One of the oddest and most interesting recent aspects of politics in Australia and New Zeland I learned about in my trip Down Under was an incident in the last New Zealand election of 2005, wherein a small and secretive religious sect called the Exclusive Brethren was implicated in push-polling, negative leafletting and phone calls, and other controversial activities on behalf of the conservative National Party.The Exclusive Brethren are not connected with the better-known German pietist family of denominations using the name “Brethren;” their antecedents were the British Plymouth Brethren, who left the Church of England in the early nineteenth century in reaction to the Anglican abandonment of scriptural literalism. There are about 40,000 of them world-wide, but they are especially active in Australia (where their current leader resides) and New Zealand. And in the latter country, where it doesn’t take much money or manpower to have a big political impact, they got caught in an implicit, and allegedly even explicit, arrangement with National Party Leader Don Brash to go crazy negative on the governing Labour Party along with the Greens. The political motivations of the EBs are much like those of American Christian Right movements, with opposition to gay marriage being an especially big issue. But whereas the sect spent about as much money here trying to help George W. Bush in 2004 as it spent in New Zealand, it was pretty much a drop in the bucket in the U.S. (They have also been exposed as playing a hand in support of John Howard’s conservative coalition in Australia as well). Conversely, their exposure in New Zealand created a sensation, contributing heavily to a narrow Labour win, and to the subsequent disgrace and resignation of National Leader Brash, whereas Christian Right negative campaigning here has been going on for eons. You don’t have to spend much time Down Under to recognize a general fear that divisive conservative cultural tactics are gradually migrating from the U.S. southward and westward. Thus, one of the main tokens of cheer I was able to offer my hosts during this trip was the growing evidence that the Christian Right in my own country seems to be going through a general crisis of confidence and faith.
Month: December 2006
Sorry for the lack of posts this week, but it turned out to be a bit more difficult to blog from Australia than I anticipated, mainly because the international power adapter I brought didn’t work. I was also pretty busy getting a crash course on center-left politics in Australia and New Zealand. Australia’s heading for a general election this year (probably in the mid-fall), and the opposition Labor Party is cautiously optimistic about its chances (particularly under new leader Kevin Rudd) to finally end Prime Minister John Howard’s winning streak.The Aussies were quite interested in hearing more about the U.S. midterms (along with such related political topics as Obama-o-mania), and I was able to encourage them with one direct parallel: Bush and the GOP tried to make good macroeconomic statistics a campaign issue (and that’s been Howard’s most potent issue all along), and failed, with U.S. voters not only considering Iraq and corruption bigger concerns, but also expressing unhappiness with economic conditions. Like Americans, Australians are beginning to worry quite a bit about economic insecurity and inequality, and like Bush and the GOP, Howard and his conservative coalition are widely perceived as indifferent to both.I’ll have a lot more to say about my trip Down Under this weekend.
Democrats now control both houses of 24 state legislatures (20 before the election) and have added 6 governors for a new total of 28. In light of this substantial increase of strength at the state level, should Dems now press the case for redistricting before the next census where we can?
The Democratic Strategist discussed various aspects of “the redistricting myth” in our July roundtable and posts here and here. But things have changed for the better since November 7th, and the new political reality cries out for a reconsideration. Now Jonathan Singer at MyDD kicks off a new debate about redistricting with his post “House 2008: Mid-Census Redistricting in New Mexico?.” Singer is wary of early redistricting in NM in particular, and of redistricting before the census in general:
Voters went to the polls looking for change on November 7 and as a result will have scant patience if Democrats start using the type of strong-arm tactics implemented by Republicans to maintain power over the last dozen years. Secondly, redrawing lines to create more theoretically Democratic districts has the potential to make Democratic support in the remaining districts so thin that the Republicans can come in and challenge previously safe seats, potentially negating any benefits of redistricting.
Singer’s points are well-made, but there may be some cases where pre-census redistricting makes strategic sense, and/or serves fairness. Additionally, the population is so fluid and mobile nowadays that the ten year census provides a flawed reflection of demographic reality. Further, some states conduct their state-wide census counts mid-point between the federal census, so the demographic updates are available. It’s an important strategic choice, which merits a thorough discussion.
Democrats now control both houses of 24 state legislatures (20 before the election) and have added 6 governors for a new total of 28. In light of this substantial increase of strength at the state level, should Dems now press the case for redistricting before the next census where we can?
The Democratic Strategist discussed various aspects of “the redistricting myth” in our July roundtable and posts here and here. But things have changed for the better since November 7th, and the new political reality cries out for a reconsideration. Now Jonathan Singer at MyDD kicks off a new debate about redistricting with his post “House 2008: Mid-Census Redistricting in New Mexico?.” Singer is wary of early redistricting in NM in particular, and of redistricting before the census in general:
Voters went to the polls looking for change on November 7 and as a result will have scant patience if Democrats start using the type of strong-arm tactics implemented by Republicans to maintain power over the last dozen years. Secondly, redrawing lines to create more theoretically Democratic districts has the potential to make Democratic support in the remaining districts so thin that the Republicans can come in and challenge previously safe seats, potentially negating any benefits of redistricting.
Singer’s points are well-made, but there may be some cases where pre-census redistricting makes strategic sense, and/or serves fairness. Additionally, the population is so fluid and mobile nowadays that the ten year census provides a flawed reflection of demographic reality. Further, some states conduct their state-wide census counts mid-point between the federal census, so the demographic updates are available. It’s an important strategic choice, which merits a thorough discussion.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any sweeter, along comes Ciro Rodriguez with an upset run-off victory over 7-term GOP congressman Henry Bonilla in TX-23. This gives the Dems a net 30 pick-up in the House and will leave Republicans without a single Mexican-American member of Congress. So much for the GOP’s pipedreams about winning the support of Hispanic voters. Rodriguez undoubtedly benefitted from the court-ordered redrawing of TX-23. But he also used his party affiliation to good effect. As CQPolitics.com‘s Greg Giroux notes in his New York Times article:
…one of Rodriguez’ biggest added advantages in the runoff campaign was that he could boast of being a member of the House majority if he were to be elected — something he could not definitively claim before the primary, which coincided with the national Election Day.
And don’t let anyone get away with chalking this one up to a Democrat moving to the right. As Giroux notes:
Rodriguez’s win probably will be brandished by political liberals as evidence that they can prevail in partisan battleground districts. Rodriguez voted against authorizing military operations in Iraq; in favor of a minimum wage increase; and against proposed bans of same-sex marriage and “partial birth” abortion.
Yep, that’s right. Deep in the heart of Texas.
I’m posting this from Sydney, Australia, where I’m speaking and moderating a panel at an Australian Labor Party International Progressive Summit. I’m too jet-lagged at the moment to say much of anything intelligent, other than to note the little-known but continuing dialogue among center-left political parties around the world. This particular conference is focused on learning both positive and negative lessons from recent elections, in the run-up to the next Australian national contest. It occurs in the wake of the election of a very new ALP leadership, led by Kevin Rudd, who has very good ties to a variety of U.S. Democrats. In my own remarks, I’ll try to be very honest and inclusive about the varying interpretations of what happened in the U.S. on November 7. I do think we are mostly united in thinking Democrats did as well as they did by becoming the “change” party, and that’s what they are looking for in Australia.
Money being the ‘mother’s milk’ of politics, the pursuit of the cash cows by Presidential aspirants is already well-underway. So report Chris Cillizza and Michael A. Fletcher in their Sunday WaPo article “Candidates Woo Bush Donors for ‘Invisible Primary.” Fletcher and Cillizza explain the ‘Rangers’ and ‘Pioneers’ strategy presidential candidate Bush used in 2000, noting,
These Rangers, who raised $200,000 or more for Bush in 2004, and Pioneers, who each collected more than $100,000 as part of campaigns that redefined modern political fundraising, are being intensely courted by GOP presidential aspirants across the country, both in large gatherings…and one-on-one.
The authors are primarilly concerned with the fund-raising efforts of GOP candidates in this piece, but they have the following to say about Democrats moving into position for a presidential run:
Although Democrats do not have an equivalent for the Rangers and Pioneers, their leading candidates have already begun making the rounds of wealthy donors.
Last week, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) ventured to New York to meet with a group of potential donors assembled by liberal philanthropist George Soros.
And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has spent much of the past two years building a fundraising infrastructure that raised nearly $50 million for her lopsided reelection campaign. The donors who contributed to that campaign can give again, should she run for president in 2008.
The authors term aggressive early fund raising as a sort of “invisible primary,” the winners of which get a huge jump before anyone in Iowa or New Hampshire casts a ballot. All in all, it is a sobering look at the money game behind political campaigns. But the Democrats do have a fund-raising advantage, as noted by David D. Kirkpatrick in his New York Times article “G.O.P. Draws Fire on Senate Race Spending,” quoting political analyist Stuart Rothenberg on the benefits of the November 7th Democratic sweep:
People are going to be clamoring to give to the Democrats…For the Republicans, it is going to be pulling teeth, especially with a presidential race coming up
Taken together, the two aforementioned articles provide instructive insights into the ‘money game,’ as played by winners and losers.
Money being the ‘mother’s milk’ of politics, the pursuit of the cash cows by Presidential aspirants is already well-underway. So report Chris Cillizza and Michael A. Fletcher in their Sunday WaPo article “Candidates Woo Bush Donors for ‘Invisible Primary.” Fletcher and Cillizza explain the ‘Rangers’ and ‘Pioneers’ strategy presidential candidate Bush used in 2000, noting,
These Rangers, who raised $200,000 or more for Bush in 2004, and Pioneers, who each collected more than $100,000 as part of campaigns that redefined modern political fundraising, are being intensely courted by GOP presidential aspirants across the country, both in large gatherings…and one-on-one.
The authors are primarilly concerned with the fund-raising efforts of GOP candidates in this piece, but they have the following to say about Democrats moving into position for a presidential run:
Although Democrats do not have an equivalent for the Rangers and Pioneers, their leading candidates have already begun making the rounds of wealthy donors.
Last week, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) ventured to New York to meet with a group of potential donors assembled by liberal philanthropist George Soros.
And Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has spent much of the past two years building a fundraising infrastructure that raised nearly $50 million for her lopsided reelection campaign. The donors who contributed to that campaign can give again, should she run for president in 2008.
The authors term aggressive early fund raising as a sort of “invisible primary,” the winners of which get a huge jump before anyone in Iowa or New Hampshire casts a ballot. All in all, it is a sobering look at the money game behind political campaigns. But the Democrats do have a fund-raising advantage, as noted by David D. Kirkpatrick in his New York Times article “G.O.P. Draws Fire on Senate Race Spending,” quoting political analyist Stuart Rothenberg on the benefits of the November 7th Democratic sweep:
People are going to be clamoring to give to the Democrats…For the Republicans, it is going to be pulling teeth, especially with a presidential race coming up
Taken together, the two aforementioned articles provide instructive insights into the ‘money game,’ as played by winners and losers.
In case you missed it, the ever-so-lame-duck session of the Republican-controlled Congress is about to ride out of town after dumping roughly a half-trillion dollars in appropriations decisions on their Democratic successors. To put it another way, having once again failed to pass appropriations bills during the regular session (often because of internal GOP wrangling), they got another bite at the apple and decided to make these decisions a toxic little Christmas present for Democratic legislators. And as Kevin Drum at Political Animal notes, it’s clear this is a deliberate tear-up-the-tracks gesture for Republican solons still petulantly angry about their loss of power.After suggesting, accurately, that this ultimate abandonment of responsbility isn’t getting much attention, Kevin also reminds us of the big media furor that surrounded alleged (and ultimately unsubstantiated and/or small potatoes) “sabotage” by outgoing Clinton White House staff back in 2001. Yeah, I’d say deliberately leaving the federal government in fiscal limbo, and in a continuing budget crisis, is a bit more egregious than removing the “W” key from a couple of White House computers. But this stroll down memory lane did get some old synapses firing, and I suddenly remembered an example of real intraoffice sabotage.Many years ago, I met a guy who had been the first landing craft to hit the State Capitol on Inaugural Day in a southern state where one party was supplanting another in the governorship, after an especially bitter campaign. First off, he discovered the locks had been changed in the Governor’s Office. So he had to track down a building supervisor to let him in. Then he found that the light bulbs had all been removed from the overhead lights and lamps. So he had to deal with that. The phones were totally screwed up; he couldn’t get a dial tone. And when he tried to boot up a computer, it became apparent the operating systems had been deleted.Now that’s sabotage, friends. But it was nothing more than a minor nuisance compared to the current batch of bitter congressional Republicans, who want to make sure the fruits of their long reign of fiscal irresponsibility create a ripe, rotting smell around the Capitol when Democrats take over in January.It would have been far, far better if the GOPers had screwed up the phones and computers after doing their jobs and deciding how to fund the federal government.
Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler’s article “Democratic Governors Plan to Use New Power” should be of interest to candidate watchers and Democratic strategists. Pickler points out that states with Democratic governors increased their electoral vote strength from 207 to 295, as a result of the November 7 election (270 needed to win). Pickler quotes Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, incoming chair of the Democratic Governors Association offering this encouraging assessment:
The framework is in place, I think, to elect a Democratic president
Governor Sebelius also points out that next year 54 percent of Americans will live in states run by Democratic governors. Interestingly Sebelius and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer are both quoted expressing skepticism that their states electoral votes will go to the Democratic ’08 nominee, while Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, who won every county in his state, is more optimistic about Dems’ chances in the south.
The article also mentions the “Denver-based New West Project, designed to deliver the region to the Democratic presidential nominee…a political network to get out the Democratic vote, which will help in 2008.” For more about The New West Project, which includes participation from members of Congress and other state officials as well as Governors, read John Aloysius Farrell’s Denver Post article “Dems forge group to milk Western gains.”
