There was plenty of chuckling in progressive circles when Texas Gov. Rick Perry made public remarks that sounded like a semi-endorsement of the idea that his state might want to secede from the United States, as it tried to do in 1861, or reclaim the independence it gave up in 1845. But Perry and a growing number of other Republican politicians are now embracing an idea that dates all the way back to 1832: that states have a constitutional right to nullify what they consider to be illegitimate acts of the federal government. As you may recall from your high school history lessons, the effort to put that idea into practice, by South Carolina at the urging of former vice president John C. Calhoun, didn’t work out too well, though it was later cited as a precursor to the secessionist movement led, again, by South Carolina.
The vehicles for the sudden contemporary resurgence of nullification theories are “sovereignty resolutions” being introduced in the legislature of as many as 20 states, and passing in at least one legislative chamber in eight states this year.
The language of these resolutions, and particularly the throat-clearing “whereas” clauses, isn’t uniform, but virtually all have a kicker similar to this Texas resolution, which Rick Perry endorsed:

That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
enumerated and granted to the federal government by the
Constitution of the United States; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That this serve as notice and demand to the federal
government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers; and, be it further
RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that
directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal
penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation
or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.

While these resolutions obviously aren’t going to be enforced, they squarely assert the power of states to unilaterally define the powers of the federal government and to order said government to “cease and desist” in exercising them. That is nullification.
And what’s the justification for going all John C. Calhoun at present? Here’s Perry:

“‘Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, D.C. trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas,’ Perry said in a speech supporting House Concurrent Resolution
“‘I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,’ he continued. ‘That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“‘I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union,’ he said.”

In other words, Rick Perry doesn’t like “liberal” legislation, and now that his party is no longer in power in Washington, he’s asserting the right to ignore any laws that don’t comport with his own view of “the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution” or what’s “oppressive” or “undue.”
Perry’s hardly alone among significant Republican pols. Down in Georgia, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, a very serious candidate for governor (and previously considered something of a “moderate” by Georgia GOP standards) has joined the “sovereignty resolution” parade, though not until after the Georgia Senate passed one of the resolutions (which apparently few senators actually read).
And there’s at least one report that SC Gov. Mark Sanford and–wait for it!–Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin support the state sovereignty “movement.” Palin will have to choose sides, or perhaps centuries, soon enough, since the Alaska legislature has sent her a resolution for her signature.
As someone just old enough to remember the last time when politicians in my home southern region made speeches rejecting the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment, I may take this sort of activity more seriously than some. But any way you slice it, Republicans are playing with some crazy fire. For all the efforts of its sponsors to sell the “sovereignty resolution” idea as a grassroots development flowing out of the so-called Tea Party Movement, its most avid supporters appear to be the John Birch Society and the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor to the White Citizens Councils of ill-fame. And given the incredibly unsavory provenance of this “idea,” it’s no surprise that these extremist groups are viewing the “movement” as an enormous vindication of their twisted points of view.
If John C. Calhoun offered the definitive articulation of the nullification theory, his nemesis, President Andrew Jackson, offered the definitive response, which holds true today. He said the doctrine was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
A more pungent commentary on the latter-day nullification movement was offered yesterday by Digby:

Can I just say what a bunch of whining little wimps these Republicans all are? They love to present themselves as stoic, manly warriors, loving their country above all else, willing to lay down their lives for it.
Until something happens they don’t like and then they want to blow the thing up.

I hope Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who are being practically begged by conservatives to leave the Republican Party on the heels of Arlen Specter, are paying attention to the “sovereignty movement.” They, after all, voted for the stimulus legislation that apparently motivated these calls for a state-based revolution against the popularly elected government of the United States. So they might want to stand with America, and with the legacy of both Jackson and Lincoln, not John C. Calhoun.
UPCATEGORY: Democratic Strategist

“At the end of the workweek, when everyone else had left the Capitol, Brad Henry used his veto power to reject the Constitution he swore to uphold,” said Brogdon. “With the stroke of the pen, the Governor decided to let President Obama and Congress continue to erode our Constitutional rights.”
“This is not an isolated case,” said Brogdon. He then referred to Governor Henry’s veto on legislation that would have banned embryonic stem cell research. “In less than one week’s time, Brad Henry has vetoed life and liberty.”
“This is not about left vs. right or liberal vs. conservative,” continued Brogdon.

Right you are, senator. It’s about the twenty-first century versus the nineteenth.

Date: May 4, 2009
To: Ed Gillespie Founder, Resurgent Republic
From: Stan Greenberg Greenberg Quinlan Rosner
RE: RESURGENT REPUBLIC
Dear Ed,
Congratulations on forming Resurgent Republic with the goal of replicating “on the right the success Democracy Corps has enjoyed on the left.” Like Democracy Corps, you are promising to become a resource for groups and leaders, enhanced by the public release of credible surveys and focus groups and, indeed, your first survey has been widely discussed and already used by Republican leaders. Well done.
You would probably be surprised if I didn’t have some reactions and advice to offer, as you explicitly state, you are “modeled on Democracy Corps.” Given your goal, I am perplexed that your first poll would be so outside the mainstream on partisanship. Your poll gives the Democrats just a 2-point party identification advantage in the country, but other public polls in this period fell between +7 and +16 points – giving the Democrats an average advantage of 11 points. Virtually all your issue debates in the survey would have tilted quite differently had the poll been 9 points more Democratic.
One thing Democracy Corps has tried to do is be very “conservative” – watching very closely to make sure all our choices in survey design are well grounded or tilted against the Democrats, including the choice of “likely voters” that normally favors the Republicans. You have probably noticed that our job approval ratings for George Bush were almost always higher than the average of polls, just as our job approval ratings for Barack Obama are now somewhat lower.
If the Resurgent Republic poll is to be an outlier on partisanship, then I urge you to explain what about your methodology produces it – or simply to note the difference in your public release.
The problem of partisanship pales before the problem of self-deluding bias in question wording that might well contribute to Republicans digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole.
Your most important finding was the strong opposition to Barack Obama’s budget when you describe it for voters. Ed, from your platform on Meet the Press, you told Republican leaders they can confidently oppose this budget and expect independents to side with them.
Your Republican leaders would have been well served had you asked first whether voters favor or oppose the budget, without describing it – as Democracy Corps does routinely. That would have shown a majority or large plurality in favor of the budget, as in all other polls. Instead, your survey begins with this stunningly biased description: “President Obama has proposed a budget for next year that would spend three point six trillion dollars and have a deficit of one point four trillion dollars.” That would be okay if you think that is all voters will learn from the media and Democrats about the budget. I suspect they are already hearing about inherited deficits from Bush, the funding for the jobs recovery plan, health care reform, education and energy independence, and about deficits cut in half – all aspects of the budget. Don’t you think the leaders and groups you are advising deserve to know how this might really play out?
It is a shame because you didn’t need to construct this biased exercise to show that voters are concerned about spending and deficits and that is indeed the strongest critique Republicans can offer. In our own recent polls, we have flagged this concern for progressives and urged them to continue to underscore accountability, long-term deficit reduction, and middle class tax cuts.
For years, James Carville and I pushed Democrats and liberal groups to examine inherited positions in new times, but you are at risk of doing the opposite – urging Republicans to stay the course on key arguments with self-deluding results. In some cases, you prove competitive or you win the argument by presenting the Democratic argument as flat but the Republican, full of emotive terms. In Democracy Corps, we always try to use the language actually used by our opponents.
Nothing is more self-defeating than attributing to the Democratic argument the language and themes Republicans use to attack Democrats rather than the language Democrats use themselves. In effect, your survey has you winning an argument with yourself. Indeed, that is where you start your analysis of the first poll – telling readers in bold and underlined type that you are winning the big ideological debate by two-to-one, which “verifies America remains a center-right country.” In this seminal debate, one side says:
Government policies should promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging entrepreneurs, and allowing people to keep more of what they earn.
The other, pathetically out-of-touch side says:
Government policies should promote fairness by narrowing the gap between rich and poor, spreading the wealth, and making sure that economic outcomes are more equal.
With that demand for equality rejected two-to-one in the survey, Resurgent Republic can tell conservatives to be confident: you are on the winning side of this historic argument about government and the economy.
The problem is that this is the language Republicans use to characterize the Democratic argument, not what Democrats use themselves. Yes, it is true that candidate Obama made the off-hand comment on “spreading the wealth” in an exchange with “Joe the Plumber.” The Republicans tried to use that in the last two and a half weeks of the campaign and Obama’s lead on handling taxes and the economy went up steadily, ending with a double-digit lead on both.
While campaigns may succeed on “gotcha,” you will not win a big argument if you do not respect the other side’s argument and you do not learn from experience. We tested in a different context this philosophic choice, using Obama’s words and ideas – “government policies should rebalance the tax code so the middle class pays less and the wealthiest pay their fair share.” In our work, it is the strongest argument for the budget. (See Democracy Corps national survey of 1,000 2008 voters (830 likely 2010 voters) conducted March 4-8, 2009, Democracy Corps national survey of 1,000 2008 voters (863 likely 2010 voters) conducted March 25-29, 2009 and Democracy Corps survey of 1,500 likely 2010 voters in the congressional battleground conducted April 16-21, 2009.)
The section on energy and cap-and-trade is a parody of the real debate. The implication is that Democrats believe climate change is so serious that it must be addressed, regardless of cost to the economy, with higher taxes. Unmentioned on the Democratic side of the debate is the conviction that investment in energy independence creates new jobs and a new economy and energy costs have to be offset with middle class tax cuts. Failing to construct real debate must leave Republicans puzzled about why the Democrats’ advantage on handling the energy issue has risen to nearly 30 points among likely voters. (See Democracy Corps national survey of 1,000 2008 voters (830 likely 2010 voters) conducted March 4-8, 2009.)
I recognize that in focusing on economic, not cultural issues, Resurgent Republic is making a statement about a new direction for the party and its coalition. But it does not help a party renew itself with survey results so removed from the real debates taking place around it.
I do wish you luck with Resurgent Republic. I’m fully aware that our first public survey a decade ago might well have been critiqued on similar issues and that getting it right under these pressures requires constant vigilance. I look forward to the debate.
All the best,
Stan

From any purely rational point of view, you wouldn’t expect the Republican Party to invest all that much in a fight with President Obama over his nominee to replace Justice David Souter.
The retiring Justice is, after all, considered part of the current Court’s left wing, and is regarded as the Great Judas by many conservatives; how much worse could Obama do? Republicans are down to 40 seats in the Senate, and even if they had the votes to filibuster a Court nominee, they are estopped from doing so by the vast outpouring of rhetoric they deployed against judicial confirmation filibusters when Democrats threatened them during the Bush administration. And above all, a big nasty confirmation fight that they can’t win would represent a large distraction from the GOP’s other goals, most preeminently an effort to derail implementation of the Obama budget in general, and health care reform in particular.
But we’re not talking about people who are necessarily in a position to be purely rational right now.
As I’ve already argued, Republicans are going to be under intense pressure from the cultural-religious wing of the Right to fight Obama’s nominee, whoever it is, with at least as much fervor as they exhibit in fighting Obama’s economic agenda. It’s a simple matter of equal treatment: the Culture Right needs its own Tea Party Moment–its own expression of rage at having its hopes (in their case, hopes for a fifth vote on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade) dashed by the election of Barack Obama, and its own validation that it remains an indispensible pillar of the post-Bush Republican Party that cannot be trifled with. And frankly, given the donor-dampening economic climate, the Cultural Right, like everyone else in politics or issue-advocacy, needs a fundraising cause, and as CQ’s Jonathan Allen explained last week, nothing loosens the conservative pursestrings quite like a Supreme Court fight.
From the initial noises they are making, however, it doesn’t look like Republicans are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this fight; they’re eager to be thrown into the briar patch. They are leaping upon the president’s passing remark that he wanted a Court nominee who exhibits “empathy” as a reason to denounce his choice in advance as representing a dangerously radical agenda of “judicial activism.”
On one Sunday show yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, widely considered the Republican leader most likely to play ball with the president on a Court appointment, dutifully intoned:

[I]t’s a matter of great concern. If he’s saying that he wants to pick people who will take sides — he’s also said that a judge has to be a person of empathy. What does that mean? Usually that’s a code word for an activist judge.

Funny that Hatch talked about code words, since “activist judge” is perhaps the ultimate code word for any jurist who doesn’t harbor some sort of originalist fantasy of channelling the Founding Fathers. To big elements of the Cultural Right, “activist judge” has an even more specific meaning: anyone who supports a constitutional right to an abortion, or perhaps thinks that “equal protection” applies to gays and lesbians.
On another show, Mitt Romney, who may well be the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, was even more emphatic about the likelihood of a Court fight.

“The place where I think we draw the line is: Is this an individual who will follow the Constitution and the law, or is this an individual who believes in making the law,” he said. “If it’s the latter, I think we should stand up and scream long and hard.”

Well, we all know where that line is going to be drawn, regardless of the exact identity of the president’s nominee.
I can’t really recall the last time a credible national political figure promised to “stand up and scream long and hard” about anything. But that’s what passes for a presidential temperament among conservatives these days, and that’s why we’re probably going to see a toxic confirmation fight.

I note the passing of Republican Jack Kemp with some ambivalence about his legacy. On the one hand the Kemp-Roth tax cut arguably did more damage to America than any other piece of post-war legislation this side of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. On the other hand, Jack Kemp was a sincere advocate of interracial justice and goodwill, the last of the big tent Republicans in that regard.
Coming so soon after Senator Specter’s defection, Kemp’s passing brings yet another reminder of GOP shrinkage. There are no living Republicans I could name who are anywhere near as passionate as was Kemp about bringing people of color into their party. As Kemp is quoted after the drubbing of the GOP in 2008, in Adam Clymer’s New York Times report on his death ,”The party of Lincoln needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.”
Kemp, a former GOP VP nominee, HUD Secretary and congressman from Buffalo, earned his creds in race relations early on, as an all-pro quarterback who supported Black players’ boycott of New Orleans in 1965 because of segregated cabs and nightclubs in that city. He was a vocal supporter of civil rights, affirmative action and rights for illegal immigrants and called himself a “bleeding-heart conservative.” What has not been reported in the obits in the major rags is that Kemp also provided pivotal, perhaps decisive support for the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday legislation, twisting the arms of GOP moderates and even some conservatives to support the bill. He remained a friend of Black leaders, including Coretta Scott King, even while she lobbied against the Kemp-Roth legislation.
Kemp was a wonkish conservative ideologue on economic issues. He differed from many Republicans in that he actually believed that massive tax cuts were good for the poor and working people, as welll as the rich. Although he supported many programs that benefited the disadvantaged, Kemp-Roth has lead to billions of dollars in funding cuts for a host of needed social programs. Kemp is also credited with influencing Reagan to push for even deeper cuts in social spending. As American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman J. Ornstein, said, “I think there is no doubt that he had a greater impact on conservative and Republican economic philosophy than anybody else. More than Laffer, more than Reagan.”
Kemp was also the leading political advocate for “enterprise zones,” tax carrots for businesses to invest in decaying neighborhoods, an idea first proposed by Senator Robert Kennedy shortly before he was assassinated. I’ve always thought the basic idea has merit for job-creation, but so far urban enterprise zones have produced mixed results at best in delivering stable jobs that pay a living wage.
As Democrats, we tend to celebrate the weakening of the Republican Party because it usually adds to our numbers. But having a weakened adversary is not such a great thing in terms of keeping us honest, sharp and focused on creative policy solutions. Better in this sense to be challenged by a strong opponent.
With Kemp’s passing and Specter’s departure, however, the GOP looks even less like a Party that offers strong opposition based on reasoned alternatives — and more like a demolition derby.

After its stunning discovery that half of Texas Republicans look favorably on the idea of leaving the United States, the DKos/Research 2000 polling team has apparently decided to ask the same question in other states. The latest poll, from my home state of Georgia, shows 32% of Peach State Republicans look favorably on the idea of secession. Since only 14% of independents and 5% of Democrats agree, the secessionist GOPers are a bit isolated in pulling for a return to 1861. (Or maybe earlier: The DKos article on the poll also has a useful link to a Jay Bookman column for the Atlanta papers about a resolution recently passed by the Georgia Senate that calls for bringing back the concept of state nullification of federal laws).
The same poll also shows three potential Democratic gubernatorial candidates looking pretty competitive against the two established GOP frontrunners, with Roy Barnes (who hasn’t decided if he’s running), Thurbert Baker and David Poythress all holding Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine to a single-digit lead, and all three leading Secretary of State Karen Handel. The race was further complicated today when Republican congressman Nathan Deal (a former Democrat) announced for Governor; it’s looking increasingly likely that both parties will have intense multi-candidate primaries followed by runoffs. Georgia Republicans are notably divided over the records of term-limited incumbent GOP governor Sonny Perdue and a fractious Republican-controlled legislature.
The more surprising thing in the new poll is that it shows both Roy Barnes and congressman Jim Marshall holding incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson to a single-digit lead, and under 50%. Though the president is thought to be relatively unpopular in Georgia, his favorable/unfavorable ratings there (49/46) are quite similar to those of the generally well-regarded Isakson (47-41).
Even in the Deep South, the GOP is in less than healthy shape, and if they can’t make it there, they can’t make it anywhere.

Initial reaction in Washington to reports that Justice David Souter will retire next month has been interesting: what a pain in the butt for an overstressed Obama administration! Indeed, says the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, the court opening “could well sidetrack other legislative priorities of the administration.”
Well, sure, choosing a Supreme Court nominee and managing her or his confirmation campaign is, to use George W. Bush’s favorite phrase, “hard work.” Just like any president, Obama will have to deal with expectations of a female, or a Latino, or a “progressive” or “centrist” Justice, and with the peculiar personal investment some of his own friends may develop over the prospect of a lifetime appointment to every lawyer’s dream job.
But I strongly suspect that the Souter retirement will create far fewer problems for Obama than for his opponents, and particularly for the increasingly marginalized Cultural Right, which will likely make any confirmation fight its own Tea Party Moment.
From a rational point of view, of course, the Souter retirement probably won’t change the shape of the Court in any major way: a veteran “liberal” will be replaced by a younger “liberal,” and conservatives don’t have the votes in the Senate to do anything about it.
The Supreme Court, however, is not a rational subject for the Cultural Right, where it assumes vast, mythic proportions as the top tier of a federal judiciary blamed for all sorts of destructive havoc, most notably the legalization of abortion.
To understand how your average right-to-life activist looks at this, remember that this was supposed to be the moment, had the right candidate won the 2008 elections, when the long-awaited fifth vote on the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and end the “holocaust” of legalized abortion, finally became an imminent prospect.
And to understand how the very mention of David Souter inflames right-wing culture warriors, remember that the reversal of Roe was supposed to happen in 1992, when the Court instead, by a 5-4 margin, reaffirmed the constitutional right to a abortion in the Casey decision, with Bush 41 appointee Souter, the famous “stealth liberal,” shocking many by siding with the pro-choice plurality. The Souter experience has weighed on conservative legal activists ever since, and was a key factor in the successful right-wing revolt against Bush 43’s effort to appoint Harriet Miers–not a known quality on the abortion issue–to the Court in 2005.
In the days just ahead, memorials to Souter’s service on the Court will be an embittering factor for those who view him as an especially insidious enabler of mass baby-killing: a Republican who disguised views that would have denied him confirmation.
And to the many organizations of the Cultural Right–in the midst of a long losing streak, treated with contempt by many Republicans, and recently taking a back seat even among “movement conservatives” to crypto-libertarian outrage about federal spending and taxes–the prospects of a Supreme Court confirmation fight over the successor to the hated Souter will be absolute catnip, and an unequalled opportunity to raise money and boost membership and morale.
Their immediate objective will be to force Senate Republicans to commit to a filibuster of any objectionable nominee. The Senate GOP has already threatened to filibuster lower-level Obama judicial appointees if he doesn’t respect their traditional veto powers over judges in their own states, making a mockery of Bush-era conservative arguments that such filibusters are unconstitutional. It’s a relatively small step to organize a filibuster against a “divisive” Obama Supreme Court nominee. And such a campaign would nicely serve as a litmus test to separate the sheep from the goats in the GOP, and to demonstrate the continuing power of the Cultural Right.
The opening skirmish, of course, will come in the form of demands from all sorts of directions that Obama appoint a “noncontroversial” Justice, which from the point of view of the Right would mean someone who disagrees with the president’s own well-honed constitutional views.
Once Obama announces a choice, however, the gloves will come off, and years of cultural conservative frustration over the Court will come flowing out, with no cohesive Republican Party or conservative movement to channel and control it. It could get very, very noisy, and very, very ugly, very very fast, particularly if Obama appoints, as he undoubtedly could, an “out” lesbian to the Court.
Maybe this is a premature prediction, but I’d bet the Cultural Right is about to undertake its version of the Tea Parties this summer and fall. And given the configuration of forces in the Senate and the country, the likely victim will not be Barack Obama or his Court nominee, but a Republican Party whose coalition is becoming unglued in every sense of the word.

Sam Roberts has a New York Times report on a new Pew Research Center analysis of November election voting data. The Pew Research Center analysis adds some interesting detail to what was known about the historic election. First, the African American vote and turnout:

The longstanding gap between blacks and whites in voter participation evaporated in the presidential election last year…Black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up nearly a quarter of the electorate, setting a record….for the first time, black women turned out at a higher rate than any other racial, ethnic and gender group.
Despite widespread predictions of record voter turnout last November, the overall rate was virtually the same as in 2004. But the composition of the electorate changed. The turnout among eligible whites declined slightly, by 1.1 percent, but rose by 4.9 percent among blacks…In 2004, the gap between white and black turnout rates was nearly seven percentage points. It was less than one percentage point four years later.

But it isn’t just the Black vote that turned the election;

…The number of eligible Hispanic voters has soared by more than 21 percent since 2004, a reflection of population gains and growing numbers of Hispanics who are citizens. Their share of eligible voters increased to 9.5 percent, from 8.2 percent four years earlier. In 2008, for the first time, the share of white non-Hispanic eligible voters fell below 75 percent.

And the current electorate looks like this:

The Pew analysis found that whites constituted 76.3 percent of the record 131 million Americans who voted last November. Blacks accounted for 12.1 percent, Hispanic voters for 7.4 percent and Asians for 2.5 percent. Together, black, Hispanic and Asian voters made up 22 percent of the voters, compared with about 12 percent in 1988.

All of which is close in keeping with the arguments advanced by TDS co-editor Ruy Teixeira and John Judis in their book, “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” and in a more recent book edited by Teixeira, “Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics“. Some may argue that the ’08 election was an exception because of the uniqueness of the Obama phenomenon, leading to a sort of ‘chicken and egg’ argument. But even after conceding his effect on increasing turnout among people of color, Obama didn’t create the demographic trends that made his election possible.
In a recent interview with Teixeira posted at the Center for American Progress web pages, he had more to say about demographic change that benefits Democrats:

There are a variety of ways in which America has changed demographically and geographically in the last 20 years that have sent things in a more progressive direction. One of the biggest changes is the decline of the white working class, which is the most conservative element of the population, really. According to exit poll data, the percent of white working class voters is down 15 points in the last 20 years, whereas minority voters who lean pretty heavily progressive are up 11 points, and white collar graduates who have been shifting progressive rapidly in the last couple of decades, they’re up four points. So that’s a big change. Other changes that are important are the professionals, which is a growing occupational group, have shifted pretty heavily toward progressives. Single women, another growing group that has shifted toward progressives, and of course there’s this burgeoning millennial generation, which is adding about 4 million people to the eligible voter pool every year. These are people born after 1978. They’re very heavily progressive, as we saw in the last election. They voted 66 to 32 for Barack Obama. So those are just some of the changes that, in a demographic sense, are making the country much more progressive.

Teixeira explains that it’s not all about demographics, because much of the electorate is to a great extent tiring of the GOP’s insistence that the ‘free market’ is the panacea for all America’s problems. Teixeira cites a growing belief among the electorate that government can help address some social and economic problems. But he holds that demographic trends will continue to favor Democrats:

if we look at these demographic trends and how they’re unfolding, you don’t see very much that actually strengthens the conservatives’ case or the conservatives’ prospects. Pretty much all the demographic trends are going to continue moving in progressive directions for the next 20 years. Just as one obvious example, we’re going to become an increasingly diverse society over time. By the year 2023, the majority of children will be minorities, people under eighteen. By the year 2042, we’ll be a majority minority nation… We’re going to see continuing increases in the proportion of single women; we’re going to see even the millennial generation, as I mentioned earlier, adding about 4 million eligible voters to the voter pool every year until the year 2018. So I think if you put these things together…the potential is there for a durable and pretty strong progressive majority looking pretty far out into the future.

If President Obama and the Democratic majority of congress can secure needed reforms that produce significant progress for Americans of all races — admittedly a big “if” — the demographic trends that are in motion should insure growing majorities of American voters supporting Democratic candidates in the years ahead.

The recent much-discussed report on “Rightwing Extremism” by the Department of Homeland Security has raised a very important issue of definition: What precisely is right-wing “political extremism” and how does it differ from other concepts like “the radical right” or “hard-right conservatism”?
For most Americans, the most critical — and in fact the defining — characteristic of “political extremism” – whether left or right – is the approval of violence as a means to achieve political goals. Opinions on issues, no matter how “extreme” or irrational they may be do not by themselves necessarily make a person a dangerous “extremist.” Whether opinions are crackpot (e.g. abolish all paper money) or repulsive (e.g. non-whites should be treated as sub-humans), extreme political opinions are not in and of themselves incitements to or justifications for violence.
But there is actually one very clear and unambiguous way to define a genuinely “extremist” political ideology — it is any ideology that justifies or incites violence.
Underlying all extremist political ideologies is one central idea – the vision of “politics as warfare”. While this phrase is widely used as a metaphor, political extremists mean it in an entirely concrete and operational way. It is a view that is codified in the belief that political opponents are literally “enemies” who must be crushed rather than fellow Americans with different opinions with whom negotiated political compromises must be sought.
In recent decades we have unfortunately become accustomed to political opponents being defined as “enemies” rather than fellow Americans, but the notion was profoundly shocking when Richard Nixon first used the term in his famous “enemies list.” It marked a tremendous change from generally collegial attitudes of Senators and members of Congress, where a certain basic level of civility was almost always maintained, even among the most bitter political opponents. Unlike many other countries, until the Nixon era American politicians generally saw “politics” as the job of achieving rational compromises among democratically elected representatives and not as the task of crushing, purging or liquidating political enemies, as was often the case in totalitarian countries.
Watergate and the election of Jimmy Carter temporarily derailed the trend toward defining politics as warfare, but the notion got a powerful “second wind” in the 1980’s – which came from two main sources.
The first was the culture and doctrines of counter-insurgency and covert operations that blossomed in the Reagan era. In combating insurgent movements, U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine carefully studied Leninist organizations and frequently imitated their strategy and tactics in order to dismantle them. The basic philosophy was frequently to “fight fire with fire” using any available tactics, including even blatantly undemocratic and morally indefensible ones.
During the Reagan years, there was a massive expansion of extremely secret counter-insurgency programs – primarily in Central America and Afghanistan – that were conducted outside the formal structure of traditional civilian-military control. Among the people involved in these programs, an ethos of loyalty developed to the secret military/intelligence hierarchy that was conducting these operations rather than to the formal elected government.
The hero and symbol of this trend was Oliver North. By showing up in his military uniform at congressional hearings called to investigate his role in the illegal funding of counterinsurgencies in Central America and Afghanistan (although he was actually a political appointee of the Reagan white house at the time and not on active military duty) North dramatically embodied the view that his primary loyalty was to the covert military/intelligence command running the secret operations around the world and not to the majority of Congress that had specifically prohibited the actions he had coordinated. He became a symbol of a perspective that viewed the majority of Congress (that had voted against funding the Nicaraguan “contras”) as an internal “enemy” just as the Nicaraguan Sandinistas were an external enemy.
By the early 1990’s this general point of view had become deeply entrenched among many right-wing conservatives. As conservative talk radio shows grew in popularity, many hosts like Rush Limbaugh repeated and refined this militarized and combative version of conservative ideology.
These views became even more extreme after the fall of the Soviet Union. In the conservative view, Liberals quickly replaced communism as the principal “enemies” of America. Conservative leader Grover Norquist expressed the view quite clearly when talking to a former college classmate. He said: “For 40 years we fought a two-front war against the Soviet Union and statism in the U.S. Now we can turn all our time and energy into crushing you. With the Soviet Union it was just business. With you, it’s personal.”

Read more…

Reports from oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court indicate that the Supremes may be on the brink of striking down Section 5 of the Voting Right Act, the congressional authorization for requiring Justice Department “preclearance” of districting schemes in most southern states and a few other scattered jurisdictions to ensure they do not dilute minority voting strength. The main source of this speculation was a line of questioning by Justice Anthony Kennedy, (typically the swing vote in close decisions) expressing hostility towards Congress’ alleged failure to adequately review recent voting data in deciding which jurisdictions are subject to Section 5.
Kennedy was definitely the swing vote in a recent decision prohibiting courts from requiring “majority-influence” districts on VRA grounds, which was not particularly good news for Democrats, who have been the victim of “packing” and “bleaching” practices in the past that concentrated minority voters in a small number of districts.
As with the earlier decision, the current review of Section 5 is significant due to its timing: just prior to the decennial reapportionment and redistricting process for both congressional and state legislative seats. If Section 5 were struck down, it could obviously be revisited by a Democratic Congress, and even if preclearance is no longer required, individuals can challenge districting maps on VRA grounds via a separate section of the Act.
Still, it would be nice to go into the redistricting season with a civil-rights-friendly and Democratic Justice Department exercising a full range of powers; the last two occurred under Republican presidents. In the end, the big battle affecting redistricting will be over control of state legislative chambers and governorships, which is another reason why the 2010 elections could be momentuous.

Using data from CQ’s Greg Giroux and from Swing State Project, I’ve taken a quick look at House and Senate Democrats who voted for and against the final budget resolution, and how their states and districts voted in the 2008 presidential election. And the real story is how many Democrats from tough territory actually voted with the president.
47 House Democrats represent districts carried by John McCain in a bad Republican year. They voted 34-13 for the Obama-backed budget. 13 Democratic senators represent states carried by McCain; they voted for the budget 10-3.
Of the four House Democrats voting against the budget who represent districts carried by Obama, three (Barrow of GA, Foster of IL, and Nye of VA) are from seats recently won by Republicans, and the fourth is Dennis Kucinich. Only two Senate Democrats from states won by Obama voted against the budget: Arlen Specter, who switched parties the day of the vote, and Evan Bayh, from a state that narrowly went Democratic for the first time in 44 years (true also, of course, for Virginia senators Warner and Webb, who voted for the budget).
Looking at the Democratic groupings often suspected of disloyalty is interesting, too. The Blue Dog Coalition in the House voted for the budget by a 41-6 margin. And in the Senate, the 15 Democrats whose names have most often been associated with the “moderate working group” led by Evan Bayh split 13-2 in favor of the budget.
All in all, not that bad a day for party unity.