Why can’t I have landmines?

Our Constitution could not be more explicit – My right to bear arms shall not be infringed. No mealy-mouthed, gun-snatching liberals have the authority to limit my access to private firepower. That right descends straight from Jesus Christ to my basement arsenal.

I want my landmines and I want them now.

Currently, my home is vulnerable to a variety of unnecessary risks that could be easily remediated with carefully placed and marked “home security enhancements.” Unfortunately, the country has been duped by progressives who have convinced the public to exchange their Liberty for so-called safety. Nanny state oppression doesn’t stop at my seat belt or those bogus cigarette warnings. It extends all the way into my front yard.

Gang members, thugs, and Islamic terrorists (the only kind of terrorist, of course) can creep onto my lawn while my family sleeps. They can peer through our windows, exploring our weaknesses for future attacks. Thanks to state-sponsored oppression, I am powerless to obtain and deploy the counter-measures that would keep my family safe from this danger.

Would landmines pose a threat to neighborhood kids, dogs, and postal workers? Maybe, but what price are you going to place on my liberty? What ever happened to individual responsibility?

Sure, some kid might miss the skull & crossbones markers I place next to the sidewalk. They might drift into the wrong spot in pursuit of a stray Frisbee and lose a leg. It happens. Freedom isn’t free. How is that different from the school kids, movie-goers, cops and church members regularly gunned down by super-armed psychos using guns? That’s right, there is no difference.

If Americans didn’t possess nearly half the world’s total inventory of guns in private hands it would be harder for the occasional lunatic get his hands on a weapon and mow down a Bible study group. So what? We need those weapons to protect our liberty from the gangs of roaming thugs who want to oppress us. And from Obama.

America is the only country in the world that endures mass shootings on a regular basis in peacetime because we are the only country on Earth that truly understands freedom. Every decent person unclouded by progressive Communistic propaganda recognizes that there is one way to respond to incidents of random gun violence – arm ourselves even more.

If that church in Charleston had been ringed by landmines, and its doors defended by turret guns attached to heartbeat sensors, and each parishioner was armed with a pistol held on their hip, this tragic incident would maybe still have occurred, but it sure would have looked different. This is what happens when limp-wristed progressives take away our right to self-defense.

Would we be safer without all these weapons? Of course we would. Any idiot can recognize that. Safety isn’t what our God-given Constitution granted us. To be free from mass, random gun violence like every other free, civilized nation on Earth we would have to give up our special brand of Liberty.

So why can’t I buy rocket-propelled grenades, anti-aircraft guns, and landmines? Let’s face it, as many Americans are killed using firearms each year as in car accidents. Do you really think landmines will make this situation any worse? The only solution to any problem is more individual freedom.

Just like the Bible, the Constitution was written by the finger of God. It must never be interpreted or adapted, only explicitly followed in every literal detail. Thanks to the Constitution, meddling liberal know-it-alls in far off Washington have no authority to tell me how to defend my property. Give me landmines or give me death.

God bless America and get off my lawn.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Gun Rights

Psycho killers, gun control, and political violence

There are a lot of potential threads to follow from the murder of nine churchgoers in Charleston’s most historic black church. I’m only posting historical links rather than new material in part to emphasize this crucial reality – we’ve seen this movie before.

The United States is the only place on Earth where violence of this character happens on a regular, ongoing basis. That is not an accident. Somehow we have become numb to this absurdity. We don’t even try to do anything about it anymore. Here’s a summary of a few topics around gun violence and psycho killers:

The Growing Risk of Political Violence

For starters, let’s be clear on what did and did not happen. The incident in South Carolina is not terrorism or political violence. It is vital that we understand the difference between the actions of isolated lunatics and the growing danger of organized, strategic political killing.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2012/08/the-frc-shooting-and-the-growing-risk-of-political-violence/

Excerpt:

“Perhaps our normal (perhaps there’s a better word…) ecosystem of psycho killers is responding to something in the water that the rest of us are failing, so far, to notice.  As we dump more and more toxic rhetoric into our political swamp, those tortured souls may be acting as our crazy advanced warning system of larger troubles to come.”

Politics, Gun Control, and Psycho Killers

America’s spectacular, unregulated private arsenals are a problem. Pouring that much lethality into the general public will make it impossible to contain the impact of weirdos on the margins on society. We are basically ceding our liberty to crazy people who can take it away more or less at random.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2012/12/politics-gun-control-and-psycho-killers/

Excerpt:

“Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.  However, people kill a lot more people, a lot faster, with a Bushmaster.

Some would say claim that Americans aren’t heavily armed enough.  It’s true I suppose, that if we all had minefields in our yards and Gatling guns mounted on our roofs we would, for example, suffer fewer burglaries.  We would also have fewer limbs.  Life is full of tradeoffs.

We are paying a price in public safety for my ability to play with serious firepower.  That’s an unavoidable fact.  The political question is whether that price is worth paying.”

Gun Control in the Ownership Society

There is no credibly defensible reason why America should be the world’s peacetime leader in mass, random slaughter. Would we continue to have lunatics shooting up our private spaces if we required insurance for guns in the same manner that we do for automobiles?

A properly structured market can solve, or at least mitigate, a wide range of problems. Creating a market for gun safety through a simple, enforceable insurance obligation could radically reduce gun violence while protecting and even expanding the rights of competent, responsible gun owners. There is no sane argument against basic liability for negligent gun ownership.

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/04/gun-control-in-the-ownership-society/

Excerpt:

“New proposals add more symbolic regulation on top of existing symbolic regulation. For example, an assault weapons ban sounds useful until you look at how vague the restrictions are. It is easy to circumvent them and also easy to accidentally violate them. Background checks are a modest help at the moment of purchase, but they don’t follow that gun through its lifespan. Our thinking around weapons regulation fails to address the need for choice bounded by accountability, transparency, and responsibility.

We need a new approach, but the effort to craft better laws is complicated by relative indifference to gun rights on one side and tin-hat paranoia on the other. Here’s an idea that might work.”

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Gun Rights

Excerpt from The Politics of Crazy: The Influence of Money

PoliticsOfCrazy_YLW2One of the factors that serves to limit public enthusiasm for politics is the general belief that money rules all. Money matters in our politics, but not as much as most people think. More surprisingly, money matters less now than it ever has in the history of our political system. Here’s an explanation from the book:

Imagine a place in which only wealthy people can vote. The threshold for political influence at any level is a minimal amount of property ownership. Women are not allowed to participate at all, regardless of wealth. Only people of the correct race, family heritage, and religious associations are granted any voice.

Add in the legal protection of slaveholder’s rights, and that is the system our Founders constructed. The American Republic was originally built to protect the liberty of wealthy white males. When you place the power of the wealthy in a historical context, the steady decline of their relative influence starts to become clearer.

America didn’t grant voting rights to all white men until the 1820s. We didn’t end slavery until the 1860s. Women didn’t gain the right to vote until 1919. Blacks and Hispanics were routinely blocked from the political system until the 1970s and still have their influence systematically blunted today.

There were no federal campaign-finance laws of any kind until the Tillman Act in 1907. Until the early 20th century, Senate seats were more or less openly purchased with payments to the state legislators who selected Senators. That act required no disclosures and included no enforcement mechanism, accomplishing precisely nothing. There were no enforceable federal laws limiting campaign contributions until 1972. Ambassadorships to attractive, peaceful locations are still sold to the highest bidder, as they always have been.

…..

There are few explicit, enforceable legal checks on the political influence of money. Yet buying a political outcome in our system is harder now than it has ever been. It costs more; it requires more effort, energy, and coordination; and more attempts fail than succeed. The decline in the relative power of money in our politics is almost entirely a product of the large devolutionary trends outlined earlier, rather than the result of any legislative effort.

True, well-funded special interests are still more powerful than they should be. Reducing the disproportionate influence of money on our politics should be a priority. However, money is not our central political problem. Finding an intelligent way forward starts with a realistic assessment of the situation.

The most powerful force in our politics is the time, energy, and attention of people willing to get off their couch and participate personally in the process. It takes enormous sums of money to counter the influence of a few well-organized and connected activists.

…..

If it seems like public officials are spending more time and energy than ever raising money, that’s because they are. By a strange twist, our weak campaign-finance laws are to blame for this situation. Our complicated, confusing, and often contradictory mess of regulations has made it extremely difficult to run for office. It has also provided a surprising advantage for wealthy donors.

Thirty years ago, a candidate could fund a campaign with an appeal to one or two donors. As a result, he might be very closely aligned with that one interest, but he spent very little time soliciting money. Now a candidate still needs wealthy donors, but she has to find dozens or even hundreds of them in order to survive. Instead of forging an appeal to a few donors with whom she is already aligned on policy, the candidate must build an agenda that will appeal to wealthy donors as a class. Our funding limits have acted like a union for the wealthy, allowing them to act together in ways that would have been impossible without those limits.

At the same time, the pressure to find donors has increased the power of third-party interest groups and PACs that seek to influence campaigns without being specifically tied to a candidate. A Congressional candidate has only so many hours of the day to spend raising money. These organizations have gained unnecessary influence as caps on campaign contributions have raised the pressure to find cash. They are also competing with candidates for funds.

In short, our approach to campaign-finance law has been an unmitigated disaster. Building a more intelligent system starts with a closer look at the behavior we hope to limit. We want our elected officials to make policy decisions based on a combination of their constituents’ input and their own well-considered evaluations of the public and national interest. Limits on campaign contributions are meant to halt the wealthy from engaging in a sort of legalized bribery that would subvert the public interest in favor of their own.

Not every campaign contribution is bribery. Campaign contributions are in fact one of the ways that we measure a potential candidate’s credibility and qualifications. It takes money to run for office. Communicating with voters costs money. Driving from campaign site to campaign site costs money. Taking money out of politics would require us to take most of the communication, visibility, and accountability out of politics.

Perhaps the simplest, most effective means to limit the power of organized bribery to subvert the public interest is to build our campaign-finance system on bedrock of full disclosure. Instead of limiting contributions by amount, we should impose authentic transparency.

Tagged with:
Posted in Politics of Crazy

Rachel Dolezal and other strange stories of race in America

We found out this week that the NAACP’s city director in Spokane, Washington is a white woman who has been pretending to be black for years. In fact, Rachel Dolezal has invented an entire mythology for herself complete with an ersatz family history and an incident of racially-charged hate mail that she appears to have faked.

Americans have a strange relationship to the notion of race. We tend to think of it as an immutable, empirically verifiable condition, but that is not the case. Ask a geneticist to define race and they will probably stare at you in confusion. Race is a cultural construct that evolved in our country as a way to justify and sustain slavery. It is not much inherited as imposed.

The disconnect between our racial assumptions and the real world has produced an endless string of odd outcomes down through the centuries. The Dolezal incident is perhaps a good excuse to go on a tour of some of the more counter-intuitive, strange, or ironic stories to emerge from our tortured relationship with race:

– It took time for the connection between “blackness” and slavery to congeal in American culture and law. A story from early colonial Virginia provides a glimpse of a time before that connection had been forged.

A slave from Angola named Anthony Johnson completed his contract around 1635. Lifetime slavery had not yet been established as an institution. Johnson obtained property and became a slave-holder himself, even owning white slaves. We know of him primarily from a suit he filed in the 1650’s to regain custody of a runaway slave.

– During this period, thousands of Irish were shipped to North America and the West Indies as slaves, including somewhere between 10,000 and 60,000 who were sent to the sugar plantations of Barbados.

– Many laws were passed in the Colonial period to create a presumption that dark-skinned people were slaves. On the other hand, there was never any law that expressly protected whites from slavery. That created a hole that anyone could theoretically fall into. A petition to the North Carolina legislature in 1800 survives to demonstrate this point.

In a strange twist, a white woman named Laura had been raised as a slave. When her situation was discovered a petition for manumission was submitted to the legislature. No action was taken on her petition, leaving her and any of her potential offspring to remain in bondage.

– Right through the height of the plantation era, there were a handful of freed blacks who managed to not only hold slaves, but to own them in significant numbers. It was a tenuous and irony-filled situation to be sure, but it did occasionally occur. As late as 1860, William Ellison, a freed slave in South Carolina, owned 63 slaves and a highly-profitable plantation. He was one of the wealthiest men in the state and a fervent supporter of the Confederacy.

– For poorer whites, slavery loomed as a constant potential threat if they could not definitively prove their heritage. The strange case of a white woman named Alexina Morrison demonstrates the problem. In 1857 in Louisiana, she sued to prove that she had been abducted into slavery. Her trial was a bizarre spectacle and the court case was interrupted by the Civil War. Technically, her case remains open and unresolved, a fitting irony.

– Radio and recorded music exploded as popular entertainment in the period after World War II. A unique niche developed around “race records,” recordings by black entertainers.

Despite their growing popularity, major outlets would not sell or play them, limiting the earning potential of writers and performers. A producer at Sun Records in Memphis made a name for himself by reproducing black hits with white artists. He got his big break when a handsome young white singer named Elvis Presley recorded “That’s Alright Mama.” The song had originally been written and recorded by Arthur Crudup, a black blues musician from the Mississippi Delta. Crudup continued to work as a field laborer and bootlegger and died in poverty. Mr. Presley, on the other hand…well, you may have heard of him.

– In 1961 John Howard Griffin published Black Like Me. The book was an account of his experiences traveling the in the Jim Crow South under an assumed black identity.

– In 1991, a successful white rap performer who called himself “Vanilla Ice” earned scorn for manufacturing a rough and tumble “urban” biography. He claimed “I’m from the streets. That’s where I learned to dance and rap.” Those “streets” were primarily in the affluent Dallas suburb of Carrollton. Mr. Van Winkle was eventually shaken-down by early Hip-hop pioneer Suge Knight. By turning the Sun Records model on its head, quite literally, Knight may have marked the end of an era in white financial exploitation of black art.

– A recent genetic study demonstrated an interesting fact about racial identity in the US. Across the southern states, between one in seven (South Carolina) and one in ten (Georgia) of each state’s white populations carry enough black ancestry to have qualified as black under those states’ Jim Crow laws. It may be unusual for a woman like Rachel Dolezal to try to “pass” as black, but passing as white was a crucial and successful survival strategy for millions of Americans under slavery and Jim Crow.

Rachel Dolezal’s case is certainly odd, but placed in the context of our racial history it isn’t all that remarkable.

As a Saturday Night Live performer, Eddie Murphy made a living alternatively ridiculing and capitalizing on stereotypes of African-Americans. A short film he made for the show spoofed Griffin’s Black Like Me. Here’s an example of what Rachel Dolezal was giving up by deciding to live as a black woman, according to Murphy:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/white-like-me/n9308

Enjoy Arthur “Big Boy” Crudup’s original version of “That’s Alright Mama.”

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Race

McKinney’s Rorschach

Over the course of nine minutes of cell phone footage, most of the world sees a straightforward picture. The amped-up white police officer violently subdues an otherwise compliant, 14-year old black girl in a bikini who had been standing on a sidewalk. When other children object and move closer, he pulls his gun and levels it at them. They see that same officer running and shouting and cussing at a crowd of kids who don’t appear to be doing anything inappropriate for a public venue.

Some people watch that same sequence of images and build a starkly different narrative. That’s what makes this incident so interesting and so telling. Video from the police confrontation at the public park in McKinney is a sociologist’s dream, a near-perfect litmus test to explore deep-seated cultural and psychological assumptions. The video snippets of the incident in McKinney aren’t half as interesting as our individual responses to what we see in them.

Here’s what we know about the incident. McKinney is a distant suburb of Dallas. The neighborhood, like the town, is overwhelmingly white. At a public park which adjoins a neighborhood pool open only to residents, someone staged a paid event with a DJ. It is not clear whether they had or needed any permit. Most of the participants were young black teenagers from outside the neighborhood.

Residents complained that party-goers were spilling into the gated, residents-only pool area. When confronted by security they claimed to have “guest-passes” and many refused to leave. Tensions escalated. According to several witnesses, a fight broke out when a white woman told a black teen to “go back to their Section 8 housing.” A separate video shows that fight. The police were called and the now-familiar footage was recorded.

City officials in McKinney have acted with remarkable decisiveness. The mayor and police chief unequivocally condemned the incident. The officer in question was immediately placed on leave and has already left the force. For a variety of reasons, this incident has unfolded in a manner different some instances of police violence elsewhere in the country.

Not everyone appreciates the firm action of McKinney’s elected representatives. Anyone who has friends or relatives in Texas may have seen comments like this Facebook post that showed up on your author’s news feed:

“Wake up people!! These disrespectful wild gang banging teens need to learn how to act! Shame on them, their parents and this godforsaken liberal media that gives these idiots more attention than they deserve!”

Some people watch that footage and see a courageous officer holding the line against a marauding onslaught of “gang banging” barbarians. They see the end of the world, or at least the end of their world, a world in which their interests, their property, their lives held a special place of honor above all others.

How “disrespectful” were these “gang-banging teens”? As a sample of their behavior the video shows a kid detained by Officer Casebolt mustering the temerity to mouth off by appealing, “Sir, we just came to a birthday party…” That’s right, “sir.” So, “shame on their parents.”

Some background might be helpful, both in understanding the history that led to this incident and understanding why McKinney’s response was so different from what we’ve seen elsewhere in the country. It starts with the death of public capital in the South.

Swimming pools have been a particularly touchy subject in the post-Civil Rights Era. Tactics used to evade desegregation of pools became a template for maintaining unofficial segregation right into our era.

From Alabama to East Texas, public swimming pools were among the first public institutions to be destroyed in order to thwart desegregation. Marshall, Texas blocked desegregation by closing down its public pool. It later re-opened the pool under private sponsorship, allowing the facility to remain segregated. The same mechanism was leveraged by Montgomery, Alabama until Federal courts struck down their effort in 1970. The same tactic remained in place elsewhere.

Over time, more sophisticated measures were adopted. Those tactics applied to public institutions of almost every kind. Basically whatever could not be privatized was either discontinued or starved of funding.

Major cities across the South still lack effective public transportation at almost any level. Some towns still have public pools, but white communities have their own facilities built into private subdivisions, like the pool in McKinney, allowing them to filter and regulate access. A subtle, entirely legal move toward carefully calibrated “privatization” has undermined the public character of every institution from schools to parks. Scenes from McKinney demonstrate in the most literal way possible “why we can’t have nice things.”

McKinney’s response to the incident also highlights something unique about Southern life, but from a very different angle. When Cleveland police last fall rolled up on a 12-year old black child with a pellet gun and immediately killed him, it took weeks for city officials to respond in any coherent way.

When a cop in the heart of the racist South put a hand on young black kid in an inappropriate and disrespectful manner he was out of a job in days. The family of Tamir Rice in Cleveland is still waiting for charges or disciplinary action six months after a horrifying incident of official misconduct that was recorded on tape. Meanwhile, McKinney has put a much less egregious issue very nearly to rest in less than two weeks.

McKinney, and the area in which it sits, has a miserable racial history, but it also lacks the sclerotic, corrupt public institutions that burden government and undermine its ability to adapt across much of the north. Police officers in Texas and across the South participate in employee unions, but those institutions have no power remotely approaching what their fellow institutions enjoy in northern cities. There is no institution in Texas with the built-in political power to shield police officers from scrutiny and discipline.

Baltimore and Cleveland have black Democratic leadership keenly sensitive to the needs of minority communities. McKinney, like Texas in general, is run by white Republicans almost entirely blind to minority concerns where they are not openly hostile to them.

However, there is no political force with the power to tame public employee unions in Cleveland or Baltimore or New York or Chicago. In McKinney, the government is capable of moving to rein in obvious abuses by public servants. Municipal governments all across the north simply lack that capability. McKinney has far more freedom to adapt to changing circumstances than Cleveland.

Against that backdrop of history and the footage of this particular incident, a fascinatingly diverse set of narratives have emerged. Consult your own Facebook or Twitter feeds, or your grandmothers’ forwarded emails for examples. What does your author see in this Rorschach? Hope and optimism.

In a place with an extremely dark racial history, I see an incident that might well have ended in tragedy instead tempered by restraint. I see young black kids confronted by absurd injustice responding with respect and decency, but also with a fresh new assertiveness. The kids in this footage are not cowering. They seem to recognize not only that they have rights and dignity, but that they have the power to assert those rights and that dignity.

Yes, I see a white police officer responding to a racially charged scenario with an arrogance born of a sense of supremacy. Right there with him though are two other white officers with cool heads and professionalism who calm the situation and prevent a tragedy. Most remarkable of all, I see a conservative white municipal administration that acted with surprising decisiveness when presented with clear evidence of abuse.

Like everyone else, what I see emerging from this scenario confirms my own bias. In this case, it’s my bias toward progress and my faith in America. This country is getting better. Young people, whether the kids at the pool or those very young faces in the police uniforms are building a better world than we imagined was possible. I hope you see it too.

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Civil Rights, Texas

Georgia as a swing state

Georgia was a fat disappointment for Democrats in 2014. Years of demographic transformation seemed to be opening new opportunities. A dominant bloc of aging white conservatives that had recently pivoted from the Democratic Party to the GOP appeared to be losing their stranglehold on the state’s politics. Having fielded solid, well-funded candidates for Governor and the Senate, they expected those races to at least run close.

Results from last year’s election raise a lot of interesting questions about the state of play in Georgia and the power of the Blue Wall. Determining whether the state will once again be competitive in Presidential elections, and more importantly – when – hinges on the answers to these four questions:

– Have Georgia’s Dixiecrats completed their flight to the Republican Party?

– Can the state’s aggressive campaign of vote suppression dampen minority engagement just enough to retain white dominance?

– When will Hispanics show up to the political process?

– Most importantly, will Republicans find a way to retain affluent whites in Atlanta’s close-in suburbs?

The first question is probably the easiest to answer. We have almost certainly witnessed the high-water mark of Republican power in Georgia in our era.

Looking at trends in state and federal elections across the past four decades it becomes clear that the flight of Georgia’s Dixiecrats petered out early in the Bush II years, probably about 2002. Democrats have been experiencing a long hangover, ticking back up by only 3-4 percentage points from their nadir. Now, demographic trends are all running strongly, though slowly, in the Democrats’ favor.

Gaining only 45% of the vote in 2014 was a disappointment for Democrats, but there are some other factors to consider. Democrats do poorly in low-turnout elections. Georgians cast a third-fewer votes in 2014 than in 2012, however their top of the ticket candidate retained the same percentage. That is a very significant number, suggesting that at the higher turnout levels of a Presidential election year that figure would be somewhere between 47-48% at least.

Current Republican power in Georgia is founded on white conservatives who migrated to the party over the past generation. They are aging and literally dying. Younger Georgians, even young people who otherwise match the demographic character of the Dixiecrats, are following in their footsteps by smaller and smaller margins. Rebranding Southern conservatism from Jim Crow to Jesus is losing its magic. Barring an historic transformation of the Republican agenda, the loss of Republican dominance in Georgia is just a question of attrition.

That said, attrition can be very slow. If you can delay the “inevitable” long enough then it is no longer so inevitable. That’s where Georgia’s particularly aggressive campaign of vote suppression becomes important.

Vote suppression in Georgia is far more comprehensive than the modest Voter ID campaigns Republicans have leveraged elsewhere. Georgia officials have mounted a sustained, targeted campaign that has limited voting hours, harassed community volunteers, and significantly raised the cost of minority political organization in the state. The effectiveness of this effort is hard to measure because its most potent effects are very subtle.

If black turnout is the stat that indicates success or failure, than vote suppression has backfired. The black community is more dedicated, resolved, engaged, and hostile to the GOP than it has ever been.

That is probably the wrong measure to use. Although the black population is growing, they are not Republicans’ most serious concern. Hispanics are the rising force in Georgia politics. In that community, vote suppression looks like a resounding success.

Two issues keep Hispanics under-represented in Georgia politics. First, despite their population numbers at almost 10% of the state’s residents and growing fast, they are very young. With a median age of only 25, a vast majority of the state’s nearly 900,000 Hispanics are under 40, a demographic swath that under-participates in politics across every demographic group. They are a large population, but only a modest electorate – for now.

Contributing to their under-representation is a history of systematic exclusion from Southern politics. Hispanics have never had a credible avenue to organize and express their political interests anywhere in the South. Under those conditions they have developed their own collection of institutions almost completely independent of organized electoral politics. Their experience has been different from the black community in some very important ways.

Connections to Mexico provided an avenue of flight when abuses from the majority community occasionally reached critical levels. Where the black community was pressed by their lack of alternatives to organize and participate actively in the system, Hispanics in the South developed a completely different template of responses to Jim Crow and its aftermath, largely bypassing elections.

It will take time for the new opportunity to inspire an evolution of the institutions that influence Hispanic communities in the South. Vote suppression has been fairly effective in delaying that evolution and continuing Hispanic alienation. That evolution might be slow, but it is likely to appear in election results very suddenly. In other words, Hispanic political power may or may not show up in a dramatic way in 2016 or 2020, but when it does show up it will surprise everyone. Vote suppression is working for now, but it is a brittle dam holding back an inevitable flood.

It is easy to find articles describing Republicans’ challenges with minority communities, but perhaps the largest factor in determining whether the state becomes competitive will be a topic neither party is taking very seriously. The fastest growing political force in Georgia is its urban population.

At the national level, Democrats take the cities for granted and Republicans dismiss them out of hand. Trapped in that dynamic, urban and suburban voters are becoming increasingly alienated.

Georgia’s countryside is emptying into Atlanta at a rapidly expanding pace. Young people who move to the city may bring with them a template of political alliances and assumptions that are very old, but that template evolves quickly under new urban demands. Democrats are the only figures that pretend an interest in urban concerns issues, but the long absence of competition is creating weakness.

Republicans count on support from suburban and exurban whites, but in metro Atlanta that support is in steep decline. Those declines are most pronounced, dropping by almost a quarter over the past decade, in the counties closest to the city, but they are universal across the area. For example, the rock-hard Republican enclave of Forsyth County gave a stunning 79% of its vote to Republican Senate candidate David Perdue in 2014. That big win masks a steady, continuing decline from the 85% that Bush won there in 2004. As Atlanta’s suburban counties grow, their Republican character is eroding.

Georgia’s future political direction will most likely be determined by the outcome of races in Atlanta and its near suburbs that are too local and obscure to draw the attention of outsiders. To an ever increasing extent, Georgia = Atlanta. Metro Atlanta already accounts for half of the state’s electorate. That figure is guaranteed to climb for the foreseeable future.

It is not yet clear whether those voters will come to see their interests aligned with the far suburbs or the urban core. So far all of Atlanta’s suburban counties are moving steadily closer to Atlanta politically. If Hilary Clinton does no more than continue the current trend in suburban drift toward the Democrats and maintain the usual pattern of higher Democratic turnout in Presidential election years, then Georgia will be too close to call.

Obama won well over 45% of the vote in Georgia in 2012. If Clinton doesn’t campaign there, she’s still likely to pick up nearly 47% just based on demographic trends. If she can add an additional 60,000 votes from Metro Atlanta over Obama’s 2012 numbers she might win Georgia.

Georgia’s future hinges on a factor separate from race and ethnicity – urbanization. Of the four questions that hang over Georgia’s political future, Republican’s ability to hold Atlanta’s suburbs is the most decisive. Democrats pretend to be the party of cities, but that’s purely a default position handed to them by a Republican capitulation. A party that can restore trust in public schools in Atlanta, obtain solid support for public transit infrastructure, and impose sound fiscal discipline, will control the state for the near future.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in blue wall

Excerpt from The Politics of Crazy: “Do Something”

PoliticsOfCrazy_YLW2This blog, and the first book it’s inspired, came out of a desire to “do something” about a set of political conditions that caused me concern. One of the problems that struck me is the way our lifestyle seems to be undermining our public engagement, not just in politics but in every other area. The final chapter of the book walks through a series of practical suggestions aimed at making the kind of casual political involvement so critical to our system more practical in a digital world. This excerpt is the introduction to that chapter:

*****

Leaving the office early tonight means extra work tomorrow, but it’s the only way to get home in time for your son’s soccer game. Your daughter’s game starts half an hour later, so your spouse will be covering that one. After the game comes dinner, maybe around 7:30. You’ll have to get it at the corner pizza joint—no time to cook.

Home by about 8, then baths, homework, clarinet practice, and so on. Once the kids are in bed, you’ve got a few emails to respond to, about matters that came up after you left the office.

Sitting in bed, spouses catch each other up on family matters. The kids’ grades, weekend plans, news from work, the call from Grandma or Aunt so-and-so. Maybe you can squeeze in a half-hour episode from the DVR. Then the lights go out, and soon it’s time to start all over again.

Where in this scenario is there room to attend a caucus?

Crazy politics is symptomatic of a complex social problem. Our system is built on the assumption that citizens are knitted together in a dense network of participatory institutions. Relatively few of those institutions are overtly political, but all of them foster an atmosphere of accountability and oversight that keeps our interests connected.

These networks maintain the feedback loops that dampen political stupidity. Very few people may be directly involved in politics in ways that require a physical presence, but that complex network of social institutions is supposed to ensure that those few people are sound, representative, and accountable. That isn’t happening now.

As we’ve grown richer and freer, we’ve left behind many of the ties that once bound us together in communities. Greater individualism is fueling an expansion of wealth while tearing down many of the institutions that gave rise to that wealth.

In evaluating how we might restore some sanity to our political system, we must confront some bad news: For a representative democracy to thrive there is no substitute for engagement. Time and attention come at a cost. The energy we devote to collective participation in community institutions must come from somewhere.

The good news is that we can leverage the same technological advancements that have sped up our lives in order to build new sorts of communities to supplement our personal engagement. Technology cannot replace the inherently humanizing value of face-to-face interactions. To the extent that we leverage its potential, we must always be aware of the fresh problems and distortions it creates. But, despite its limitations, we must start using these new tools more aggressively, and in a more purposeful manner, to re-create some of the institutional checks and balances that once rose from local communities.

Making these new virtual communities effective starts with an understanding of the older functions we need to supplement. Responsible citizenship involves so much more than reading the newspaper and voting. A complex political environment lurks beneath the headlines, as evidenced by the seemingly unimportant races hiding at the bottom of my Election Day ballot…

Tagged with:
Posted in Politics of Crazy

My first book is available now

PoliticsOfCrazy_YLW2Here’s a little secret about the GOPLifer blog. For almost seven years, you folks have been helping me write a book. Now it’s available as an ebook from Amazon at this location, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00X1EM3AW. Since you helped write it, you’ll have a chance to get a copy for free.

Back in 2008 I worked as hard as I could in my precinct and on the phone to get John McCain elected President. For years, back in Texas and in Chicago, I had watched the rise of a certain brand white racial identity politics in the GOP with growing concern. By putting McCain in the White House I felt we had an opportunity to live under experienced, capable leadership at the national level, but we would also get something more.

Senator McCain had demonstrated a willingness to stand up to the crazies inside the GOP. If he won we might have had an opportunity to right the Republican ship, restoring competent, rational people to positions of authority in the party infrastructure. If he lost, the door would be open for characters like Sarah Palin, his greatest mistake, to become the face and brain of the party.

You know what happened.

McCain’s loss marked the last near-term opportunity for people like me to exercise much, if any, direct influence on the party. There was nothing left to do but write about the situation. In the course of recording my thoughts I hoped I might discover some insights about the forces that spawned such a tsunami of insanity. The book is the result of that long effort.

The Politics of Crazy: How America Lost Its Mind and What We Can Do About It lays out those insights and describes a few simple, common-sense strategies that might restore some sanity to our system. Starting next week from June 15-19th, the ebook will be available as a free download.

If you enjoy the blog and you like the book there are a few things you could do to offer support.

– Post a review at Amazon.

– Tell someone about the book. Maybe even tell two people, or three, or more!

– Post about the book on Facebook, and perhaps like the Facebook page for this blog at Building a Better GOP.

– Follow the book’s Twitter feed @PoliticsOfCrazy or post about it using #politicsofcrazy.

– Follow my author page on Amazon for more updates.

I’m excited about the book and I look forward to your feedback. Over the next two weeks I’ll be posting excerpts from the book to the blog. Next week I’ll write about it at the Chronicle also.

I have to take this opportunity to thank the many of you helped polish this work through years of reading and comments. There are almost a dozen people who have been following and commenting on this blog since before it was featured on the Chronicle. The first person ever to post a comment on the blog at the Chronicle, who posts under “Turtles Run,” is still active here. Thank you all for your support and criticism over the years. The two go hand in hand and have helped shape this effort.

Tagged with:
Posted in Politics of Crazy

Link roundup for June 4

Still traveling so not much time to write, but getting ready for a big announcement this weekend. Stay tuned. In the meantime, here’s what’s caught my attention over the past few days.

For those who aren’t yet embarrassed by the GOP Presidential race, here’s the song Rick Perry used to launch his campaign. It seemed too absurd to be true so I checked several sites and this is not a parody. It’s a real thing that happened.

In case you’ve been wondering about that supposed “slow-down” in global warming…

Creepy news about the Chinese government’s efforts to stamp out awareness of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Social conservatives’ worst gay marriage proposals stalled in the Texas Legislature’s regular session. They want to fix that.

Interesting history of how Catholicism became politically acceptable in the US. Fascinating parallels to growing social acceptance of other cultural outliers.

David Jennings at Big Jolly Politics describes Steven Hotze’s continuing fight against the “homosexual lobby” in the Lege.

Posted in Uncategorized

Nate Silver and the Blue Wall

After predicting the outcomes of the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections with remarkable foresight and clarity, Nate Silver has examined the “Blue Wall.” His conclusion – it does not exist.

Back in November I argued that the 2014 Election results revealed a disturbing trend. The Republican Party’s power was becoming geographically concentrated in a way that would render it impossible to influence future Presidential politics. Republicans’ biggest electoral wave in modern history obscured a nightmare. The party’s candidates and policies had solidly failed in a block of states I described as the “Blue Wall.”

With Virginia included in that category, as I argued it should be, the 2014 results revealed a geographic block of nearly impenetrable Democratic support so large as to shut Republicans out of national competitiveness for the near future. There are too many Californias and New Yorks, places where a Republican nominee has no hope of being competitive, for the party’s increasingly powerful influence in Texas, Mississippi and other solidly “red” states to matter nationally.

Silver dismisses this notion out of hand. His conclusion is founded on two arguments. First, past results do not predict future results. As an example, Silver points to a block of states that, up to the 1992 Election, had been a reliable bastion of Republican support. Clinton won nine of them. Four of them have been solidly Democratic ever since.

His second argument is that the Electoral College cannot necessarily be counted on to magnify Democratic electoral strength as some have claimed. To summarize, he explains “when commentators talk about the Democrats’ “blue wall,” all they’re really pointing out is that Democrats have had a pretty good run in presidential elections lately.”

As usual with Silver, his reasoning is airtight. Trouble comes from the straw men toward which that reasoning is directed. Evidence for the Blue Wall can be found in polling trends. However, the foundations for the Blue Wall’s reasoning are built not from polling assumptions, but from policy, demographics, and institutional factors. This description of New Hampshire’s slide behind the Blue Wall is a nice summary of the logic behind the assessment.

Having written a pretty sharply worded piece after the 2012 election about the dangers of betting against Nate Silver, I find myself, at least for the time being, in that very unhappy position myself. Your humble author is not enthusiastic about becoming the “unskewed polls” idiot of this election cycle. This development requires a careful rethink. Much to my discomfort, a closer look at the assumptions behind the Blue Wall leave me more convinced that Silver has it wrong.

Silver has developed the best strategy of our time for analyzing polling data. Consulting polls today for the 2016 Election renders few useful insights about the outcome. There are some interesting hints, like Clinton’s continued and consistent strength against every potential GOP candidate, but at this date voters are too disengaged for these numbers to have meaning. All you can really gauge at this point is name recognition and a shadow outline of support. On Silver’s home turf of polling data, his conclusion that Clinton has roughly a 50-50 shot of winning is mathematically and logically correct.

Now, consider a thought exercise.

What combination of candidate, policy, and wider political conditions would be needed in order for any remotely credible winner of the 2016 Republican primary to win California in the General Election? It is far too early to predict the outcome of the election in California just from polling data. Nevertheless, the Republican nominee, whoever it may be, is not even going to travel to California except to raise money. See the problem?

Why is California out of reach to a Republican Presidential nominee? As explained in a previous piece, the flight of the Dixiecrats into a largely empty Republican grassroots political structure across the South in the last third of the 20th Century has altered the calculus of politics nationally. Republicans are now trapped beneath the weight of a Neo-Confederate backlash. The party is producing policies that are radically popular across a poorly populated stretch of the country. Those same policies are political suicide outside the rural Midwest and the Jim Crow belt.

In the country’s wealthiest, more populous regions with the bulk of Electoral College votes, that agenda is a non-starter. There aren’t a lot of Southern Baptists in Minnesota and Oregon. A political agenda freighted with appeals to white nationalism can no longer compete nationally. Under present political alignments, no Republican Presidential nominee can establish enough distance from Ted Cruz to win in a Blue State, even if it is his home state.

As the party’s Dixie burden grows heavier, its alienation from the rest of the country grows with it. Republicans were jubilant about the state-level gains in 2014, but they missed the wider picture. That election was simply the end of a flip from one-party rule under Democrats to one-party rule under Republicans. The results nationwide revealed that the Republican win was a local and regional phenomenon, with serious negative consequences elsewhere.

But wait, Republicans also racked up wins in Governor’s races in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland? Every one of those wins came from a Republican who ran away from the party. More detail on blue-state ticket-splitting here, but in short, there’s a good reason that Walker and Christie show no signs of being able to carry their respective home states if they manage to become the nominee. A bunch of people who think forced ultra-sounds are a “cool thing” and climate change is a hoax are not going to flip Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire next year.

Look at California, Illinois, or New York, states won by George H.W. Bush as recently as 1988, for an example of GOP’s worsening demographic crisis. Take the political, tactical, and institutional reasoning behind our inability to compete in those states, and apply that template across the country on a state-by-state basis. What you get from that analysis is the Blue Wall.

We can already logically expect that in 2016 we are going to get an electorate that is less white, less evangelical, less afraid of minorities, and less rural than in each previous Presidential election. Is there some logical reason to expect, under those conditions, that this electorate will be more favorably disposed to the person emerging from the 2016 Republican campaign than to Mitt Romney or John McCain? That’s the logic behind the Blue Wall. Perform the Electoral math based on those political and demographic assumptions and suddenly 2016 ceases to be close at all.

Silver, as a mathematician, may not have “a dog in that fight” as related to policy analysis. As a watcher of politics and history, I’m in no position to question (or frankly even understand) Silver’s math. Right now, the analysis I’m doing is the only one for which we have any reliable data. I’m stuck on the wrong end of an argument with Nate Silver where I’ll remain until next summer when the polls start to shed some light. Wish me luck. I’m going to need it.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Election 2016
Goodreads

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 448 other subscribers