PLANK NOVEMBER 7, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

There are two different systems that are at work in American politics. The first is the electoral system. It was on display last night, as Barack Obama won re-election, and the Democrats held onto the Senate and the Republicans the House. The second is the pressure system--a term used by the great political scientist E. E. Schattschneider to describe the competition between lobbies and political organizations to influence not just who wins elections, but what politicians do in office.
This election shows a continuing party realignment toward the Democrats, which began in the late 1990s, hit speed bumps after September 11 and again in 2010, but has resumed. But within the pressure system, through their alliance with business, the Republicans have been able to weaken or block Democratic initiatives, even if they were favored by electorate. The question for the next four years is whether Obama and the Democrats can use the clout they have acquired from their electoral success to overcome the power that Republicans exercise inside Washington and in Congress.
I call this relatively close election a continuation of party realignment precisely because Obama won under such adverse circumstances. The unemployment was higher than when he took office. By 54.1 to 40.6 percent Americans believed the country was on “the wrong track” rather than going in the “right direction.” Obama’s approval rating had finally hit 50 percent on October 28, but his disapproval was 45 percent. These kind of numbers, as Republican strategists repeatedly asserted, boded ill for the president’s re-election. In 1980, Ronald Reagan had rode the question, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” to victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter.
Democrats will end up keeping at least the same margin of 53-47 in the Senate (counting two independents as Democrats) even though they had to defend 23 of 33 seats. They won two-thirds of the Senate contests. Democrats did not retake the House, but as Republican conservatives learned during the conservative realignment that began in 1968, it is much more difficult to defeat House incumbents (and a few firebrand conservatives, like Joe Walsh and Allen West, lost). And the Democrats’ task has been made more difficult by Republican redistricting efforts after the 2010 election.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
One might argue that Obama’s victory was largely the result of the Republicans nominating a bad candidate, but Romney was, in fact, the class of the 2012 field. Obama would have done even better against any of the other presidential candidates. And Romney represented business interests that are an important part of the Republican coalition. Obama’s advantage lay in the Democrats’ coalition and what it stands for, while the Republicans’ disadvantage lay not merely in its nominee, but in its coalition and what it stands for.
While retaining some of the New Deal white working class in the North and far West, the Democrats have built a largely post-industrial coalition of blacks, Latinos, Asians, working women, professionals, and youth. Its outlook is socially liberal, egalitarian, and supportive of positive (as opposed to “big”) government. The Republicans are increasingly the party of the white evangelicals, white Southerners, nouveaux riches suburbanites, and narrow business interests opposed to government taxes and regulation. The Democratic coalition is growing; the Republican shrinking. Republicans can still win national elections, but only when a Democrat stumbles badly.
The pressure system, however, looks very different. Think back to the pressure system at the end of Franklin Roosevelt’s first term. There was enormous ferment on the left--from a growing industrial labor movement to Huey Long’s populism. Republicans were shell-shocked, and business was divided and discredited. In 2012, Obama and Democrats can command the loyalty of single interest groups on the environment, gay marriage and gun control. There are also some internet-based campaign groups. But the only group that can provide money and volunteers and that can battle for a comprehensive agenda between elections is the labor movement. And it is on the decline and on the defensive.
By contrast, the Republican pressure system has, if anything, grown more powerful over the last two decades. It includes major business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Federation of Independent Business, political organizations like the Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth, Freedomworks, and Americans for Prosperity, and a loose network of activist groups identified with the Tea Party or the religious right. Their power to raise money and wield influence has been enhanced by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
This Republican coalition operates during and between elections. Some of the groups like Karl Rove’s American Crossroads are most interested in creating Republican majorities and are not picky about the ideologies of their candidates. Rove’s group backed Republican Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana primary against challenger Richard Mourdock because it thought Lugar had a much better chance of retaining the Senate seat. But during Obama’s administration, the balance of power within the coalition has increasingly shifted to the Club for Growth, Freedomworks, Americans for Prosperity and local Tea Party organizations that employ a different strategy.
These groups want to purge the Republican party of any hint of moderation. They want a party committed to dismantling the welfare state and removing government regulations and taxes on business. They oppose compromise with Democrats. In the Indiana election, they backed Mourdock, who attacked Lugar for being willing to work with Democrats. In August 2011, they urged Senate and House members to oppose raising the debt ceiling. They enjoy the support of much of the Republican grassroots and of wealthy donors, including the Koch brothers, investor John Childs, and PayPal founder Peter Thiel.
In states and congressional districts where a Republican is expected to win, they have backed the most conservative candidates. But they have also punished Republicans like Lugar by backing primary challengers. That tactic cost the Republicans a chance to win back the Senate in 2010, and it cost them the Indiana seat this year, but it also has put the fear of retribution in elected Republicans who contemplate compromising with Democrats. It has increased the likelihood of gridlock in Washington.
What can Obama and the Democrats do to improve their chances of passing legislation? They can hope for divisions between the less and most intransigent parts of the Republican coalition. They can encourage the growth of countervailing power of their own within the pressure system. And they can try to increase their own electoral majority to the extent that Republican officeholders fear more from the electorate than from conservatives lobbies in Washington. If they don’t do that, they’ll find themselves robbed by the Republican-dominated pressure system of the fruits of their electoral victory.
18 comments
Democrats should not be content to just sit and wait for "divisions between the less and most intransigent parts of the Republican coalition" to manifest themselves, they need to start sowing the divisions. Permanent tax breaks for income under $250,000 tied to backing away from the "cliff" (including planned cuts to social programs) would be a good place to start.
- Attrill
November 7, 2012 at 3:16am
I have often commented that fear is the greatest motivator. And so it is in politics. Jonathan Haidt has an op/ed in today's NYT about fear motivating Republicans to work with Democrats (and vice versa), fear that if they don't work together our "enemies" (mostly internal divisions) will surely defeat "us" (all Americans). I see from the op/ed that Haidt has moved on from psychology (he is known as an evolutionary psychologist and was a professor in the psychology department at UVA) to business (he is now a professor of business ethics in the B school at NYU), which suggests that he intends to apply his theory of human behavior to where it could have the most pervasive effect in America, in business. If Haidt can succeed with the rapacious bankers, surely Obama can succeed with self-centered politicians. Behavior modification, and how to accomplish it, is the challenge. People, even politicians, can be motivated with the right system of rewards and punishments, something that every successful politician has understood, FDR and LBJ especially. I am no psychologist, but I am a parent, and one thing I have learned as a parent is that shame does not modify behavior; calling out Republicans as unpatriotic won't work. Haidt and others believe human behavior is in large part a function of identities, whether cultural, religious, or otherwise, which is another way of saying humans are tribal in their behavior. Demographic changes in America have upset traditional identities and have created fear (the motivator) among many groups (tribes). Rove and others have spent years exploiting those fears, and Obama is their worst nightmare. The large and growing evangelical protestant movement (tribe) is, unfortunately, sectarian in its outlook and theology; no, we are not all "brothers". The challenges faced by Obama in overcoming the tribal differences and creating a single identity for all Americans are enormous. Maybe he should start by inviting Haidt to the White House for a few beers. American beers.
- rayward
November 7, 2012 at 7:22am
"What can Obama and the Democrats do to improve their chances of passing legislation?" Politics from the ground up. Take tax policy. When Clinton Gore put out a tax plan it came with approval of Nobel economists. Gerald Ford held an economic summit and made a big deal about. I remember Bush hitting the ground outside Washington to move his agenda. I was disappointed that the President never defended the ACA and the only person I heard saying good things about it was Romney, about how well it worked in Massachusetts. The President should challenge himself to educate us about the best way forward and why it is the best way.
- Nusholtz
November 7, 2012 at 8:18am
"The President should challenge himself to educate us about the best way forward and why it is the best way." Yep.
- Claris
November 7, 2012 at 8:30am
My question is: will Obama put the gloves on, now, and fight, using the bully pulpit he has, castigating the Republicans for not working together for the good of America? It is time to be Mr. Strong Guy.
- kras
November 7, 2012 at 9:08am
The new goal needs to be, nailing to Tea-Party Republicans the results of their intransigent behavior. After threatening to shut down the American Economy THREE TIMES in 2011, the House was not "punished", but instead rewarded for their bad behavior. First step -- change the filibuster rules in the Senate, so any Tea-Party Republicans there have to talk and talk and talk to maintain their filibuster. No more "invisible holds". This will result in making obvious who is creating and maintaining the Grid-Lock. Second step -- use the resulting progress in the Senate to paint the House Republicans as a bunch of self-interested luddites so wedded to pro-Corporation power they'll destroy America to get it. Third step -- do not "compromise" with these people, as in the past they'll take whatever they can get then ask for more. Fourth step -- the 2014 elections to remove the Tea-Party from the House.
- AllanL5
November 7, 2012 at 9:13am
They're backed into a corner. Their future is bleak. I fully expect them to burn the crops while they retreat. I guess we'll just hand them the shovels.
- jm3245
November 7, 2012 at 9:15am
hell, a consolidation of his first term will be a major achievement in its own right, entitlement reform, tax reform, and immigration reform will make him Mount Rushmore material. And in 4 years Democrats will be nominating a white for the White House which will eat into Republicans white man only tradition if only by a few percent in the south. And I hope Nush is right, but if Democrats can't even give a glass of water to a thirsty Republican I really don't know how to move them. In any event I don't care about the road forward so much right now, I am jubilant that the American people did not choose the wrong road now.
- blackton
November 7, 2012 at 9:32am
We'll see what happens in the fiscal cliff debates. I suspect that the McConnell/Boehner tag team will lie down in the middle of the road and force Obama to drive over them. That said, the greatest joy of this election for me is having McConnell eat his "make him a one-term President" pledge.
- Lundell
November 7, 2012 at 9:58am
Eliminate anonymous holds and filibusters. Set cloture at 50%. Eliminate the gridlock, and let the government elected officials do their actual jobs.
- GSpinks
November 7, 2012 at 10:58am
"We'll see what happens in the fiscal cliff debates. I suspect that the McConnell/Boehner tag team will lie down in the middle of the road and force Obama to drive over them." That's just what Obama will do. And then McConnell and Boehner will blink and agree to a short-term fix to move the fiscal cliff into next spring, or more likely they will do nothing and the fiscal cliff will arrive on January 1. Of course, I predict its immediate effect will be less drastic than it seems now as the spending cuts are not going to actually take effect at that time (they will be timed to go into effect gradually over the course of the fiscal year) and the Fed will probably announce an additional benchmark rate cut to take the pressure off an increase in tax withholding and payroll taxes. Then, Obama will move quickly to offer his own tax and deficit reduction plan that will bank tax increases for income over $250,000 but return to Bush-era rates for income below that threshold. And that will earn enough Republican votes in the House and Senate to pass, as voting for that package would not run afoul of the sacred Taxpayer Protection Pledge -- after all, those Republicans would be voting to LOWER taxes, not raise them. Q.E.D. Oh yeah, and some nice filibuster reform will be a cherry on top. It can be phased in and could be preserved in the case of judicial appointments (though without holds and with the need to actually debate). But for legislation, let it be done with. After the filibuster is gone, the first order of business of a filibuster-less Senate should be a bill that eliminates the debt ceiling concept once and for all.
- wildboy
November 7, 2012 at 11:40am
As has been written in some national journals, Obama has already embarked on a countermanding strategy: pushing the constitutional limits of Executive Orders. Probably he already plans to finesse Congress over the next debt ceiling limit. He knows he can't be impeached (or at least have that confirmed) so he will make it clear to the Republican-Tea Party coalition that he will go right around them every chance he gets, while still holding open the option of bipartisan compromise. A couple or successes at that may well bring the troglodytes to the table
- VibesMan
November 7, 2012 at 11:53am
Well said, "Vibes". And if they don't come to the table, Obama will still get things done that way. Hopefully making them look like idiots in the process.
- AllanL5
November 7, 2012 at 12:27pm
I'm waiting for our resident right-wingnuts to come out from under the covers and tell us how this election provided Obama with no mandate considering his overwhelming win over Romney is far more impressive than Bush's "mandate victory" over Kerry in '04. I predict a retrenching by the hard-right that they only need get more wacky-conservative and only then will Amerika see the wrongs that have been perpetrated against the old white men.
- singlspeed
November 7, 2012 at 1:19pm
What can Obama and the Democrats do to improve their chances of passing legislation? One more item: abolish plurality voting. Were it not for plurality voting, primary threats would be a paper tiger as anyone losing such a primary could run in the general election anyway without consequence. Such an environment would not induce an Allen West to cooperate with Democrats, but it would remove the intra-party electoral disincentive from anyone who is otherwise inclined to do so.
- sighthnd
November 7, 2012 at 1:19pm
"That said, the greatest joy of this election for me is having McConnell eat his "make him a one-term President" pledge." Right, Lundell. If I were to pass McConnell on the street, I'd stop him and say, "Senator, you promised to make Obama a one-term president. How's that workin' for ya?" How sweet it is!
- magboy47.
November 7, 2012 at 1:39pm
There's no angrier loser than one who knows he beat himself. I can't see anything but gridlock in Washington, at least for a while. The electoral system and the pressure system are both extreme Right for the GOP right now. Their politicians have no choice but to sabotage the government that they and their supporters hate. Eventually they'll sabotage themselves right out of business. Angry losers are like that.
- magboy47.
November 7, 2012 at 1:59pm
Having just finished reading Hilary Mantel's WOLF HALL, I think the best way for Obama to deal with Republicans would be to dig up Thomas Cromwell, reattach his head, and set up a meeting with John Boehner, where it will be explained to him by The Man Who beheaded Thomas More that the House Republicans can either cooperate or be arrested on charges of Treason and Heresy, summarily executed in front of the Capitol, and their severed heads used as decoration at the upcoming Inauguration . . . (no, I am NOT serious)
- lump516
November 7, 2012 at 3:17pm