Marble Composition

It's the Ignorance You Dummy

I came across a fascinating study a week or two ago that deals with political ignorance in America (I'm not sure if it was Stephen Brenan over at The Carpetbagger Report, or Digby at Hullabaloo that tipped me off to it, but I try and give credit where it is due. Either way, they both have amazing websites, so go visit them both often).

The American National Election Study, carried out by the University of Michigan, is broken down by the Political Opinion Pros, here, and it paints a pretty sad picture. So let's have a look at some of their findings.

Some of the data regarding the differences in political parties, and voters' identification of political figures is less than encouraging, and the "Pros" find the public "out to lunch". Color me unsurprised. In addition, the study asked the public a couple of questions, and I found the results shocking:

[From 2004]
- Which political party held the most seats in the House of Representatives before the elections?

Republicans: 56% (correct)
Don't know: 30%
Democrats: 14% (incorrect)

- Which political party held the most seats in the Senate before the elections?

Republicans: 51% (correct)
Don't know: 38%
Democrats: 11% (incorrect)

Put another way, 44% of average Americans had no idea that Republicans control the House, and have done so since 1994. That's not just ignorance and apathy, it borders on willful blindness. Maybe the only reason that the Senate figures are slightly worse is because the D's did control the Senate between 2000 and 2002. That's thanks to Vermont Senator James Jeffords telling Bush to go pound sand and switiching from Republican to Independant, and thereby throwing control of the Senate to the Democrats. Even given that, 49% of the public had no idea which party controlled the Senate.

Why is this important? Just for an example, let's take the House of Representatives. Under Republican rule, we get the following:

Extreme Centralization. The power to write legislation has been centralized in the House Republican leadership. Concretely, that means DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, working with the House Committee on Rules. (Hastert is seen in some quarters as a figurehead, but his man Palmer is as powerful as DeLay.) Drastic revisions to bills approved by committee are characteristically added by the leadership, often late in the evening. Under the House rules, 48 hours are supposed to elapse before floor action. But in 2003, the leadership, 57 percent of the time, wrote rules declaring bills to be "emergency" measures, allowing then to be considered with as little as 30 minutes notice. On several measures, members literally did not know what they were voting for.

Sorry, No Amendments. DeLay has used the rules process both to write new legislation that circumvents the hearing process and to all but eliminate floor amendments for Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rules Committee, controlled by the Republican leadership, writes a rule specifying the terms of debate for every bill that reaches the House floor. When Democrats controlled the House, Republicans complained bitterly when the occasional bill did not allow for open floor amendments. In 1995, Republicans pledged reform. Gerald Solomon, the new Republican chairman of the committee, explicitly promised that at least 70 percent of bills would come to the floor with rules permitting amendments. Instead, the proportion of bills prohibiting amendments has steadily increased, from 56 percent during the 104th Congress (1995-97) to 76 percent in 2003. This comparison actually understates the shift, because virtually all major bills now come to the floor with rules prohibiting amendments.

DeLay has elevated votes on these rules into rigid tests of party loyalty, on a par with election of the speaker. A Republican House member who votes against a rule structuring floor debate will lose committee assignments and campaign funds, and can expect DeLay to sponsor a primary opponent.

How does this undermine democracy? As the recent Medicare bill was coming to a vote, a majority of House members were sympathetic to amendments allowing drug imports from Canada and empowering the federal government to negotiate wholesale drug prices. But by prohibiting floor amendments, DeLay made sure that the bill passed as written by the leadership, and that members were spared the embarrassment (or accountability) of voting against amendments popular with constituents.

One-Party Conferences. The Senate still allows floor amendments, but Senate-passed bills must go to conference with the House. Democratic House and Senate conferees are increasingly barred from attending conference committees, unless they are known turncoats. On the Medicare bill, liberal Democratic Senate conferees Tom Daschle and Jay Rockefeller were excluded. The more malleable Democrats John Breaux and Max Baucus, however, were allowed in. [See Matthew Yglesias, "Bad Max," page 11.] All four House Democratic conferees were excluded. Republican House and Senate conferees work out their intraparty differences, work their respective caucuses and send the (nonamendable) bill back to each house for a quick up-or-down vote. On the Medicare bill, members had one day to study a measure of more than 1,000 pages, much of it written from scratch in conference.

Legislation Without Hearings. Before the DeLay revolution, drafting new legislation in conference committee was almost unknown. But under DeLay, major provisions of the Medicare bill sprang fully grown from a conference committee. Republicans got a conference to include a weakened media-concentration standard that had been explicitly voted down by each house separately. Though both chambers had voted to block an administration measure watering down overtime-pay protections for workers, the provision was tacked onto a must-pass bill in conference. The official summary of House procedures, written by the (Republican-appointed) House parliamentarian and updated in June 2003, notes: "The House conferees are strictly limited in their consideration to matters in disagreement between the two Houses. Consequently, they may not strike out or amend any portion of the bill that was not amended by the other House. Furthermore, they may not insert new matter that is not germane to or that is beyond the scope of the differences between the two Houses." Like the rights guaranteed in the Soviet constitution, these rules are routinely waived.

Appropriations Abuses. Appropriations bills are must-pass affairs, otherwise the government eventually shuts down. Traditionally, substantive legislation is enacted in the usual way, then the appropriations process approves all or part of the funding. There has long been modest abuse in the form of earmarked money for pet pork-barrel projects and substantive riders being tacked onto appropriations bills. But since Gingrich, a lot of substantive bill drafting has been centralized in House leadership task forces appointed by the majority leader. And under DeLay, Appropriations subcommittee chairs must now be approved by the leadership, as well as by the Appropriations chairman.

The figures presented above are absolutely inexcusable. Democracy is a sport, and one that needs everyone to participate for it to work properly. Based on these figures, it's barely functioning at all. I'd call it Democracy on Auto-Pilot (catchy, huh?). Sure, I understand people have their day-to-day worries about their jobs, children, and making ends meet, but what they don't realize is that the system that allows them to concentrate on such selfish things is literally crumbling under their feet.

The "Pros" point out:

Why focus on young people? Actuarial tables tell us that Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation,” or Harvard professor Robert Putnam’s “long civic generation”—that is, people born around 1920 who tend to be among America’s most politically engaged and knowledgeable today—won’t be with us much longer. Today’s young will, and their apathy and political ignorance do not bode well for the future of democracy.

Dude, you're such a bummer. Well, yes I am, but here are some solutions: (from the study, and some of mine)

- The taboo about talking politics among family must be broken. Even if disagreements can't be bridged, raising awareness is the key.
- Engage your friends. Where do they stand?
- We should encourage more civics classes in school curriculums, all the way through twelfth grade.
- Disagree with someone? Finish the conversation by encouraging them to vote.

Encourage them to vote.

posted by FuzzFinger @ 9/01/2006 04:09:00 PM