INTERPRETING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S LATINO PROBLEM

The 2016 election shifted the electoral landscape ground of America, and 2020 brought forth that new perspective to U.S. politics. Assumptions were shaken and weaknesses revealed influencing the nation’s character. From the point of view of political parties, the new landscape is favorable to Republicans, and Democrats are weakened, in spite of having won the presidency this cycle. 

Let us start with the good news: political engagement is up. Whether because of the rising influence of social media, the polarizing figure of Donald Trump or the pandemic lockdown (idle hands), political conversation and engagement have risen substantially over the last few years and, consequentially, a record voter turnout occurred both in the 2018 midterm and the 2020 presidential elections. It is a good thing when Americans are concerned about their political process enough to be willing to participate in it with their voice and votes. It is civic energy on the rise.

The bad news for Democrats is that a key assumption held as an article of faith by many in the leadership, that turnout is good for party results, has been shattered. In a turnout record breaking election the president-elect, Joe Biden, won by slim margins in key states and lost soundly in what were believed to be swing states. In Florida, for example, where turnout is estimated to have been close to 72%, President Trump won the state by a 3% margin, two congressional districts flipped back to Republican hands, State House Republicans gained seven seats, and in the State Senate they gained one. Turnout did not seemingly increase chances for a Democratic win in the state.

There is also another blue illusion coming out of the election: Arizona. The margin of victory for the presidential election was very narrow and can be attributed easily to animosity against Trump, due to his disrespect towards Sen. John McCain and Sheriff Arpaio’s pardon. But, just like Wisconsin with 11K votes in 2016 flipped Blue this cycle, Arizona could easily do the same in 2024. Grassroots work by LUCHA (Latinos United for Change), begun as a backlash to SB1070 (“Papers, please”) may eventually do in Arizona what Prop. 187 did in California, a formerly reliable Red State (home to Nixon and Reagan), but this has not happened yet. Georgia, with the recent death of John Lewis driving votes, could easily fall under the same illusion of a bluish hue, but the Democratic victory in this state seems more structurally sound that the one in Arizona. January will be an indicator. But these victories have blurred many a vision with blue tinted glasses.

The biggest lesson from the election has to do with the Latino vote. Many postmortems are underway, but the big assumption that “demography is destiny” was another one crushed with this election. The key takeaway is that the Republican share of the Latino vote increased. While other variables such as young vote and women’s vote are comparable to the rest of the electorate, the Latino vote as a whole is less Democratic than 12 years ago, relatively steady hovering around 66% for the party, while for the Republicans it has increased from 27 to 32%. Significant increases in the Latino vote for the Republicans relative to 2016 are notable in potential swing states such as Nevada (+8% of the Latino vote), Arizona (+3%), Texas (+6%), Florida (+12%), Ohio (+11%), Iowa (+5%) and Colorado (+7%). Gains for the Republicans in the share of the Latino vote were also seen in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Only California, New York and Michigan saw an increase in the share of Latino vote for the Democratic Party relative to 2016 (Numbers are from AS/COA). While the final numbers may change, the trend is clear.

The Democratic Party has a Latino problem. A recent open question on a social media group of self-identified Latino democrats (out of approx. 1,000 with about 50 or so active respondents) trying to find out their thoughts on Democratic Party engagement with the Latino community resulted in a wide variety of answers. This is a short compilation of them:

1.     The most frequent complaint was the lumping of all Latino vote as a generic block: “Mexicans are not Venezuelans, are not Puerto Ricans” is typical of the comments. This indicates a pride of identity of origin and a disdain for being categorized in a single bloc. Heard it before, not new, still valid. The Latino community is widely diverse and racially mixed, with intra-group tensions and, as such, it is a complex group to reach.

2.     The second most common point was that there was no clear and aggressive counter message to generic attacks against Democrats. Using a straightforward punch such as “Death to Communism” was in the comments, but counter argued by a belief that there is a “far left” in the party that needs to be appeased. This illustrates such a deep penetration of the Republican message that even party sympathisers believe there are politically extreme and violent elements in, and supported by, the party.

3.     The roots of each bloc within first generation Latino voters are ignored, particularly the fear of urban and gang violence (“Law and Order” concerns) and the fear of repressive regimes that call themselves socialists, i.e. the reason they came to the U.S. in the first place.

4.     A better understanding of the immigration issue, particularly as a perceived character transformation once citizenship is attained, needs to be achieved. There is a marked difference between recent citizens and second / third generation Latinos and their views on immigration.

5.     A “taken for granted” perception of Democratic leadership regarding the Latino vote, manifested as tardy outreach efforts. A two to four year grassroots outreach with tailored messaging and registration drives in the community was suggested. Some people pointed out the “Stacy Abrams model” to apply it in Latino heavy regions. While efforts in this regard have been made in Texas, other factors (3 and 4 above in particular), counterbalanced efforts there. It is not enough to have as an excuse an initial lack of resources for the campaign. Resources and investments need to be long term, not just “final push” ones, that then get perceived as blatant pandering with mariachis, taco salads and cafecitos.

6.     More frequent shout outs about problems in their countries of origin. This is a call for empathy.

7.     The Cuba opening by Obama is seen as an albatross around Democrat’s necks.

8.     The encrypted conversations on social media – and the not so encrypted ones, hiding in plain sight on Spanish language media— included participants peddling outlandish conspiracy theories and allegations, even from foreign countries of origin, never adequately answered.

The Democratic Party believes itself to be the party of the minorities, which leads to a mistaken belief that “demographics is destiny” as the nation heads towards a minority majority country.  The 2016 election shifted this (arrogantly self-righteous) pathway to hegemony, because it changed the electorate. It made people, in particular alienated, disenfranchised, left-behind people, feel like they actually could have a say in the way government works. This segment of the electorate is broad based and multi-ethnic, often men (which increased participation), and is made of people that want to believe in America. They look at their cornfields, their blue mountains, their orange groves, their tractors and their factories and have a vision of what America can be – and want to be a part of it. They are not deplorables; and include minorities.

The Trump strategy of self-identifying with American symbols, from the flag to the anthem, is a typically simple populist ploy with appeal to an electorate yearning to identify with America. Anecdotes on how after his defeat many people felt they could be proud of the flag again, indicate that this tactic worked.  While America is part of a global community, the Republican strategy of separating love for America and “globalists” was successful, albeit deceitful, and first generation immigrants by definition love America.

Some of these voters may have ugly biases and shortsighted interests. Some may have a skewed sense of values, easy prey to snake oil salesmen selling their version of the Constitution, America or of the enemy. But the results of the 2016 election made them believe their vote could be counted and they were surprised by that—that’s why they came out in force in 2020. What these voters mostly have in common is that they felt alienated from the political process, but no longer. The establishment’s reaction to Trump made them believe they are being heard at long last; that it was a reaction to their action. The Democratic Party, if it wants to maintain its relevance and win elections, should listen to these voices, because their vote matters. The Latino electorate includes disaffected Americans that believe the system must change and that the establishment, personified in the media, the “deep state” and the traditional parties are the ones that have not given them a fighting chance. Many of these voted for Trump and what he represents in this worldview. Others have not voted, yet.

To believe that the Latino bloc does not share a common vision of America as a better place, under rule of law and equal opportunity for all is mistaken, and obvious when phrased that way. That is the message that has not been transmitted by the Democratic Party. That is the message it wants to transmit, but has been muddled by so many caveats that voters with no time for polls and less for policy discussions easily switch to emotional shortcuts: “MAGA”, “socialism,” “pedophiles” and other such paths to cerebral short circuits and base instincts. It is not a question of engaging in dialogue with these voters, it is a question of understanding they also want America to thrive and carry them along with her. It is a vision of success for America that needs to be shared.

The supposed failure of the Democratic Party’s outreach towards the Latino vote is a symptom of a blindness towards the electorate in general. In searching to segment its messaging to blocs, the Party has failed to see the bigger picture that 2016 clearly presaged: there is a new electorate. Blocs exist within it, of course, but an overarching messaging is not embraced, a message with a vision for all Americans, not only a segment of them. Biden’s “Fair Shot” message, that ultimate vision of the Democratic Party, was good enough to deliver the Presidency but did not trickle down to the precincts, where necessary local fights wallowing in misinformation obscured that ultimate goal. As the first five points of the informal survey taken suggest, the broader inclusion of Latinos as Americans with American problems, seemed to lack in the Democratic 2020 election Latino outreach strategy; and probably with other voters too.

In this new hypersensitive era of intolerance, divisions play out in a manner that undermines the messaging of a common vision for America and gives opportunists ammunition for smear tactics. To strengthen our democracy an effort needs to be made by all to understand the ‘Americanness” of the new electorate, find a common vision capturing the newly arisen civic energy across voting blocs, and achieve the art of the possible in America’s path towards a more Perfect Union.

Carlos J. Rangel

CLICK HERE FOR MORE ESSAYS ON ELECTIONS, AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS OF DEMOCRACY 

THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Much ink has been spilt and bytes flashed arguing about the representative nature of the Electoral College. Because of its design and our political landscape, the once rare phenomenon of “electoral inversions,” the situation in which a candidate with a lesser amount of popular votes gets the majority of electoral votes, seems now like a permanent possibility, with two, maybe three occurring within the span of twenty years. The last time electoral inversions occurred was more than 130 years ago, in 1876 and 1888, in the turbulent wake of Reconstruction.

Donald Trump’s campaign is counting on an electoral inversion, and is on the road and in the courts attempting such an outcome. The campaign knows that it has the chance of a snowball in hell of obtaining a majority of the popular vote, and hits the road accordingly. Of course, Joe Biden’s campaign is well aware of that strategy so it hits the road back to thwart such possibility, targeting the “swing states,” as it obviously should do if it plans to win.

That is why, in practical electoral terms, the farm fields in Iowa are more important than the farm fields in Kentucky, the coal mines in Pennsylvania more important than the ones in West Virginia, the auto plants in Michigan more important than the ones in South Carolina, and anyone from a Red or Blue state is less important than anyone from a swing state, which either candidate wants to “turn” blue or red.

Herein lies that other, modern, problem with the Electoral College: those colors are very camera and sound bite friendly. The idea of swing state, swing district and swing voter has permeated the electoral discourse so profoundly that it distorts democracy, representation and policy; even the policies of foreign countries. When China retaliated to Trump’s tariffs by essentially boycotting soy beans from Iowa, it was attempting to weaken Trump’s Electoral College base. When the EU targeted bourbon from Kentucky and Harley Davidson motorcycles from Wisconsin it did so for the same reason in those states. These are responses from foreign countries attempting to influence our elections with blunt instruments, targeting local voters because of an administration or broad policy which affects them adversely.

Within our nation, the notion of red and blue states has caused even more damage. On projection maps, in polling predictions and on election night, coloring with paint by numbers is entertaining, visual and simple. In the hollows of the current White House, however, these colors have driven policies ranging from the response to the pandemic to environmental regulations, neglecting that in every single state, not just the swing ones, “the reds and the blues” coexist. Policy is enacted with no regard to this coexistence in every town and city, where problems and aspirations are shared but affected by the divisiveness inherent to images of a nation, states, counties, precincts and voters painted red and blue.

The media eats it up and regurgitates this notion, searching and forming discussion panels, convening town halls, even tracking through the years professional undecided voters in swing districts, such as the “red sweater guy.” Even an implausible movie, starring Kevin Costner, used the plot device of a single swing voter deciding an election. It is drama that sells.

For the close to 5 million people that voted for Trump in California it must be an unpleasant experience to have the president minimize their firestorms, because “it’s a blue state.” For many of the nearly 3 million New Yorkers that voted for Trump, learning about the Kushner Policy of disregarding the pandemic because it was a blue state problem —and those don’t matter— must have been painful. It must be disheartening for protesters in Louisville to be ignored, while those in Portland are showcased for political convenience in stump speeches by the President.

This Red State / Blue State mentality is so pervasive that it is believed to drive internal migration patterns beyond economic issues[1]. It definitely drives down voter participation with the blasé excuse of “one vote in my state/district doesn’t make a difference.” But that is not true; any vote always counts to make democracy stronger, whether it is cast in Arkansas, New Jersey or North Carolina. It is the enemies of democracy that want to convince citizens that a single vote does not matter and will not make a difference. I know: I hail from Venezuela where precisely that happened. Venezuela elected an authoritarian political outsider that changed the course of history for that nation because “in-the-know” people believed “one vote doesn’t matter and, anyway, all politicians are the same.”

The Electoral College representation problem originates from using an Eighteenth Century solution in a Twenty-first Century world; but the divisiveness originated by the fixation on the Red and the Blue is of modern origin, fed by a culture of quick bites and simple images upon which our media thrives in the pursuit of ratings and validation, perhaps even vindication. We live in the United States of America, a nation in which the difference between the popular vote of the winner and the loser of the 2016 election was 3% and in which it may be close to that in the 2020 contest. As the votes are cast, counted, and reported as a horse race on the screen of your choice, it is important to see your neighbors, friends and family as what they are or wish they could be: fellow Americans in pursuit of the American Dream and a more perfect Union.

Other essays on the Electoral College: "The Big Nullification"

Carlos J. Rangel
Small business owner, author of two books, “La Venezuela imposible: Crónicas y reflexiones sobre democracia y libertad” and “Campaign Journal 2008: A Chronicle of Vision, Hope and Glory.” Co-author of “Bring Down the Hammer: From Silk Road Bandits to Deviant States, the Rise of Transnational Crime Organizations and What the World can do About It” forthcoming in "Infinite War II," Hugo Achá, ed., 2020. His blog is Carlos J. Rangel: Campaign Journal. Twitter: @CarlosJRangel1

Illustration: "Undecided" by Magda, 2020.

---

[1] “Migration isn’t turning Red States Blue,” Henten and Silver (FiveThirtyEight) who argue self-selection as well as collectivization for this phenomenon.

WILL THE U.S. BECOME VENEZUELA? (the writing on the wall)

On February 4^th 1992, the president of Venezuela was nearly assassinated. For the previous two years the president had been struggling against his party, dinosaur politicians and entrenched economic interests, to bring Venezuela into a market economy; to transform the centralized command economy of the past 30 years that was driving the country into financial ruin.

To get rid of President Carlos Andrés Pérez (known popularly as CAP), a few generals and business leaders had put up a patsy to assassinate him in an attempted coup so they could then launch a counter coup to “rescue democracy” restore order and eliminate the patsy. This patsy was chosen because of his misguided ambition, open disdain for democracy, oratory skills and charm; not for his military prowess. It was by that lack of prowess that he failed miserably in the primary objective, assassination, throwing askew all the original plans. President Pérez ordered Lt. Colonel Hugo Chávez arrested and tried, as befits in a country ruled by laws, but the populist spark was lit and the “failure” of his government blamed for the conditions leading to the coup was used politically to lead the country down a path of increased populist fervor. CAP was finally dropped by his own party and impeached. Ensuing events led to the ascendancy of Hugo Chávez to the presidency, under the convenient banner of “socialism,” which would net him an estimated fortune of $1 Billion by the time of his death while he was, effectively, president for life (I document all of this in more detail in one of my books, “La Venezuela Imposible”).

Why should Americans care? What does this have to do with the electoral cycle of 2020? It is critical to understand that what led to the events described above was not a conflict between capitalism and communism or socialism. It was a conflict between leading a country as a market economy or leading it as a command economy. Transforming a country from the legacy systems of monarchies and autocracies to a country embracing a system from the Age of Enlightenment. The reaction against this attempted change led Venezuela to be among the world’s first elected populist autocracies, a new ruling model recognized now as a precursor to modern illiberalism.

----

In 1948 the victors of the most devastating war the world has ever known had to reconstruct it, and two models of economic development were at the table, so to speak. As the least scarred nation, the U.S. supplied many of the goods needed and offered its economic development model, racking up a trade surplus which was reinvested around the world as U.S. based multinational corporations boomed.

The opposing economic model offered, communism, attracted many thinkers indulging in its promise of a just society, quicker and more effectively than the contrasting model promoted by the U.S., capitalism. The first model relies on central planning by an elite group of leaders that believe they know and have more information than anyone else and are able to manipulate the production levers of society to make it better. Call it a “Type-A” model, seeking more and more control in order to achieve its goals. The second model is not as satisfying to those who want to control outcomes, because it believes that individual initiatives and behavior will lead to an aggregate of better, spontaneous outcomes for society; and you can’t really predict individual behavior. Call it a “Type-B” model.

As the world sifted the ashes of war, an economist partial to the Type-A model became influential in one of the main organizations focused on Latin America: The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, known in the region as CEPAL. Raúl Prebisch was a promoter of the idea of Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI): placing tariffs on imported goods to promote and protect local industry and create well-paying jobs. A need to choose industries (and companies) follows by the nature of this model, leading to an executive department, the “Promotion Ministry/Office,” most often a cabinet level position with control and influence over the economy; five year development plans with fantastic names ensue. The idea is that the executive knows better and can plan the economy from its vantage point as the leader of the country. Influence peddling, smuggling networks and rampant corruption sprout left and right– as well as a concentration of extremely rich oligarchies well connected to a government protecting the monopoly power of the chosen ones. The consequences are explosive growth of income inequality and economic stagnation, as opportunity is stifled and innovation withers.

The Type-B model, with its foundation on capitalism, has as its primary driver the force of renewal and innovation. Joseph Schumpeter called it “creative destruction” more popularly known as “out with the old, in with the new.” Friedrich Hayek compared a market capable of such creativity as a super computer more efficient than any single human mind, much less a collective of minds in a bubble. This penchant for renewal makes the Type-B model more conducive to democracy, which is also a mechanism of elite renewal at its ideal best. As I wrote in a new introduction to a Brazilian edition of “The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States” (written by my father, Carlos Rangel), capitalism is the economic manifestation of democracy, while mercantilism (command economies led by autocrats) is the economic manifestation of totalitarianism.

But renewal goes against most people’s self-preservation instincts. No one wants to get “renewed.” That is why capitalism as well as democracy are constantly distorted, fragile and in peril. Entrenched political leaders and entrenched economic interests want to stay entrenched. If they are powerful enough they will do so. Power sees democracy as a threat and the more powerful, the more it will do anything to self-preserve by stifling innovation and opportunity to potential future rivals. Markets dominated by oligarchs and tycoons, ever more powerful as they reach worldwide, want to ensure that domination continues. No renewal or innovation needed here, we know what is best for you.

In Venezuela, CAP was an old style, chicken in every pot, populist. President for two terms, but with ten years in between, in his first term he nationalized industries, such as iron and oil, and promoted many civil construction and infrastructure projects. His charismatic leadership concentrated even more power in the presidency. His profligate deficit spending increased the per capita GDP substantially, creating a sense of bonanza; but his most significant lasting investment was in education, the foundation of opportunity and innovation, including sponsoring bright youths to study abroad. By the time he was reelected (a period known as “CAP II”), the populist/command policies he had fueled in his first term had led the country to the brink of economic disaster. He realized the errors of his populist past and tried to rectify. With the help of the new generation of foreign trained professionals that his education programs had fostered, he started to dismantle command economy structures, such as subsidies, tariffs, price and wage controls, centralized/big government, etc. And with such dismantling, the protections to powerful figures in politics and the economy. This would lead to his attempted assassination and political demise.

----

Venezuela is not the only country to be destroyed by populism and command economy principles. In the U.S. this is a present threat, which comes from the most unexpected source: Donald J. Trump. Trump uses as a model for governance his experience as the tycoon of a privately held company focused on win-lose propositions – a command structure. Trump’s economic policies embrace Import Substitution Industrialization as a way to “bring jobs back to America;” apply industrial policy to protect and subsidize industries such as fossil fuels and steel, as well as agriculture—in blatant populists ploys; and seek to concentrate unaccountable power in the federal executive so as to deepen the command structure. Trump rules with the A-Type model and uses the populist authoritarian playbook to do so.

A common trait of a populist is self-identification with “his people” leading to phrases such as “El pueblo soy yo” (“I am the people”) affirmed in different variations by AMLO, Chávez, and Fidel, to infer that opposition to the leader is antipatriotic opposition to the country, a common assertion we see in Trump and his supporters. Of course this comes directly from the sense of entitlement of powerful monarchs of mercantile economies, such as Louis the XIV, the Sun King: “L’Etát c’est moi.” And if the leader is the people, what benefits the leader benefits the people – the rationale for self-centered corruption.

By revolving around a command economy to preserve and protect entrenched political and economic power (whether of existing or new elites in power through “revolution”), populism uses the tools of government to do just that. This includes bending rules, violating civil liberties and cronyism, as well as discrediting or censoring any information that may shed a negative light on the administration and its allies. Control and distortion of information is a key way to consolidate power. Attacks on the press and journalists, either physical or reputational, become a frequent tool of command economies seeking to concentrate power. As far back as 1859, John Stuart Mills argued liberty of the press as a fundamental check against tyrants. Any leader in power that continuously rails against the media as its enemy is suspect of aspiring tyranny. Of course, particular members of the press can be relentless in their attacks against a leader they dislike, but blanket and consistent attacks by a government against the right to have an informed citizenry are signs of tyranny.

In Venezuela during CAP II the press ran rampant with attacks against the president, sowing the eventual coup and rise of Chávez. The lack of an ample relationship of mutual respect and trust was part of the problem, but CAP’s intention to change the command economy into a market economy fueled the animosity driving such attacks. Even so, his government did not attack members of the press in the manner of oppressive tyrannies. Certainly not in the way Chávez would later, choking it economically, accusing it of lying, inciting persecution of journalists, crowding out information airwaves, and outright closing of media outlets. Not to mention sponsoring propaganda and partisan outlets to spread the government’s view on its enemies: an opposition by “scrawnies” intent on nullifying the regime.

Populism relies on grievances, offering a redress to those grievances by scapegoating a perceived weak group which is blamed for the people’s woes. It is based on a sectarian mindset that feeds animosity. In an interview I gave to the Brazilian magazine Crusoé, I exemplify this common trait between populists in Venezuela, Cuba, México and Bolivia where the president’s opponents are branded to cleave society as escuálidos (scrawnies), gusanos (worms), fifís (fussies) and colonialistas internos (internal colonialists). Such labeling to dehumanize the opposition and separate it from the mainstream has its lexicon cousin in ethnic and anti-Semitic epithets, and feeds on the same base emotions. The Chávez regime was eventually successful in making "adeco," the name given to those affiliated to President Pérez's party (Accion Democrática), into a common slur.

-----

Two more alarming indicators of populist “democratic” tyrannies are attacks on civil liberties and on the right to vote. Democratic institutions strive on free speech, and free speech includes protest marches. It is inherently democratic to have marches protesting against policies or leaders. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly lead eventually to free opinions in a ballot box. Thus, because voting is in essence a form of free speech, the former is a consequence of the latter. It is the role of a democratic government to protect peaceful protests from opportunistic individuals who may take advantage of a difficult-to-control situation for personal gain. It is not the role of a democratic government to suppress peaceful protests; its role is to protect them. Protecting peaceful protests is as important as protecting the right to vote. Suppression is what the regime has been doing in Venezuela since 2002, and unfortunately seems to be occurring here now, in the U.S.

In addition to unlawfully suppressing protest, the threats, harassment and outright jailing of perceived enemies or “disloyals” is a chilling aspect of tyrannical power. The retaliatory jailing of Michael Cohen, because he is writing a “tell-all” book about his relationship with the president, is a clear example. By the same token, the treatment of Roger Stone and Michael Flynn by the president and the DOJ is a challenge from the rule of men to the rule of law.

Finally, the rise of private militia and mercenary groups is a telltale indicator of a burgeoning populist tyranny. To circumvent the established rule of law, populist governments will use the emotional force of sown grievance to raise and encourage armed and repressive groups to intimidate and attack the populist leader’s targets. In Venezuela these were called the “colectivos.” In the U.S. they are sometimes called “very fine people” exercising their gun rights inside State Houses, for example.

The reported use of mercenary forces in the escalating repression of protesters in cities around our country is disturbing if true. But just the blatant use of federal forces to suppress local problems is problematic in itself. Federalizing repression, taking away the local control by local police forces, was one of the first things Hugo Chávez did, with the assistance of mercenary forces from Cuba, after massive protests against him in 2002. Let us hope that “Operation Legend” is not such an attempt – and that it is not a dress rehearsal for potentially violent voter suppression or results dispute in November.

----

Apostle Matthew says “a city set on a hill cannot be hidden” (5:14, Sermon of the Mount). In 1630, the pilgrim John Winthrop used the image from that verse in a speech on a boat’s deck to his fellow settlers as a foundational ideal for the New World they were sailing towards: “wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us.” With all eyes upon that city, the new colony should be humble before those of God or risk His wrath and be doomed to oblivion. In 1961, J.F. Kennedy used Winthrop’s words as a call for self-aware responsibility in government: “Today the eyes of all people are truly upon us--and our governments, in every branch, at every level, national, state and local, must be as a city upon a hill--constructed and inhabited by men aware of their great trust and their great responsibilities,” a view of a public servant in a democracy (listen here). But it was Reagan who used those words to usher in the idea of American Exceptionalism by adding the word “shining” and frequently during his presidency alluding to that image of the Shining City, all the way up to his farewell address:

“I've spoken of the shining city [upon the hill] all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace - a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

I have lived and observed the transformation of Venezuela into a nation ravaged by gaping inequality, crushed opportunity, misery and lawlessness. In 1992 I saw the signs of the creeping acceptance of totalitarianism which would lead to that condition and tried to warn anyone who would listen about the instincts of Chávez and his supporters –but a frog cannot feel the rising temperature of the water until it is too late. I do not like what I have been seeing for the last few years in the United States. The core values of this country are fighting against the challenges of illiberalism and totalitarian forces, especially after the populist spark lit during the 2016 campaign. It is possible that on November 3^rd the electorate will deliver a temporary answer and reprieve, but the dark forces are relentless and capitalism and democracy are always under attack. After 1992 it took 10 years for Venezuela to realize it was late in the game in this fight. The following 18 years brought that country to its current condition. November 3^rd will not be the end of the fight to restore the Shining City. It will mark the beginning.

Image credit: budastock

A WEAK DEMOCRACY

Civil order is upheld by citizen rule, and democracy is citizen rule. Undermining democracy is a threat to civil order and the capacity of government to contain violence and, right now, democracy in the U.S. is under attack. This attack on democracy is systematic and pervasive, has been going on for many years and, in spite of the safeguards and guardrails built into the Constitution, democracy is faltering.

Democracy is an in-progress experiment that continuously needs defense, corrections and amendments, because it is inherently fragile. It is important to defend democracy and all of its foundational principles, one of which is renewal: renewal of elites, renewal of ideas, renewal of leaders and of institutions; but people in power do not want to get renewed. The natural tendency of people in power is to try and stay in power, whether political or economic, so they will use and manipulate weaknesses of democracy and its tools itself to undermine it. And the biggest institutions with influence and power in our system are political parties and their entrenched interest networks.

THE REELECTION DILEMMA FOR DEMOCRACY

In the book Pathways to Freedom[1], Shannon K. O’Neil, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, dedicates a section to Mexico. In Mexico, by a century old law, no elected representatives, from the president down to local city council members can remain in office beyond one term. Dr. O’Neil argues that reelection makes public office holders more democratic because this mechanism is an incentive to make these elected officials more willing to listen to constituents than would otherwise be the case; thus prohibiting reelection runs contrary to democracy. Her argument opposing the reelection ban is:

“Perhaps designed to limit control of caudillos… this legislation makes politicians dependent on party bosses… and less accountable to voters, who will not get an opportunity to vote for them again…

…The country remains weighed down by the legacy of no reelection, which gives politicians incentives to be responsive to their parties first and their constituencies second.”­

Two hundred and twenty five years before Dr. O’Neil’s words, Alexander Hamilton weighed in on the matter, forcefully advocating unlimited reelection in his arguments in favor of the Constitution being discussed for adoption. He argued that reelection was not only a mechanism for a more responsive democracy, but a way of keeping experience and wisdom in office. Having dismissed already the notion of a quickly removable executive (a Prime Minister) by the “whims” of society or a fraction of the legislature[2] to argue a fixed term of office, proposed as four years, he addresses the issue of “re-eligibility.” On this he says it is “necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to continue [the president] in the station, in order to prolong the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration.”[3] He goes on to point out three major “ill effects” to bolster his argument:

1. “One ill effect of this [temporary or perpetual] exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behaviour.”
2.  “Another ill effect… would be the temptation to sordid views, to peculation and… usurpation. An avaricious man… looking to a time when he must yield the advantages he enjoyed, would feel the propensity… to make the best use of the opportunities, while they lasted… to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory… An ambitious man too… would be much more violently tempted to [attempt by every means] the prolongation of his power.”
3. “A third ill effect… would be, the depriving the community of the advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate in the exercise of his office.”

In 1789, shortly after writing those words the Constitution, having been ratified by the required two thirds of the states, became the document by which the United States governs itself, including unlimited reelection of federally elected officers. State legislatures promptly modeled themselves after this mechanism, allowing reelection of legislators and most executive officers. Then, in 1796, George Washington, after serving two terms as president, delivers his farewell address attempting to establish, by custom, the two term presidency convention. The second president of the United States, John Adams, ran for reelection and lost to Thomas Jefferson. Eight years later Jefferson, who did not believe in third or endless terms, despite his successful and popular presidency declined to run.

Much is said about the wisdom of the framers, and on this issue Hamilton favored unlimited reelection and Jefferson opposed it. In the ratified constitution Hamilton prevailed but Jefferson, despite having favorable odds for reelection to a third term, argued: “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”[4]

In 1951, only 146 years after first proposed by Jefferson the 22^nd Amendment, the one limiting presidential terms to two periods, was ratified. The debate on term limits has raged since the founding of the republic, and here we are. An amendment that limits the term of the presidency to ensure that power does not excessively accumulate in one person to weaken the other branches of government, as feared by some; and a notion that term limits are a useful way of curtailing such power.

THE MAKING OF PARTY RULE

The thing about power is that it exists. It can be distributed or accumulated but, like dough, squeezed on one side, it will surface on another. That is why checks and balances that identify, stabilize and control power are important. As Dr. O’Neill said, reelection has its place in democracy but experience has shown that a strong presidency, if allowed to have unlimited terms, will eventually destroy separate powers, a key component to a republic, as we have seen in other democratic experiments around the world and Jefferson forewarned. On the other hand, Hamilton’s warning about an avaricious and ambitions man, seeing a defined end to his term, using all the powerful tools of the presidency to benefit his future self –or even to seek to circumvent his limited term and stay in power by violence— is foreboding. Character matters, whether term limited or not.

Term limited legislative representatives do not have the power of the presidency. That is why in their case, as Hamilton pointed out, they will be tempted to use their limited term “… to make the best use of the opportunities, while they lasted…” and prepare themselves for a future life, first favoring and then joining, special interests represented, typically, in lobbyists or party bosses. If the US Congress were to have limited terms, the power of the presidency, party and lobbyists would overwhelm that branch of government more so that it has now.

In states where representatives have limited terms, government rotates into the hands of easily swayed greenhorns, making power shift to special interest factions; it also hems in the state executives. This is not to say that self-interest of elected officers is the only driver of political life, but it is a human trait that influences behavior, and in many cases prevails. An example of power shifted away from elected representatives is the case of Marion Heller. Her influence as a long term lobbyist for the NRA in Florida can be traced to the term limits of the state’s legislature, making her one of the most powerful persons in the capital, Tallahassee, repeatedly bashing newbies to impose her own committee assignments and legislative agenda. She has more tenure in the halls of Tallahassee than any elected individual.

The apex of political power in the US is the presidency, and the president is the leader of his or her party. Over the years, the accumulated power of party has increased substantially partly because of a deadly poison to democracy: gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a combination of the worst of secured tenure and term limits. Establishing “safe districts” for either party has created a system that allows parties to accumulate power. That power accumulates in their interest (or of a dominant fringe of the party), as opposed to the district’s constituencies. The biggest electoral threat to an incumbent is to be “primaried” by a new party favorite designee. The actual person holding office is not what matters, it is the party that keeps the seat that does. And the leader of the party, the biggest party boss, is the president who can thus manipulate the legislative and, in consequence, the judiciary. Party Rule.

A few years ago I had a friendly argument with an old high school buddy who has since passed away. He insisted that democracy in the US was a sham while I argued that, despite its problems, the US has a system that favors democracy. I still believe that to be the case, but he was right also. Democracy is in trouble, and that is because democracy is fragile. The accumulation of party power through gerrymandering and its consequential concentration in the presidency is a threat to democracy, liberty, peace and prosperity.

The ascendancy of party over country was forewarned by Washington:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”[5]

Hamilton also talked about human nature and its tendency to overrule legacy and continuity: “To undo what has been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor, as the best proof of his own capacity and desert …warranted in supposing that the dismission of his predecessor has proceeded from a dislike of his measures and that the less he resembles him, the more he will recommend himself to the favour of his constituents”[6]. By the same token if a president were to be reelected, he or she would reasonably believe it is an approval of “his measures.” Hamilton, of course, was presupposing unlimited reelections under this premise, but in our modern times this applies to party more than person.

The political and constitutional crisis underlying the governing of the US has come to a head with the galvanizing figure of Donald Trump as president. It is not, however, Trump that created the crisis, it is the elevating of party over nation that has brought us upon this crisis. When Republicans are seen to be or accused of protecting the President, in reality what they are protecting is Party Rule. The crisis is a consequence of the increasing power of parties deciding who gets elected to what office, regardless of the reality that each state, each district and each precinct, is not made up red or blue base members but made up of citizens—who seem not to matter to party. Conversely such indifference makes those citizens skeptical at best and violent at worst against the political system that governs over them. This situation is deeply rooted and goes beyond figureheads or political boogeymen.

The clear and present reality that any candidate, Democratic or Republican, can be equally polarizing to the nation is with us and the consequences to civil order may be dire. When any party rules without controls, democracy flounders. There will be interests favored or disfavored by a party rule system and they will try to curtail democracy and its renovation at every turn. Gerrymandering has made parties and factions increasingly adopt more extreme positions, eventually becoming enemies rather than adversaries. A similar unfettered antagonism in the past eventually led to the Civil War and such danger is not to be ruled out in our time. 

There may still be time to avert such an outcome, but time is running short, and prescient leadership even more so. Corrosive sectarian brinkmanship can be dialed back; challenges to gerrymandering in the Supreme Court may prevail eventually when submitted with a less partisan standard; the National Popular Vote Compact may eliminate the telegenic, divisive and mentally numbing notion of Blue and Red states. These and other measures to strengthen the role of citizens in a democracy, including protection of voting, elections and voting rights, may be too little too late but true believers in democracy and the republic must champion these as long as they can and are able to uphold citizen rule. Party Rule is not citizen rule, and Party Rule makes the country a weak union, a weak democracy and a weak nation.

Carlos J. Rangel books include "La Venezuela imposible", on the long term structural political and economic issues that led to the Venezuela crisis, and "Campaign Journal 2008" on Barack Obama's successful run for the presidency that year.

More on representative democracy and voting: THE BIG NULLIFICATION

More on reasons and consequences of impeachment: WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS....

Other essays on ELECTIONS AND OTHER COMPLICATIONS OF DEMOCRACY

Photo and illustration, copyright their respective owners.

---

[1] Pathways to Freedom, Coleman, I. and T. Lawson-Remer eds. CFR, 2013

[2] “It is a just observation that the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors.” Federalist No. 71

[3] The Federalist No. 72

[4] Letter to John Taylor, Jan. 6, 1805

[5] George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

[6] The Federalist No. 72

THE BIG NULLIFICATION

Nullification is the new word creeping into the talking points and vocabulary of Trump supporters. The word is meant to convey that Trump's enemies are trying to reverse the will of the voters in the 2016 election.  It is a word meant to spin the case against impeachment and its users seek to include it in the conversation as "received wisdom."

A Little Background
In October and November 2016, with the polls indicating that a Hillary Clinton presidency was all but inevitable, the Republican Party was preparing its opposition plan for the following four years. They planned to create a “living hell” for the next president of the United States, vowing not to approve any Supreme Court nominee over the next four years and preparing a draft of articles of impeachment based on “her e-mails and other crimes” shortly after inauguration.

Congressional Republicans publicly floating support for this notion at the time included Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Peter King ((R-NY), among others. In late October and early November 2016, talk radio was all abuzz about the upcoming impeachment. Of course, Candidate Donald Trump weighed in:

"Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency, and if she were elected, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. You know it’s going to happen. And in all fairness, we went through it with her husband. He was impeached. ... Folks, do we want to go through this again?" (Trump rally in Florida, Nov. 2, 2016)

That Republican Party's position was in line with their historical opposition to the presidency of Obama, an obstruction plan fraught on the same night he was inaugurated for his first term. This time however, as opposed as to when Obama was elected in 2008, they controlled the House. 

Representative Chaffetz said about the expected Clinton presidency: “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years of material lined up.” As Chairman of the Oversight Committee he already had several years’ experience on partisan obstruction, having led the investigation of Secretary of State Clinton on Benghazi (in one of seven congressional committee investigations into the matter) and her emails. Then came the surprising victory by Donald Trump, who obtained 46.1% of the vote and 304 Electoral votes, while Clinton had 48.2% of the vote but only 227 Electoral College votes. Rep. Chaffetz left Congress shortly thereafter to join Fox News.

Representing the Will of the Electorate

This talk about nullification brings scrutiny to the way public officials are elected. The “will of the voters” most direct measurement is votes cast and that, perhaps, should be the standard. While the Electoral College is representative of “the will of the voters” in landslide victories, this is not the case for close calls. A recent study by M. Geruso et al, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER, analyzes statistically how the Electoral College is more likely to overturn the will of the voters, so-called “inversions”, in close elections.  That is, the Electoral College is more likely to “nullify” elections than impeachment proceedings, which have resulted in zero removals from office for a president. Inversions have actually resulted in four presidents winning the Electoral College but not the popular vote. It is estimated that 40% of elections in which the popular vote difference is 1% (less than 1.3 million votes in 2016) can result in that outcome, i.e. nearly half. In recent times this has occurred twice, in 2000 and in 2016. It also happened in 1876 (S. Tilden 50.9%, RB Hayes 47.9% - Hayes became president), and in 1888 (G. Cleveland 48.6%, B Harrison 47.8% - Harrison became president)[1].  Furthermore, the statistical analysis as applied to our current electoral demographics and map indicates a 65% chance of any Republican presidential candidate emerging victorious, even when losing the popular vote by a 3% margin.

These distortions of representation “trickle down” to the House of Representatives, but by a different mechanism: Gerrymandering. Over the last 10 Congressional elections, three have resulted in Democratic majorities and seven in Republican ones. The average popular vote resulting in a majority for the Democrats has been 53%, resulting on an average House majority of 55.6%, a two and a half point spread. The average popular vote resulting in a House majority for the Republicans is 49.5% for a House majority of 54%, a 4.5% spread. This spread increased substantially after the redistricting of the 2010 census, as Republican led state houses gerrymandered many congressional districts to their favor.

	Democrat			Republican			All Reps
	Pop Vote	Reps	D Caucus	Pop Vote	Reps	R Caucus
2000	47.10%	212	48.96%	47.60%	221	51.04%	433
2002	45.20%	205	47.24%	50.00%	229	52.76%	434
2004	46.80%	202	46.54%	49.40%	232	53.46%	434
2006	52.30%	233	53.56%	44.30%	202	46.44%	435
2008	53.20%	257	59.08%	42.60%	178	40.92%	435
2010	44.90%	193	44.37%	51.70%	242	55.63%	435
2012	48.80%	201	46.21%	47.60%	234	53.79%	435
2014	45.50%	188	43.72%	51.20%	242	56.28%	430
2016	48.00%	194	44.60%	49.10%	241	55.40%	435
2018	53.40%	235	54.15%	44.80%	199	45.85%	434
Win AVGs	52.97%		55.60%	49.51%		54.05%

(Since 2010, the one D led House had a +0.75% relative to the popular vote, while the R led Houses had an average +5.38 spread)

Voters perceive these representation distortions and react accordingly, because they become voting disincentives. Voter turnout is pushed down by these mechanisms as people think that, after all, their vote will not really count. People in a “Blue” or “Red” State or Congressional District will believe, with logic and reason, that their vote does not make a difference in the final outcome as the Electoral Votes or the party majority in their CD is, essentially, predetermined (“rigged”?). The “Voice of America” is stifled.

 When it comes to presidential elections, the Electoral College has created an institutional monster: “Swing States,” with their “Swing Districts.” These so called electoral battlegrounds result in other regions of the country being almost ignored by the campaigns. Jamelle Bouie has written a well-reasoned argument about the nationwide coalitions of interests that would make it to the national discussion in a campaign, instead of local state issues if it were not because of Electoral College politicking (The Electoral College is the Greatest Threat to Our Democracy). Farmers in Iowa and Ohio have the same type of challenges as those in Kansas or New York, but the latter two are ignored, while the former ones are courted in retail politics. The same happens with urban problems of Atlanta or Detroit, or in the manufacturing plants of South Carolina and California, national issues being addressed in a skewed manner--only looking at the trees, not the forest. Many solutions have been offered to this slow creeping poison in our democracy, which creates divisiveness and apathy simultaneously, from the National Popular Vote Compact, to apportioning by Congressional District (for example Maine and Nebraska), to Constitutional Amendments (of which over 100 have been offered). 

The end result of this electoral model has been simultaneous growth of voter apathy and sectarian divide. The political consequence is the creation of partisan factions which drive the discourse and increased frequency of impeachment calls. We have been seeing this happen over the last twenty five years or so, like a frog in slowly heating water.  

Impeachment as a Political Crisis

The calls for impeachment before the expected victory of Clinton have not been the only instance of Republicans calling for this constitutional remedy. It is significant that during the first two years of Obama’s presidency, with the Democrats controlling the House, national opinion polls found that 35% of Republicans favored impeaching the president, even though there were not any ongoing investigations of any sort. Reasons given for opening impeachment inquiries during the Obama years ranged from the “Climate-gate” email controversy, the methodology used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure jobs, the response to the BP Oil Spill, undermining US security by brokering a prisoner exchange of an army soldier for five Guantanamo detainees, to his “foreign” birthplace; and, of course, Benghazi.

Using impeachment calls as a political rallying cry is a signal of the toxic divisiveness underlying the body politic (more on this) and originated in the poisoned well of faulty representation. Out of 45 presidents, thirteen have had inquiries or resolutions introduced in the House calling for their impeachment, including all eight since Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra). Typically the underlying offenses have been abuse of power or corruption. The case of Hillary Clinton is unprecedented in that calls for her impeachment were being made before she had been elected. 

The increasing use of impeachment threats based on political interest or bias has cleft the nation into sectarian partisanship. The political discourse and rhetoric has shifted, characterizing opposition sympathizers and leaders as enemies, not just adversaries. This political and sectarian nature of impeachment had been forewarned by Alexander Hamilton:

“Pre-existing factions … [agitating passions and dividing the community] into parties more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused... [enlisting] animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or the other … [result in ] the greatest danger, … [that] the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, [rather] than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”[2]

Differences of opinions on how to reach national goals have been colored by partisan politics, but the primary goal remains: a better and more secure future for generations to come.[3] 

If, as Hamilton feared, the final result is not dependent on “the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt,” we are in for a rough ride descending further into an abyss of sectarian partisanship enmity, as opposed to politically adversarial relationships. The feared trauma to the country associated with impeachment has actually been with us for more than twenty years. This is truly it: we have been living “the trauma of impeachment” far too long.

But if the Trump impeachment results in his removal from office, it may be a sign that the country is beginning to heal from the sectarian sickness vise which grips it, because it will have demonstrated a resolve of purpose beyond partisanship. The blatant and clear unfitness of Trump as president of the United States and leader of the free world allows for a constitutional remedy that forces unity and can bring an end to the dark era of divisiveness. And it is time for it to end.

Some more essays:
On party rule: "A Weak Democracy"

On impeachment: "We'll See What Happens...."

All on Elections and Other Complications of Democracy

---

[1] The 1824 election of John Quincy Adams (30.9% of the vote vs Andrew Jackson with 41.4%) is not comparable to the other four, because it was so split between all the candidates that it was decided by a final vote in the House of Representatives.

[2] Federalist 65

[3] Or, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

All illustrations copyright their respective authors.