Incompetence! Let’s not talk about “simply breathtaking and overwhelming.” That’s Shania Twain in the buff. This is incompetence.

It always mystifies me that the Dems can’t seem to string together themes among issues.

NPR apparently had a story recently where a reporter asked an Army Corps of Engineer representative, “You hear people who are really pissed at the Corps. What do you say to those people?”
Some listeners were outraged. (Scroll to “Getting Angry At the Army Corps of Engineers.”)

I’m not, but I do think it’s an example of impolite language that shouldn’t be part of a public discussion. Of course, I use it all the time. So do my late-teen and early-20 children. I used to correct them when they were younger. Now, I suggest they not use it in a job interview or in a paper they’re writing.

It’s all about the coarsening of public debate, and yes, it is a “morals” issue or a “value” issue, Dems ought to accept, rather than suggest people who complain about such language are prudes.

I like Klein’s new book, but Media Matters has little stomach for the guy.

Thanks to Political Animal for pointing this one out.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
— Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

First of all, kudos to the guests on today’s Diane Rehm Show on WAMU radio. The debate was civil between Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution and author of Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America, and Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and editor of www.MarriageDebate.com.

He is gay and author of a recent and thoughtful op-ed piece in the New York Times about why marriage has become important to the gay community.

I often wonder why, in such interviews, more reporters don’t ask the simple question: What is the threat to traditional marriage if we allow gay marriages? Well, Susan Paige, the USA Today reporter sitting in for Rehm, didn’t quite articulate it clearly, but Gallagher did respond with what I assume for her was the reason.

I think it would make enormous difference for our understanding of what marriage is. Marriage is a great cross-cultural, historic, inter-faith, idea [that] has been rooted in the fact that sex between men and women makes babies. You need to make the next generation, and those children need a father as much as a mother. And to say that two men in a loving union, two men in a union, a loving union, are a marriage is to say that marriage is not about this thing anymore. We won’t have a word that means bringing together the two halves of humanity to make and raise the next generation.

So this marriage amendment fight is to preserve a word? Well, let’s call gay marriage something else! Let’s call it Cockamony or Vagimony. Hell, I’m open to suggestions.

Seriously, if we’re worried that children need fathers and mothers, let’s focus on the marriages that produce a sizable majority of them. That would be the heterosexual ones. They are the ones that are failing our children. If Gallagher, who seemed sincere and not bigoted at all, can’t come up with a better answer, let’s keep asking the question.

Her second point was that if gay marriage is accepted, people who believe in only heterosexual marriages will be branded bigots, with “enormous social consequences.” You know, white folks who opposed integration, seemed to get over being branded bigots. I mean, they didn’t get ostracized from society. In fact, many of them ran for office and won prominent positions in our government. It’s like saying we’ve got to stop Italians from marrying because if we don’t, people who hate Italians will be called bigots. We wouldn’t want that to happen.

Gallagher has gotten a lot of mileage in the last couple of months promoting a study that shows in Massachusetts, few gay couples are getting married. There are many reasons only about 16% have. Rauch say that’s the case in Europe because marriage has been devalued. I’ve known a number of young European women who lived with our family when my kids were young, and indeed they can’t understand why we’re so hung up about sex outside of marriage and why marriage is so necessary for commitment. (Get your mind out of the gutter; that’s not what I meant.) One young woman’s mother, widowed when she was young, lived with a man for decades afterwards. Her daughter has built a home with her partner. They haven’t married and really haven’t thought about it.

As Rauch points out, in the U.S., it’s very different. He also points out that saying only 16% of gays have married in Massachusetts is misleading. They’ve only been able to for a couple of years, and they don’t have a lot of role models to choose from. But more important, since legalization, gays are apparently marrying at the same rate as heterosexuals.

Gary Gates, a specialist in gay demography at the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, was given an advance look at the study. He disagreed with Gallagher’s suggestion that relatively few gays and lesbians were opting for marriage.

Looking specifically at the Massachusetts data, and noting the limited time period of 20 months, he contended that a sharply higher percentage of gays and lesbians were deciding to marry than heterosexuals of marrying age.

We know why the marriage amendment is important. It’s politically important. But how will it harm traditional marriage? I’ve yet to hear an even plausible, let alone good, answer.

In a post yesterday, I pointed out that Gov. Kaine won at least nine Virginia House of Delegates districts where the Democrats didn’t even put up an opponent.  That’s inexcusable.  Do you think the GOP won back the House by not putting up candidates?

Those unopposed candidates raised about $1.6 million last cycle that they didn’t have to spend to defend themselves and instead could give to other candidates.  In all, 33 GOP delegates were unopposed in ’05.  They raised $4.37 million dollars.

Here’s the data:

Those highlighted in green are the districts Kaine won.  (I ignored Potts’ votes in determining percentages and didn’t include absentee votes.)  The five districts in beige are those where Kaine came within 5 points of beating Kilgore; those in yellow are where the governor came within 10 points.  And yet, the Democrats did not challenge any of these Republicans.  I’m not saying that Dems could have won any of these districts.  But they’ll never get to a majority if they don’t put up candidates!

The first candidate may be sacrificial, or they could become delegates the second time around, but in any case, these GOP members need to be softened for the kill.  Does the caucus have the capability to recruit candidates.  The will, perhaps, but clearly it’s not doing the job it should be. 

There were about a dozen new Democratic delegates elected in ’05.  Perhaps they need to be tasked with the recruitment responsibility.  They have the most current and realistic experience, not to mention credibility, to make them effective recruiters.

Why? Several things:

1. Leadership. The Democrats in the Assembly — at least in the House — are deferential to the governor’s office.  But by one of his senior aide’s own admission, Tim Kaine did not use this past election to build the party.  Maybe he will now, but he’s gone in four years.  Delegates can be there for decades.  Shouldn’t they take the lead?

2. Recruitment. Party officials haven’t been successful in recruiting candidates.  There’s new blood there now.  Maybe they can do a better job.  However, the reason there’s new blood is because there’s a new governor.  Which means in four years, they’ll be another new team to start over again.  And because the party doesn’t pay great salaries, it’s hard to get seasoned individuals who will stick around. 

3. Myopia of money.  There seems to be a sense that all it takes to win an election is money.  And the only way to spend that money is during the actual delegate campaign, 90% of it in October and November and most of it on mailers, robo calls and polls.  There is little investment upfront in seeding the ground for Democratic candidates by developing messages, policies and positions that resonate with voters.  Sure it’s true that most voters don’t start thinking about the campaigns until a few weeks before the election, but they think about issues for a long time.  Shouldn’t some of the money be spent in developing them?

4. “Consensunitis.” Best I can tell, the Democrats are so fearful of upsetting certain interest groups, they can’t do anything unless they have consensus.  Having talked privately with several Republican delegates, I can tell you they don’t have consensus, but they have solidarity.  Granted, the GOP has the power of retribution on its caucus that Democrats really don’t, being in the minority.  But other than Johnny Joannou, where are those who lose on an issue going to go if they don’t get their way.  Someone needs to step up and lead.

5. Fear of Failure.  Democrats don’t seem to want to rock the GOP boat that is listing badly.  The adage that when you’re opponent is self-destructing, the best offense is to get out of the way seems to drive them to distraction.  But to unseat an incumbent, you’ve got to more than just wound him, you’ve got to destroy him and paint yourself as a hero.  But in 33 races last year, the Dems didn’t even have a warm body, much less a hero.

I’ve avoid discussing the Democratic Senate primary since resurrecting this blog last month for a couple of reasons: Both candidates give me pause. Miller tends to talk in platitudes and can easily be painted as a “typical liberal” that Virginians will reject, and Webb lacks personality and seems a poor campaigner. I also wanted to avoid the self-destructive rants occurring on other blogs. The end result will be a severely damaged candidate come the fall.

But Roz Helderman has a generally sympathetic article about Jim Webb’s campaign in The Washington Post today. Sympathetic because it begins and ends with positive statements about Webb, she highlights the fact that he is not “a typical candidate for a Democratic Party nomination,” writes several very positive images about the man and his career. She describes him as “thinking deeply” and that he has been “thinking about the issue [of affirmative action] for years.” Twice describing him as a thoughtful person is pretty powerful stuff.

But it’s the issue and his take on it that most interests me, not solely because it’s nuanced but because I find it thoughtful. (But I’m giving you an opinion here, not “reporting.”)

Webb comes to an unusual view among candidates in either major party: He supports affirmative action for blacks but otherwise thinks preferential job and education programs should be awarded based on economic conditions or eliminated altogether.

“I think it’s time to either open this thing up to poor white groups or just go back to a level playing field — while keeping an eye on African Americans,” said Webb, who is white. “I’m a strong supporter of affirmative action in its original intent, which is to help African Americans.”

…”He’s essentially articulated a position on affirmative action that almost no one articulates today,” said Robert D. Holsworth, a professor of government at Virginia Commonwealth University who has written a book on affirmative action. “It’s not an indefensible position, but it’s not a position that fits comfortably into the normal debate.”

Webb acknowledges his textured stand is not ready-made for a stump speech and hardly a “30-second sound bite.”

Besides using the “level playing field” theme I like, he deftly turns the issue to the needs of poorer white folks, who in today’s economy are increasingly disadvantaged due to lack of access to an education and the loss of manufacturing jobs. Framing the issue that way might mitigate the baser tendencies of some voters. Of course, as the article points out, it may just as easily hurt him with everybody. Certainly, a leader of the Virginia House Black Caucus isn’t happy.

“Webb is a Republican disguised as a Democrat,” said Del. Lionell Spruill Sr. (D-Chesapeake), a Miller supporter and one of seven members of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus to endorse the former Fairfax Democratic Committee chairman. “Harris Miller and I go way back, and he has always been for affirmative action.”

But the black caucus loves affirmative action to the point of insisting that at least one member of the caucus staff, which in total now number two, be black.

Again, from Joe Klein’s book.

“The relationship [between pollsters and politicians] was much different from what it later it became,” the pollster Peter Hart told me. “When Lou Harris was polling for John F. Kennedy he once said, ‘Here are the numbers. Let me tell you what they mean.’ And Kennedy replied, ‘Just give me the numbers. I’ll figure them out myself.’”

Just after posting the item below, I started surfing my favorite blogs and started, as I often do, with Josh Marshall’s “Talking Point Memo.” And low and behold, he had an item that linked to this article that suggests the reason for our increasing partisanship is that we are segregating ourselves into politically like-minded communities.

Political and racial segregation are moving in opposite directions. John Logan at the Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research calculated the change in segregation between blacks and whites from 1980 to 2000 in the nation’s more than 3,100 counties. Even though the country remains deeply divided by race, U.S. counties on average became more integrated racially over those 20 years.

Politically, however, the nation rapidly divided. Using the same demographic calculation that measures geographic racial disparity, and substituting Republican and Democrat for black and white, political segregation in U.S. counties grew by 47 percent from 1976 to 2000.

The result is that voters on average are less likely today to live in a community that has an even mix of Republican and Democratic voters than at any time since World War II. They are less likely to live near someone with a different political point of view and are more likely to live in a political atmosphere either overwhelmingly Republican or Democratic.

“I don’t think we are at a really dangerous stage,” said Cass Sunstein, a professor of law at the University of Chicago and an author of books exploring issues facing democracy, “but if it’s a case that people really are pretty rigidly Republican or Democratic and that’s widespread, that’s not healthy. Our democracy is supposed to be one where people learn from one another and listen.”

Sunstein’s concern is rooted in more than 300 social science experiments over the past 40 years that have found a striking phenomenon that occurs when like-minded people cluster: They tend to become more extreme in their thinking. They polarize.

This research would predict that the increasing physical segregation of voters in the United States would result in a more polarized and partisan political culture. And that is exactly what is happening.

I’d need a lot more information before I buy this hypothesis. After all, even in a county that is 70-30, your immediate neighbors, those who you might socialize with the most, could be of either party. But the article makes for good reading. And a note at the end indicates the American-Statesman will have other articles about our polarized politics.

Today, the Washington Times has an article on the impact of redistricting on the budget fight. It’s a fair, if incomplete, look at the effect of this highly partisan process.

“A lot of the political middle has seemed to disappear from the legislature,” said Mark Rozell, a politics professor at George Mason University. “Now you have many more representatives that are really cause-oriented, and cause-oriented types are not very good at settling for half a loaf in order to get a deal.”

Stephen J. Farnsworth, a politics professor at the University of Mary Washington, said redistricting has created voting districts so homogeneous that primary elections determine which candidates will become part of the General Assembly.

Homogeneous voting districts force candidates to focus on advocating specific issues such as abortion or tax relief, instead of developing a consensus among disparate voters, he said.

“In most House districts, if you win the primary, you are going to Richmond,” Mr. Farnsworth said. “So instead of worrying about being in the moderate camp, all you really need to do is win your Democratic or Republican primary.

“The most ideological extreme — 10 percent of the electorate — are the ones who make the decisions in these one-sided contests,” he said.

Redistricting for both General Assembly districts and Congressional districts is done by the party in power at the time of the decennial census.

The only truly inane comment made in the article was, not surprisingly, by one of the most partisan hacks in the Virginia Assembly. And with the advent of computers, it’s getting down to a science that is almost infallible. Districts are carved out for incumbent protection, while the party in power maximizes its number of districts and minimizes their opponents’.

And House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) knows that full well.

“[Delegates] have smaller districts, quicker elections, and I think we pay more attention to the feel of the voters,” [House Majority Leader Morgan] Griffith said. “It played out exactly how it was interpreted by the Founders. … The people in the House were supposed to be closer to the people and the Senate is closer to the centralized government.”

Most observers agree that it is more difficult than ever to oust incumbents.

The number of incumbents who lost in the general election fell to an average of 16 in the 1980s, 12 in the 1990s, six in 2000, and — if you control for redistricting and scandals — zero in 2002. We’ve reached the point where incumbents just can’t lose. Never before has there been such a preponderance of safe seats.

…We know from the 2000 presidential election results that Florida is, in terms of political sentiment, the most evenly divided state in the union; Bush won the state by only 500 votes. So if Florida’s congressional seats properly reflected the state’s politics, its 25-seat delegation would be divided roughly in half. Instead, it has 18 Republicans and only seven Democrats. That shows the power of redistricting built around the creation of safe seats — and the power of technology that allows very precise map-drawing. It also demonstrates the partisanship that is driving redistricting these days.

…The 2000 presidential vote in the Tampa-Orlando area was split down the middle. So its 12 House seats should be divided roughly six to six. Instead, there are 10 Republicans and two Democrats. Why? Because of very clever gerrymandering by a Republican-controlled legislature. The lines were drawn not only to keep high-probability Democratic voters, like minorities, bunched together in two districts with major urban populations in Tampa and Orlando, but also to carefully disperse probable Republican voters throughout the other 10 districts, giving them a 55-45 advantage in almost every one. A Democratic legislature, by the way, could have drawn lines to create exactly the opposite effect. That shows how manipulative redistricting can be. District lines are just a contrivance of somebody’s partisan inclinations.

It is widely agreed that Iowa’s redistricting process, while not perfect, is the most non-partisan in the country. The Legislative Service Bureau designs the districts, although its work must be approved by the state legislature. The bureau’s guidelines ensures that each House district be wholly in a senate district, among other requirements.

Iowa Code section 42.4, subsection 4, provides more specific guidance regarding the requirement to establish congressional and legislative districts compact in form. The Code describes a compact district as “… those which are square, rectangular, or hexagonal in shape to the extent permitted by natural or political boundaries.”68 The Code provides, however, that this compactness requirement is specifically made subservient to the requirements concerning population equality, respect for political subdivisions, and contiguousness.69

But Iowa goes further.

Chapter 42 [of state law] specifically forbids the use of political affiliation, previous election results, the addresses of incumbents, or any demographic information other than population in creating the redistricting proposals.

Iowa’s procedure came about in 1980 and has produced some startling scenarios.

[T]he Democratic-controlled legislature approved a plan in 1991 that left it vulnerable to competition; the Republicans now control both houses of the state legislature and four of five US House seats.

In 2001, the legislature did reject the Bureau’s first plan for congressional districts, but accepted the second plan even though it forced some Republican incumbents to run in new districts.

In the end, most state politicians as well as all Iowa voters seem satisfied.

Even those Congressmen and Iowa State Legislators who had to move from their districts, or chose to retire rather than run against other incumbents, support the process. They agree that it is best for the public.

Four out of Iowa’s five new congressional districts are fairly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, mirroring the state’s overall makeup. Only the 5th district, which runs down the state’s western border, has a solid majority of Republican vote

Other states are experimenting with a bi-partisan, rather than non partisan, approach.

Washington state … commissions consist of two Democrats and two Republicans chosen by the state legislature, and a non-voting fifth member picked by the four others; the panels go out of existence after each redistricting is complete. The redistricting plan must be favored by three of the voting commissioners and passed by the legislature.

In 1992, the state added a new district, the 9th, as a result of population gains. A Democrat won in 1992, and then the seat changed hands — and parties — in 1994 and again in 1996. Democrat Smith has held the seat since then. The commission drew the boundary lines, he said, with the intent of creating “a 50-50 district,” with an equal number of Democratic and Republican voters.

“A split is good public policy,” [a Democrat from Washington state’s 9th District. Rep. Adam] Smith said. “But it’s bad for me personally. Obviously, I would like to be guaranteed my seat. But redistricting that sets out to protect incumbents harms democracy. It polarizes people and it makes the district less competitive.”

The bottom line is more moderates.

Both Iowa and Washington have more than their share of congressional moderates. [Thirteen-term Iowa Republican moderate Jim] Leach, known for his independence, bucked President Bush on three energy-related votes…. [A Democrat from Iowa’s 3rd District Leonard] Boswell, meanwhile, broke from his party ranks to vote with the president on the same issue. Three of Iowa’s five representatives frequently vote independently, as do five of Washington’s nine representatives.

As much as I’d liked to win back the Virginia House and Senate and stick it to the likes of Morgan Griffith, I’ve come to the conclusion that the best thing for the state, the country and my children and grandchildren is to adopt a redistricting policy that helps elect moderates of both parties.

Democrats indeed have proposed such. Over the past four or five years, Democratic Dels. Brian Moran, Ken Plum, Kris Amundson and Sen. Creigh Deeds, among others, have proposed redistricting commissions. Of course, the Republican leadership, being in control, has no interest.

But at a time, when the electorate is getting weary of the incompetent partisanship, running as the party of bi-partisan or non-partisan redistricting has certain possibilities. The problem is voters don’t understand the problem, much less the solution. It would take an ongoing campaign to educate people and build support. Here is where Mike Anzilotti, Dave Guernsey, Jim Ukrop, Jimmy Hazel, “Dubby” Wynne and other Republicans who’ve complained about the right-wing of their party could help. They have the deep pockets and the connections to help raise even more money necessary to conduct an effective marketing campaign. But if we start now, work the media, the business community, voter groups, etc., we might be able to make it an issue the Democrats could run on in ’07 and ’09, in time to perhaps win control of either house. Of course, that would require Dems to promise that if they controlled both houses, they would pass legislation necessary to form a redistricting commission.

But how to start?

…Yet, even as Democrats try to change the fundamental rules, there are things they can do to try to win within existing ones. First they need to absorb and recognize what really happened in 2002 — that they were steamrollered, not by George W. Bush, but by the latest redistricting. This means they must prepare for real hand-to-hand combat by the time of the next redistricting. (It even could come earlier if any other states than Texas attempt to redraft redistricting in midstream; Texas Democrats showed themselves ready for the fight when they dodged the Republican seat-grab scheme last May by simply leaving the state.) They should study districts that show a history of Democratic presidential voting but that now have a Republican representative. More than 30 districts that Gore carried elected a Republican House member. Most of these are in the Northeast and in the suburbs of central cities elsewhere. Those seats should, with the right candidate, be rich targets for Democrats.

That’s what the DLC’s Blueprint magazine says the national Dems need to do. The Virginia Democrats have a similar starting point: Gov. Tim Kaine won nine House districts of Republican delegates who weren’t even challenged in ’05.

More on that later.