most economists agree nothing pretty.

In light of these difficulties, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell floats a third option: let's give the president the power to increase the public debt limit himself. Here's a video of McConnell discussing the plan:

The McConnell option nicely ties my last two posts together (see here and here). Congress finds it difficult to make politically hard choices when the public is attentive and opinions are intensely held. Congress also finds it difficult to make tough choices when it's easy to pin the blame on individual members. Raising the public debt limit is an example of an issue where the public is attentive, opinions are intensely held on the issue, and blame can be easily pinned on members by those opposed to the actions of those members. Hence, Congress--as Anthony King describes it--"runs scared" and either avoids the issue or finds away to punt the problem to someone else.

As the Crossroads GPS ad makes it clear, Republicans and vulnerable Democrats will be loathe to vote to increase the public debt limit. It is all to easy to craft a commercial and blame the member for increasing the nation's debt. Both Republicans and Democrats have attentive publics to worry about: The Republicans the Tea Party, and Democrats their base (those who receive many of the entitlements that would be cut in any deal). The end result is congressional leaders finding it difficult to cut a deal because members are not willing to put their careers on the line for one vote. To illustrate the point, when Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-PA) cast the deciding vote for President Clinton's budget (which raised taxes on the middle class, despite Clinton's campaign promise) in 1993, Republicans were heard chanting: "Nah, Nah, Nah. Nah, Nah, Nah. Hey, Hey, Goodbye." And Congresswoman Margolies-Mezvinsky--who represented a Republican district and promised to not raise taxes on the middle class--lost in the 1994 Republican tidal wave. Voting against constituents on issues that are highly visible is not something members of Congress are eager to do.

Into the stalemate comes the McConnell option. Let's give the power to the president. Very simply put, this eliminates the traceability chain for members now and into the future and provides a solution to the current crisis. When Congress couldn't close military bases, they created a commission. When Congress couldn't develop a timely budget, they gave the power to the president. And when Congress realized that parochial interests undermined the nation's interest in trade policy (see the Smoot Hawley Tariff), they gave the president increasing power to negotiate trade agreements and Fast Track Trade Authority.

Congress has a long history of being unable to overcome the collective action problem, and their solution has been to increasingly give power to the executive branch. Given the flood of special interest money into the campaign process and the rise of what Jonathan Rauch calls hyperpluralism--both of which make it more difficult to make those hard choices and to govern--I suspect the powers of the executive branch will continue to increase at the expense of legislative branch. And I think both the left and the right can agree that this is not a good thing and certainly not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Interest Group Spending, the Public Debt, and Tester-Rehberg

2011-07-08T16:02:00.010-06:00

Remember my earlier blog about Citizens United and special interest dollars? Well, Crossroads GPS--the organization put together by Karl Rove and which was quite instrumental in the 2010 congressional races--has dropped some money on Montana television targeting Senator Tester. You can read about the ad and watch it here.

A couple of points about the ad. First, there's nothing new here. Without saying so directly, this is a standard "[INSERT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE NAME] is too liberal for [INSERT STATE]" type ad. It focuses on one of the key reputational issues that divides the Democratic and Republican Party: taxes and spending. And it's an issue that is salient to voters--not only in Montana, but nationally.

Second, the ad makes the point that Senator Tester voted five times to increase the public debt. All the votes are cited at the bottom of the ad, so you can carefully check the veracity of the ad's claims. And yes, the claims are true: Senator Tester voted on all five occasions to increase the public debt limit (although, in some cases, the debt limit increase was part of a larger bill). The votes are very carefully chosen--in all five cases, Congressman Rehberg voted no.

But, as I tell my students, votes need to be placed into context. As such, there are two important points to be made about increasing the public debt limit.

First, votes to increase the public debt are tied to votes on the budget--which is submitted by the administration. It is the job of the administration to submit a budget with its priorities--and these priorities often represent key cleavages between the parties. As such, they are partisan votes. The president's party supports the budget, and the opposition party does not. Very simply put, Tester--as a member of the president's party--supported his president's budget. Congressman Rehberg, as a Republican--did not.

Second, the majority party must govern so it must pass a budget--balanced or not. If the majority party in Congress does not pass a budget and does not increase the public debt limit, the country goes into default. All kinds of bad things can happen when this occurs, and the majority party would squarely shoulder the blame. Passing budgets and increasing debt limits is what governing is all about.

Watching the ad, it appears that the Democrats and Senator Tester are profligate spenders--and when you check the record--Republicans seem to be the champions of fiscal responsibility. But, if we go beyond these votes to look at previous congresses when the Republicans and Congressman Rehberg were both in the majority and had to govern, we find both the Republican majority and Congressman Rehberg voted to increase the public debt limit.

For example, in the 107th Congress (the first in which Congressman Rehberg served), the Congressman and his party voted to increase the public debt limit on Senate Bill S2578 (roll call vote is here).

In the 108th Congress, again, we see the Republican majority and the Congressman voting to increase the public debt limit on Senate Bill 2986 (see roll call vote here).

Due to changes in the House rules, the record is a bit harder to trace in the 109th Congress--the vote on raising the public debt limit is not "clean". According to THOMAS, the bill to raise the public debt limit (House Joint Resolution 47) passed pursuant to House Rule XXVII and House Resolution 95--which the Republican majority and Congressman Rehberg supported (see roll call vote here).

Heck, even Dick Cheney voted to increase the public debt limit when he served as a House member in the 100th Congress. He did so on House Joint Resolution 324, Roll Call 330 (sorry, no link, as I had to search Lexis Nexis Congressional Universe which is only available to subscribers).

Both parties are to blame for the debt situation in which we now find ourselves. Both parties have passed budgets that have increased spending and increased the public debt. Even Republicans serving with Ronald Reagan as president supported budgets which have added to the public debt. Neither party should shoulder the blame alone, and frankly, neither should Senator Tester.

Of course, Crossroads GPS is an independent organization that cannot legally coordinate with Congressman Rehberg's Senate campaign. He had nothing to do with the advertisement, and both candidates are well-aware that these kinds of ads--while not telling untruths--do not tell the whole story. This is yet another example of how the Citizens United decision allows independent organizations not accountable to the electorate to wrest control of the campaign agenda from the candidates and their parties.

Congressman Thompson, "One of Us", and a Representational Quandry

2011-07-04T13:22:00.005-06:00

Happy 4th of July!

Interesting piece in today's New York Times on Congressman Thompson and conflicts of interest. Read it here.

What's interesting about this piece is very often constituents want a member representing them who is, as Richard Fenno puts it, "one of us". Here's Fenno's classic depiction of the "one of us" style of representation from one of the member's he observed:

"I managed to grow up thirty-five miles down highway 80 in Montrose. So I know this county. My father worked for twenty-six years in this county for U.S. Steel as a member of Local 121, United Steelworkers. So I know something about you and your problems" (Fenno 1978: 60).

Mike Thompson clearly is "one of us". He's closely connected to the district and its major industry. He owns a vineyard, and he goes to bat for the major jobs producer in the district. And yet, at the same time, being "one of us" puts him into a tough ethics spot. The question I have is this: when does "one of us" cross that ethical boundary? Has Congressman Thompson crossed that line, or is he simply doing his job?

Attentive and Inattentive Publics: Citizens United and the Montana Senate Race

2011-06-13T12:08:00.005-06:00

Debit and Credit Card Swipes.
A vote on a rule governing debate on the 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill.

Who would’ve thought that these two obscure issues would become major issues in the Montana Senate race?

Senator Jon Tester has received a lot of press—both statewide and nationally—for his amendment to delay implementation of a federal rule putting a cap on the fees banks collect from debit and credit card transactions. That amendment, by the way, failed on the Senate floor late last week by a vote of 54 to 45 (the vote needed 60 to pass).

Meanwhile, Congressman Rehberg voted, back in April, against the Ryan Plan to overhaul Medicare (read a summary here). Of course, given the high percentage of seniors in the state of Montana, this vote made perfect sense. However, a vote on rule governing the debate of the Homeland Security appropriations bill is being cited as evidence that Rehberg actually supports the Ryan plan. What gives?
Both of these issues illustrate nicely the concepts, articulated by Doug Arnold in the The Logic of Congressional Action, of attentive and inattentive publics. In The Electoral Connection, David Mayhew explains that the primary factor motivating the behavior of members of Congress is the need to get reelected. The positions taken and the votes cast by members are all a function of the need to face voters at the ballot box. According to this account, members of Congress are delegates and not trustees—they merely do what the voters want.

Arnold argues, however, that Congress often must make hard choices and do things which are not popular but necessary. For example, it is not a popular position to close a military base in one’s congressional district, but it might be necessary to cut the budget. Congress must make decisions which are not always in the electoral individual interests of members. Given this fact, how does Congress and individual members make those decisions?

To answer that question, individual members first ask if the issue concerns something that the public cares about or not. Arnold discusses attentive and inattentive publics. If the issue is salient to voters and there are strong feelings about the issue, then the member will vote with the public UNLESS the traceability chain is weakened. Members do not want to be blamed for an unpopular vote, so Congress will often design procedures to make it harder to individual members to shoulder the blame for an unpopular vote. Congress will often delegate to bureaucracies or commissions to make the hard choices and the collective result will then be ratified by Congress. This is exactly what Congress did when it had to close military bases: they delegated to a commission (BRAC), it made the difficult choice, and the Congress merely ratified it.

But when the public is inattentive to an issue and is not particularly passionate about the issue then the member can use more discretion in casting their vote.
Unless, of course, that inattentive becomes an attentive public and that attentive public is on the other side of the issue from their member. How are attentive publics created? In lots of ways, but one way an issue can become salient among the public and opinion become solidified is through the actions of interest groups. And the power of interest groups to create attentive publics has much greater in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United (2010), which allows corporations and labor unions virtually unfettered access to the political airwaves during campaigns.

What does this have to do with credit card swipes and the Ryan plan? Very simply put, it is much harder for members of Congress to cast votes under the radar screen and out of the public limelight because it is much easier for interest groups to spend money to mold public opinion and generate attentive publics.
Take the issue of the credit/debit swipes. Senator Tester argues that it is important to delay the fee curtailment because—even though every bank in Montana is exempt because they are capitalized at less than $1 billion—Montana banks will be placed at a disadvantage. Large banks will have to lower their swipe fees, forcing small banks to do the same in order to remain competitive. This could hurt smaller banks much more than larger banks—so Tester argues.

Retailers, however, favor this bill because it lowers the cost of business for them. They have sponsored advertisements (hear them here) throughout Montana painting Jon Tester as the tool of big banks and Wall Street. And, according to some polling on the issue, it looks like what was once an obscure banking regulation fight between banks and retailers is no longer obscure. These ads and the press accounts have created an attentive public concerning the issue in the state, and this attentive public seems to think that delaying the fee cap is a bad idea. Part of the problem Senator Tester faces is his argument is complicated; it takes 30 seconds to explain while the retailer argument takes 5 seconds. Complicated arguments, unfortunately, often lose in politics even if they may be right.

In the case of Congressman Rehberg, he voted against the Medicare plan—which is the correct vote in the sense that Medicare has an attentive public (seniors) who feel strongly about keeping Medicare as it is. In short, Rehberg can say quite simply that he was defending Medicare for seniors.

The wrinkle, however, is the fact that the Congressman also cast a vote in favor of an open rule governing House debate on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Open rules have become exceedingly rare in the House (see Barbara Sinclair’s work on this), as they allow anyone to amend the bill under discussion at any time and on any point (as long as the amendment is germane) during the course of the allotted debate. Democrats complained in 2006 of the increasing use by the Republican majority of closed rules, which oftentimes allowed no amendments from the floor on a bill and strictly limited debate. Democrats, however, found themselves arguing against this rule. Why?

Because the rule also contained a self-executing provision. This provision, once the rule passed, deemed that HR 34 (The House GOP Budget plan, of which the Ryan Medicare plan is a part) “shall have force and effect… in the House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent resolution” (see The Hill’s account here). In other words, once the House passed the rule establishing the parameters for debate on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the House budget which the Senate previously rejected would be considered in place. Congressman Rehberg voted for the rule—and Democrats are now claiming that Rehberg supports the Ryan Medicare plan (see “Congressman Rehberg votes to end Medicare as we know it”, a Montana Democratic Party press release, dated June 1, 2011). The hope, of course, is to suggest to an attentive public that Rehberg is no friend of Medicare.

On the one hand, what the Democrats are doing is smart politics—they are trying to tag Rehberg as a flip flopper and do so on an issue about which a group feels strongly about. The devil’s in the details, however. Did Congressman Rehberg vote for the rule in order to fund Homeland Defense or did he vote to implement the Ryan plan? Technically, he did both. The trouble from Rehberg’s perspective—even if the Democrats are grossly oversimplifying the issue—is a defense of his vote is complicated and makes him sound like a Washington insider. The Democratic version of the story is short, sweet, and already plays into perceptions seniors have about Republicans on the issue of Medicare.

To summarize, I think Senator Tester did himself few favors when offered his amendment to delay implementation of the credit/debit fee ceiling and the House Republicans did Congressman Rehberg few favors when they structured the rule governing debate on the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill as they did. Citizens United—whether you agree with the decision or not—has made it much harder for candidates to control the political debate and to protect themselves from being on the wrong side of public opinion that can be much more easily mobilized and shaped today by interest groups, corporations, and labor unions than at any time since 1974.

Turkish Resurgence: A Look at What Turkey’s New Foreign Policy Means for the US

2011-06-07T12:19:00.000-06:00

By Brianne Haight

In February of 2010 I decided to opt out of another Montana winter and instead to take the semester to intern at the US Embassy in Athens, Greece. During my internship I learned a lot of things; one facet I took considerable interest in actually had less to do with Greece, and more with its neighbor to the east, Turkey. As Greece and Turkey have had a very long and at times very tense relationship, I became quite familiar with Turkish foreign policy. One concept that I heard a lot referring to a new direction in Turkish foreign policy was ‘neo-Ottomanism.’ It was my sheer intrigue with this reference that would eventually lead me to the subject of my capstone paper.

For my capstone, I wanted to first look at the causation of the recent shift we are seeing in Turkish foreign policy, which is, by some, characterized as ‘neo-Ottomanism.’ Historically, Turkish foreign policy has been firmly based in Ataturk’s founding ideas of modernization through close ties with the West and acceptance of their norms and policies. Throughout the 20^th century, this translated into Turkey joining NATO in the 1950s, backing the West against the Soviet Union, and aspiring to join the EU. It also meant that Turkey paid little attention to most of the countries located geographically close to it. However, in the last decade, I found that a unique combination of events, actors, and politics in Turkey all contributed to produce a more proactive shift in their foreign policy. Presently, the atmosphere in Turkey is one where religiosity is on the rise, economic success has encouraged a search for new Eurasian markets, as well as substantial disillusionment with the EU over the slow ascension process. Even more, with Prime Minister Erdogan and the ruling AKP party having gathered considerable power over the traditionally strong pro-Western military, enough factors seem to be in place to produce an ideal backdrop for a shift in Turkish foreign policy. Add to that a new foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, who feels Turkey has made a mistake by ignoring its backyard for so long, and thus insists on a more thorough regional engagement, and the result is a much more proactive foreign policy than has historically been seen in Turkey.

After analyzing the reasons for this recent shift, I focused on what this shift meant for some of Turkey’s historical allies and beneficiaries of their traditional foreign policy directives. One of the most interesting cases I looked at was the US and the ramifications Turkey’s new more assertive foreign policy will have on the US’s relationship with Turkey.

Initially, President Obama had hopes of calling on Turkey in an effort to make US-Turkey relations the bedrock for the way in which he was going to reach out to the rest of the Muslim world. However, rather than simply being able to rely on Turkey to be an instrument of US power in its region, the Obama Administration is now facing a stronger and more assertive Turkish government that can and has been shown to disagree with it on key foreign policy issues, ranging from Iran’s nuclear program to Israel’s Gaza offensive. The impact for US-Turkey relations is that the US is no longer going to be able to fully utilize Turkey as a proxy in its bid to assert US foreign policies to the degree it could in the past. Ultimately, this more assertive Turkish foreign policy will result in a relationship based more on ad hoc agreements than utter compliance.

Although there are, and have shown to be clear negative impacts for the US, which has historically capitalized on a weaker Turkey to follow its lead, such as during the Cold War, the US should not cast off the potential value in a stronger, more assertive Turkey in the post-Cold War era. A Turkey that is willing to take on greater responsibility for regional stability in the Middle East is something the US needs; the US cannot manage security in all regions of the globe. The US has long been looking for someone to take up responsibility in the region. A leaked 2010 US State Department Cable written by current US Ambassador to Iraq, James Jeffery, asserted this when he suggested in a cable, “having regional heavyweights take on burdens, thereby relieving us, has long been a desired goal of US policy.” An appreciation of Turkey’s stabilizing role in the region and a willingness to allow Turkey to assume managerial responsibilities, although yes, without being able to dictate how Ankara should define its priorities, is something the US must be open to, and if so could reap possible benefits.

In my capstone I found that although a more proactive Turkey is requiring historical allies to readjust their relationships with the country, a more assertive Turkish foreign policy should be perceived not as a serious threat but a mixed bag where possible benefits could be realized. It is a mistake to embrace an alarmism that selectively concentrates on the dangers and fails to recognize the opportunities opened by a new Turkish direction. It is easy to argue that historical allies fear this change; however, although there will of course be some disruption in status quo relations, with some negative impacts, there are benefits from the evolution of this relationship. If it is going to happen- and it looks like it is- the US would be remiss to not acknowledge the shift and consequently miss gaining from the possible benefits.

Who Will be a Choice Architect?

2011-06-03T16:00:00.003-06:00

Who Will be a Choice Architect?

I have been reading some Richard Thaler on choice architecture. Thaler, you may know, is the co-author with Cass Sunstein of the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. The things I’m reading now describe how choice architecture works in the market but it got me thinking about politics and other things.

Briefly, choice architecture is the obvious idea that decisions are influenced by how the choices are presented. We rarely bother to change the default settings on software and so the manufacturer “nudges” us to use it in a certain configuration (Microsoft nudges us toward Internet Explorer by including it on PCs). Thaler uses the example of an MP3 player. When the market first emerged, we made purchasing decisions based on size, storage capacity, and features – we usually chose the one that gave us the most storage and features within our budget constraint. Then Apple came along.

The Apple IPod changed the choice architecture by presenting a product that has less functionality and fewer features. By conventional measures, they are inferior products; but we all have one – why? Very simply, Apple singlehandedly changes our evaluative framework by making a product that is so unlike the others that we think of it differently when we make a choice of what to buy. Apple products are elegant, almost sexy; just listen to Stephen Fry go on about Apple products. All purchases are decisions about value; Apple changed how we defined value from functionality to aesthetics. Sometimes, creative people change the way we make decisions.

Another example: Thirty years ago, there was only one kind of home mortgage; 30-year fixed rate. The law said that home loans had to be reported in a uniform way – the APR and associated values. That made choosing the best mortgage very easy. Now, we have many types of mortgages and APR is no a longer sufficient metric. The bankers changed the choice architecture to include all sorts of features that made home loans more complex and rendered APR just one of many parts within the evaluative framework. Sometimes, consumer confusion and eventual market failure is the result.

Here is how this might work in politics. President Obama will not be contested from his own party; at least by any serious candidate, so that choice is easy. On the Republican side, there are multiple declared and quasi-candidates that are all running on the same message. There is variance of course between Gingrich, Palin, Bachman, and Romney but their message is the same – vote for me because I’m Not Obama. Within this choice architecture Obama wins hands down because the intraparty competition among the Republicans will so weaken the winning candidate they will be unable to recover and present a coherent political message. Incumbents win frequently for multiple reasons but one of them is that voters received a coherent message throughout the campaign.

The strongest Republican candidate may be the one who takes political risk and presents a new choice architecture. I do not know what that might be yet but I am watching to see not only who emerges but also how them frame themselves. A good example of this is a recent article by Joshua Green in this month’s Atlantic that suggests how Sarah Palin could have run as a legitimate reformer given her track record in Alaska. The implication is that had she made that decision rather than to build an identity as an entertainer, she could be a viable and credible candidate.

With all the above being said, I am not anticipating a true choice architect emerging in the next campaign. Like most people in positions of leadership (or want to be leaders), risk aversion is the default strategy. The political system and the media seem incapable of assimilation of a nontraditional candidate like a Palin or Bachman; they are much more comfortable with a Romney. Let’s remember, for all his apparent differences, Obama ran a very traditional campaign on a very traditional theme – change. In short, there may be no nudge toward a new choice architecture in the upcoming Presidential campaign and until there is, it is rational to expect the candidates and election of 2012 to resemble those of the past.

Stubborn as the Mule: Why the Department of Defense Has Resisted Military Change

2011-05-16T09:28:00.001-06:00

By Daniel Brooks

Unlike most MSU senior students, I did not start my Capstone on the first day of class this past spring semester, but rather on the streets of Rabiah, Iraq in 2009.

It was my 3^rd Marine Corps deployment to Iraq since 2005, and although much had been accomplished there was still sporadic fighting and the ever-present threat from al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Along with many of my multi-deployment, Jarhead colleagues, I began to ask the increasingly persistent question: “Why are we still here?”

Accordingly, when I was informed that our Senior Capstone topics were to be chosen and formulated by ourselves, I could think of no better research question to try to answer for myself, my fellow Marines and—if I dare say so—my fellow students, faculty and fellow Americans. Why, 30 years after the fiasco of Vietnam, are we still confronted by asymmetrical warfare conundrums (such as combating an enemy who withdraws to the anonymity of citizenry)? Realizing that this was much too broad a topic for a paper limited to 20 pages, I was able to narrow it down with a focus on the Department of Defense (DoD) and its resistance to change. Thus the title of my Capstone: Stubborn as the Mule: Why the Department of Defense Has Resisted Military Change.

Looking at three factors, I hypothesized that the DoD is resistant to change because of: 1) institutional change constraints, 2) concern of politicians about the image of weakness, and 3) the conventional warfare core value inherent in the military leadership of the DoD.

These are not the only factors stymieing change, clearly, but through my research I deemed them the most influential due to their augmentation of each other.

Before addressing these factors, I felt it necessary to explain why the DoD needs to change. To do so, I drew from the work of Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21^st Century, in which he outlines the evolution of modern warfare through four generations. Starting with the Napoleonic Wars (1^st Generation Modern Warfare) and ending with insurgency-based warfare (4^th Generation Modern Warfare), Hammes provides a roadmap showing how warfare has developed and how historically it has never retraced its steps to past generations, and thus consequently calls for military change to address the asymmetrical battles we face now.

Institutional constraints are the first factor to hinder change within the DoD, the most influential being organizational structure. Simply put, the DoD is enormous. Boasting the non-official title of being America’s largest employer, the DoD has a ‘staff’ of over 3 million people. With the Secretary of Defense at the top, there are 35 sub-branches within the chain of command, creating a hierarchy model in the shape of a pyramid. This pyramid is a supremely robust resistor to change as vertical and horizontal attempts to create change are overwhelmed by transaction costs and imperfect information, to put it into economic terms.

The second factor impacting on the DoD’s inability to change are politicians persistent in their almost blind support of American conventional military preponderance out of fear of appearing weak, or ‘soft’ on defense. Essentially, if a rival candidate can make the argument that a standing politician’s weak military policies jeopardize our way of life, it is unlikely that the latter will remain in office. One of my main arguments to support this point is the current policy of President Obama, who is supportive of the proposed $7 billion increase to the defense budget. Dealing with an economic recession plaguing the country, unemployment hindering American productivity and a crippling national debt, this ‘liberal, democratic’ president cannot resist the temptation of shoring up in more conservative circles by showing support for the institution that creates the image of security for voters—the American military, namely, the DoD.

Lastly, the military leadership within the DoD reinforces the conventional warfare ‘core value,’ which also inhibits change. Rising through the ranks with a large emphasis on physical strength, courage, and obedience, members of the military embrace the ethos and norms of the conventional-warfare warrior.

I do not mean to imply that the men and women running the Department of Defense are ignorant yes-men, better suited to charge hills. Most have highly-specialized academic degrees and understand warfare very well. However, most have achieved their rank because of an understanding of conventional warfare, bred into them through their 20-plus years of service. Their understanding of warfare predisposes them to support conventional warfare values, and object to a switch away from the warrior ethos.

Because of the personal nature of the project, I feel that I became entrenched in my own narrative and was remiss in addressing some very important questions solicited to me during my presentation to the panel. Particularly, if these are the three most important factors, how can change occur, if at all? Where does General David Petreaus’s concept of COIN, or ‘Counter-Insurgency’ warfare (‘hearts & minds’), and its ‘long war’ implications fit into the picture? How does the Andrew Bacevich critique of Petreaus and COIN (‘semi-permanent war’) address the need for change?

Though these questions are beyond the purview of a 20-page paper, they are important, and I look forward to future research into these aspects.

Day by Day, Rock by Rock: Transforming Mineral Wealth into Economic Development

2011-04-28T14:44:00.003-06:00

By Laura Villegas

Recent Graduate, Department of Political Science, Montana State University

There is no pretty way to say this, so I will just say it: I am an optimistic version of a masochist. I find lots of satisfaction in undertaking tasks that involve huge deals of effort. That's why for my political science capstone project I chose to find a solution to a problem that has been puzzling economists and political scientists for over 30 years.

Common sense says that countries that are rich in natural resources can grow faster than countries that lack natural wealth. Well, it turns out that what has happened in the developing world since 1970 is quite the opposite. In general, countries that are well endowed with natural capital have underperformed their counterparts.

This phenomenon is often called the "paradox of plenty" or the "resource curse". I wanted to investigate the mechanisms of transmission of this so-called resource curse and explore ways to avoid it. On top of that I wanted to apply my findings to the specific case of mining coltan in Colombia. Coltan is a very valuable mineral, relatively new to the world and hence highly controversial. I believe coltan has the potential to trigger Colombia's collapse, as it is believed to have done in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I did not start my project with a question but with a vision. Death, despair, suffering, social injustice, infants dying suffocated in dark mines, women being raped in the fields, militias abusing of rural residents, and corrupted officials smoking million-dollar cigars. It was not a picture of the future, it the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Because on Earth humans are loss averse—I yet have to discover if this behavior persists in the blogosphere—the fear to lose my country to some economic model of development encouraged me to find an escape to fate. My specific research question was: How can the government of Colombia avoid the resource curse and responsibly transform coltan-generated wealth into sustainable social and economic development?

To make a long story short, I found that the resource curse is far less common in developing countries than originally thought. Moreover, the type of resource happens to matter a lot when determining the effects of natural wealth on future development. For example, it is not the same to be rich in forests than to be rich in gold. Obviously, countries rich in the so-called "point-source resources", like gold and diamonds, have had a harder time evading the resource curse, basically because it is a lot easier and much more profitable to smuggle gold than wood. Hence, smugglers and criminals are attracted to the country and set corrupted institutions that deteriorate the very foundations of society.

The key to turn natural wealth into a blessing is to coordinate the efforts of bureaucrats, mining companies, and institutions. First, for society to actually benefit from mineral wealth it must have a well defined set of laws and an adequate institutional framework that can regulate and enforce the laws.

Institutions are social capital creators. They attract certain kinds of personalities into certain activities and further promote particular types of legal, political, historical and cultural relationships. Also, they assign process incentives, and set frameworks of behavior that are fundamental for determining the tone of the legal discourse and for making policy. Moreover, institutions solve the problem of transaction costs and asymmetric information and thus foster economic efficiency and social welfare optimization. Finally, they help private and public entities to minimize the risk and maximize the profits associated with a potential deal. The bottom line is that efficient institutions allow countries to absorb benefits from thriving corporations and healthy states.

To build strong institutions that guarantee accountability and transparency Colombia’s government must privatize its mining sector; consolidate a diverse economy; and promote a healthy political environment.

Second to institutional development is the need to invest mineral revenues in interest generating assets.

In conclusion, the solution to avoid the resource curse is to open the mining sector to private domestic companies and to invest mineral revenues in social infrastructure to improve the quality of human capital and the productive capacity of Colombia's factors of production. In other words, the Colombian government must pass policies that allow the state to secure a sustainable source of revenue and policies that guarantee the fair and efficient distribution of those revenues—given a strong institutional framework.

Maybe the answer is not eccentric, but who says that parsimonious is easy? The fact that I have theory and evidence to support my findings make me feel comfortable about the way I am structuring my worldview and raising my level of awareness about the importance of managing natural resources for in the quest of allowing humans to flourish.

Rehberg and Tester: They Ain't Legislators

2011-04-19T11:33:00.007-06:00

On Friday, both Senator Tester and Congressman Rehberg's March 31 Quarterly fundraising numbers were released and discussed in the media. Check out the article from the Helena Independent Record here.

Long story short: Both candidates had good quarters. The long story will have to wait until the reports are posted online at the FEC. Once that I have those numbers, I can dig into them more deeply to figure out how each campaign is doing.

In the meantime, I'd like to explore an issue raised by Senator Tester in some recent remarks he made here in Montana. Last month at a fundraising dinner in Helena, Senator Tester ripped Congressman Rehberg for his relatively slim record of legislative accomplishment. Tester said that Congressman Rehberg's record consists of naming a few post offices, and that's about it. The article can be read here.

The bigger point is how should we, as voters, evaluate the jobs that both Tester and Rehberg have done while in Congress. Should we evaluate them by their legislative accomplishments? If so, the record is pretty slim indeed for both candidates.

Using both THOMAS and the Congressional Bills Project, I examined the number of bills Tester and Rehberg have sponsored while serving in the Senate and House, respectively. I also looked to see if those bills passed their respective chambers and was eventually signed into law. For this analysis, I only looked at the bills where Tester and Rehberg were the primary sponsor. The analysis is in the chart below:

Neither candidate is what one might call a stellar legislator. None of Tester's sponsored legislation has signed by the president, and of the 77 bills sponsored by Congressman Rehberg, only four have (and yes, two of those bills are renaming post offices).

Of course, these data need to be placed into some broader context. Using the 110th Congress as a baseline, I looked at the total number of bills sponsored in each chamber and then broke out the average number of bills introduced by member and their success at passing legislation into law.

As one can plainly see, most legislation goes to Congress to die. Very few bills become law, and the average number of bills sponsored becoming law is only 1 in the Senate (close to 2 if you just look at the Democratic majority in the Senate), and less than 1 in the House. The mean number of bills sponsored in the Senate is 36 and only 16 in the House.

If we use these numbers as a guide, both Congressman Rehberg and Senator Tester are less active than the average member in terms of bill sponsorship (although Congressman Rehberg approaches the mean in the 11th Congress). Their inability to pass any of their preferred legislation into law is not surprising either. If you look who was the MOST successful legislators in the 110th Congress, they tended to be more senior, more seasoned, and holders of key instituitonal positions such as committee chairmanships. They also, surprise surprise, tend to come from the majority party. Senator Kennedy successfully sheparded 13 bills to passage in the 110th Congress, followed by Senator Leahy (8), and Senators Biden, Feinstein, and Harkin (7 each). In the House, Congressmen Oberstar and Berman got 8 and 7 of their bills passed, followed by Congressmen Conyers and Kildee (6 each). As you look at those names, the amount of seniority is clear--and this is not surprising at all. The literature on congressional careers (see Hibbing in particular) shows that legislative productivity increases over a member's term in office.

Neither Senator Tester or Congressman Rehberg are particularly senior, and Congressman Rehberg has only now achieved a leadership post as chairman of one of appropriations subcommittees. Evaluting their accomplishments as sponsors of legislation is perhaps not the best approach to figuring out who is doing a better job for Montana. Quite simply, neither are particularly distinguished legislators but we should not expect them to be given their career stage.

As Mayhew (2000) points out, legislating is only half of what members of Congress do. Members of Congress investigate, they take stands, they oppose presidents, they engage in foreign policy discussions, and they attempt to affect the flow of public discourse more generally. In the words of Richard Fenno, members of Congress are not just policy experts. They are constituent servants and they strive to demonstrate to voters that they are in touch or "one of us". Members can chose which aspects of their jobs to highlight to constituents. Perhaps the most useful way to evaluate both Tester and Rehberg is less on their legislative accomplishments, and more on their work as constituent servants and how close they are to the voters of Montana in terms of policy positions. Do they listen? Are they responsive? Do they successfully help Montanans navigate the federal system? And what are they doing to make sure the needs of Montanans are address? All of these questions can and often do have very little to do with legislation.

2011-04-14T11:05:00.002-06:00

Jobs vs. the Environment, Part II

In my last post, I suggested the jobs vs. the environment policy debate and legislative agenda was a false choice and cited a recent paper that demonstrated a positive relationship between economic well-being and environmental quality. Here is what that relationship could look like in Montana.

When we produce basic commodities like wheat, beef, or minerals, global markets set prices; commodity producers are price takers not price makers. Nationally, U.S. cattle producers slaughtered 2.96 million head totaling 2.29 billion pounds in 2010. Montana producers shipped 1,700 head or 1.5 million pounds. A consumer would be hard pressed to differentiate a steak from Chouteau from one raised in Texas because of the way beef is distributed and marketed. As a result, beef producers make far less money that they could. What if we branded our beef as being raised in an environmentally sensitive way and capitalized on Montana’s clean environment, water, and open ranges? The short answer is – producers could make more money on each cow.

There are many niche markets for beef – Lean, Organic, Natural, and Pasture-finished are just a few examples of efforts to brand meat raised and finished in a nontraditional manner. They all base their higher prices on issues of quality. In Montana, we have the advantage that quality is already inherent in our state. For many of our products, the Made in Montana label should be a proxy for “clean and healthy”. Efforts to undermine environmental protections are economically short-sighted and counterproductive to a state economy that could be less dependent on global markets. Our beef market is so relatively small (we are not in the list of the top ten beef producing states), the adjustment could be done in a few years.

This version of economic good tied to environmental quality demands that we need to rethink how we do business. If, as a rancher, your customer is a meat packer, your production will have to conform to industry standards for everything from breed selection to use of antibiotics to yield and quality grades. But, if your customer is an individual looking for lean beef raised and finished on a local family farm, or raised organically, you will be working with a very different production model. This requires new skills and ways of thinking about what and how we produce goods and services. It would require infrastructure and human investment.

The logic can apply to other areas. Montana could adopt a quality management assessment for public policy including not only food but also timber production (i.e. sustainable, low impact to watersheds), predator control (predator friendly wool), tourism (triple bottom line accounting), and manufacturing (energy and water efficient). None of this is revolutionary and examples can be found around the world. Montana’s competitive advantage is that we already have the environmental quality; all we need to do is design an economy that benefits from it.

Engage! Mill’s "On Liberty" and the MSU Campus Smoking Ban

2011-03-31T06:21:00.002-06:00

The Political Theory Consortium met last night to discuss John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, particularly chapter four, “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society Over the Individual.” Our objective was to discuss how Mill helps us think about the recent 61-39% vote at Montana State to ban smoking on campus.

Let me start by saying this: I am no fan of smoking. As I said at our gathering this evening, I come from a family of smokers (some now ex-smokers, to whatever extent that is possible). I was always the one left in restaurants holding down the table after dinner while everyone else went outside to smoke. You would think that, at the very least, having to remember everyone’s dessert and coffee orders would have prepared me well for the job of waitress. It didn’t. My short stint as a waitress was a miserable failure. And it turns out that most people who work in the restaurant industry smoke, so even my breaks were kind of lonely.

My point is that I’m an odd defender of the so-called “right to smoke.” But after steeping myself in Mill (we read chapters 1, 2, and 3 of On Liberty in my Modern Political Thought class this week), I am having a hard time figuring just how this smoking ban is consistent with a commitment to individual liberty in those areas of life that don’t do harm to others.

In case you haven’t read Mill lately, here’s what he says:

“the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.”

This is famously known as Mill’s “harm principle.” He makes clear that he only has in mind purely self-regarding conduct here. So, for example, a person should be free to drink themselves silly if they want, but if this results in their physically injuring someone, or their failing to uphold their “distinct and assignable obligation” to others (say, this leads them to neglect their children), then it’s no longer purely self-regarding conduct. Importantly, though, we have no right not to be offended by others, and Mill rejects any claim to rights that “society” has against, for example, what it might deem morally deviant behavior that entails no identifiable harm.

Mill is kind of the thinking-girl’s Liberal (in the sense of “defender of liberty”), because he also had a strong sense of civic virtue, social responsibility, mass public education, and a deep commitment to an ideal of humans as progressive beings. He was an avowed feminist, against slavery, and just generally ahead of his time. He was no atomistic libertarian. For example, he wrote,

“Human beings owe to each other help to distinguish the better from the worse, and encouragement to choose the former and avoid the latter. They should be forever stimulating each other to increased exercise of their higher faculties, and increased direction of their feelings and aims towards wise instead of foolish, elevating instead of degrading, objects and contemplations. But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it.”

We will inevitably shower admiration on those who live lives we think are “good.” And those whose conduct or character we deem deficient may rightly incur our loss of consideration (and not complain about it). But our loss of consideration cannot be justifiably turned into prohibition or prosecution, where no damage or definite risk of damage exists. A deep aversion to others is not, for Mill, a reliable guide for invoking the law against them or destroying their reputation and socially ostracizing them. Reading Mill is good therapy for anyone irked by the contemporary American inclination to moralize.

So what does all this have to do with the smoking ban at MSU?

A lot hinges here on the empirical evidence regarding whether exposure to second-hand smoke outside in the open air poses a health hazard. It may. Some studies suggest that exposure in outside spaces is not insignificant. These would be very localized spaces, but conceivably the five foot area immediately outside the door to a building would qualify, and since the 25 foot no-smoking zone around buildings at MSU is not respected by many smokers, the question of harm is relevant. If smokers routinely observed this smoke-free zone, the question of harm would not carry much water.

But if harm to others is the primary concern, then why does the pending ban also include smokeless tobacco? This seems to me to be classic self-regarding behavior. Perhaps the concern is that when people who chew tobacco spit on the sidewalk it is really gross. But so is spitting generally. Why not ban spitting? Or if the concern is more broadly to “promote health,” then why not remove soda machines from campus buildings, and only serve fried food at the Student Union one day a week? Why not make physical education part of the Core requirements? I wont even raise the obvious and intractable question of enforcing this ban, but it is certainly an issue.

Our discussion last night dug into all these matters and more. There was no consensus, I’ll say that. But we did arrive at an interesting question: How might this issue be dealt with creatively, in a way that didn’t invoke the force of law against a minority of people who are only potentially doing something that is other-regarding and harmful? How might “politics” – or the face-to-face confrontation about how we live together – come into play? What if smokers who respect the 25 foot no-smoking zone around buildings chastised those who fail to? What if non-smokers who were put out by the smell of cigarettes they encounter upon leaving the library, for example, said “I would really appreciate it if you all would move away from the door”?

There are lots of non-legalistic options open to us, but they require courage, responsibility, and on-going, and personal, negotiations about values, virtues and vices, and that is hard work. But if college is going to train students for life beyond the bounds of campus, this seems like as useful and important a lesson as any.

So stay tuned for the recap from our next meeting, where the topic will be “revitalizing the political.” When I say “engage,” I don’t mean lock and load. I mean On Liberty.

Jobs vs. the Environment: Again?

2011-03-29T11:13:00.004-06:00

An effort to change the language in the Montana Constitution that guarantees a “clean and healthful environment” failed in the state senate this week by a vote of 26 for and 89 against. The change is promoted by supporters because the wording gets in the way of energy and other development in the state – it is either jobs or the environment. But is it?

A recent paper in the Journal of Economic Geography - The Rural Growth Trifecta: Outdoor Amenities, Creative Class and Entrepreneurial Context by some economists at the Economic Research Service and the University of Tennessee suggests otherwise. They wanted to look at the economic performance of counties that attract members of the “creative class” – Richard Florida’s label for those well-educated entrepreneurial types that engage in business startups and who possess high levels of social capital. The creative class includes professionals who work in high-tech sectors, financial services, the legal and health care professions, and business management; technicians working in materials engineering, medicine and research. They may be people who apply their problem solving skills to management or business processes. Creativity is a valuable commodity. The almost 40 million people that make up this cohort make twice the salary of the so-called “working class” or “service-class” worker.

Creative class workers are relatively footloose in their choice of where they live and work. They are drawn to places that offer interesting lives as well as interesting work. For many, not all, rural areas have a lifestyle appeal. If your income is generated by ideas, you can live almost anywhere you choose. With good access to the Web and the occasional airplane trip to do business, many rural locations are great places to raise a family and enjoy a healthy lifestyle in a desirable climate.

Here is what the authors found. Recruitment of creative class members was not in itself sufficient to explain economic well-being as measured by business startups and job growth. Rather, it was those counties with a high level of local outdoor amenities that demonstrated the highest levels of economic success. The counties that performed best were those with high numbers of members of the creative class, a very entrepreneurial context (i.e. friendly to small business) and high levels of outdoor amenities. Conversely, those counties that did not do well engaged in “smokestack chasing”. These low amenity counties rely on outside employers and access to low-cost labor and natural resource endowments.

The lesson for Montana is that preservation of our quality of life – a clean and healthy environment, diverse recreation opportunities, and intact scenic beauty, are good for our economy. I published a paper that demonstrated this fact almost 20 years ago, others have been reinforcing the point ever since. The tradeoff is not jobs or a clean environment. The lesson is that our constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” is good for Montanans and good for our economy.

There are things the legislature can and should do to ensure our environmental values leverage a healthy economy. I will address those in a future post.

Tester-Rehberg a Dead Heat: A follow-up

2011-03-24T07:31:00.002-06:00

Politico has a story this morning about Senator Tester's vote on healthcare reform. The NRSC has put out a press release to "remind" Montanans that Tester was the "60th vote" and "deciding vote". You can read Politico's story here and the NRSC press release here.

According to Politico, Tester's staff responded with video showing that Tester was the 52nd--not the 60th--vote for the healthcare plan. The NRSC responds that with 60 votes needed for passage, every vote was critical.

This, of course, relates back to what I had posted earlier in the week. Note that the NRSC story calls the healthcare plan the "Obama-Tester" Overhaul. Obama is unpopular in Montana, and so is (depending on how you spin it) his healthcare plan. You'll see Tester constantly tagged to Obama by the Republican Party because the Obama brand isn't so hot at the moment. Senator Tester, meantime, needs to decide if he should pivot away from the healthcare reform or educate Montanans as to why his vote was necessary and good from the state. It would seem that Tester has decided to defend his vote and point out all the benefits the plan brings to the state.

Is this a good strategy? Again, it depends upon which framing of the issue sells among voters. Tester blasts Congressman Rehberg for defunding healthcare reform when he has a nice healthcare plan provided by government. This populist story line has the potential to work: it makes Congressman Rehberg look heartless. Rehberg, of course, will focus on the negatives of the plan: it costs too much, takes away too much control from patients/doctors, and places an undue burden on small businesses. This also can work. The key, I think, is which story will work with independent voters.

Tester-Rehberg a Dead Heat, says Billings Gazette

2011-03-22T13:13:00.003-06:00

That's right, folks. The Billings Gazette has released the first poll for the 2012 Senate election and March 2011 isn't even over yet. Read the write ups of the poll here and here.

Generally speaking, polling a race this early does not tell us much. However, a race between two well-known incumbents can tell us a lot more than a poll in a race where either the challenger is not well-known or opponent has yet to emerge.

Here's how I read these data:

1. The Ground Game is hugely important in this race. Given the fact that both candidates are well-known and have strong bases of support in their parties (but see point 4 below), this election will be about turning out the vote. If the election were held today, the difference maker would be independents who--at the moment--are in Tester's camp (but, with sub-groups, it should be noted that the margin of error is LARGER than for the whole sample). Given that independents are less likely to vote and are likely to have softer levels of support for a candidate, each campaign will have to spend substantial sums persuading them AND convincing them to vote. These types of campaigns at the margins can be quite costly.

2. Rehberg will tie Tester to Obama. Tester will tie himself to Schweitzer. In 2006, Tester tied himself very effectively to The Schweitzer Machine in advertisements. Six years later, Governor Schweitzer is still quite popular and the unpopular administration is President Obama's instead of President Bush's. The poll makes clear that Montanans want national healthcare repealed (but they don't necessarily want the state legislature to block its implementation) and President Obama's approval rating is only 40 percent.

Congressman Rehberg, of course, wants this election to be a referendum on President Obama and healthcare--so he will do his best to convince voters to associate Tester with them. And, it should be easier to do this during a general election campaign. Senator Tester, alternatively, would be well-served to indicate how he is independent of the administration and many of its proposals. One way to accomplish this easily is to continue to stress his association with Governor Schweitzer.

3. Tester will tie Congressman Rehberg to the state legislature. It is clear that the state legislature is not popular in the poll: 61% rate the legislature's performance as poor. Of course, it is well-known that legislatures fair poorly in the aggregate when compared to the performance of individual legislators (this is called Fenno's Paradox in the trade). Nevertheless, some of the more interesting and controversial debates taking place in the state legislature--namely concerning nullification, defunding of healthcare, and amending the state's constitution--may prove problematic for Congressman Rehberg IF they remain unpopular. Congressman Rehberg needs the support of the Tea Party and the base of the Republican Party if only to avoid a primary challenge. He will need to walk a careful line during the general election, however--retaining the support of these voters without upsetting independent voters. Senator Tester is likely to paint Rehberg as an extreme voice for Montana as much as Congressman Rehberg will paint Senator Tester as an extreme voice. The difference, of course, is the direction of the ideological extremity!

4. It is noted in the Gazette article that both candidates have strong support among their respective partisan bases. I should note that in an election this close, the five point difference between the two among their bases is not insignificant. In other words, Tester's support among Democrats is five points better than Rehberg's support among Republicans. If a close election is about turning out the base, Tester is in a stronger position initially.

5. This race will as much about framing issues as it is about personality. Montanans are conflicted, and nothing demonstrates this more than how Montanans feel about energy policy. Montanans generally support the pursuit of alternative energy, they generally want to encourage the use of traditional fossil fuels, but they also generally want a clean environment. Which frame wins will, to some extent, determine this election. But equally important is how Montanans feel about both candidates. Style matters in the Senate more so than in the House, where elections tend to be more partisan affairs. In other words, who wins the likeability race and who appears to be the most, in the words of Richard Fenno, "one of us".

6. Finally, there is one important element missing from the poll. We don't know how STRONG the support for both Tester and Rehberg is. Intensity matters--especially in close elections. How persuadable are Republican and Democratic voters? Are they willing to walk through fire for their candidate? Or are they simply for their candidate because its early in the race and they haven't really tuned in yet?

Next week, I intend to blog about legislative productivity as a yardstick of congressional performance. This is an issue that both Senator Tester and Rehberg will raise: who is doing the most and the best job for Montana in Washington? A part of that equation is the types of legislation they have supported and pushed into law.

The New Trade Agenda: APEC Negotiations Come to Big Sky

2011-03-07T11:19:00.001-07:00

Beginning May 7th meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Organization (APEC) will begin in Big Sky, Montana. This two week long gathering of trade ministers and officials from 21 countries is expected to bring an estimated 2,000 people to Big Sky. Senator Max Baucus advocated long and hard to bring this meeting home to Montana in anticipation of both immediate and future benefits. As member countries rotate hosting the meeting, the US has the opportunity of hosting it, and also influencing the agenda somewhat, about once every twenty years.

APEC is an organization 21 countries bordering the Pacific Rim. Members account for 41% of the world’s population, 54% of the world’s GDP and 44% of world trade. Sixty percent of US exports are destined for APEC members, which also account for 6 out of 10 of our top trading partners. US goods trade (both imports and exports) with APEC members was $1.6 trillion in 2009 and service trade was $303 billion in 2008. And these economies are growing fast, at about twice the rate of the US economy.

Since its inception in 1989 APEC has worked to promote free trade in numerous ways but it has not been a free trade area. The Obama administration has prioritized negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) as a key goal for APEC. The agenda for negotiations is focused facilitating trade through preventing the introduction of new non-tariff barriers to trade, policies and regulations that facilitate communication through new technologies, and steps that make it cheaper and easier for businesses to trade - with a new emphasis on small and medium size business.

Why tackle negotiations for a free trade area in Asia now? One reason is that negotiations for further trade liberalization for the 154 members of the World Trade Organization have been stalled for years. After eleven years of negotiations and a tremendous investment in the Doha Round, it remains unclear if and when the negotiations will produce an agreement and how meaningful it might be. Another reason is that the economies of East Asia have been developing and deepening their own regional trade agreements. Bergsten and Schott, key analysts of US trade and economic interests, argue that unless the US actively pursues a trade agreement in the region that a cleavage could develop between the US and East Asian economies. As FTAs by their nature favor member countries, US exporters and investors could find it more difficult to compete. APEC already has a good track record in regulatory harmonization, and this would be advanced in negotiations for the FTAAP. Regulatory harmonization is laborious and unglamorous, and the results of this work cannot be summarized with sweeping statements. However, this work makes trade easier and cheaper by agreements between nations on standards, technical regulations and conformity assessment. Rules of origin provide an example. While the negotiations in Big Sky will take time to bear fruit, I applaud APEC for conintuing to work to facilitate trade and to make it more accessible to smaller businesses.

Bergsten, Fred C. and Jeffery J. Schott. 2010. “Submission to the USTR in Support of a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.” Peterson Institute of International Economics. Downloaded from http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=1482.

Political Theory Consortium discusses the "Carceral State"

2011-03-03T14:28:00.000-07:00

The Political Theory Consortium met last night to discuss Vesla Weaver and Amy Lerman’s Nov. 2010 American Political Science Review article, “Political Consequences of the Carceral State.” Coincidentally, yesterday my Contemporary Political Theory class discussed the first chapter of Michel Foucault’s 1975 masterpiece, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. The effect of reading these two texts together was fascinating, and disturbing.

Foucault’s chapter traces the historical transition from one “penal style” to another across Europe. He starts with a gruesome accounting of a public execution in France in 1757, written by an officer of the watch in attendance. The horses on hand to quarter the criminal weren’t quite up to the task, so the executioner, “drew out a knife from his pocket and cut the body at the thighs instead of severing the legs at the joint.” Apparently that did the trick. Yuck!

Eighty years later, Foucault cites accounts of a sanitized “time-table” of punishment – hyper regimented, bureaucratized, “humane.” His point: in this new penal style punishment was no longer about public spectacle, and it was no longer about inflicting pain. Rather, “the body as the major target of penal repression disappeared.” Quite literally, the modern prison has functioned to disappear prisoners. We can see the arrest, the trial, and the sentencing, but the incarceration is out of view, and serves a certain disciplinary social function in so far as the idea of imprisonment works on our imaginations (unlike the visually horrifying spectacle of torture in execution, which leaves little to the imagination).

For Foucault, the body becomes a “vehicle” for punishment, but not its target. And since it is no longer the body that punishment targets, “it must be the soul.” Indeed, part of the justifying framework for the modern penal system is precisely this notion (which, it seems, many of us recognize as utterly fictional at this point) that incarceration rectifies or rehabilitates or “cures” the criminals that it “treats.”

But what does contact with the criminal justice system actually produce? Not rehabilitated persons, and not, as Weaver and Lerman demonstrate, functional citizens. Even minimal contact with the “carceral state” (by which they mean “the totality of this spatially concentrated, more punitive, surveillance and punishment-oriented system of governance”) has profound implications for trust in government, civic participation, and voting. And an increasing number of American citizens have their primary contact with the government by way of police, judges and wardens. As the authors write, “the scale of citizen contact with the American criminal justice system is now unmatched in modern history. For the first time, one in 100 Americans is incarcerated, topping all other countries in the world. If current trends persist, 11% of American men – and 1 in 3 black men – will at some point in their lives serve time in prison.”

Contact with the carceral state, as “a primary site of civic education,” produces a disenfranchised class. This is literally the case for ex-convicts in states with felony disenfranchisement statutes. But what Weaver and Lerman make clear is that states need not bother – serving a one year or longer prison sentence reduces by 33% the chance that the subjects of this study would vote.

So what does contact with the carceral state produce? Deactivated citizens. Societal opt-outs. Is it any surprise, then, that what the modern prison system actually produces is prisoners?

On the one hand, this is a stinging indictment of our system. If you happen to be a member of the private prison industry, however, this is good news! As recent investigative reporting on Arizona’s immigration law has revealed, the private prison industry sees stricter criminal justice laws as “good for business.” The Arizona law, which makes failure to carry immigration documents a crime, has created a whole new “customer base.” And if initial contact with the criminal justice system makes it vastly less likely that a person will vote, participate or have trust in the state, and vastly more likely that they’ll end up back in prison, then laws like this one have just generated a future clientele for companies like the Corrections Corporation of America and The Geo Group.

In fact, as the President of The Geo Group put it, when talking to investors about the Arizona law: “Those people coming across the border and getting caught are going to have to be detained and that, for me, at least I think, there’s going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do.”

So, the prisoner production system is good news for The Geo Group and the Corrections Corporation of America, as is the Arizona law. This should come as no surprise, though: they wrote the bill.

But this unfolding reality cannot be good for America. Your thoughts??

The First(?) Campaign Ad of the 2012 Senate Race?

2011-03-02T09:36:00.001-07:00

I was driving to my daughter's elementary school yesterday and heard this on the radio:

"Script:
ANNCR: What do your kids, our congressman, and mercury poisoning have in common?
More than you might think.
You see after taking over four hundred and sixty thousand dollars from dirty energy companies - Congressman Denny Rehberg voted to block the enforcement of a vital mercury pollution law.
They buried it in a spending bill and passed it in the middle of the night. Letting polluters off the hook. And letting mercury back into our air and water. Mercury, that causes brain damage in kids.
Maybe Rehberg was hoping Montana parents wouldn’t notice. Well…we did.
And we don’t like politicians interfering in decisions that should be made by experts. Scientists whose job it is to protect the water our kids drink and the air they breathe. But Denny Rehberg thinks he knows better.
Congressman Rehberg should stop playing politics with our kids’ health. And start looking out for Montana families.
A message from Montana Conservation Voters."

Yes, it was first ad of the 2012 Senate election. And yes, it was March 1, 2011.

You can listen to the ad and read the accompanying press release here.

A couple of quick points.

1. This confirms my suspicion that the Rehberg-Tester race will receive a lot of attention from the national media and interest groups (see, for example, Mark Barabak's article on Montana here).
2. This will be a hotly contested race.
3. This advertisement is an issue advocacy ad. This means that the Montana Conservation Voters can raise and spend unlimited sums of money from virtually any source to air this advertisement. This is courtesy of several Supreme Court decisions, most notably Citizens United v. FEC and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, which undercut the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002's ban on soft money and corporate advertising.
4. I should also say that this ad is a "negative" ad. I put the term negative in quotes because the way I--and other scholars--define negative ads is an advertisement which talks about an opponent. This ad focuses on one of Rehberg's vote and try to make a connection between that vote and the contributions he received from the energy industry. Putting aside the particulars of this ad, let me say that negative ads are not necessarily bad. They do tend to increase voter information and they do tend, according to some research (see Ken Goldstein's work in particular at the University of Wisconsin) increase voter turnout. Generally speaking, voters generally thing negative advertising is OK as long as it doesn't attack a politician on personal, family issues. While voters often bemoan negative advertising, I think it is important to stress again these key points.
5. Finally, let me also point out that the linkage between campaign contributions and the votes of members of Congress is not firmly established in the literature. Fifty plus years of research on the effects of campaign spending on votes on legislation has yielded--in the aggregate--mixed results at best. The key point here is that interest groups money tends to flow to allies who already support ideologically the group's mission. This makes sense. Why would a pro-life organization give a campaign contribution, say to Barbara Boxer? The small amount that the pro-life organization could give the Senator certainly would do little to dissuade her from her position on abortion. Congressman Rehberg, I think he would agree, is a friend of the resource extraction industry. He would claim that industry is important to the economic development of the state, and he was merely doing what he believed was best for his constituents.

Of course, the Montana Conservation Voters see the issue quite differently. But that's what campaigns are about: framing the issues and persuading voters that your particular frame is the best.

It has begun in earnest. Let's have fun this campaign season.