Category Archives: Elections

Demagoguing Immigrants Wins No Votes

Today’s quote of the day from The Wall Street Journal‘s Political Diary newsletter is good stuff. Here it is in full:

“With Rick Perry suddenly pushing a flat tax and Herman Cain substantively revising his 9-9-9 revenue plan, GOP candidates may finally relinquish their feverish immigration obsession — one that’s destructive, distracting, demented, and downright dumb. Why spend a wildly disproportionate amount of energy exploring an issue that few voters consider a top priority, and where all Republican candidates fundamentally agree, rather than emphasizing real differences on the economic problems that will decide the election?

“Listening to the toxic trash talk at the Las Vegas debate, or watching attack ads that are already polluting the Internet, one might assume that the public viewed illegal immigration as the greatest challenge facing our civilization and believed the fate of the republic hinged on Mitt Romney’s past reliance on a lawn-service company that hired undocumented workers.

“Actually, no major poll of the last year — no, not one of them — showed robust public interest in immigration. This month, CBS News asked respondents to name ‘the most important problem facing this country today.’ Less than 2 percent came up with ‘illegal immigration,’ while a dozen other concerns, led by ‘the economy and jobs,’ of course, finished higher on the list. Over the summer, surveys from Bloomberg and Fox News found 3 percent and 2 percent, respectively, who identified immigration as a priority, with gas prices, the war in Afghanistan, health care, the deficit, education, and even nebulous concerns like ‘partisan politics’ and ‘moral values’ more frequently mentioned by the public” — syndicated columnist Michael Medved writing at thedailybeast.com on Oct. 24.

Republicans are even worse than Democrats on immigration issues. Medved is right. It would be nice if the GOP candidates would just stop talking about it. I don’t care if doing so would help them at the polls or not; I just think that economically illiterate anti-foreign bias is an ugly thing to behold.

Know Your Audience

Jon Huntsman is running for president as a Republican. Speaking to a tea party group on Sunday, he talked up his conservative credentials.

This bold stance garnered national headlines.

Wouldn’t it be more newsworthy if a professional vote-scrounger like Huntsman told an audience something they didn’t want to hear?

Democracy in Action

Politico:

A new Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that so-called “low-information voters” — those who watch a lot of TV but who aren’t up-to-date on policy issues — are most likely vote for a candidate based on looks alone.

The Power of Incumbency: Charlie Rangel Edition

Over at the AmSpec blog, I look at the just-wrapped House ethics trial against Charlie Rangel. Worth noting: while that Damoclean sword was hanging over Rangel’s head, 80 percent of his district’s voters though him worthy of another term.

Nothing against Rangel; he has his problems, but he’s good on some issues, such as wanting to end the Cuban embargo. But the ease with which even ethically-challenged incumbents get re-elected is a sign that our democracy is not healthy.

CEI Podcast – November 4, 2010: Election Dissection

Have a listen here.

Myron Ebell, the Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, talks about the 2010 midterm election, what will happen in the lame-duck session, and the implications of two years of divided government.

Last Word on Voting

I wasn’t all that surprised by the overwhelmingly negative reaction to my article on voting. But I was surprised at its ferocity. I must have been insufficiently clear that I am not categorically against voting. Just that I gave the matter careful thought and decided against it this year.

Different people weighing the same arguments I did can easily come to a different conclusion. And that’s exactly why I put them out there. Not so people will do as I do, but to help them think for themselves and make the choice that’s right for them.

Then again, people do have an ingrained straw-man reflex. It often pops up when one’s sensibilities are offended. This easily happens with issues concerning democracy. Instead of taking seriously an idea you don’t like, just build a man out of straw that looks kind of like that idea, then knock it down and feel good about it.

That’s all well and good, but it’s hardly conducive to a civil exchange. It’s also a way to avoid having to take on the arguments that were actually made. I’ll just have to keep making them, then.

The math argument speaks for itself. Rep. Moran won re-election by 45,169 votes. I have one vote.

The expressive voting model provides a powerful reason for voting — for many people, much more powerful than the math. If I do vote in a future election, it will be for expressive purposes. After all, I’m not a categorical non-voter.

But I am mindful of alternative uses of my time. Voting is far from the only form of political participation. If I feel like I could be doing more good with the time I spend voting by doing something else, well then I’m going to do something else. If not, then I’ll vote. Different people will come up with different answers to that question. But one can’t assume it away, no matter how much one would like to.

There is only one argument people have lobbed at me that bothers me. It is that people who don’t vote lose the right to criticize government policies. That argument holds less water than a thimble. It also violates any reasonable notion of free speech, which is actually more important for democracy’s health than voting. As John Carney writes:

I’ve never understood this weird part of pseudo-democratic theory. It certainly isn’t part of the Constitution of the United States, which preserves the rights of free speech, free press and petitioning the government even for non-voters. If anything, the opposite should be true: by voting you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the outcome of the vote. By not voting, you are doing no such thing.

An Optimistic Take on the Election

CEI President and Founder Fred Smith and I have an article in The Daily Caller expressing cautious optimism about yesterday’s election results. Our main points:

-We are (cautiously) optimistic because voters turned out in droves to make a statement against big government, not to endorse GOP policies. But no reforms will happen unless people keep fighting for them.

-Activists have a lesson to learn from the Bush-era anti-war movement. Anti-Iraq War protestors vanished into thin air almost the moment President Obama was elected. They gave up. That’s one reason there are still 50,000 troops in Iraq and America’s presence in Afghanistan has doubled. The next few years will be the true test of the tea party movement. Will it grow complacent in victory?

-GOP politicians have a lesson to learn from their 1994 victory and subsequent fall from grace. The 1994 Republicans gave up as reformers after about six months. Voters kept them around because they did a tolerable job of checking Clintonian excesses. But six years of one-party rule under Bush were more than enough to show that Republicans were far more concerned with staying in power than with shrinking government. Federal spending roughly doubled under Bush, and that was enough to give them the boot.

It will be interesting to see what happens. The 2010 election might be nothing more than a blip on the radar. Or it could be the start of a genuine reform movement that will take on the coming entitlement crisis. We’re hoping for the latter.

Alan Grayson, We Hardly Knew Ye

Most incumbents running for re-election deserve defeat. That more than 50 of them lost last night is an unabashed good. But one of those defeated incumbents, Florida Democrat Alan Grayson, I will miss.

This is not because he is a serious voice on policy; he isn’t. Rep. Grayson is a walking, talking reminder that Congress is not to be taken seriously, whatever lofty airs its members may exude. Washington could use more like him. Some of his career highlights:

-He blamed his defeat on the weather.

-Grayson characterized the GOP’s health care plan as “Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.”

-He used the word “Holocaust” to describe the current health care system. The Holocaust was an attempt to systematically murder all Jews.

-He referred to attendees of Glenn Beck’s political rally as “people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago.” Not as Halloween costumes, one presumes.

-He ran a political ad featuring audio of his opponent, Daniel Webster, quoting a Bible verse imploring women to submit to their husbands. The problem is that Grayson’s ad left out the part immediately after that where Webster told his audience to reject that advice, and take a more modern approach to marital relations.

-The same ad referred to Webster as “Taliban Dan.” The Taliban is a radical Muslim group that embraces sharia law, shelters terrorists, and throws acid in women’s faces for going to school.

-Grayson ran another ad calling Webster a draft-dodger. Webster received a student deferment, then was declared medically unfit to serve.

And so on. One expects politicians to be dishonest; one does not expect them to be so blatant about it as Grayson is. He was a breath of fresh air compared to the stale stuff pouring from most of his colleagues.

Why I Didn’t Vote This Year

Over at The Daily Caller, I tally up the arguments for and against voting. This year, the minuses outweighed the plusses — at least for me. But different people will come to different conclusions, and that’s fine. Consider this a list of arguments to consider, and an invitation to think for yourself.

I’m rather sick of moralizing do-gooders preaching that voting is your civic duty. “If you forfeit your right to vote, you forfeit your right to complain,” they say. Hogwash. Tell that to blacks before the 15th Amendment and women before the 19th Amendment and see where that gets you.

My main points:

-The mathematics come out against voting. Average turnout in my Congressional district is about 200,000 voters. I have one vote.

-Expressive voting, however, is perfectly legitimate. People place a high value participating in democracy. They value having their say. Exercising their rights. Those are wonderful reasons in favor of taking the time to vote.

-But voting takes time. The time I spend voting is time I can’t spend on activities that have more impact, such as writing articles for publication. I do, after all, make a living expressing my opinions on policy issues.

-To vote or not is a personal decision with no right or wrong answer. Think it through. Do what’s right for you. And don’t look down on people who decide differently than you do.

Is Obama a Keynesian?

In which most of the interviewees mistake the famous economist for a country in Africa:

Note that these are all likely voters.