Mark Schmitt

Mark Schmitt in Financial Times | "Obama Focuses on Battle with McCain"

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:25:00 -0400

New America in the News:

. . . "Because of Florida's higher age profile, the state will be difficult for Obama in a general election," says Mark Schmitt, a political analyst at the New America Foundation. "But Obama will also open up other states, such as Colorado, that have a younger age profile, which would probably be beyond Senator Clinton's reach." . . .

Mark Schmitt on Bloggingheads.tv | "The Future with Obama"

Communications — Tue, 13 May 2008 07:30:00 -0400

New America in the News:

Bloggingheads.tv / New York Times

Mark Schmitt of the New America Foundation, left, and Noam Scheiber of The New Republic discuss whether Barack Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

Maverick Or Maneuverer?

Ron Tang — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:05:00 -0400

Ever since "authenticity" became the quality we most value in our politicians, its converse, "hypocrisy," has been the political vice of which we are most conscious. Thus, those who have noticed that Sen. John McCain enjoys a reputation as a "maverick" who "stands up to special interests" while leading a campaign that is operated and funded entirely by lobbyists have seen this as a contradiction. Is McCain a hypocrite, or perhaps a divided soul, with the angelic maverick voice of reform perched on one shoulder and a diabolical little influence-peddler on the other? Who, journalists ask, is the real John… more

What's the Matter With Bitterness?

Ron Tang — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:42:00 -0400

Behind the controversy over whether Sen. Obama's description of rural Pennsylvanians as "bitter" about their economic circumstances was condescending, there is another argument, one that's been lurking, unspoken, since the beginning of the Democratic campaign. It's a debate about the legacy and meaning of the last 16 years of the Democratic Party, and both candidates have said some highly provocative things, putting cards on the table that they've been holding for months.

First, Sen. Clinton. In the "Compassion Forum" Sunday night, she tried to depict Obama as comparable to the last two defeated Democratic nominees: "Large segments of the electorate concluded… more

Goodbye, Mr. Penn

Ron Tang — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:12:00 -0400

I suppose I should feel vindicated that Mark Penn's downfall as "Chief Strategist" of Senator Clinton's presidential campaign came on a question of conflict of interest involving one of his other elevated titles, that of "Worldwide President and CEO" of the public relations giant Burson-Marsteller.

After all, a little over a year ago, I noticed that the Burson-Marsteller website featured a division promising "a comprehensive communications approach for clients when they face any type of labor situation," which is a polite way of saying, if your company has one of those nasty unions demanding fair pay or benefits, we can make… more

Obama-ism Without Obama

Ron Tang — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:52:00 -0400

Whether he becomes president this year, sometime in the future, or never, Barack Obama will surely stand as a distinctive and surprising figure in our political history. Yet as the lens pulls back, individuals who at first seem uniquely transformative almost always come to be seen, more modestly, as reflections of their times, as products of trends and choices not of their own making. When Ronald Reagan was turning American politics on its head in 1980 and 1981, we saw Reagan, the man; today it is hardly revisionism to see Reagan as part of a long process of conservative reinvention… more

New America Foundation Releases New Report on Public Opinion and Political Culture

Communications — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:09:00 -0500

Today the New America Foundation's Next Social Contract Initiative and Pollster Cliff Zukin released new findings on how public opinion shapes national values and informs the potential for policy reform, particularly in the areas of health care, education, taxes and economic security. The new report, entitled "The American Public and the Next Social Contract: Public Opinion and Political Culture in 2007," is available here.

"The report notes that there is an increasing acceptance of the need for mutual support and an active role for government, coupled with continuedfield.These tensions shed light on the perpetual interplay between the enduring American… more

"Future of American Politics" Event on C-SPAN

Communications — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:20:00 -0500

New America in the News:

The first panel spoke on the changing political culture in the United States and how it will affect the next social contract. Panelists focused on the growing demand for post-partisanship, teamwork, and tolerance among younger voters. The second panel discussed political institutions and elections, including the past political era, which began in 1978, and the possible shape of the new political era that panelists believe is beginning. The third panel discussed possible policies in the next political era? Some topics were broadening asset ownership, modernizing the tax system, and workplace flexibility. The final panel spoke on political parties in the next political era. They discussed how each party is struggling to build a new majority coalition and the growing popularity of the Democratic Party, particularly among young people. Following each panel panelists answered questions from members of the audience. For the video, visit the C-SPAN Event Page.

The Next Era of American Politics

Communications — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:00:00 -0500

A New America Event
02/29/2008 - 11:00am

Phillip Longman began by framing the core question of the event: are we in a transformative political moment, and what would that mean? Even after a decade of debilitating partisanship, Rovian strategists and Netroots bloggers continue to exacerbate political polarization. Yet, with the likely nominations of John McCain and Barack Obama, observers of all political stripes have sensed the prospect of a political sea-change. Whether it is a government unified around a bold progressive majority, a resurgent and transmuted conservatism, or some kind of “post-partisanship,” the possibility of a new political era in America is very real. Nonetheless, the data show that partisan identification and ideological polarization are as prevalent as ever.

Longman attempted to unravel this knot by tracing the career of that unusual phrase, “post-partisan.” In the 1980s it described an effort to overhaul entitlements, in the 1990s it adopted a cool and detached air from political observers such as JFK, Jr., and in the 2000s it represented the desire of centrist politicians such as Michael Bloomberg and Arnold Schwarzenegger to pursue innovative policy ideas. Now, post-partisanship may reflect a new approach to politics by the “Millenial” generation, who value respect and comity even as they overwhelmingly identify as either liberal or conservative.

Next, Cliff Zukin, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at the Rutgers University, presented his paper, “The American Public and the Next Social Contract: Public Opinion and Political Culture in 2007.” He stressed the distinction between public attitudes on current policy debates and enduring values that lie at the core of the American character. These values serve as a kind of passive restraint and guiding structure for policy discussion, and they include a commitment to equality of opportunity, independence and self-reliance, and a wary acceptance of the idea that the government can play a positive role in individuals’ lives. In turn, these values shape public opinion in important issue areas: on education, they believe that it is a democratic entitlement; on social security, they are skeptical of its solvency and open to finding an acceptable working solution; on health care, they are willing to entertain broad overhauls to address costs and coverage; in their jobs, they are satisfied but anxious about basic economic insecurity. Zukin concluded his remarks with a broad caveat for framing the next social contract. Only in moments of crisis does a window of opportunity for sweeping policy change occur, and an unprecedented shift in economic concerns might point to such a moment.

In the subsequent panel, Mark Schmitt, Julian Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Policy at Princeton University, and Susan Milligan, national political reporter for the Boston Globe, discussed the role of institutions on the next political era. Schmitt stressed that, while trends may point to a different political trajectory, it will not be a return to bipartisanship between liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Indeed, the last attempt at that kind of cooperation was the implosion of health care reform in 1993. Since then, the “great sorting out” has occurred, with Republicans to the left and Democrats to the right purged in 1994 and 2006, respectively. This development, and the recent Democratic turn in public opinion, may be a welcome change. Post-partisan sentiments may simply reflect “an opportunity for liberalism to engage with an honest version of conservatism.” The cooperation that could emerge from such a debate is of an unprecedented character: not simply reaching across the aisle to cherry pick like-minded senators, but taking seriously and working together with those who disagree.

Professor Zelizer expressed skepticism about any kind of sea-change in politics. First, he said that conservatism will remain entrenched in political institutions and lasting policy victories, even in the face of a possibly overwhelming electoral loss in 2008. Much the same as in the 1970s, when conservatives imagined that liberalism would simply vanish, it is a fantasy to think that conservative gains in media outlets, court appointments, and lowering tax rates will disappear. Second, polarization is unlikely to fade to the background, as it is fueled not only by public opinion, but also by key institutional features such as the committee system, the primary system, and the new 24-hour media cycle. Finally, any progressive or populist movement will face serious challenges: the Democratic party is no longer the party of the working class, it suffers from conflicting philosophies, and it may fall prey to impossibly high expectations.

Susan Milligan then argued that partisanship is less a matter of liberal and conservative ideology than it is a result of power struggles. Since 1994, the margin between legislative control and minority status has been slight, and Democrats and Republicans alike have not been inclined to throw any bones to the other side. Responding to these pitched battles, the public’s preference for candidates like Obama, McCain, and Huckabee shows that the electorate is taking the process back. “They are physically and emotionally exhausted from the red state/blue state divide,” and the growth of independent voters as a key plurality of voters supports this broad change in political attitudes.

Reid Cramer introduced the panel of David Gray, Maya MacGuineas, and Len Nichols, to explore what policies might be possible in a new political era. Cramer opened the discussion by outlining a number of challenges to basic economic security that assets policy might redress. Against the backdrop of increasing income volatility and rising health and energy costs, the burst of the housing bubble has eroded a key source of savings for Americans. In order for individuals to weather this and other economic storms, policymakers should look to the tradition of the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill and broaden asset ownership. This kind of inclusive savings policy can transcend partisan debates, by embracing the principles of opportunity from the left and ownership from the right. In the short term, sensible solutions such as automatic saving attract support across the political spectrum, and in the long term, big ideas like a universal 401(k) are promising goals for the next political era.

Next, David Gray spoke about the possibilities for a new political era to coalesce around smaller, more manageable issues that “fly under the radar.” These policy areas, such as spending on children and work/family balance, enjoy robust public support from Democrats and Republicans alike. A number of trends point to the promise of policy innovation on this front. Work and family balance has been an important issue on the presidential campaign trail, and it has seen significant progress as an issue at the state level. As military families and entrepreneurial families struggle to maintain balance, work and family policy is growing increasingly salient. Finally, workplace flexibility will allow the elderly to work comfortably later into life, which will shore up their economic security and provide an important component to addressing the long-term fiscal challenges of entitlements.

Maya MacGuineas then described the challenges that tax and fiscal policy face, as well as some promising strategies that might elevate them to the crucial role they will have to play in the coming political era. These issues may lack the freshness of other innovative policy ideas, and “the size of the government is a cleavage issue between the two parties.” Even worse, there is lingering resentment on deficit reduction, because politicians who sacrificed political capital to see a surplus emerge in the 1990s only to rapidly vanish “fear they will get burned again.” Partisan trends continue, and they breed reluctance to face hard policy choices, even while “easy grabs” such as AMT reform and the stimulus package enjoy bipartisan success. The general lesson to draw is that incrementalism fails, and fundamental reform is needed. There are several approaches that might see such reform through. One is a commission that would construct a comprehensive proposal “with enough moving pieces to build a coalition” that could last. Other ideas include redefining budget concepts in favor of fiscal responsibility and building automatic changes, or triggers, into the budget. Perhaps the most important component of reform is a “grand bargain” that would help those who lose out in any fiscal restructuring.

Then, Len Nichols discussed the question of why now is the crucial moment to move forward on perennial issues of cost, access, and quality in health care. First, the cost of doing nothing is growing to staggering proportions. Support for national health care declined in the early 1990s as the economy eased out of recession; now, the current recession only adds to a more fundamental anxiety caused by skyrocketing health care costs. Second, employers are increasingly unable to compete internationally while providing health benefits. Because they cannot push insurance costs into higher prices or lower wages, employer-based health care is giving way. Finally, broad system stress from emergency care costs establishes the linkages between cost, access, and quality with crystal clarity. We see the results of these salient trends on both sides of the presidential campaign, and recent bipartisan success in the form of the Bennett-Wyden bill should offer hope for coming reform. For such cross-partisan cooperation to prevail, the “new math” tells us that a working proposal must enjoy not only 60, but 70 senators who find it acceptable. To make inroads into both parties and to repair our broken health care system, reform must create effective insurance markets, subsidize those who would otherwise lack coverage, and focus on the twin principles of personal and shared responsibility. The inescapable linkages connecting all these issues show that a grand bargain, laying out the next social contract, is critical.

For the final panel, Mark Schmitt introduced David Frum, fellow at AEI and author of Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, and Jonathan Chait, senior editor at The New Republic and author of The Big Con: The True Story of How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics, to discuss the new direction that the parties will take in the coming political era. Frum described Republican control that began to emerge in the 1990s as “the GOP cashing in on the Reagan revolution of the 1980s.” After a rare succession of elections failing to produce a clear majority for any candidate, George W. Bush sought in his Presidency to assemble a new coalition, turning the GOP into a lasting majority party. The events of September 11, 2001 disrupted this effort, and public opinion trends have begun to favor Democrats. The question remains how the Republican party will respond to this new era, and whether Democrats will overstretch in their victory in 2008.

Jonathan Chait then argued that the key source of this Democratic ascendance is “the disappearance of broadly shared prosperity” in the economy, propelled by the Bush tax cuts. Chait disputed that rising Democratic self-identification is a temporary fluctuation in partisanship, but rather a lasting ideological sea change. Yet, despite these favorable trends, a progressive agenda could encounter a number of obstacles in 2008, principally the filibuster in the senate. In order to meet these challenges, Democrats must develop institutions, such as nonprofits, to respond to ideas from the right. Furthermore, they must mobilize the public to counterbalance the influence of political inertia and self-interested insiders. He cited Barack Obama’s theory of change as one vision to accomplish this task. In response, David Frum argued that a President Obama, like Reagan and Clinton before him, would only be able to make this kind of direct appeal to the public once.

-David McNamee is a Program Associate for the Next Social Contract.

Our Senate Problem

Ron Tang — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0500

"The most troublesome task of a reform President," wrote Henry Adams, is "bringing the Senate back to decency." Adams was writing about the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, which began with an Obamaesque promise of national reconciliation and reform but was dragged into scandal by the senatorial kleptocrats of the day.

The Senate has changed since then -- its members are elected now, though no less likely to be millionaires -- but it's still true that the Senate is where ambitious presidencies die. Dozens of subtle explanations are offered for the early failures of the Clinton administration -- from the early… more