It's not the Economy Stupid. So argues Matt Yglesias in a pretty interesting post. He argues that Americans are not actually angry about the economy but rather the political system.
I think there's some truth in that-though I do agree there are real problems with the economy. The big problem has been stagnant wages.
I think there's some truth in that-though I do agree there are real problems with the economy. The big problem has been stagnant wages.
What is also interesting is the revelation that the Koch Brothers are thinking of scaling back in politics-to focus more on issue advocacy. To the extent that they do politics in the future they may focus more on just the state and local level.
Sheldon Adelson says he'll bankroll The Donald but the Koches are going to mostly sit 2016 out.
"And of course they are. Consider this excellent reporting from Tim Alberta and Eliana Johnson at National Review about Charles and David Koch growing disillusioned with electoral politics:
"Boosted by the brothers’ network, Republicans in 2014 seized control of the Senate, further cemented their dominance in governors’ mansions across the country, and won majorities in more state legislatures than they’d held at any time since 1920."
"While the professionals running their political machinery celebrated those victories — and viewed them as a mandate to expand their operations — the Kochs were almost immediately disappointed by the inability of Republicans, who now controlled both chambers of Congress, to produce results. "Charles and David had a different take on 2014 than their political lieutenants did," says an operative with direct knowledge of the network’s internal operations. The Kochs believed that the takeover hadn’t changed a thing. No conservative policy revolution was happening in Congress. They couldn’t even stop a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a symbol of Washington’s "crony capitalism." It was just more of the same."
"You can imagine the T-shirt now: I spent $100 million winning the midterm elections and I didn't even get the stupid Export-Import Bank repeal."
"And if billionaire megadonors think the political system isn't responsive to their wants and desires, then how are normal people supposed to feel? The Kochs have to live with the Export-Import Bank, but liberals don't have their public option or federal minimum wage hike or sensible gun regulation. Social conservatives are probably further than ever from banning abortion with Antonin Scalia dead. It's frustrating."
Sheldon Adelson says he'll bankroll The Donald but the Koches are going to mostly sit 2016 out.
"And of course they are. Consider this excellent reporting from Tim Alberta and Eliana Johnson at National Review about Charles and David Koch growing disillusioned with electoral politics:
"Boosted by the brothers’ network, Republicans in 2014 seized control of the Senate, further cemented their dominance in governors’ mansions across the country, and won majorities in more state legislatures than they’d held at any time since 1920."
"While the professionals running their political machinery celebrated those victories — and viewed them as a mandate to expand their operations — the Kochs were almost immediately disappointed by the inability of Republicans, who now controlled both chambers of Congress, to produce results. "Charles and David had a different take on 2014 than their political lieutenants did," says an operative with direct knowledge of the network’s internal operations. The Kochs believed that the takeover hadn’t changed a thing. No conservative policy revolution was happening in Congress. They couldn’t even stop a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a symbol of Washington’s "crony capitalism." It was just more of the same."
"You can imagine the T-shirt now: I spent $100 million winning the midterm elections and I didn't even get the stupid Export-Import Bank repeal."
"And if billionaire megadonors think the political system isn't responsive to their wants and desires, then how are normal people supposed to feel? The Kochs have to live with the Export-Import Bank, but liberals don't have their public option or federal minimum wage hike or sensible gun regulation. Social conservatives are probably further than ever from banning abortion with Antonin Scalia dead. It's frustrating."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11687326/angry-government-economy
But in a sense doesn't this suggest that the issue of money in politics is a little more complex than Bernie makes it sound?
With all the hand-wringing over super Pacs and money in politics, at least in the primary they haven't really mattered.
Money hasn't been the determinant. Jeb Bush spent the most and got the lead for his trouble.
Bernie, the democratic socialist outspent Hillary in most races and yet got beat by double digits. Meanwhile the billionaire Donald Trump-though he may not have as many billions as he claims-has spent the least and yet, unlike Bernie, he steamrolled to victory.
Indeed, some interesting studies suggest that what wins in Congress is less which side spends more money but which side represents the status quo.
Immigration reform is a perfect example of this. The money is on the side of reform-Wall St, even the Koch Brothers, as well as the Unions and Latino groups.
The anti immigration side is much less lavishly funding. Yet, it has held the day.
"The Kochs probably could have spared themselves some disappointment had they readLobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, by Frank Baumgartner and a bunch of co-authors. In truth, a lot of the book is a dull methodological slog, but the Kochs should have at least paid someone to summarize it for them."
"What Baumgartner et al. find is that across a broad range of issues, the public's fear that whichever side spends more will carry the day in Congress is misplaced. Resources spent statistically explain less than 5 percent of the variation in policy outcomes."
"But this holds for the boring and not-that-uplifting reason that the system embeds massive bias toward the status quo. Whichever side fights to not change things tends to win, regardless of who spent more money."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11687326/angry-government-economy
This is what Bernie never understood. It's the structure of the system itself that bars against radical change overnight. It isn't only about money.
I think money in politics is a real issue but I've never bought Bernie's mono-casual use of it as the First Cause of all our problems.
Ironically this 2016 campaign has shown this.
But in a sense doesn't this suggest that the issue of money in politics is a little more complex than Bernie makes it sound?
With all the hand-wringing over super Pacs and money in politics, at least in the primary they haven't really mattered.
Money hasn't been the determinant. Jeb Bush spent the most and got the lead for his trouble.
Bernie, the democratic socialist outspent Hillary in most races and yet got beat by double digits. Meanwhile the billionaire Donald Trump-though he may not have as many billions as he claims-has spent the least and yet, unlike Bernie, he steamrolled to victory.
Indeed, some interesting studies suggest that what wins in Congress is less which side spends more money but which side represents the status quo.
Immigration reform is a perfect example of this. The money is on the side of reform-Wall St, even the Koch Brothers, as well as the Unions and Latino groups.
The anti immigration side is much less lavishly funding. Yet, it has held the day.
"The Kochs probably could have spared themselves some disappointment had they readLobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, by Frank Baumgartner and a bunch of co-authors. In truth, a lot of the book is a dull methodological slog, but the Kochs should have at least paid someone to summarize it for them."
"What Baumgartner et al. find is that across a broad range of issues, the public's fear that whichever side spends more will carry the day in Congress is misplaced. Resources spent statistically explain less than 5 percent of the variation in policy outcomes."
"But this holds for the boring and not-that-uplifting reason that the system embeds massive bias toward the status quo. Whichever side fights to not change things tends to win, regardless of who spent more money."
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11687326/angry-government-economy
This is what Bernie never understood. It's the structure of the system itself that bars against radical change overnight. It isn't only about money.
I think money in politics is a real issue but I've never bought Bernie's mono-casual use of it as the First Cause of all our problems.
Ironically this 2016 campaign has shown this.
No comments:
Post a Comment