Category: primary election

A New Turning

Leave a comment

August 3, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

Sunday morning and another breakfast with the boys. This week Abel tries out a new political scheme and a rebranding for the Democratic Party. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Abel set a small plate on his coffee cup to keep it warm. “It seemed like a lot of familiar names passed away these last two weeks. Some too young.”

Cain unfolded his napkin. “Yeah, Hulk Hogan’s death surprised me. I didn’t know he had leukemia (Source). And then Jamal-Warner’s drowning in Costa Rica (Source). The guy was swimming with his daughter and then boom, gets caught in an undercurrent. No lifeguards (Source).”

Abel replied, “They passed away before their time but it reminded me that the first of the Boomer generation turns 80 next year. Our president is old. The Congress is old. The average age in the Senate is 64 (Source). The average age of the founders was only 45 (Source). It just seems like we need some fresh perspectives and different alliances.”

Cain argued, “Yeah, but they didn’t live as long back in the 18th century.”

Abel shook his head. “No, that was life expectancy at birth. About half of kids died before age five. Those who reached the age of 20 could expect to live to 65 or so (Source). A Boomer born in 1950 would be 20 in 1970. A guy could expect to live to age 70, according to the CDC (Source). That’s only a few years longer.”

Cain looked surprised. “Well, it would take an amendment to specify an upper age limit to run for Congress. I suppose the amendment could exclude re-election age requirements so that current members are grandfathered in. Congress might go for that.”

Abel argued, “A political party could institute a rule like that. An informal rule, of course. The Democrats should adopt that as part of their brand. In 1960, JFK appealed to younger voters. He was in his early forties and attracted voters in their twenties and thirties. Democrats need to reenergize and rebrand. Make the Republicans look like the party of stodgy old men that they are.”

Cain smiled. “I think both parties have become long in the tooth. You’re right. We need new blood.”

Abel paused as their food arrived, then said, “Back in 1997, William Strauss and Neil Howe wrote a book called The Fourth Turning (Amazon). They said that there was a cycle of four generations that lasted eighty to a hundred years. So this was before the Y2K scare in 2000 and 9-11. The authors predicted that the fourth cycle since the American Revolution would start like in 2015 or so. They predicted the start of a Crisis generation starting in 2005, reaching a climax in 2020 and a resolution in 2026 (page 299).”

Cain asked, “Like Trump in 2016 was the start of the fourth cycle? Wow. In 2014, Richard Epstein published The Classical Liberal Constitution (Amazon). He wrote about three stages of governance and constitutional interpretation. The first was from 1789 when they wrote the Constitution to 1865 or so when they passed the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.”

Abel nodded. “Yeah, that was a major upgrade to the Constitution. Before the Fourteenth the protections contained in the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not the states.”

Cain continued, “Then the last ‘age’ was around 1937, when a few key decisions by the Supreme Court established a larger role for the federal government. Epstein is a libertarian who thinks the courts misused the Commerce and General Welfare clauses in the Constitution to expand federal powers.”

Abel asked, “Do you think Trump and the 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court are going to undo the entitlement programs of the past eighty years? Is that the project of the Fourth Turning?”

Cain sighed. “Something has to be done. The country’s debt was huge at the end of WW2, a debt to GDP ratio of 120%. After WW2, politicians could use Cold War rhetoric about fighting Communism to force high marginal tax rates on rich people. Today that debt-to-GDP ratio is the same but I don’t think Congress can reenact 70% tax rates in the current political environment.”

Abel shook his head as he stabbed at a sausage link on his plate. “That’s what I didn’t like about the big bogus bill they just passed. During the financial crisis and the pandemic, tax cuts could be appropriate. Today, the country has low employment and relatively low inflation. Tax cuts are just fuel for inflation. Instead of taxing rich people, the country will go into more debt and sell bonds to rich people. The federal government pays interest on the debt to the rich people. It’s exactly backwards.”

Cain smirked. “The haves get. The have-nots don’t get. Epstein wrote that this country was founded on a grand bargain, the redistribution of wealth from states with more population to those with smaller populations.”

Abel nodded. “Based on equal representation in the Senate.”

Cain agreed. “So, among the 13 original states there were two regions, the northern and southern states. The seven northern states were more populous and their economies were based on cottage industries and manufacturing. The economy of the five slave states was based on agriculture and was less populous. They were like two separate countries who came together for common defense and mutual economic gain.”

Abel asked, “Do you know which were the original southern states?”

Cain groaned as he covered his eyes with both hands. “I’m trying to channel my younger self. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Maryland was a slave state but they didn’t secede, if I remember right (Source).”

Abel lifted his eyebrows in surprise. “Better memory than me. But by the time of the civil war, the country had expanded into a 3rd region, the Midwest. Indiana became a state after the country fought the British in the War of 1812. Iowa was around 1850.”

Cain replied, “Right. And the south was expanding westward as well to keep the balance between slave and non-slave states. Like I said, two countries.”

Abel continued, “Then, after the civil war, the country grew into four regions. There are eleven western states, excluding Hawaii and Alaska. Today, there are four regions, the Northeast, Midwest, West and South (Source).”

Cain looked puzzled. “Ok, good point. So, let’s tie this regional perspective to the ages thing. There were two regions when the Constitution was written. By the time of the Civil War, there were three regions including the Midwest. Then the Civil War amendments. When the Depression started in the 1930s, there were four regions with the western states. Then the role of government expanded. Another big shift. So what’s your idea?”

Abel stirred the little bit of syrup on his plate. “Something big has to change but I’d start small, within a political party. The Democrats could nominate a Presidential candidate from each of the four regions. A candidate from the south would be more conservative. More liberal from the northeast. At a primary convention, the four regions would vote on a candidate.”

Cain asked, “How would they break a tie?”

Abel replied, “Right. Some kind of tie-break rule. It would incentivize the regional factions within the party to bargain with other regions. Democrats would be recognizing the different cultures and interests in each region.”

Cain frowned. “That’s kind of a Parliamentary system within the party.”

Abel nodded. “I think Democrats would put out a more centrist candidate, someone who would have a broad appeal.”

Cain said, “In other words, national politics played at a regional level.”

Abel replied, “Exactly. I was looking at an electoral map the other day. The blue western states, including Alaska and Hawaii, had 130 electoral votes. That’s about a quarter of the 530 electoral votes. Democrats won 83 of those votes in this last election (Source).”

Cain frowned, “That surprises me. I always think of the western states as mostly red.”

Abel nodded. “On the map it looks that way but most of that is empty country and a small number of electoral votes in each state.”

Cain asked, “How many of those 83 votes came from California?”

Abel nodded. “Big impact. Fifty-four votes. They have the most in the country. The western states have some political balance. Not in the south. All Republican. Like I said, a candidate from the southern region within the Democratic Party would probably be more conservative. Someone who could compete in a region with strong Republican sympathies.”

Cain frowned. “So, younger candidates for state and local offices. A different nomination convention for Presidential candidate. Would there still be primaries?”

Abel shrugged. “I don’t know. What do you think? The modern primary system developed after World War 2 (Source). It consumes a lot of time and money. It’s like an ordeal by fire that screens out some otherwise good candidates that don’t want to expose themselves and their families to that ordeal.”

Cain nodded. “Ok, I like that. So what, maybe regional primaries? The downside is that candidates wouldn’t be able to spend much time in rural areas of each state.”

Abel replied, “No system is foolproof. Trump conducted both of his campaigns from the side of a plane. He flies in, holds a rally, and flies out.”

Cain laid his napkin on the table. “Well, I think you’re onto something. The party needs a new brand, new blood.”

Abel sighed. “So does the Republican Party. Unfortunately, that something new was Donald Trump, an extremist who has taken over the party’s dynamics. I hope that the Democrats can avoid the same situation or this country will be crippled.”

Cain slid out of his seat. “Let me think on this. I agree that the primary system is not working. It’s attracting special interests and fringe candidates. If your idea can help solve that, I’m for it.”

Abel looked. “See you next week.”

//////////////////////

Image by ChatGPT

Keywords: primary, election, regions

Alliances in Political Parties

Leave a comment

July 7, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter continues my look at expectations and alliances, focusing on several junior elected Representatives as foot soldiers in an ideological and egotistical battle for political control. Congressional candidates who successfully challenge an incumbent in their own party attract the most attention. Running for office requires as much perspiration as aspiration and upsetting an incumbent requires both in large doses. Challengers are often funded by special interest or advocacy groups outside a district who are more concerned with defeating an incumbent than in promoting a new agenda. Seniority is power in Washington. A newly elected Congressperson with no seniority has less influence and bargaining power. They must work harder to help their constituents with problems in the Washington bureaucracy.

A newly elected Representative must learn to understand and navigate a complex web of seniority rights, relationships and personalities within the party. In Washington, the party leaders manage their party’s representatives as political assets in a game to control policymaking and promote their own power. Leaders use committee assignments as tools of control and inducement. Each Representative has a distinct style and demeanor that appeals to some groups of voters more than others. Party leaders hope to use that to broaden the party’s appeal.

Every three to four years, the Pew Research Center produces a typology of nine voting groups (PDF) in this country. These include Committed Conservatives and Faith and Flag Conservatives on the political right, and Democratic Mainstays and Progressive Left on the other side of the aisle.
Establishing a sympathetic tie with one or more of these groups helps each Representative meet fundraising goals set by the party. The report highlights the divisions within each party as well as those between the parties.

Despite the divisions within each party, allegiance to party is stronger than it has been in 54 years, according to a Pew Research analysis of the 2020 election. Only six states have split representation in the Senate – one Republican and one Democrat Senator. In most states, voters choose their Senators and President from the same party. Ninety percent of voters chose the same party in 2016 and 2020, leaving just a small fraction of uncommitted voters that each party hopes to woo.

Strong party allegiance makes it difficult for a Senator to compromise with their colleagues across the aisle. Special interest groups can fund a challenger, portraying a Senator’s compromise to reach consensus on legislation as a cop-out, a betrayal of principles. Our Constitution emerged as the result of many fractious debates. The convention was closed to public view to allow bargaining by the delegates without them having to worry about protecting their reputations during those debates. Secrecy certainly comes with caveats, but bargains are best brokered in back rooms, out of public view.

In each party the senior members do much of the bargaining while the junior members are expected to rally sentiment and bring in their allotted share of contributions from special interest groups and top donors. Representatives Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene rode MAGA sentiment to win Republican primaries in 2020. Greene represents Georgia’s 14th district, rated a strongly Republican R+22 district in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Like Trump, Greene is a rule breaker, tossing aside customs of decent behavior for a Representative. Examples include using personal insults in a committee hearing, screaming at Democrats outside the Capitol building,  and attacking fellow Republican Lauren Boebert in a committee hearing. Her forceful and strident approach has been an effective strategy in her district.

In a district with a more moderate political voting record, an incumbent may have to temper their political posture. Like Greene, Lauren Boebert has portrayed herself as a disruptor and a combative Christian but her distinctively un-Christian behavior led many Republicans to abandon her in the 2022 election against a moderate Democrat. Her Colorado 3rd district is rated only R+7 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. To avoid defeat in the upcoming 2024 election, Boebert moved to the 4th district which leans more heavily Republican. Both have low effectiveness scores but they bark loudly, and each party needs both barkers and bargainers.

In 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, dubbed “AOC”, upset a long-time Democratic incumbent of New York’s 14th district (D+28). The heavily Democratic district allows her the latitude to further a progressive platform with less concern about a challenge from a moderate Democratic candidate. Just north of AOC’s district is Yonkers, a suburban county north of New York City. In 2020, Jamaal Bowman rode a progressive wave to unseat a 32-year incumbent Democrat. This 16th district is a strongly Democratic D+20 as ranked by the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Both AOC and Bowman have higher legislative effectiveness scores than Boebert and Greene, and are adept at attracting media attention without the histrionics that Boebert and Greene employ. Having sponsored two bills that became law, Bowman has the best record of all four yet lost his primary re-election this summer because of remarks he made about Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza.

National special interest groups as well as those in each Congressional district can make or break a candidate. They supply a candidate, or their challenger, with resources and funding, as well as a “banner” issue that can incentivize voter turnout in a primary election with typically low voter participation. In Bowman’s case, the Zionist lobbying group AIPAC led a historic fundraising campaign that supported Bowman’s challenger, according to Politico.

The political struggle is within each party as much as it is between the two parties. One party champions family and a political system called liberalism that prioritizes individual freedom, and advocates restraints on state power to protect those freedoms (O’Neil, 2021, p. 113). The other party promotes social democracy, a hybrid political-economic system founded on liberalist principles of private property and free markets but with an emphasis on community beyond the nuclear family and the well-being of individuals within community. Next week I will look at the role of the judiciary in this ideological struggle.

//////////////////////

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Keywords: political-economic system, legislative effectiveness, special interests, primary election, political typology

O’Neil, Patrick H. 2021. Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Legislative Effectiveness Scores: For each legislator, the Center for Effective Lawmaking produces an effectiveness score that includes the introduction of legislation, whether a bill made it through committee, was moved to the general chamber for a floor vote and whether the bill became law. A legislator’s score is compared to a benchmark score based on whether the party was in the majority or minority. Party leaders typically have scores in a range of 2 to 8.

 In the House session ending in January 2023, Lauren Boebert had an effectiveness score of .292. Marjorie Taylor Greene has a score of .117. AOC had a score of .739 and Bowman was .801.

The Party Swamp

Leave a comment

June 30, 2024

by Stephen Stofka

This week’s letter is on expectations and alliances. After separating voters into two parties, alliances within each of the parties coalesce to form intra-party squabbles. These alliances can form despite radically different approaches to managing problems: analytical and instinctual. Voting for the same candidate might be a person with an instinctive dislike of government and a business owner who estimates the impact of that candidate’s policy preferences on a company’s bottom line. These two different approaches also produce conflict.

In past weeks I have distinguished between expectations and anticipations, the first being more analytical and the second more imaginative or instinctual. The two work symbiotically in our individual lives but that symbiosis becomes outright conflict in a group. Some prefer a more analytical approach to discussing and solving problems while others rely on their gut, their moral compass. Individuals participating in that debate want to convince others to adopt their perspective and values. Perspective evolves over our adult lifetime and its purpose is to protect our values which have evolved since childhood. Attacking a person’s perspective can be perceived as an attack on their values, so we are resistant to persuasion. A variation of a 17th century quote goes, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” The trick to persuasion is to insert your argument into another person’s perspective like a key and let them turn the key.  

In the Democrat Party, the center left contends with the radical left who weaponize shame. Advocates of DEI funding and mandates within all public institutions honestly believe that such training will moderate or eliminate racist attitudes. The majority of U.S. colleges and universities require students to take these non-credit classes to graduate. For students with a heavy academic schedule and work commitments, the burden of that mandate multiplies a student’s stress. Those within and without the academic community debate the conflict between these mandates and academic freedom.

Those favoring more spending on affordable housing disagree with voters in the party who prefer the personal space buffer that R-1 Single Family Home zoning gives residents. Proponents of free needle exchange must overcome fears that such tolerance will introduce a moral hazard that promotes more rather than less drug use. Supporters of more resources for  immigrant housing, job and medical services encounter principled opposition from those who are mindful of the resources and money that must be diverted from other programs. Should the needs of newcomers take higher priority than those of long- time residents, particularly the descendants of those African-Americans brought to this country centuries ago? Party leaders struggle to manage these ideological conflicts because these issues permeate the leadership ranks as well.

The Republican Party is more dominant in the ex-urban and rural parts of each state. Party leaders and candidates express strong support for religious faith as a cornerstone of American society. According  to Pew Research, Republicans attend church more often than Democrats or Independents but the majority of Republican voters do not attend church weekly. Like Democrats and Independents, a third of Republicans rarely step inside of a church. Those who believe that public institutions should be secular confront those who think religious principles and doctrine offer the only sound foundation to good governance. A person supporting their argument with Bible verses may truly believe that they are taking an analytical approach. In their belief framework, the Bible is history, recorded by various authors or sources but inspired by God himself. To those devotees, the Bible is fact, not an arbitrary assembling of oral traditions and myths. Two Republican voters, each with very different religious beliefs, practices and priorities still vote for the same candidates and issues. Leaders within the party must negotiate a compromise between Christian compassion and checkbook constraints.

Immigration is a key issue on ideological lines even though most immigrants initially settle down in urban areas where political sentiments skew Democratic. When the labor market is strong in the U.S. relative to other countries, that acts as a draw to legal and illegal immigration. The emphasis is on the “relative to other countries” part. A mismatch in labor market demand between the U.S. and neighboring countries is an important contributor to immigration flows. The strong economy in the late 1990s and early 2000s attracted a surge of immigrants, far more than today’s levels when adjusted for population.

 A recent analysis by the Federal Reserve estimated that restrictive immigration policies from 2017 to 2020 made it moderately more difficult for employers to fill job vacancies.  Farmers and ranchers, a strong Republican cohort, have long lobbied for changes to the H-2A “guest worker” program that would help them meet seasonal worker demand. The number of slots for foreign workers is not enough to meet demand and the application process is burdensome. Employers have similar complaints about the H-2B program for non-agricultural workers, and are heavily used by janitorial and landscaping services. Regardless of the impact of restrictive immigration policies on their businesses, owners may still vote for a candidate who promotes an immigration crackdown.

Jobs and sustainable wages are the cornerstones of family support, individual self-respect and autonomy. Those in rural areas are keenly aware that urban areas offer a more developed communications and transportation network that attracts companies, jobs and talent. For the past several decades, small to medium-sized manufacturing has migrated to foreign markets which offer lower labor costs. The influx of immigrants is yet another potential threat to community stability and resources. Long established immigrants who came to the U.S. through a legal process may not feel welcoming to those who have jumped ahead in the immigration line.   For decades, rural areas have fought to retain businesses and develop more jobs at a sustainable wage. Those who advocate more government spending on infrastructure to attract businesses clash with those having an ideological preference for laissez-faire markets.

Candidates within each party search for and exploit the shifting alliances within their party’s voters. Challenges to incumbents emerge not from the other party but from a primary election by a candidate in their own party. Primary elections attract only a small percent of party faithful whose political passion gives their small numbers a lot of leverage within the party. Fringe candidates with less funding can appeal to special interest groups to further an agenda with a dedicated party base. A candidate can appeal to a single-issue like abortion, immigration, or project a no-nonsense, get-tough persona and attack an incumbent who compromised on a piece of legislation. A Representative must learn to manage different sets of alliances: those in their district and state, and those in Washington. Next week, I will look at several Representatives and how they have navigated relationships of political power within their party.

////////////////////////////

Photo by Ryan Noeker on Unsplash