Congratulations to Josh and Nate!

I wanted to take a moment for a little Rule 22 self-promotion.  Congratulations are in order for a supermajority of this blog.

Last week, Josh was awarded the American Political Science Association’s Congressional Fellowship–the oldest and most prestigious fellowship for any student of Congress.  He joins a long line of noted congressional researchers who served as fellows (including our advisor at Florida, Larry Dodd).  In addition, Nate has accepted a tenure-track appointment at Kansas State University beginning next fall.  This is quite an accomplishment; one that is very well deserved.

So congratulations to both!

Paul Krugman and Congressional Polarization

In Friday’s The New York Times, Paul Krugman addressed what he sees as the disconnect between Republican rhetoric about the welfare state and the distribution of welfare benefits in conservative and liberal states.  Krugman’s piece is one in a series published by The Times exploring the relationship between state ideology and the scope of the social safety net.  This recent discussion has centered–fortunately in my view–on the work of political scientists.  Dean Lacy, for example, asked: “Why do Red States Vote Republican while Blue States Pay the Bills?”, while Larry Bartels addressed this topic over at the MonkeyCage in “The Narcotic of Government Dependency.”  It’s all timely stuff and worthy of continued attention.

What caught my eye in Krugman’s article was the following claim, also referencing (though only vaguely) the work of political scientists:

Modern Republicans are very, very conservative; you might even… say, severely conservative. Political scientists who use Congressional votes to measure such things find that the current G.O.P. majority is the most conservative since 1879, which is as far back as their estimates go.

Krugman doesn’t provide citations with his article, but much of this research stems from the pioneering work of Keith Poole, Howard Rosenthal and Nolan McCarty (see for example here or here).  The data Krugman references can be found on Poole’s webpage: Voteview.com.  Here is the time series from 1879 to 2011 in the U.S. House of Representatives.  I’m using the absolute value of the DW-NOMINATE scores with Congresses on the x-axis:

So is Krugman correct about the modern GOP being more conservative than at any point since 1879?  Yes, according to the data.  At the same time, however, Democrats are approaching their most liberal point since 1879 (the most liberal Democratic cohort in the U.S. House was 54th Congress of 1895).  Moreover, one point I repeatedly make in lectures or class discussions is that polarization is the rule rather than the exception.  We can see in the figure that while polarization is high today, it’s not that uncommon in U.S. history.

Quick Hit: Highlights from the Blogosphere

If you were suspicious of the claim that 98% of Catholic women used birth control, it turns out you had good reason. Lydia McGrew breaks down the study Democrats used for that talking point. Matt Glassman has a nice post on this as well.

‘Political Scientists are hotter than Economists,’ via The Monkey Cage. This has been everywhere but it’s too funny not to post.

Jonathan Bernstein called Congress’s non-retaliation over Obama’s recess appointments. Point: Plain Blog. As we’ve noted here before, this has been a trend. Bernstein has been right on about recess appointments.

Fun, interactive, database that tracks members pork and their private property from the Washington Post.

And voteview came out with polarization scores through 2011. Spoiler alert: we’re still polarized. The most interesting trends are the significant conservative shift among both conservative and moderate Republicans in the Senate. On the other hand, moderate Republicans actually were slightly more moderate in 2011 in the House (though probably not statistically significant). The rest of the party moved more right, undoubtedly due to the influx of Tea Party members. Democrats on remained constant for the most part though moved slightly left in the House.

Polarization on Obama

Source: gallup.com

Gallup reported this morning that Obama’s ratings are historically polarized. In the 60 years gallup has measured presidents’ approval and disapproval, Obama has received consistently higher approval from Democrats and consistently higher disapproval from Republicans over the course of his presidency.

Source: gallup.com

A couple things about these figures. First, when you ask a question with only three available responses (approve, disapprove, and don’t know/no opinion), you tend to find more polarization than there actually is. There is a whole range from somewhat approve to somewhat disapprove that isn’t captured. Second, it’s more likely the fault of the political environment than Obama alone. As the article reports, polarization on presidential approval goes back to at least Reagan (though H.W. Bush approval wasn’t as polarized). And third, the drop in partisan identification in recent years we may have an affect on the trend. As more “moderate” identifiers become independents, a greater concetration of ideologically extreme individuals may influence the numbers. Regardless, more evidence for the media’s polarization frenzy.

Newt Gingrich, the Adversarial News Media and “Camscam”

If you wander over to Politico, you should read an article by Ginger Gibson entitled: “Newt Gingrich and the Press: Secret Pals”  The gist of Gibson’ article is that, despite his righteous indignation and antipathy toward the news media–which he predictably blames for being too “liberal”–Gingrich is a skilled purveyor of the adversarial media.  In direct contrast to his uncomfortable exchanges with Juan Williams of Fox and John King of CNN, Gibson describes Gingrich’s warm rapport with news reporters and other media personalities.

In Gingrich’s infamous exchange with John King–a debate I attended–he noted:

I think the disruptive, vicious, negative nature of the news media makes it harder to govern this country.

Some political scientists would agree.  Empirical research has shown, for example, that people select news outlets that confirm their ideological viewpoints (contributing to polarization) and that uncivil news programs lead to less trust in government.  So in this way, Gingrich is probably right.

Students of Congress, however, will find Gingrich’s statement, let’s say, “unusual” (some would say hypocritical).  In 1970 Congress passed the Legislative Reorganization Act which, among other legislative changes, authorized television broadcasts inside the House of Representatives.  In 1979 the newly created Cable-Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-SPAN) began live, gavel-to-gavel coverage of all floor proceedings.  Yay for transparency!  But in 1983 and 1984 a funny (yet predictable) thing happened: members of the newly formed Conservative Opportunity Society, a group founded by Newt Gingrich, began using C-SPAN as a vehicle to politicize the House’s proceedings and embarrass the Democratic majority. You can see elements of the Gingrich/COS strategy today.  Turn on C-SPAN late in the evening and you will see a close-in shot of some representatives addressing the House (see the picture above, for example).  During this time–known as “special orders”–the House has completed it’s daily business, yet members are still permitted speaking time (and the cameras are rolling).  Unbeknownst to viewers, however, the House chamber is usually empty.  Upset with how Gingrich and his conservative allies were using C-SPAN, then Speaker Tip O’Neil ordered the camera operator to pan the chamber.  By taking the camera shot off the individual, it was revealed that the speaker (in this case Robert Walker, R-PA) was in an empty room (see the picture to the left).  The event spawned a partisan battle and became known as “camscam” (“camgate” was apparently taken).

Perhaps it goes without saying, but the point is that when Gingrich rails against the “negative nature” of the media because it makes our nation “harder to govern,” it’s not that he’s neccessasrcy wrong, just that this is a pot-meet-kettle situation.  One familiar with Gingrich’s past, particularly his role as a partisan insurgent in the House from 1983 to 1994, cannot help but roll their eyes.  He is, after all, a master of the adversarial media (not just a victim).

edit: Jonathan Bernstein has a nice post questioning Gingrich’s similarity outrageous statement that he “voluntarily” left the House for the good of the Republican Party.

What Next: Gabrielle Giffords’ Resignation

With Gabrielle Giffords’ resignation today, it looks like Arizona’s 8th Congressional District is up for grabs.  Though Governor Jan Brewer has 3 days to announce a special election, the primary looks like it will be in April, with the general election in June.  Though Giffords could have kept her seat through the end of her term, her decision to resign now and focus on her recovery has thrown the political future of the seat up in the air bit.

The special election is sure to receive significant media attention.  As a rule, special elections are over-analyzed by the press:  the dictum often seems to be “All politics is local, unless it’s a special election.  In that case, it’s a referendum on the President.”  Remember all the lessons we learned in the 2009 NY-23 election?  Neither do I.   But that’s not going to stop the torrent of coverage as the media tries to figure out who is going to win the presidential race based on the special election results in June.  Of course, the media coverage would be high anyway given the horrific shooting last year.  Right now, in some undisclosed location, CNN’s Best Political Team on TV is getting prepared for a full scale deployment to Arizona.

We’ll set aside for a later day just how consequential the special elections are going to be on a national level (hint: according to Gaddie, Bullock and Buchanan, [gated] not much), and focus for now on what we should expect the special election to look like.

First, a quick primer on special elections, courtesy of Monkey Cage co-founder Lee Sigelman’s 1981 LSQ article [gated].

1) Special elections turnout is really low – about 50% less than off-year general election turnout.  [For context, off year general election turnout generally hovers around 35-40% of the eligible voting public.  So turnout in the special election is expected to be really, really low.]

->The takeaway point: What is effect of low turnout on the outcome?  Surprisingly, pretty negligible.

2) Special election outcomes are more competitive that the preceding general election.

-> Takeaway point: Given that Giffords won by a margin of only 1.5% in 2010, that means we’re looking at what could be a really close race.

3) In the majority of the special elections, House seats remain in the control of the party that already holds them.  But, when the control changes, the president’s party generally loses.

-> Takeaway point: The Democrats have some advantage heading in to the election given that it’s been a Democratic seat since 2006, but Obama’s low popularity is cause for concern.

4) The party that wins the special election almost always (96% of the time) retains control of the seat in the subsequent general election.

-> Takeaway point: Both parties should really throw their weight into this special election.  The winner of the special election will have the advantage in name recognition and campaign contributions heading in to November.

What looks good for the Republicans?

1) Republican presidential candidates have carried Arizona’s 8th District in each of the three elections (Bush ’00 had a margin of +2 pts, ’04 by +7 pts, McCain ’08 by +6 pts).  Although the GOP presidential candidates haven’t won by much, the fact that it’s a Republican leaning district is certainly good for them.

2) Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, the former Navy captain and astronaut Mark Kelly, will not enter the race.  Though the research focuses on widows, Diane Kincaid [gated] as well as Solowiej and Brunell [gated], find that voters tend to support the relatives of  spouses succeeding their partners into Congress.  Moreover, given his profile as an astronaut, he may have had an advantage over other political amateurs.  The GOP must breathed a sigh of relief when Kelly announced that he will not run.

3) For all intents and purposes, the election has been moved up five months, and this is worse for the Democrats than the Republicans.  The dance card of Republican challengers has already been more or less compiled given that they were already planning on opposing Giffords in November, and the serious candidates had already been preparing for the election.  Moreover, the list of challengers is pretty strong: Jesse Kelly, who narrowly lost to Giffords in 2010 has already filed the paperwork to run again; and state Senator Frank Antenori is also expected to run.

By contrast, the Democrats aren’t nearly as prepared.  The foundations for campaigns take time to establish, and given the truncated timetable, the Democrats are a little behind the eight ball.   When Giffords initially made her decision several days ago, the Democratic party hadn’t yet contacted candidates.   This isn’t a massive setback – there are generally several quality candidates waiting in the wings to succeed a member of Congress – but it’s certainly a disadvantage.

So what’s good for the Democrats?

1) Gabrielle Giffords is still going to play an active role in the campaign.  The candidate who receives her endorsement stands to inherit quite a bit of good will (not to mention campaign contributions).  This is particularly true if the Democrats can coalesce behind one candidate quickly, and use the time the Republicans are duking it out in the primary to help work on building up a general election campaign.

2) The district is going to be re-drawn in 2012, and the new district is widely expected to have more Democrats than it does now.  That is, while the special election will still be in  the current district, the general election will be in the new one.  So even if the Democrats lose in the special election, this could be one of those 4% of elections where the special election result gets overturned in the subsequent general election.  By contrast, if they win in the special election, the prospects of holding on the seat in general election look really good.

So who is going to win?

Way too early to say.  We’ll check back in with a guess on the electoral outcome when the slate of candidates is announced.  At a minimum, this should be interesting, while also presenting a welcome diversion from the glut of news stories on the Republican presidential primary.

Santorum: Insider v. Reformer(?)

This is a dichotomy Sheryl Gay Stolberg presents in her recent article at the New York Times. Santorum’s career, according to the article, spanned from freshman reformer to leadership protégé and insider.

Here’s my qualm with the article: generally speaking, why are reformers considered outsiders? We see this a lot in the media. We’re presented with the notion that only outsiders are legitimate reformers. To an extent, they rendered John “Maverick” McCain as an outsider during and following the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act despite nearly 20 years in Washington. In reality, McCain was as inside as it gets. He clearly had strong ties to other members of Congress. He also had the relationships and institutional positioning necessary to get a bill as controversial as BCRA to the floor. And he was willing to exploit these internal channels and relationships to author and pass a significant campaign finance reform bill. But because he worked across party lines and not strictly within his party, he was a “maverick,” to an extent an “outsider,” and otherwise a Senator that went against the grain. Keep in mind he was this “maverick” force in Congress while maintaining a fairly conservative voting record that rose to 90% as judged by the John Birch Society in the fall of 2004.

The point is this: the best reformers are insiders. Outsiders who label themselves reformers often lack the knowledge and experience to significantly affect major problems in Washington. Freshman are effective at lending support but not leading the charge. The members that lead reform movements are most often senior members with the knowledge to pinpoint problems and offer viable policy or procedural solutions. Insiders that sought reform within the institution are the most successful. The most significant reformers in history, members like Mike Monroney (Okla.), Paul Douglas (Ill.), Richard Bolling (Mo.), Robert La Follette Jr. (Wis.), and William Hepburn (Ia.), were all salty veterans when they led the charge. Without the experience they drew upon, both from an institutional and a political standpoint to navigate all the egos and structures in Congress, it is likely that some of Congress’s major rules and ethics reforms never occur.

Take Santorum’s case for example. As a freshman, he and the rest of the “Gang of Seven” brought “Rubbergate” (yet another ‘-gate’ scandal) to the public’s attention. A few changes were made as a result. In reality, however, this wasn’t much of a scandal at all. Members of Congress would over-withdraw their congressional bank accounts that would later be reimbursed with their own paychecks. No tax dollars were used. Norman Ornstein, well-known congressional scholar from American Enterprise Institute, called it “a faux scandal.” It was more much-ado-about-nothing than changing the culture in Congress. In the end, they made a huge deal out of something that wasn’t illegal. They pursued this path for political points; and in the process, they enraged the senior Republicans who enjoyed the benefits of the Bank. In short, they managed to accomplish an insignificant reform while undermining their political capital and relationships and their opportunity for significant reforms in the future.

If Santorum wanted to be a reformer in a real sense, he shouldn’t have alienated senior members who hold the power necessary to enact significant change. In fact, he had a greater chance of being a legitimate reformer later in his career as he began to make his way up the leadership rungs. While he chose not to pursue significant reforms during this period is unfortunate, but his status as an insider didn’t prohibit reform. It should have enhanced it.