Archive for September, 2009

« Older Entries

The Deeds Campaign and Rovian Politics

September 30, 2009

In recent weeks the Creigh Deeds campaign has pinpointed its focus upon Bob McDonnell’s controversial college thesis – “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade.” Polls indicate that the effort has bore some fruit, though the Republican nominee still leads.

This strategy by Virginia Democrats brings concern to me, because it smacks as something straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook. Democrats have long railed against politics of personal destruction: elections ought to be about issues, not personality. Yet today Creigh Deeds is waging a campaign against his opponent’s character, not the issues Mr. McDonnell is behind.

Personally, I think that character-based voting gets a worse rap than it deserves. Richard Nixon, for instance, may have been right on all the issues – but he still shouldn’t have been president, because he was a paranoid racist. Barack Obama’s steadiness during the fall economic crisis appealed to many voters – an appeal based on personality, not issues.

Nevertheless, it is striking to witness how McDonnell is defending himself. For example, he states

For the last month, my opponent seems to have been making social issues the focus of the campaign. Senator Deeds continues to focus on divisive social issues. He runs a backwards looking campaign focused on former presidents, former governors and two decades old term papers.

If I hadn’t known better, I’d have sworn that those words came out of a Democrat’s mouth.

Indeed, McDonnell’s statement recalls what Democrats attacked as too socially liberal have been saying for election after election. Politicians can talk about abortion and gay marriage all they want; they can fight the culture wars again and again. But arguing about abortion is not going to improve the economy, strengthen national security, or reform health care. The only thing it’s going to do is distract the nation.

I’d still vote for Deeds if I lived in Virginia (which I don’t). He’s the Democratic candidate – not my type of Democrat, but a Democrat nonetheless. It’s just goes against my grain to watch a Republican Democrat attempt to win through the politics of personal destruction, because he knows he’ll lose any other way.

Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in 2009 Gubernatorial Elections, Election Analysis, Virginia | Leave a Comment »

Not All Gerrymanders are Bad

September 28, 2009

Attacking gerrymandering these days is as popular as saying Wall Street needs reform. It’s a truism; everybody agrees with that “gerrymandering is bad,” just as everybody agrees that breathing is good.

Gerrymanders do get pretty ridiculous. Consider Maryland’s 3rd congressional district:

Maryland’s legislature designed this gerrymander to favor Democrats. And it worked: Maryland is represented by seven Democrats and one Republican.

You can probably go search a few terrible gerrymanders of your own; they’re not exactly difficult to find. For the purposes of this post, however, I will be concentrating on one particular gerrymander: Arizona’s 2nd congressional district.

Here is how it looks:

Most observers will probably label this example as just another egregious attempt to favor one party or the other. One look at that incredibly strange-looking right arm certainly adds credence to this theory.

Arizona’s congressional districts, however, are drawn by an independent redistricting committee, not the state legislature. The purpose of this gerrymander is distinctly different from what most casual observers would first presume.

Take a look at Arizona’s Indian reservations:

That brown-colored northeast reservation perfectly matches Arizona’s 2nd district. It’s the Hopi Indian reservation. Completely encircling it is the Navajo Indian reservation, colored in blue.

The Hopi and Navajo tribes have a long history of conflict and land disputes. Having both tribes represented by one congressman would be inappropriate; Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission therefore gerrymandered its districts to separate the tribes.

The lesson here is not that gerrymandering is good, but that it can be used for good. 99% of gerrymanders are probably bad; the practice badly needs reform. But we ought be wary when labeling anything as universally negative, lest we forget the other 1%.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Election Analysis | 7 Comments »

A Map of Afghanistan’s Election

September 26, 2009

The New York Times posted a very interesting map of Afghanistan’s recent election.

Afghanistan election

Before continuing, I must note that my purpose is not to question whether irregularities or fraud might have denied Abdullah Abdullah victory; I am simply analyzing the data as it appears.

There’s a lot of data here, and interpreting it is fairly difficult; few people know much about Afghan politics and demographics. This map indicates the margins each candidate won. Kabul is the big red circle. In total, Karzai won 55% of the vote, essentially doubling the vote of the second-closest candidate.

Compared to a similar maps of U.S. elections, several things stand out. The first is the extent to which polarization is apparent. Afghani society is very clan-based, and elections can reveal polarization like nothing else.

At the point most politicians win an election by more than 20%, maps like the one above tend to consist of something like below:

California 2008This is Barack Obama’s 24.03% landslide in California. Compare it to Karzai’s 27% victory: one might be forgiven for concluding that out of the two elections, Karzai did worse.

Notice too that Ramazan Bashardost, who won only 9% of the vote, shows up as a presence on the map. This indicates a very regional candidacy, like that of William Wallace. Candidates who win 9% of the vote nearly never show up on any type of election map; Ross Perot, for instance, won less than a dozen counties with his 18.9% of the vote.

Abdullah Abdullah was also a regional candidate, as the following map reveals:

Afghanistan election Abdullah
Total Vote for Abdullah

Mr. Abdullah  is almost entirely limited in support to the north; very few Pashtuns in the south seem willing to vote for him. This was not the case with Karzai; his total vote looks far more homogeneous:

Total Vote for Karzai

Total Vote for Karzai

There are several American states that the results Afghanistan’s election can be comparable to. The victor wins the one major city along with a number of more rural areas, although the opposing candidate summons strong support in one region. In this respect, Karzai’s victory resembles the coalition Bill Clinton assembled in many Appalachian states, such as Missouri and Tennessee (his loss in Oklahoma also bears similarities to Afghanistan). Recent presidential elections, on the other hand, generally do not follow this pattern; cities and rural areas rarely vote together (and cities never vote Republican). After Bill Clinton, only Obama’s Iowa victory comes to mind as a state with a “Karzai” coalition. Note that in all this states, the winner’s margin was far less than Karzai’s 27%.

The place that Afghanistan’s election calls most to mind, however, is Alabama. Both are extremely polarized: Afghanistan by tribe, Alabama by race. Republicans regularly win landslides in Alabama, yet always lose a particular region – the Black Belt – just as Karzai lost many Afghan areas despite his strong performance. Accusations of fraud have severely tainted the Karzai “landslide,” just as fraud of a different type was practiced in Alabama for many decades. Finally, both areas are extremely poor and will likely remain so during the forseeable future.

To end this post, here is McCain’s performance in Alabama.

Alabama, 2008 presidential election (NYT)

Alabama, 2008 presidential election (NYT)

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Election Analysis | Leave a Comment »

A Major Achievement

September 21, 2009

A few days ago the House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a meaningful reform of the way student loans are dealt with.

In my mind, this bill constitutes one of the Obama administration’s most important accomplishments.

To understand why, provided hereafter is an explanation of what the bill does. In recent years, the cost for college has increased tremendously, to the point where total expenses exceed per capita American income. Therefore the federal government encourages banks to loan money to students. These loans are guaranteed and subsidized by the government.

Unfortunately, private banks are not in the business to help students. Many private student loans can be compared to sub-prime mortgages; they charge exorbitant interest rates, add numerous fees (e.g. the origination fee), and often take advantage of vulnerable, low-information customers. Moreover, under Republican banking reforms, student debt cannot be wiped away through bankruptcy.

Federal loans are different. Because the government is not out to make a profit, government loans (e.g. Stafford loans, Ford Direct student loans) generally carry lower interest rates and no fees.

This bill proposes to end subsidies to private student loans; instead, the government will loan money to students directly. One only needs to read the above to realize the import of this.

There’s more good stuff. The law expands Pell Grant aid and links the scholarhship to a rate slightly higher than inflation, “so that these grants don’t cover less and less as families’ costs go up and up.” Previously, “that value [was] set by Congress on an annual basis, making it vulnerable to Washington politics.” Money is provided to community colleges, early childhood programs, and historically black universities. The FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), which took me a week to fill out, is simplified.

It was disappointing to see that only six Republicans voted for the bill. On the one hand, their opposition is somewhat understandable. The reform expands the role of the federal government, which goes against Republican philosophy.

On the other hand, there is so little objectionable about education reform that the degree of Republican opposition still remains puzzling. Who does this bill hurt? Banks. I am sure many Americans would not be terribly sorry to see a law do that. And the vast majority of expert opinion agrees that the reform is necessary and helpful.

A final note. To date, the media has provided very little coverage of this bill. When the House approved a climate change law, it landed on the front page of the New York Times. Passage of this bill was news enough for half of Page 15.

This reflects a failure of the administration’s media operation. If more Americans knew about Obama’s education reform, I am convinced that his approval ratings would be higher. Progress on other priorities (e.g. climate change) would probably be easier-done. Obama should talk more about this bill.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Education | Leave a Comment »

Communism in Italy

September 19, 2009

This is the third part of a series on Communism in Western Europe; this section focuses on Italy in particular.


The Italian Communist Party (PCI) formed in 1921, as a break-away faction of the socialist party. In many respects, its early years were similar to those of the PCF. Like the French Communists, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) fared poorly in national elections, winning less than five percent of the popular vote. Its time to grow, moreover, was cut short by Benito Mussolini’s dictatorship; he outlawed the party in 1926.

In another parallel to their French colleagues, the Italian Communists (PCI) fought fiercely against the Nazis during WWII and won major acclaim for their efforts. After the war, the PCI took part in the new government, playing a major role in writing the new Italian constitution. As in France, however, America’s Marshall Plan curbed their influence; to gain access to U.S. aid, the Italian government kicked out the Communists. They would never again hold power in Italy.

Here the paths of the French and Italian Communists diverge. In France the Communist story is one of steady decline, until the PCF no longer constituted a viable political force. In Italy the story is different.

Communism in France + Italy

Before getting into it, however, another tale must be told – that of the 1948 general elections. This contest was the most important election in Italian history, pitting the Italian Communist Party (the PCI, allied with the socialists) against the Christian Democrats (Democrazia Cristiana, DC). It literally determined Italy’s side on the Cold War, whether it would ally with the United States or the Soviet Union. Many feared that if the Communists won, Italy would go red, never to turn back.

The election was fiercely fought; both sides were discretely funded by their respective superpowers. The Catholic Church came out strongly against the Communists (PCI), using slogans such as, “In the secrecy of the polling booth, God sees you – Stalin doesn’t.”

Christian Democracy (DC) blew away the Communists (PCI). While the PCI won a 31.0% vote share, their second-best performance ever, the Christian Democrats took 48.5% of the vote. Italy allied with the United States.

For nearly half a century thereafter, Christian Democracy governed Italy. The PCI never managed to win more votes than the Christian Democrats, although they continued to fare respectably in general elections.

Communists in Italy v. Christian Democrats

Here a crucial distinction between the French Communists and the Italian Communists occurs: while the PCF gradually declined throughout the 50s to 70s, the PCI actually strengthened itself during this era. Unlike the French Communist Party, the PCI publicly and dramatically distanced itself from the Soviet Union. Instead, the party was the most vocal advocate of eurocommunism, a far different philosophy than that espoused by the Soviet Union.

Thus, the Italian Communist Party was perceived as more acceptable and moderate than other communist parties, and its share of the vote steadily increased. In 1976, they won 34.37% of the vote, their best performance in history and a mere 4.34% behind DC. The PCI achieved this result by doing “all they could to appear as a respectable, rather conservative party committed to sensible change by constitutional means…[and] emphasise how moderate, democratic and uncorrupt they were.”

In the end, however, the PCI was still Communist, irrevocably tied to the fate of the Soviet Union no matter how distant their ties. When the USSR fell, the Italian Communist Party was broken up – though, as in eastern Europe, many parties of Italy’s left have roots from the PCI. Within a few years, DC – its reason for existence now dead – imploded under a shroud of corruption scandals.

That was the end of the old system. Today, for better or for worse, one man – Silvio Berlusconi – dominates the political arena. Yet, even with the PCI long gone, Berlusconi still invokes anti-communism to win votes. The shadow of the PCI is long indeed.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Election Analysis, Other | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries