Wall Street Journal:
Trump and the Revolt of the 'Somewheres'


Since I've already read too many WSJ articles this month, it's behind a paywall for me. So I'll summarize with quotes from my written copy of the WSJ:

"The Anywheres are cosmopolitan, educated, mobile, and networked. Their lives center on communities of affinity rather than locality - friends and colleageus who may be anywhere on a given day. Their attachments to place are secondary; they tend to regard national differences as quaint, borders as nuisances, divergent regulations as irrational. Their politics are are liberal, whether progressive or classical. The Anywheres are generally wealthier than the Somewheres, but they include many people of moderate income, such as junior employees of government agencies, schools, and nonprofits.

The Somewheres are rooted in local communities. Their jobs and weekends, their commitments and friendships and antagonisms, are part and parcel of their families, neighborhoods, clubs, and congregations. Many work with their hands and on their feet. Whatever their partisan leanings, they tend to be socially conservative and patriotic and less disposed to vote with their feet."


The two are coming into increasing conflict.

"An important cause of this turmoil is the decline of representative government, in which law is enacted by elected legislatures, and the rise of declarative government, in which law is dispensed by bureaucracies and courts."

3 trends have led to the expansion of the administrative state since the 1970s 1) Anywheres have steadily gained numbers. 2) The decline of career politicians as their post-Congress job options have expanded. 3) Congress has "delegated policy-making to missionary agencies that can proliferate without limit, and to give quiet thanks when courts take prickly issues off the legislative docket."

"But they have also led to an imbalance of influence..... The most educated, articulate, mobile and networked are well positioned to influence the administrative state and the judiciary.... They think that policy should be determined by reason, science and expertise rather than legislative horse-trading and nose-counting. They themselves work in meritocracies - business, finance, the professions, universities, media, and think thanks. Meritocracy, not democracies, justifies their power and the means by which they exercise it."

"Mr. Trump's two galvanizing issues, trade and immigration, have been matters of extreme policy delegation."

This is obviously a trans-national issue. Brexiters and nationalist parties throughout the EU are driven by the same conflict. It's even worse in Europe as more power has been delegated to the un-democratic EU bureaucracy in Brussels.

He proposes several solutions: one is getting Congress to cease delegating power to agencies. A second is the rise of the importance of political parties, but that is unlikely in the USA (just see the failure of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America).

Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

(03-04-2019 10:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

I think this is a situation where term limits would help.

A large part of the reason Congress kicks the can down the road on things like entitlement reforms is that their #1 job is to get reelected. Can't get reelected if you vote for necessary but unpopular legislation. Members of the House basically have about 6 months to "legislate" before they need to think about getting reelected.

If we went back to part time legislators who served rather than stayed, we might get something done.

IMHO.

(03-04-2019 11:54 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 10:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

I think this is a situation where term limits would help.

A large part of the reason Congress kicks the can down the road on things like entitlement reforms is that their #1 job is to get reelected. Can't get reelected if you vote for necessary but unpopular legislation. Members of the House basically have about 6 months to "legislate" before they need to think about getting reelected.

If we went back to part time legislators who served rather than stayed, we might get something done.

IMHO.

We need more House members. 435 is one representative per every 700,000+ people, that is 20X more than what the Founders imagined, though travel and communications are greatly improved.

House terms need to be four years while we are at it to end the permanent election cycle.

(03-04-2019 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  We need more House members. 435 is one representative per every 700,000+ people, that is 20X more than what the Founders imagined, though travel and communications are greatly improved.
House terms need to be four years while we are at it to end the permanent election cycle.

I’d like to see the house elected based on proportional representation, and I’d like to see four year terms with the possibility of earlier snap elections, like in parliamentary countries. If we converted each current house district to a 5-member district, that would make proportional representation easier to do, but 2175 house members would be too many for the current chamber. I’d like to make the President one 6 year term and the senate 8 year terms. And I’d provide that cabinet members come from sitting senators.

(03-04-2019 11:54 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 10:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

I think this is a situation where term limits would help.

A large part of the reason Congress kicks the can down the road on things like entitlement reforms is that their #1 job is to get reelected. Can't get reelected if you vote for necessary but unpopular legislation. Members of the House basically have about 6 months to "legislate" before they need to think about getting reelected.

If we went back to part time legislators who served rather than stayed, we might get something done.

IMHO.

The author disagrees, and so do I.

The author explicitly says that the revolving door of politicians to the private sector is part of what keeps politicians from being responsible to voters. He says we need more career politicians who will represent their voters' best interests rather than use the office to give handouts to a corporation that will hire them at a cushy salary after they leave office.

Democracy requires politicians to be responsible to their voters. Why would a politician care what voters think if he's not allowed to run for office again?

(03-04-2019 04:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 11:54 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 10:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

I think this is a situation where term limits would help.

A large part of the reason Congress kicks the can down the road on things like entitlement reforms is that their #1 job is to get reelected. Can't get reelected if you vote for necessary but unpopular legislation. Members of the House basically have about 6 months to "legislate" before they need to think about getting reelected.

If we went back to part time legislators who served rather than stayed, we might get something done.

IMHO.

The author disagrees, and so do I.

The author explicitly says that the revolving door of politicians to the private sector is part of what keeps politicians from being responsible to voters. He says we need more career politicians who will represent their voters' best interests rather than use the office to give handouts to a corporation that will hire them at a cushy salary after they leave office.

Democracy requires politicians to be responsible to their voters. Why would a politician care what voters think if he's not allowed to run for office again?

Term limits haven't cleaned anything up in Arkansas, that's for sure. We've actually had more guys get in trouble because they are busy planning ahead for when they get termed out.

(03-04-2019 04:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 11:54 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 10:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

I think this is a situation where term limits would help.

A large part of the reason Congress kicks the can down the road on things like entitlement reforms is that their #1 job is to get reelected. Can't get reelected if you vote for necessary but unpopular legislation. Members of the House basically have about 6 months to "legislate" before they need to think about getting reelected.

If we went back to part time legislators who served rather than stayed, we might get something done.

IMHO.

The author disagrees, and so do I.

The author explicitly says that the revolving door of politicians to the private sector is part of what keeps politicians from being responsible to voters. He says we need more career politicians who will represent their voters' best interests rather than use the office to give handouts to a corporation that will hire them at a cushy salary after they leave office.

Democracy requires politicians to be responsible to their voters. Why would a politician care what voters think if he's not allowed to run for office again?

Fair points all.

The opposite is true as well. When you have career politicians that are in an almost constant election cycle, their only concern is getting reelected. Elections cost money so the focus is on fundraising which often times means taking money from special interest groups and PACs who "expect consideration" in exchange for their contributions.

Giving handouts and voting in the best interests of donors instead of doing the same for a potential employer after leaving office. Six on one hand, half a dozen on the other.

I'm sure some would say, "well just take the money out of the elections". That's all well and good, but those same people would be dead set against taxpayer monies going to campaigns and elections. We just can't expect radio, TV, news sources, etc to "give away" air time or ad space to candidates.

I'm sure there's a solution out there somewhere, but for now, all the options seem to equally stink.

(03-05-2019 07:46 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 04:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 11:54 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 10:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Political parties have abdicated their ability to shape a cohesive message. The primary system has removed the gatekeeping that insured a unified message. Democrats nearly nominated a candidate who makes no bones about not being a Democrat and Republicans nominated a candidate with shaky bona fides at best as a Republican.

The tribalism and brand value of the party names exists and they are useful fund-raising tools but the party label is no assurance of a candidate's stance on any particular issue.

I'd like to know how it is that we will get Congress to stop delegating power to agencies or even get Congress to exercise the oversight of regulations that it has inherently in the regulatory process. Exercising oversight requires actually getting invested in the governing process and requires taking votes that might not sit well at home. It is a damn sight easier to give a stump speech complaining about the EPA when you are in some town where the big business is scaling back an operation than it is to actually vote to overturn the regulation on water quality that is going to be unpopular with the suburban voter who floats on the river once every decade on a camping trip with the kids.

Congress LOVES to be able to pass the buck rather than actually legislate because every vote cast is a vote you have to defend.

I think this is a situation where term limits would help.

A large part of the reason Congress kicks the can down the road on things like entitlement reforms is that their #1 job is to get reelected. Can't get reelected if you vote for necessary but unpopular legislation. Members of the House basically have about 6 months to "legislate" before they need to think about getting reelected.

If we went back to part time legislators who served rather than stayed, we might get something done.

IMHO.

The author disagrees, and so do I.

The author explicitly says that the revolving door of politicians to the private sector is part of what keeps politicians from being responsible to voters. He says we need more career politicians who will represent their voters' best interests rather than use the office to give handouts to a corporation that will hire them at a cushy salary after they leave office.

Democracy requires politicians to be responsible to their voters. Why would a politician care what voters think if he's not allowed to run for office again?

Fair points all.

The opposite is true as well. When you have career politicians that are in an almost constant election cycle, their only concern is getting reelected. Elections cost money so the focus is on fundraising which often times means taking money from special interest groups and PACs who "expect consideration" in exchange for their contributions.

Giving handouts and voting in the best interests of donors instead of doing the same for a potential employer after leaving office. Six on one hand, half a dozen on the other.

I'm sure some would say, "well just take the money out of the elections". That's all well and good, but those same people would be dead set against taxpayer monies going to campaigns and elections. We just can't expect radio, TV, news sources, etc to "give away" air time or ad space to candidates.

I'm sure there's a solution out there somewhere, but for now, all the options seem to equally stink.

I don't think companies/PAC's "expect consideration" in exchange for contributions. The amounts are too low to matter. I'm doing an academic paper right now on this (I'm a finance professor by trade). I find that only 10% of corporations spend any money on politics (either lobbying or campaign contributions). Among firms who spend, the median expenditure is about $6,000.

Rather, I think that companies/PAC's contribute to candidates who already support their positions. If I'm a politician who happens to have a strong pro-GMO position, then Monstanto will fund me to increase the odds that I'll win. To an outsider it might look like Monstanto is buying my vote, but in reality they're trying to buy a congressional seat for a someone who is already a supporter.

But it doesn't work that way for the Monstantos of the world, and everyone in politics knows it. More money can help, but only on the margins. You can't buy an election. Just look at Trump; he raised about 1/2 the amount that Clinton did.