Think it Through

Senator Arlen Specter, the former headline-chasing prosecutor from Philadelphia turned United States Senator from Pennsylvania is known as a loner in a club that values camaraderie above all else. But now Senator Specter has joined the largest political movement in the country in the last 12 months, the exodus from the Republican Party. According to all the recent national polls, from April 2008 to April 2009 over 17 million Americans left the Republican party. Specter makes it 17 million plus one.

How many have joined the Democrats? There has been no net increase in those calling themselves Democrats, according to most of the national surveys. Democratic identification, depending on which poll you use, has either remained the same or even decreased slightly since last April.

Instead, the shrinking of the Republican party has coincided with the largest number of Americans identifying as independents – between 85 and 88 million Americans (38 to 40%), depending on the poll – in a generation. Republican identification stands at 20 to 21% (about 42 million Americans) and Democratic i.d. is at 35% in most polls (about 75 million Americans).

from Washington Post/ABC News data

Where has the exodus been most robust? A look at some of our surveys at Belden Russonello & Stewart from April 2008 to April 2009 yields some surprises: men under age 50, college graduates, and single people have been the most likely groups to bolt from the Republican party in the last 12 months.

For now, these Republican defectors are calling themselves independents – a group in which a majority approve of the way President Obama is handling his job.

When Senator Specter voted for the President’s stimulus bill, we should have known what was coming. By voting yes, Specter tore at the fabric of current Republican doctrine and joined the millions of Americans who have placed their faith in the country’s new President and his new leadership. An important part of that leadership includes a willingness to expand the role of government to repair the economy.

Specter’s vote for the stimulus bill and his decision to leave the GOP is all the more meaningful when you consider the fact that he holds the seat of former Senator Richard Schweiker, a liberal Republican from Pennsylvania who served in the Senate from 1968 to 1980. Schweiker achieved national prominence in 1976 when Ronald Reagan, in his first unsuccessful race for President, announced his intention to name Schweiker as his vice presidential running mate at the Republican convention. Conservatives were outraged. President Ford edged out Reagan for the nomination, and that was the end of Schweiker’s dance with national office. After becoming President, Reagan named Schweiker Secretary of Health and Human Services in 1981.

That was when the Republican party lived in a considerably larger tent, when it was ideological but not inflexible, national rather than regional. It was a time when Mr. Conservative Ronald Reagan saw value in choosing Mr. Liberal Richard Schweiker as a running mate on the Republican ticket.

Today, seventy percent of Republicans call themselves conservative and over four in ten live in the South, according to BRS surveys. Today, Schweiker, like Specter, would be part of that 17 million person movement that is growing in America.

President Barack Obama marks his first 100 days in office this week, a key milestone for every president since Franklin Roosevelt gave the 100-day mark its meaning 77 years ago.

If you think about it, the comparison is unfair to any president. It is like asking a baseball player at the beginning of the season if he will break Joe DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak. As any baseball fan can tell you, it cannot be done.

In early 1933, FDR used an overwhelmingly supportive public and Congress to wield the power of the federal government in a capacity never before seen in our country. His first 100 days, almost singularly focused on creating jobs, gave the country:

• the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which increased subsidies for farmers;

• the Civilian Conservation Corps, which hired people to plant trees and do humanitarian tasks;

• the Federal Employment Relief Act, which provided funds for people who had lost their jobs;

• the Reconstruction Finance Corps, which provided funds for state governments;

• a new banking bill that provided more protections for investors;

• the Tennessee Valley Authority; and

• the National Industrial Recovery Act, which began a program of public construction projects that are responsible for many of the municipal buildings and libraries across our country today.

Like Roosevelt, President Obama has spent the introductory phase of his presidency focusing on his number one priority – economic recovery. His priorities have been to keep the financial institutions afloat, get more money into our local economies through the stimulus bill, and lay the groundwork for health care reform, which is key to long term economic viability for U.S. business and industry.

Unlike Roosevelt, Obama’s expansive view of the economy has led him to make many profound changes in government policy that he believes are linked to our economic health.

Obama has so far, set a hard timetable bringing our troops home from Iraq.

He has made it clear that our government will once again respect both science and the rule of law, by opening federal funding for stem cell research and closing down Guantanamo and the CIA’s secret prisons around the world.

On environmental science he lifted the veil of studied ignorance from the White House by recognizing that carbon dioxide is threat to human health through global warming.

His decision this week to allow investigations into whether Bush administration officials broke the law in anti-terrorism efforts may be his most controversial non-economic decision yet – but it is one supported by our traditions and by the public.

He has also given the country a personality adjustment that many thought would take years of therapy. Within less than three months, America’s profile has been transformed from the schoolyard belligerent who engages in fights he cannot win, into the kid whose quiet self-confidence earns him respect.

So far, his broad swath of policy changes have been received almost as well as his leadership skills. The latest Washington Post/ABC survey showed his job approval among the public at 66%. Pew’s latest poll shows a 63% job approval for Obama and the proportion of Americans who approve of his policies outnumbering those who disapprove by 39 points on foreign policy (61% to 22%), 27 points on the economy (60%-33%), 21 points on terrorism (57%-26%), 21 points on health care (51%-26%), 17 points on tax policy, (50% -33%), and even by 12 points on the budget deficit (50% – 38%).

Numbers like these contradict the analysts and pundits who say the public likes Obama but is more divided about his policies. The public so far likes both the melody and the lyrics of Obama’s performance.

Obama has accomplished all of this without the luxury of Roosevelt’s early acquiescent Congress. Republicans continue to think they can gain political ground by saying no, even though the public is looking for leaders who can say yes; and some Democrats still have not decided what they willing to stand for.

Later in his presidency, FDR would use his ability to focus on the effort to win World War II. At that point, Congress was not as compliant as they were when he first took over the presidency in 1933. In keeping his focus on the war effort, Franklin Roosevelt failed to do many things the liberals of his party wanted him to do – things many of us think he should have done – such as push for an anti-lynching law to protect blacks in the South. Roosevelt believed he would lose key votes in Congress for his war efforts if he pushed hard for these needed reforms. They would have to wait, he said.

Obama is not waiting on much. He has won the big votes on economic recovery. Health care lies ahead. In his first hundred days he has shown an ability to move his broad and bold agenda for change in a way that is so far smart and strategic. He’s not Roosevelt, but like DiMaggio, he is on a streak that may last for a while.

Political partisanship is on the decline in the United States. Despite the increasing partisanship in Congress, a look at the numbers indicates that the nation is less divided by partisanship than at any time in recent history.

To determine if we are becoming more or less partisan as a nation, you need to look at two things: First, how many of us are identifying ourselves as politically aligned with one party or the other? Second, how are we reacting to the new president? The answers to these questions point to less partisanship, not more.

Consider party identification. The percentage of Americans identifying themselves with the Republican party has dropped to 21%, according to the latest Pew poll. In 1995, Republican identification stood at 31%. The exodus from the Republican party has not meant a partisan shift to the Democrats, however. Democratic identification is 33% of Americans, actually less than it was when George W. Bush was President (39% in October 2008) according to the Pew polls. What has happened is a stampede into the independent column. The most recent Pew poll reports that 40% of Americans call themselves political independents. This is the highest proportion of non-aligned Americans since pollsters began taking a measure of party identification in the 1960’s. How can people argue we are in an age of increased partisanship when there are fewer partisans?

On our second measurement – how the public reacts to the new President – we also see signs of less partisanship.

One fact stands out when you look at polling data over the last 25 years. Since the days of Ronald Reagan, relatively few Republicans have been able to bring themselves to approve of the job performance of a Democratic President, regardless if his name is Obama or Clinton. Republicans are no less or more partisan than they were 25 years ago, there are just fewer of them. Bill Clinton’s approval rating among Republicans was only 26% in the spring of his first term. Obama’s approval among Republicans in the latest Pew poll is 27%.

Democrats since the Reagan years have traditionally been more willing to approve of the job of a president of the other party. President George W. Bush at the start of 2001, even after a closely divided election and before 9/11, enjoyed a 36% approval rating among Democrats.

Obama is receiving more support than Clinton from Democrats (88% approval to Clinton’s 71%). Obama’s high proportion of support among his own party regulars is not unusual for most presidents. George W. Bush had an 87% approval rating at the same point among Republicans, and Ronald Reagan at the same point won approval of 87% of Republicans.

More interesting is Obama’s success in attracting more independents who approve of his performance. 57% of independents in Pew’s April survey say they approve of the way the president is handling his job compared to 47% of independents who approved of Clinton’s performance at the same point in his presidency.

When Republican leaders oppose the president on just about everything , they are representing the hardest core of the 21% who identify as Republicans. Sort of a Republican extract.

The nation as a whole cannot be considered more partisan when the proportion of independents is growing and the proportion of people identified with political parties is shrinking. Neither can the country be credibly described as increasingly divided since a majority of the public, including independents, approve of President Obama’s performance.

If the country is not becoming more partisan, what is happening? The nation is actually coming together in support of a president who is offering positive leadership and convictions. Unlike the pundits or the politicians, the people are not worried about whether his agenda is too liberal or too conservative, they are trusting his leadership, his quiet confidence (no chest beating about the pirate take out), and his agenda for the country based on values of responsibility and fairness.

Just as Reagan’s leadership and convictions moved the center of our politics to the right, Obama’s same qualities will move the political center back a couple of notches to the left.

While the commentators and politicians noisily yammer on about old divisions, the public is quietly realigning its political identity.

image used under Creative Commons license from Jibby7

Most of the time the big story lies hidden under the topline data. The latest Pew Poll is no exception. While the poll headlined the story that the public sees more partisan bickering now than it did in January, the most interesting finding to me was that just 21 percent of Americans now identify themselves with the Republican Party. A year ago 26% of Americans self-identified as Republicans, and six years ago it was 30%. In fact, you have to go back a whole generation to 1977 to find Republican identification as low as 21%.

This exodus from the Republican party has not turned people into Democrats, but rather it has increased the population of independents from 31% a year ago to 40% today in Pew’s poll.

In order to bring these voters into the Democratic camp, President Obama needs to convince them that his agenda for change reflects their values. All of our experience over the last two years demonstrates that Barack Obama understands their values better than the Republicans and much better than the conservative, or “practical”, Democrats. In last fall’s election, Obama won many of these voters by appealing to the values of responsibility and fairness as a contrast to the decade long drumbeat of freedom, individualism, and superficial patriotism. His more reasoned, careful and caring approach to the country’s problems helped him win majorities among segments of the electorate that are uncommon for Democrats, including moderates, voters with college degrees, and people earning over $200,00 a year. He has four years to turn these anti-Bush voters into Obama democrats. There is evidence he is off to a good start.

The latest surveys show that these Republicans now turned independents are broadly approving of his presidency. 70% of independents have confidence in President Obama’s leadership to fix the economy according to the latest Pew poll. That same survey also shows a majority of independents want to spend money improving the economic situation rather than worrying about the deficit. 57% choose spending more on health care and education rather than on the deficit.

Obama will not succeed by listening to those who tell him he needs to appeal more to the 21% of Americans still clinging to old Republican dogma, or who tell him he needs to bend to the fictitious moderate voter who cares deeply about government spending.

It seems the more the Republican 21% and its leaders criticize Obama, the stronger he becomes. The more they say no, the more appealing his “yes” approach to the country’s problems becomes. Maybe that helps to explain the irony that as the economic skies continue to darken the country’s outlook brightens with appreciation for and anticipation of positive solutions from new leadership.

Like Ronald Reagan, who was successful in enacting his agenda and bringing most of the nation along with him, Obama has the skills to set the agenda and lead. To accomplish this, he must not get caught up in the Washington game of tacking to what people tell him is the “middle,” and he must ignore sophomoric advice like that of Nancy Pelosi who promised, “we will govern from the center.” Politicians who create lasting change do not worry about how to govern from the center. They govern from the values they share with other Americans. These politicians, men like Reagan and Roosevelt, redefined the center.

Obama has a chance to be that kind of leader, and if he succeeds he will win over many of those new independents and make them Obama Democrats.

In the meantime, keep your eye on that 21 % number to see how low it can go.

Photo by erewhon. Used through Creative Commons license.

You might think a subject as dry as the Census could not generate much emotion, but never underestimate the power of numbers. In fact, the coming fight in the Congress over the 2010 Census is a metaphor for the identity of the two political parties in our country. Everyone knows that each year America is becoming a more diverse country in terms of the ethnicity, race, religion, and ancestry of the people who live here. You can deal with it, or try to deny it. Nothing makes this point clearer than your position on the Census.

When the Republicans in the House and Senate object to using modern statistical methods to reach an accurate accounting of nation’s population, it is a statement of denial of who we are as a country.

The Census is always a contentious issue because it is the basis for determining how Congressional seats are apportioned across the country. In the lead-up to the 2000 Census, Republicans objected to using scientific sampling methods to count every person because these new methods would mean more urban poor and minority people would be counted. The presumption was these could turn into Democratic gains come the next election.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that the Census must use a non-adjusted count to determine the number of congressional seats in each state but a statistically-adjusted count might be ok as the basis for how the districts are drawn and how much federal funds flow to the states.

This year, the Republicans again fear an accurate count may adversely impact their numbers and they are already gearing up for a fight. House Republican leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio was quoted in the New York Times last week setting the stage. “We will have to watch closely to ensure the 2010 census is conducted without attempting similar statistical sleight of hand,” he said referring to the 2000 fight over using modern statistical methodology.

This seems like a dead end strategy to me. Instead of trying to win over those Americans who have become unemployed, or live paycheck to paycheck, and therefore are harder to reach, the Republicans opposing a modern census have decided it is better to act like these people do not exist. This is in keeping with some Republican governors threatening to refuse federal money to help economically struggling people in their states. Their attitude seems to be: Poor people, what poor people?

In the middle of this high stakes debate walks a calm academic from Michigan. President Obama’s choice of Robert Groves, professor at the University of Michigan, to be the new Director of the 2010 Census has been met with predictable praise and politics. Groves is perhaps the most respected current academic in the nation in the field of scientific survey research. He is the standard by which all other serious academics and professionals gauge the quality of their own work. Yet, he is someone open to new ideas, a great depository of knowledge but still curious about what he does not know.

Groves is the perfect guy to run the census, but he still must jump through the hurdles of a Senate confirmation process. Since Groves has spent more time in Ann Arbor than Washington in the last 20 years, here are some points for Groves as he prepares for Senate confirmation.

Point #1. Your Senate confirmation as census director is not about how qualified you are for the job, or even how likable you are. In fact, it is not about you at all. It is a fight over the politics of inclusion vs. the politics of exclusion. It is over whether our government is prepared to acknowledge all of the people it serves or whether it intends to avert its eyes to some.

An accurate census will let us see everyone who is among us; the alternative is a census that chooses to miss millions of people who live in our communities but on the edge between making it and oblivion — whether it be east Los Angeles, Houston or parts of Queens. Some Senators will be on the side of inclusion, and some will be on the side of exclusion. They may couch this in terms of you, but don’t take it personally.

Point #2. If you are waiting for them to ask you questions, pack a lunch. Your supporters on the Senate confirmation committee will give long speeches testifying to your fitness, and may never get to ask you anything at all. Your antagonists on the committee will go on at length about their concern that you live in a world of statistics and computer – generated models, and estimated guesses. They will assert that your methods conflict with the intent of the founding fathers because they did not have computers.

If they ask you any question at all, it may be something like: Dr. Groves, if you favor statistical adjustments to the census, how is that different from the Nielsen Ratings which of course are wrong, since I never watch those shows they say people are watching?

Point #3. You would do best not answering these types of questions directly. In fact, do not try to explain anything to these senators. When you are asked a technical question about statistical adjustments, remember, your questioners are not really interested in how you go about your work, they only want you to say something they can use against you – like when President Clinton finished a speech in Houston and could not help himself tell reporters he thought statistical sampling in the Census was just like polling.

Point #4. Finally, follow the three Ms and you will do fine. First, is Message – make it simple: the constitution says we must get an enumeration of the public. The America heritage dictionary defines enumerate as: “to count… or to determine the number of something.” It does not prescribe any particular method. What is important is that the enumeration be accurate.
Second, Monotony is your friend. Embrace repetition.

Third, Manifest moderate humility. Do not be too humble, even though the senate hearing rooms look imposing, or too cocky, even if you think some of your questioners would have flunked your freshman class on statistics.

Leave it to others to remind the Senators that accuracy is your business. It is what you do, and you are one of the best.