Should we let communities "be themselves"?
So how's that working out? A story in yesterday's New York Times, "Spotlight on Gas Prices, and Parties in Stalemate," was like dozens of others I've read over the years. There's a problem and there's a picture of a guy pointing at a chart and there is a reporter who tells me that it is "increasingly clear that...Congressional debate is more a matter of political positioning than policy creation...." Problems pile up -- energy, health care, transportation -- and nationally they have been left to fester. Not for just a little while, but for decades. Nelson Polsby, a student of Congress, counts the years since 1968 as a time of "stalemate" in Congress.
Was geographic sorting a cause? The evidence is pretty clear: As communities tip Republican or Democratic, so do Congressional districts. Fewer Members of Congress run in mixed districts so there are fewer Representatives (or Senators, for that matter) who find a need to satisfy both sides. The ideological nature of primaries discourages moderates from entering the fray. (Sandy Maisel interviewed 1,500 people thought to be potential congressional candidates. Many told the Colby College professor they simply "didn't like the kind of campaigns they would have to run to get the nomination.") Over time, the middle of Congress has largely disappeared. No Democrat is more conservative than the most liberal Republican. (Check out the graphs here.) The ground where problems can be worked on and worked out has gone away. Political positioning not policy creation. Stalemate.
Republicans rammed through legislation when they could. Democrats wait for their bullet-proof majorities this November. Maybe the returns will give the Ds the votes they need.
A constant theme of those writing this week is that diversity has benefits. "Little boxes make us stupid," Bob Carlton wrote. That's an American theme. Before the states were united, there was an argument against one nation. Countries should be organized around similar "manners, sentiments, and interests," wrote the anti-Federalist Brutus, otherwise there will be a "constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other."
The argument on the other side was that "little boxes make us stupid" -- that diversity was both a creative force and a source of tolerance. People who hear the other side both make better decisions and are better able to get along with those with different opinions or ways of life.
That was the idea then. Maybe Brutus is finally getting his shot.
Actually, Brutus got his shot in 1789 -- although he may not have recognized it -- or approved.
Up until the Civil War Senators (more so) and Representatives (somewhat less so) came to Washington as diplomats sent by their respective states. There, on neutral ground and in the form of a congress of states, they negotiated their states' respective interests.
Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt (and the Supreme Court's liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause) put an end to all that.
July 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, another interpretation comes from historian James Sterling Young. He found that the first members of Congress came to Washington, D.C. and settled, two to a room, into boarding houses with those of similar background, political outlook and, no doubt, taste in boarding house grub. Legislators avoided those who came from different places, with different ideas, who ate different foods and lived in different boarding houses. Boarding house mates sat together on the floor of Congress and they voted according to boarding house rules. The earliest parties, historian James Sterling Young wrote, were defined by housing. Legislators came to Washington, DC to make a country, Young wrote, but, instead, “They transformed a national institution into a series of sectional conclaves.”
What's interesting (to me, anyway) is that given two hundred years and incredible choice, we're recreating those boarding house affiliations -- both in DC and in our communities. Members of Congress are bunking together (by party). And at home we're bunking with our lifestyle soulmates in our neighborhoods. The "neutral ground" has once again been abandoned in favor of something easier, but far less democratic.
July 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a Chicano from the Sonoran Desert, I have been quietly following the multiplicity of threads and the attendant comments. And some are quite convincing
Therefore, let me express my view. The "Big Sort" really hasn't addressed the issue of "education" that is important to me. Take, for example, it's well understood that without socio-economic integration, fixing our schools is doomed to failure when the "magic" marker of 40% is exceeded. To wit, low-income students that exceed the 40% of student population will not achieve much if any successful outcomes. Even moreso when the "magic" of the affected community is measured at "80". So, if you're the parent of a low-income student, expecting our educational systemic to do the anticipated "wonders" is doubtful. And if you're the parent of a high school dropout, it becomes a nightmare.
Consequently, Poverty and Zoning, become the sole determinants of any expected success. And if you've associated yourself with the Democratic Party, not much is going to happen. Of course, if you've associated yourself with the Republican Party, even less should be expected.
Therefore, it's incumbent that Obama expect some serious political pressure be applied to address the tangential issues of busing, magnet schools, charter schools and other related developments as well as the utiilization for the carrots and the sticks. Otherwise, expecting leadership development beneficial for the future among the Chicanos, Native Americans, and the African Americans, here in the Sonoran Desert, requires that the young students of today, forego politics in order to circument the 'barriers' to a qualitative and quantitative educational systemic, however measured. Add into this mix the High School dropouts, and it's even worse when thinking of what the future holds.
Respectfully Submitted.
Jaango
July 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jaango: Absolutely with you there on education. The Big Sort helps explain why there is growing regional economic inequality — which is a big part of what's driving the phenomenon you describe.
We deal quite a bit with this issue at the dailyyonder.com. In fact, we'd love to have you write for us about what's happening in your community.
July 25, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bill,
Thanks for tackling my observation head-on and for being so responsive in the comments throughout this week. It'd be nice to have you here as a regular contributer (talk to Josh about it!) You know there's a "but" coming up, right?
BUT... here's where I think you have it wrong: You say that, "Fewer Members of Congress run in mixed districts so there are fewer Representatives (or Senators, for that matter) who find a need to satisfy both sides. The ideological nature of primaries discourages moderates from entering the fray."
This seems not to be what's happening, at least not from the perspective of a lefty like me. When we ask for "More and better Democrats, please" we are saying that our side seems to send nothing but moderates to Washington. For many of us the complaint is that the primaries actually force out the more vociferously liberal candidates because we're told time and time again that we have to pick Democrats that Republicans will like and that we'll have to live with it when those same Democrats join with the Republicans to start wars, cut taxes on the rich and eavesdrop on our phone calls. Maybe this is an extreme example but who does the primary system really favor in a match-up between the moderate Nancy Pelosi and the left wing activist Cindy Sheehan?
Finally, I don't think you've provided any evidence that we get better policies when Democrats try to please Republicans or vice versa.
A lot of Democrats compromised with George Bush about invading Iraq. They said they wanted to work with the President, they wanted to give him the authority to do what needed to be done, they said that national security trumps partisan politics. And what happened? Bush invaded Iraq and when he messed it up and nearly lost his second term over it he was able to point to his 2004 opponent and say, "That's the guy that gave me permission to go to war in the first place."
Bush eked out a win by convincing the country that the war was a bipartisan effort and the result of a compromise between two competing camps who, whatever differences they might have had, knew that Saddam was a terrible, terrible threat.
So I don't see it, not from the lefty perspective anyway. Our compromises with the other side have been disasters and we've been often sold out by the moderates that we tend to send to congress. Maybe the Big Sort has made the right more extreme, but it certainly doesn't apply to the left.
July 25, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor....it's been great and I appreciate your help....
One of the themes that we do talk about in the book is the one that Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson wrote about in Off Center. Essentially they say (as you do) that Rs moved to the right more than Ds moved to the left.
We found this, too, in a variety of ways. For instance, people leaving landslide R counties are very likely to move to other landslide R counties. Those leaving D counties mix it up, although they were unlikely to move to R landslide counties. A study of party activists found that R activists have moved further to the right than D activists have moved to the left. There are some other examples that have slipped my mind, but basically, the evidence confirms what you're saying. There is more partisan movement among Rs than with Ds.
One thing that's different is that the parties disagree about more issues now than they did before. Usually as new issues crop up they displace old points of contention. Now, they just add on. So the parties disagree about more issues than they did before.
July 25, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider an alternative explanation to geographic sorting: "Conservative" budgeting and governing. In practice, it's the idea that Democrats need to balance the budget under all circumstances, while Republicans can pretty much loot the place. Either way, the whole concept of running the country so that government does the most for people who need it the most has become pretty much anathema. All that's left is pork, because even that is more respectable than actual social programs these days. I don't see how sorting is the problem when the overarching ideology of Washington is a fully sufficient explanation.
July 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill,
Thank you for your timely response.
How difficult would it be to craft an addendum to you book and which would emphasize Native Americans here in the Sonoran Desert?
Take, for example, the Yaquis are adjacent to Tucson and reside next to the University of Arizona. Additionally, the subset of Yaquis are also located in Guadalupe, and which is adjacent to both Phoenix and Tempe, and thusly, centrally located next to Arizona State University.
In a significant contrast is the Dineh or the Navajo Nation--which encompasses four states and is primarily rural. Moreover, the "needs" for the urban tribes are quite different than for rural tribes.
Perhaps, an 'addendum' to the Big Sort would feature an interesting avenue for greater understanding relative to 'integration' and especially important to the Yaquis given that they are using their casino profits to send their graduates to such 'exotic' locations as Oxford and the Sorbonne. And when they return, they will actively engage in politics and hopefully, within the Democratic column.
In closing, thanks for the invitation to visit the Daily Yonder Dot Com.
Jaango
July 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When one replaces the idea of equality with that of symmetry, which I find is the case, a discussion about 'separate but equal' (which is often separate, as long as I am good) may seem legitimate.
July 26, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Social engineers should ALWAYS be forced to eat the meals they cook.
Let them live in diverse neighborhoods, go to diverse schools, compete for jobs and education against those favored in one way or another by rules they set up. Let them care for the poor, the underprivileged, the dumb, the ugly, the stupid, the undocumented.
If things work out then the larger society can decide whether to implement their suggestions. But, as things stand now, the engineers are almost always overprivileged academics or bureaucrats living in and arguing from safe sinecures. It's the working poor and lower middle-classes who are the first to "benefit" from their "ideas".
The world has NEVER been organized according to the principles of diversity. That has led to problems, certainly, but one should pay close attention to the reasons such rules were universally adopted before trying to change them in the name of the "greater good".
July 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink