Monday, March 27, 2017

How We Got Here - Post 6

The Progressive Era and the Power of the People

The Progressive Era is how America responded to the abuses of the Gilded Age.

Exactly when the Gilded Age ended and the Progressive Era began is, as always, a bit of a historical debate. As I discussed in the last post of this series, progressivism grew in response to the excesses of wealth, so some of its advances had already begun such as the Pendleton Act, American Federation of Labor, and Sherman Anti-Trust Act However, I like to see it as beginning with a gunshot.

Governor Theodore Roosevelt had proven a thorn in the New York republican party leadership with his progressive ideas of reform. Then, Vice President Garret Hobart died, leaving President McKinley in need of a new vice president for his re-election. The party bosses now had a tried and true way to get an unwelcome politician out of the way. They convince Roosevelt to be McKinley's new vice president.. With Roosevelt, McKinley won in a landslide only to be assassinated in his first year. Suddenly, for the first time, against his own party’s efforts, a progressive was the most powerful politician in America.

You might not call President Roosevelt a progressive by the standards of today, but he certainly made steps towards a more progressive government. He argued along, what he would all later the Square Deal, that government had a role in protecting workers and consumers from "predatory wealth”. These sentiments live on within the democratic party, demonstrated when President Obama invoked Roosevelt's famous New Nationalism speech, echoes the words, and made them his own:
"But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you want from whoever you can. ...And today, they still can’t. 
"... this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules ..."
From President Obama’s economic speech in Osawatomie, Kansas.

Starting with the Coal Strike of 1902, President Roosevelt did something not done before, the government took the side of a union. Before when the government got involved, it was to break up a strike taking the stance that the property of the business owner needed to be protected. Instead, President Roosevelt forced both sides to negotiate for the good of the Nation. The precedent was set.

After that, mostly under pressure from the public, activists, and muckrakers, more restrictions on business pass such as the Expediting Act, Elkins Act, Pure Food and Drug Act, and Meat Inspection Act. These were small actions, but they were the beginning of the “regulatory state”.

For the most part, progressive reforms were bipartisan. Each party wanted to do something progressive, they just differentiated on the details, how progressive to be, and who should get credit. That’s where the votes were. Much of the country were those that had been abused by the Gilded Age now, not the ones who prospered. America had been reshaped by immigration, economic turmoil, and technology, but what became of a common thread is this. Most American wanted the government to help them with their problems.

To go over the list of progressive acts and reforms passed would consume more than one post, but up until now, they were limited regulations on business, reforms of government corruption, and the building of public works. This was also the time when 4 significant amendments were passed, the 16th through 19th.

The 16th Amendment made it legal for the Federal Government to collect income tax. You really can’t underestimate the political significant. No one wants to pay taxes, so politics is always about them. However, with such taxes as tariffs, the opposing sides did not depend on wealth but how the wealth was made. Wealthy businessmen wanting fewer imports would use their influence to promote more taxes. However, income tax means the wealthy are always incentivized to use their wealth for lower taxes that can only be countered by populace arguments motivating the masses. Maybe over simplified, but that can sum up most of the political arguments for the last century.

The 17th Amendment made senators elected by democratic vote. This made the lower income voter more significant especially in low population states. Given what we learned in post 1 that seems more significant than it is. However, the number of senators per state did not change, which is what creates the biggest discrepancy. Also, lower income voters had a say before in who their senators were in that they elected the people that voted appointed them. This just made their power more direct. In other words, now senators had to campaign.

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. Obviously, this is the most significant in that it doubled the electorate. But, I’m going to tread lightly here and not say much. I can be stupid, but not stupid enough to claim women vote differently than men without a lot of thought and facts to back me up.

The Progressive Era did have its darker roots, though. Because progressivism includes the idea that science should be used to govern, many progressives advocated eugenics. [1] You will notice that progressives of this era made no opposition to Jim Crow laws. Partly it was political expediency, but it was also because many progressives embraced white supremacy and, even if well meaning, believed social problems required “racial” solutions. For example, President Woodrow Wilson segregated the Federal Government and the Chinese Exclusion Act was renewed. Fortunately, these attitudes only form intent and did not successfully lead to much legislation or permanent effects (which is why you hear so little of it). What it did mean is that while advancement was made for women and the poor, nothing was done for different races.

When progressivism dealt with democratic expansion, civil rights, government corruption, and business greed, it proved successful (at least politically so). It’s when it attempted social engineering problems started. The most visible example is the Temperance Movement and the 18th Amendment. We discussed the Temperance Movement when covering the Jacksonian Era. The movement was apolitical, but more closely aligned with republicans. Besides the fact that much of these movements had, historically, associated themselves with republican abolitionists, the Republican Party chose as a political strategy to promote temperance as an attack against democrats. Most Irish and Germans being democrats, republicans used stereotypes of them to paint the democrats as lacking character.

Progressives embraced temperance based on sociological reasoning. The temperance movement did not just want to ban alcohol because of morality, but a belief that it was the cause of many social ills including familial abuse, unemployment, crime, and so on. [2] (This is also why the Temperance Movement and Suffrage movement became linked. It's not an accident that both amendments were passed next to each other.) Now, we know alcohol can contribute to these problems or be a symptom of a mutual cause, but outlawing alcohol does not cure these problems. It can even make them worse. Prohibition proved a failure to be undone by the 21st Amendment.

Although, the end of the Progressive Era had begun before the beginning of Prohibition. What began the end is what ends most eras, war. Up until now, politicians, for the most part, agreed on what American foreign policy should be. There should be as little as possible. Staying out of other conflicts, especially European, was the consensus, what we would call isolationism today. The Spanish-American War was America's first attempt at imperialism [3], and Americans found they did not like it. [4] But, progressives often viewed foreign affairs as the opportunity, even a responsibility, to make the world better, not just America.

Like it or not, the world had changed, and America, like everyone else, was drawn into WW1. President Wilson delayed America's entrance until the war was almost over, but there are two beliefs about WW1 everyone, even today, agrees with. It should not have happened and it should not happen again. For President Wilson, the second provided the opportunity to apply his theories to prevent war, in particular, the League of Nation.

America wanted no part of it, and the League of Nations failed. Combined with its failure, a post-war economic decline, the death of Theodore Roosevelt [5], and Prohibition, the progressive movement had been mortally wounded. It may not have ended yet, but it did enter a decline.

And then there were the communists. You will remember that during WW1 is when Russia became the first communist state. Fear of communists, bolsheviks, and anarchists had begun when these ideas were first heard of, but the hyper-nationalism brought by WW1, the shock of the Russian Revolution, and terrorist acts done by these leftist groups created what would come to be known as the 1st Red Scare. Hysteria rose beyond the threat, causing deportation and persecution. Within a year, when the predicted Bolshevik revolution did not happen, the panic had faded, but the damage had been done.

Slandering progressivism as communism-lite is not hard. Certainly, if you believe in the most limited government possible, you would inevitably see it that way. However, most of us don’t. But, the communists, Bolsheviks, and anarchists of 1919 made that association all the easier even for those of us not prone to see it. You will still see many conservatives and other groups claim the progressive movement had been “invaded by communists”, and they will point to the 1st Red Scare to justify it.

Ironically, as a progressive, you would not promote a reaction like the 1st Red Scare, realizing you would be its first victim. However, what makes such hysteria more threatening is when it happens with an overpowerful intrusive government, which progressives tend to promote. Then, you see the beginnings of a police state. Fortunately, American has never come anywhere near to being a police state, compared to actual police states, but you can understand the fear.

There is a natural tension in democracies between the needs of the majority versus the rights of individuals. Too much power to the majority and we risk becoming a police state. Too little power, then individuals through wealth and influence become robber barons. The Progressive Era had happened in response to the latter. But, behind that, there was always a fear that the majority would go too far. Perhaps, Prohibitions and the 1st Red Scare were examples of too far. Perhaps not. But, if you know just a little of the history to follow, you know in about twenty years it's going to get a lot scarier.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

The Presidential Elevator Pitch

What Does a Successful Presidency Mean

Let’s talk more about the Successful Presidency and let me extend on that definition because I need to. My previous definitions have been too vague. As I have already pointed out. I can only measure if President Trump is perceived as successful. By that standard, many would not call Obama' presidency successful (about 40%). I'm also sure that if Trump's presidency is not a disaster, many (probably the same 40%) will declare him the greatest president ever. (He certainly will.[1])

What I'm really thinking of is how the President's party will treat him after his term is over. A party will always refer to the last president they view as successful enough to associate with. Republicans usually use Reagan because they did not want to be associated with the 2 presidents after him. President H.W. Bush had only been elected one term and President W. Bush had.... well you know.

For democrats, they could go back to President Clinton because the economy had been so good. Before that, they usually went back to President Kennedy.

Obviously, that changes over time. President W. Bush is looking a lot better compared to the current President, and President Clinton is looking worse due to revisiting it in the Hillary Clinton's campaign. But, at some point, we start talking about how historians will think and not what politicians think.

Usually, this means that when you think of a president, mostly good achievements come to mind. Here's what I mean:

Reagan (Success)

  • What 1st Comes to Mind: defeated the Soviet Union, the "Reagan Revolution", Tax Reform
  • What 2nd Come to Mind: Iran-Contra Scandal, 1983 Beirut barracks bombings

H.W. Bush (Failure)

  • What 1st Comes to Mind: a bad economy, not re-elected, Savings and Loans Scandal
  • What 2nd Come to Mind: 1s Iraq War, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Clinton (Mixed)

  • What 1st Comes to Mind: a good economy and tech boom, sex scandals, NAFTA
  • What 2nd Come to Mind: Bosnian War, checks against Saddam Hussein's aggression, Welfare Reform balanced budgets, tax increases

W. Bush (Disaster)

  • What 1st Comes to Mind: 2nd Iraq War, Financial Crisis, 9/11
  • What 2nd Come to Mind: Medicare Drug Act, aid to Africa

Obama (Success for now)

  • What 1st Comes to Mind: ACA (Obamacare), killed Osama Bin Laden, kept us out of a depression
  • What 2nd Comes to Mind: failure to close Guantanamo Bay, BP Oil Spill, VHA scandal
  • To Be Determined: ISIS

I'm sure you would come up with a different list. Many do remember the 1st Iraq War and don't even know there was a Savings and Loans scandal when thinking of H. W. Bush. Also, some are subjective. The "Reagan Revolution" is the greatest thing ever to a conservative and a horror to progressives. Don't even get me started on deficit spending. But, hopefully, you see the point. After writing down your own list (without falling to the Great Delusion of Politics), you will see one president harder to sell, then others.

But, who does the selling? Why other members of the party hoping to be elected, and that's what the Success Count should measure. How much other politicians think they can sell this president. In other words, the Presidential Elevator Pitch. Thus. it’s not an idle exercise. If other politicians believe they will not be able to sell him in the future, they are encouraged to distance themselves from him and no longer defend him. That will harm his legacy and mean the difference between success and failure.

Now look. Whatever happens, his Delusionals will insist he was great and any failure was just the system being rigged. The question is this. Will there be enough fans, after he is no longer president, for politicians to invoke his name or pretend he was never president?[2]

In this way, the Presidential Elevator Pitch can become a shorthand for the Success Count. Think of three outcomes that a non-partisan would be most likely to remember. Don’t forget to avoid the Great Delusion of Politics. Here would be my list so far:
  1. Travel Ban
  2. Russia
  3. Twitter
Unless you are a Delusional that list looks bad. Perhaps, there will be enough fervent support to continue to pressure republican politicians, but that tends to hurt as much as it helps.[3] Without a better list, the Trump Presidency might at best be remembered as a good reality TV show.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

What Counting Teaches Us

Projections of the Latest Congress Count

Here are my latest Success and Disaster Count
52/237 is the Senate/House Success Count
61/206 is the Senate/House Disaster Count
First, off the bat, you should notice that I now have House Counts which you can look at in the Congress Count link. I’ll get into those in a bit.

Second, you should now realize there is nothing Trumpy about these numbers. I could go through the same exercise with any President. (It’s just this guy made us feel we needed to.) Furthermore, these numbers (right now) are more a factor of partisanship. I would not be surprised if I got similar numbers for President Obama.

In general, what they say is that President Trump is safe from any opposition, but he will not be able to do much except basic President stuff. How can that change?

In order to increase the Success Count to 60, 8 democratic senators have to shift. That would not take a lot. 10 are up for re-election in either republican or swing states. However, as long as protests are high and Trump's approval is bellow 50%, these senators have to worry about being primaried.

If the 538 Trump Democratic Average drops bellow -5, I would consider adding the 5 senators in republican states. I've marked these 5 with '?' as they will be the first to go. If his approval goes above 50%, I would add the other 4 in swing states.

In order to get the Disaster Count to 67, 6 republican senators and 12 representatives have to shift. The first to look for is Dean Heller, but I would not give much hope. Despite him representing a swing state, his history and current voting do not support independence. After that, there are no more senators from swing states to add.

If President Trump's approval, however, starts to drop bellow 40%, I would look for more signs of independence. I've marked those where Trump won the least with '?'. The bad news is that I had to go as high as him winning by +15% to reach 6 (without including Dean Heller). The good news is that one of the +15% is Lindsey Graham. (I also can't believe one of the '?' is Ted Cruz. Good God, I'm looking for Ted Cruz to save us.)

Note, that Rand Paul comes from a +30% state so any senator could be added. However, as time goes forward I will also have to raise my criteria for 'independence' which would more likely shift the counts lower. I call this 'honing'.[1]

The House is more shifty (pun intended). As you know, majorities rule in the House. (Yeah, I made another pun.) So, If Paul Ryan stands with Trump and holds the House together, the House will stand as well. (And another one. Wait. Just one more.) You could say that with the support of all three branches, the President is tri-trump-phant. (OK. I'll stop now.)

Therefore, over the next 2 years, we only need to know what makes the House Disaster Count go up. Well, first Paul Ryan has to want it. After that, finding the additional 12 representatives is easy. 16 have already voted at least once against him, and an additional 18 are in states that voted against Trump. Though, these 18 have not yet voted against them, which is why I've only marked them with a '?'. 5 seats are also vacant and up for special elections this year. Again, watch out for 'honing'

Now, how does this play out over the next 8 years? (Yeah, I said 8. Don't bury your head just yet.)

Before 2018

As of now, congress is at a standstill. (What else is new.) The President can do much in the areas of foreign policy and immigration without congress. However, without congress, he will lack some tools.[2]

The Success Count is enough to provide basic funding, but he will not be able to modify departments, build the Wall, impose or lessen sanctions, pass new treaties, and so.

What he needs is to get non-trumpies on his side, enough that at least eight democratic senators will support him.

In determining President Trump's future, congress's biggest role is to keep him out of real trouble (investigations, impeachment, etc.). What tends to be missed is that the trumpies love him, not his staff. The President could find his staff picked away by scandal and leaving him effectively neutered.

And forget about new trade treaty, only trade agreements he can negotiate without congress.

2018

Obviously, the midterm election will change the numbers. The biggest change could be in the House, History is against the President, especially with an approval rating in the 40s. As stands, there is a good chance democrats could control the House. There, however, is a lot of volatility here, so that is far from certain.

However, the likely result is that the republicans keep the Senate, even if the President popularity goes lower. There are just too many democrats up for re-election and too few republicans. The Senate Success Count could raise to 60, but it's unlikely even if the political environment improves.

After 2018

Here we have two realistic scenarios: either the congressional makeup stays the same or democrats take control of the House. In the first scenario, we have the same dynamic as today. In the second, the Congress is still at a standstill, but democrats can run investigations unhindered. That could begin the end for President Trump.

2020

Obviously, if he loses, the story's done. He's at best viewed only as a footnote in history and at worse a public failure. So, let's assume he wins. (Take a deep breath. We're just talking a hypothetical here.)

Predicting the Senate elections is surprisingly easy. The opposite is true of 2018. There are 2 republicans to 1 democrat up for re-election so republicans will lose seats. The Senate will again not have enough of a majority on either side to do much. The only question is whether enough seats were gained in 2018 to offset the loss in 2020.

No change over the next 4 years is an outrageous assumption. But this is a projection, not a prediction, That's how a projection works and why it is less accurate the further you project.

For the House, there are two possibilities. Either democrat resistance is holding strong at which point the House falls incrementally to democrat control, or the House gets locked into a cycle where it switches between parties.

Before 2022

Either we have the same as before 2018 or 2020 depending on whether republicans control both the Senate and House, or whether democrats control one of them.

2022

Once again republicans are at a numerical disadvantage. If they have not lost control of the Senate, they will now. Past history also says that democrats will gain control of the House.

After 2022

This is where the current course spells trouble for Trump. In the last 2 years of any President’s 2nd terms, the President has a problem. No other elected official cares what happens to him. Democrats will most likely control the Senate or the House, and congressional investigations will have had at least 4 years to find something. With no one else to defend him, his Presidency will be headed for disaster.

Conclusion

If we project out from where we are now, we can safely say democrats will control the Senate by 2022. The House will either be locked into a cycle of switching between parties or will progressively move to democrat control. (Did I make another pun?)

This means he will either lose re-election or end his 2nd term Nixon-like after 2022.

However, something will change before this. If the President get’s “lucky” with a good economy, foreign crises suited to him, or loss of democratic momentum, his presidency could become a better success. Otherwise, he has to become a better President.

His disaster will come sooner if he gets “unlucky” with a worse economy, badly run foreign crises, or we just “get tired of him”.

I’ll have to examine the individual scenarios in later posts, and of course, I will have to adjust the projection as I “hone”. Right now he’s on a slow slide into disaster. That could change, but guess which one I would bet on.