09 December 2001
Political Tidbits From The Week
I had been planning some fairly detailed comments on a number of recent articles for this weekend, but I've been pretty focused on the dissertation thus far (as my self-imposed year-end deadline to finish the substantive chapters is looming). Instead of detailed comments, I thought I would at least record a few thoughts before the articles completely fall off my radar screen.
* * * *
A little over a week ago, the Washington Post ran an article by Joanne Dann blaming "polarization" in the House on gerrymandering or redistricting (take your pick). Dann pretty clearly comes out against gerrymandering, instead advocating the non-partisan redistricting panels and commissions used in some states. Dann's article follows a November Wall Street Journal editorial on the same topic, though the WSJ went even further, contending the redistricting "process is turning American democracy on its head."
I'm not so sure I agree with the liberal WP or the conservative WSJ on this one. Certainly, I do not support the shaping of Congressional districts based solely on racial criteria, but courts have already worked to curb that (unconstitutional) practice. But given the choice between having unaccountable non-political technocrats or local pols determine local political districts, I'm much more comfortable with the local pols. In the late 19th century, Progressives began urging a politics of technocrats upon us on the grounds of efficiency and nonpartisanship and such (usually that has translated into less local control over politics), and the notion of reducing "partisanship" is, of course, a recurring theme in American politics. So too is the competing theme of responsible party government (as those of you who have ever studied the American politics literature on Parties well know).
Sure, many seats today have become "safe" seats. So what? If the holders of those seats reflect local concerns, why is that such a problem? And if the holders of those seats do indeed represent a greater diversity and polarization of views, would this be the one example of the Post being AGAINST diversity? Furthermore, is there any reliable literature that backs up the assertion that "safe" seats decrease political efficacy, thereby decreasing political participation?
* * * *
I read with some interest Jonathan Adler's Thursday NRO column when it came out. Adler has a problem with the reach of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to doctors who might use those drugs to assist suicide. Adler does NOT explicitly make the argument that the CSA is unconstitutional; indeed, he argues that were Congress to pass a law outlawing physician-assisted suicide, THAT would likely be declared unconstitutional (true -- but beside the point).
Ashcroft's interpretation is that Oregon doctors may NOT use such drugs as described in the CSA for the purpose of assisting suicide, which is a reasonable interpretation of that act. And since he is the Attorney General, it also seems reasonable he would prosecute such violations of that act. Indeed, even if Ashcroft were personally opposed to such prosecutions, it's difficult to see how he might avoid them, given his promises to Senators during his confirmation to enforce the laws AS THEY ARE, not how he might prefer them to be.
Adler takes a swipe at an earlier piece from the NRO editors on the topic, but he really doesn't address their argument, which I'm going to reproduce in full:
It seems to me that those who insist that John Ashcroft has declared war on federalism either don't understand what Ashcroft HAS done (he has announced his intent to enforce a federal law, which is something the national government does, and on a fairly regular basis) or really do believe in the extreme version of federalism advocated by Calhoun (state nullification). Whatever the case, Kim Grosman properly points out, "It is clear that there are no first principles of federalism at stake in this case, and perhaps no second or third ones, either."
I find several things interesting about all of this. First, it's amusing that the NRO editors so explicitly rebuked Calhoun, since once upon a time National Review was regarded as a bastion of conservative Calhounites (to use a term coined, so far as I know, by Harry Jaffa). Second, I find this line from Adler curious: "Federalism is the ultimate bulwark of American liberty." After fairly serious study of American institutions and constitutionalism broadly, I don't know that I necessarily agree with that proposition, but it's certainly worth considering. Finally, I'm amused that some bloggers feel the need to question the federalist credentials of those who, like Grosman (and myself), do not see major principles of federalism raised here; that's okay, though, they're probably all Calhounites. (*smile*)
* * * *
Earlier this week, I blogged an article from the Houston Press on Houston's mayoral race that I'd like to comment on. In the article, Tim Fleck contrasts the successful city-wide campaign of (seeming conservative) Michael Berry for city council with the unsuccessful city-wide campaign of conservative Orlando Sanchez for mayor. Fleck argues that Berry, like Sanchez, ran against a black candidate, but that Berry won because he, unlike Sanchez, ran a non-partisan race and actively courted black voters. Fleck clearly intimates that Sanchez ultimately ran a flawed campaign, and some of the blame lies with the GOP.
Fleck's conclusion is off base. Both Berry and his opponent were relative unknowns with no real track record, so it was easy for Berry to run a "nonpartisan" race, and much more difficult for his opponent to play the race card as effectively as Lee Brown (an incumbent black mayor perceived to be "in political trouble," as Lori Rodriguez reports). Sanchez, on the other hand, was a known fiscal conservative on city council, and it was part of Lee Brown's strategy early on to paint Sanchez as a Republican -- a good strategy in a city that splits roughly 60-40 in favor of Democrats. What that strategy did not prove sufficient, Brown shamelessly went to the race card to boost turnout (and it worked -- black turnout in the runoff increased 30% from the general election). It was Lee Brown, out of political necessity, who made Houston's mayoral race both partisan and racially-charged. Sanchez played the hand he had, and it was almost enough (in the end, he boosted Hispanic turnout in the city significantly, but moderate/conservative white turnout lagged). Sanchez ran about the best race he possibly could; he just got beat by a savvy (and more ruthless) politico. His strategy was not, as Fleck suggests, flawed because he did not run the same kind of race as Berry; in his case, that strategy simply wasn't possible.
[Posted @ 04:12 PM CST]
