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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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?