Public Policy’s Deep Freeze

Filed in National by on August 29, 2011

Earlier this month, Standard & Poor’s downgraded long-term US debt.* But what is the real issue at hand? Robert Stavins writes that US political polarization has not only stopped economic policy, but a myriad of of public policy such as health and environmental policies. Stavins point to three areas which provide the framework for this polarization:

  1. An increased importance of primaries which “greatly favors candidates from the extremes”
  2. Redistricting which provides very safe havens for political parties which leads to Point 1
  3. Money – campaigning costs lots and lots and lots and lots of money

Stavins finishes up on a not-so-positive note:

So, it’s reasonable to anticipate – or at least to hope – that better economic times will reduce the pace of ongoing political polarization. However, in the face of the three long-term structural factors I’ve identified above – the increasing importance of primaries, continuing redistricting, and the increasing costs of electoral campaigns – it is difficult to be optimistic about the long-term prognosis for American politics.

* Let’s forget for a moment that S&P totally missed the mortgage debacle.

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

A Dad, a husband and a data guru

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. puck says:

    A large middle class creates political moderation and stability, which in turn strengthens the middle class. So it is no surprise that a shrinking middle class promotes polarization and extremism. Unfortunately there are other forces that favor extremism from the right, which further shrinks the middle class and keeps us going in a downward social-economic-political spiral.

    Oddly though, extremism on the left seems to be extinct, or at least not a factor in calculating the center anymore.

    Maybe that’s why our Democratic Congress thinks the center is now in conservative territory.

  2. jason330 says:

    The current system of highly polarized “winner take all” elections could work if the Republicans were ever required to pay a price for their chronic policy failures.

    Today’s Democratic Party simply does not have the stomach for modern politics. Therefor, the overton window continues to move to the right.

  3. Rebecca says:

    This morning’s article by Kaufman talks about Rick Perry denying global warming. No shock, he’s from an oil state and they pay him handsomely to take that position. But Prof. Kaufman goes on to say that Mitt Romney has fallen into line with the deniers in order to win in Iowa.

    Howard Dean spoke out loud about how polarizing it is to hold the first primary contest/caucus in Iowa. He got thoroughly chewed out for this and the parties continue with this tradition. It’s stoopid. It sets the policy tone for the rest of the race, unless you want to stand up as a candidate and “flip-flop”. As part of the urban majority in this country I resent this.

  4. puck says:

    The middle class did quite well in the 1990s, increasing its numbers, its wealth, and its income. These assets were coveted by the wealthy, who targeted them for liquidation.

    It is no accident that Republican policies caused a recession which forced middle-class wealth holders to sell their homes and their 401(k) portfolios to the wealthy for pennies on the dollar, and then accept new jobs at lower salaries. Sounds like a plan to me.

    That is why Republicans will not support any form of job plan that actually increases the number of jobs available. Republicans want the middle class to hold a giant liquidation sale. They want to acquire our assets on the cheap, and they want us to accept a permanently lower standard of living. Actual job creation will derail their plan.

  5. nemski says:

    Sorry, puck, the middle class did not do quite well in the 90s.

    Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it’s not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.
    In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

    (Source: Money)

  6. puck says:

    Did you seriously just google up a Money Magazine article to try to pick an argument?

    First of all, even assuming the article is correct, it spans from 1988 – 2008. D’ya think anything interesting happened in between? That says nothing about the 1990s.

    You conveniently bypassed the spike in the 1990s. Weren’t you paying attention? How old were you at the time?

    The middle class did better in all important economic numbers in the 1990s. Look it up someplace real. I’m only working with two links permitted in comments, and I’m also not going to spend my morning doing your homework.