tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-336781412024-03-06T22:03:33.662-06:00Fanning the FlamesShawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.comBlogger417125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-25086382885224419822011-05-18T13:14:00.000-05:002011-05-18T13:15:54.177-05:00Schools and the 3 C's: College, Career, and CitizensOur nation’s schools are failing in their obligation to prepare America’s next generation for informed engagement in our representative democracy. According to the 2010 National Assessment of Educational (NAEP) in Civics, released recently by the U.S. Department of Education, less than a quarter of students of all grade levels performed at or above proficiency level in the subject. Moreover, fewer than five percent of graduating seniors leave high school with the ability to list two privileges of U.S. citizens, explain the impact of television on the political process, or summarize the views of Roosevelt and Reagan on the role of government.<br /><br />Given these appallingly lackluster results, it should come as no surprise that our nation’s political discourse is callous and shallow, voter apathy outside of presidential elections is the prevailing norm, and public corruption permeates all levels of government. In an era of standardized testing that has served to narrow the curriculum and crowd out the social studies, our schools are tasked with ensuring that our students are career and college-ready. These obsessions have undermined schools’ original civic mission, for all graduating seniors must also emerge with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for lifelong exercise of their responsibilities as citizens.<br /><br />Thankfully, Illinois has a cadre of schools who have acted as stalwarts to these troubling trends. Deemed Democracy Schools, nine Chicago area high schools have been accredited by the Illinois Civic Mission Coalition as exemplary providers of authentic experiences for their students in the rights, responsibilities, and tensions inherent in living in a representative democracy. <br /><br />Seniors at Community High School in West Chicago’s American Government class participate in the “Legislative Semester,” an in-school simulation that recreates the structures and politics of the Illinois House of Representatives. Freshmen at Maine West High School in Des Plaines, meanwhile, take part in the SEEDS (Students Educating for Equity in a Diverse Society) program, which teaches students that they possess the power to affect societal change by asking them to pick an issue they care about, develop an action plan, and share their ideas at an open house.<br /><br />These and other Illinois Democracy Schools are blazing the path to reverse our civic decay by proving that a commitment to their civic mission need not come at the expense of career and college-readiness, or standardized test scores for that matter. Indeed, best practices in civic education have been proven to foster skills and competencies transferable to the 21st Century workplace. In addition to basic reading and math skills, these include a basic knowledge of economic and political processes, media literacy, an ability to collaborate with a diverse group of people, positive attitudes about working hard and obeying the law, and creativity and innovation.<br /><br />Picture political discourse that transcends partisan infighting, an informed electorate that holds public officials accountable for their actions in office, and an effective, efficient public sector that serves the interests of the people it serves, not the insiders working within. Our nation’s schools stand as the linchpin for civic redemption, and these appallingly low test scores should serve as a clarion call for the renewal of their civic mission. Let’s do our part in Illinois and commit to making every school in the state a Democracy School.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-52929199349417557792010-03-29T13:04:00.008-05:002010-03-29T16:58:44.529-05:00The Dumbest GenerationIt is common for older Americans to marvel at the technological capacity of Millennials, equating digital wizardry with higher intelligence. On the other hand, experts have long lamented declining test scores in math, reading, and science, not to mention successive generations who are culturally and historically illiterate. In terms of media consumption, they are in the words of David Mindich, altogether "tuned out." Clearly, these dueling conceptions of younger Americans compete with one another, and Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein grapples with this tension in his 2008 book <a href="http://www.dumbestgeneration.com/">The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future </a>(Penguin, 236pp).<br /><br />Bauerlein paints a portrait of a generation digitally connected to one's peers but isolated from both their elders and even the recent past. They are obsessed with constant affirmation from classmates who parted ways only hours ago via text messages and Facebook friends, yet couldn't be bothered by a newspaper, a book of any stripe (other than Harry Potter), or even art and classic music. <br /><br />The author also suggests that we overestimate young people's mastery of the digital landscape, holding high "whiz kids" who are more outliers than the norm. We have rushed to integrate technology into all aspects of education, spending billions, but have yet to reap even incremental gains in knowledge. Students' use of the web for research purposes is likely to encompass a Google search, page clicks on the top three links, copying and pasting of text onto a Word document, adding a few transitional sentences, and handing into their teacher under their own name with no acknowledgment of the sources they consulted.<br /><br />According to Bauerlein, uninhibited use of the web results in highly inefficient use of precious instructional time. Students are likely to dabble with the URL's supplied by their teacher, but probably check their email, make evening plans, and catch up on celebrity gossip along the way. <br /><br />Research suggests that the Web fundamentally transforms the way we encounter information. True, its scattered paths may compliment brain synapses, but we only skim text, rarely read top to bottom, and avoid verbiage written above a fourth-grade level. True to form, PDF files equate to hitting the print function, if opened at all. Video games may immerse the mind in complex, real word decision making contexts, but fail to develop the communicative skills necessary for upward occupational mobility.<br /><br />Rather than listing technological tools as the cause of informational ignorance among young people, Bauerlein considers them mere enablers. He departs from the education cultural critics of decades past, William Bennett, E.D. Hirsch, and Diane Ravich among them, in his non-ideological tenor, yet blame is assigned to the New Left. A generation of intellectuals who challenged traditional structures during the 1960's and 1970's, these scholars still read the great texts in order to critique them. In the process, however, Bauerlein claims that abstinence followed, and with it a dramatic decline in societal wisdom.<br /><br />Respect for traditional authority fell alongside "great books," as "student-centered learning" replaced the traditional teacher as "sage on the stage." Educators are now trained as "guides on the side," and the author finds this transformation of the student-teacher relationship misguided, for young people, more than anything else, need structure and must sometimes be compelled to read Shakespeare or employ the Pythagorean Theorem. <br /><br />Bauerlein's work is certainly a compelling read and his assemblage of data impressive. He admittedly does a better job of delineating the problem than detailing a solution, for a complete retreat to past practices is at best impossible, and probably not desirable anyway. His call for us to challenge young people to appreciate the past and develop a love of learning that will last a lifetime is worthy of acceptance, but from my own personal experience I would add that it is wrong to treat our students as empty vessels, for they bring diverse life experiences and broad collective knowledge into the classroom. <br /><br />I would also suggest that it is wrong to dismiss the instructional potential of technology. The dearth of immediate gains is arguably attributable to the rush to integrate technology into schools for the sake of doing so rather than any appreciable ties to knowledge acquisition and skill development. Technology, like other learning tools, is a means to an end and not an end itself.<br /><br />Bauerlein's work reminds the reader of Neil Postman's earlier work, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zGkhbPEjkRoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Amusing+Ourselves+to+Death&source=bl&ots=tGd7xcGQgZ&sig=AHuGmZpRvaRcmSyhdcQ4w7q_HUY&hl=en&ei=3fawS5OeNI7SMt2j7bQO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Amusing Ourselves to Death</a>. Whereas Postman's culprit was the TV set, Bauerlein's is the computer. The latter is by no means an inferior contribution to this critical field of work. The Dumbest Generation also echoes Cass Sunstein's <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=O7AG9TxDJdgC&dq=Republic.com&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=mvawS5reL4iGNoL0uLUO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Republic.com</a>, where the Web allows us to create our "Daily Me" and avoid any information outside of our own peer bubble. Like Sunstein, Bauerlein charts the correlation between cultural literacy and self-governance. Both are on life support, and Bauerlein begs us to change course before it is too late.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com40tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-67806170266886501522010-03-18T11:00:00.000-05:002010-03-18T11:01:16.738-05:00State of the News Media Circa 2010The contemporary economic model for journalism remains broken and the industry continues its desperate search for answers according to a report released by the Pew Research Center's <a href="http://www.journalism.org/">Project for Excellence in Journalism</a> this week. Titled "<a href="http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/index.php">State of the News Media 2010</a>," the annual study documents advertising revenue declines across media platforms. Only cable news dodged the double-whammy of the Great Recession and an antiquated business model.<br /><br />Newspapers continue to headline the hardest hit, and the web has failed to emerge as the panacea. A full 90% of newspaper revenues remain tied to their print versions, and online advertising actually fell. The study suggests that only 21% of online readers actually click on adjacent ads, yet 62% of news consumers access the Internet for at least a portion of their news. Online newspaper readership grew by 14% in 2009.<br /><br />The report references Rick Edmonds of the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/">Poynter Institute</a>, who estimates that newspapers have lost $1.6 billion in reporting and editing capacity since 2000, down 30%. Even as the economy stabilizes and shows signs of recovery, he expects continued cuts in 2010.<br /><br />Print circulation continues its free fall, down another 10.6% in 2009. Daily circulation has dropped 25.6% in the last decade. Only the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/home-page">Wall Street Journal</a> advanced in the last year, passing USA Today as America's largest daily newspaper.<br /><br />Contrary to popular wisdom, however, newspapers are not going extinct. Closures and printing cutbacks have mostly centered on two-newspaper towns, and newspaper stocks have stabilized.<br /><br />New journalistic models have proliferated in this vacuum. Jan Schaffer of <a href="http://www.j-lab.org/">J-Lab</a> estimates that $141 million of nonprofit money has poured into commercial, nonprofit, public, and university-led news ventures, yet this accounts for a mere 10% of what has been lost over the last decade.<br /><br />News consumers navigate an increasingly fragmented media environment. A little more than a third (35%) identify a favorite news destination and a mere 19% would continue to visit a news site that constructed a "pay wall." Yet 80% of web news traffic targets a mere 7% of sites, 67% of them "old media" outlets. 13% offer news aggregation, and only 14% produce original online-only content through reporting, not mere commentary.<br /><br />The news organizations themselves are increasingly becoming niche operations, with more focus and necessarily narrower ambition. News, in a sense, has become "unbundled," as we no longer rely upon a single source.<br /><br />New media outlets offer significant promise, but still depend upon their older peers for original content. 80% of blogs link to "U.S. legacy media." "Pro-am" partnerships like those <a href="http://newsonomics.com/nyt-local-experiments-grow-with-fwix/">explored by the New York Times</a> may illuminate the path ahead.<br /><br />As mentioned earlier, the only growing segment of the media is cable news, and their fortunes are tied to a retreat toward partisanship and an elevation of edge and opinion in place of objective journalism. <br /><br />Network news is not on life support, either. The report contends that erosion continues, yet the 22.3 million Americans who tune into network news broadcasts each evening eclipse the cable news audience times five. However, network newsrooms have not been spared from industrywide cuts.<br /><br />Local news outlets are experiencing accelerating audience declines beyond that of their networks, as have the network's morning news programs, long a source of strength.<br /><br />Magazines have been perhaps hardest hit. Their very place in the 24-hour news cycle remains in question. <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/">Newsweek</a>'s focus on opinion-centered journalism is indicative of an industry in search of a sustainable path forward.<br /><br />In sum, the 2010 State of the News Media survey suggests a continuation of ongoing trends for coming year. Doomsday predictions of extinction are probably overblown, individual casualties aside, and promising alternatives lie in the wake. However, a fundamental disjuncture remains: information wants to be free, and journalists need to eat. The path forward in 2010 and beyond depends upon resolving this perplexing revenue disparity for the good of democracy.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-53823695773588721632010-03-12T10:07:00.007-06:002010-03-12T10:48:55.938-06:00First Amendment A Lonely Star in TexasYesterday, the First Amendment <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/031210dnmetsboe.19ab856dd.html">lost an opportunity</a> for a preferred place in Texas state education standards. A proposal by Mavis Knight, a Democratic member of the State Board of Education, would have required that students study the reasons the Founders "protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over others."
<br />
<br />It speaks specifically to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and admittedly carries ideological baggage. While liberals hide behind a "wall" of separation between church and state, conservatives suggest that government endorsement of religion passes constitutional muster so long as it is not directed toward any one denomination. In short, one would sanitize the public square and the other would decorate it with religious ornaments. As usual, reality probably lies somewhere in the middle.
<br />
<br />Public schools have long served as prime battlegrounds in our nation's culture wars. They serve an incredibly heterogeneous student population and are too often tasked with resolving an infinite number of societal failings. It should come as no surprise then that the Texas Board of Education is grappling with policies that encapsulate our remarkably polarized political system. The stakes are high given that the Lone Star State is surpassed only by California in terms of population, textbook publishers cater their offerings to these state standards, leaving schools in smaller states with their imprints.
<br />
<br />While Knight's First Amendment foray failed, her conservative counterparts successfully pushed through standards addressing the impact of taxes and regulations on private enterprise and the importance of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Religion also received a nod in that US History students are required to explain the "laws of nature and laws of God."
<br />
<br />The ideological bent of each of these requirements, Knight's included, raises eyebrows over objectivity concerns, but a qualified educator can brush these aside. The larger point is that there is value in formal instruction of civics, government, US History, and law as demonstrated in the <a href="http://www.freedomproject.us/democracyschools/Blueprint-KeyConcepts.aspx">Illinois Civic Blueprint</a>. Moreover, discussion of current and controversial issues of public concern takes center stage in every engaging social studies classroom.
<br />
<br />Knight's First Amendment-centered proposal is also supported by researchers Kenneth Dautrich, David Yalof, and Mark Hugo Lopez in their 2008 book titled <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=cGJiC7VyiK8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Future+of+the+First+Amendment+Yalof&source=bl&ots=-bsmToOZ6c&sig=BjVv0njjLjc1CfrhdV4ZW5VzSwM&hl=en&ei=DW-aS4eLB4niNfShgKAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Future of the First Amendment</span></a>. According to their <a href="http://www.firstamendmentfuture.org/">ongoing study</a>, "...Those high school students who take classes with First Amendment or media and society are more likely to support the exercise of free expression rights." They find that student support for First Amendment rights is surprisingly lower than that of their teachers and administrators, but that their sentiments for the five freedoms grow stronger in application, such as music censorship, prior review of student newspapers, and perhaps a debate over religion's place in the curriculum.
<br />
<br />The Texas State Board of Education would therefore be wise to put politics aside and stand behind teaching the First Amendment. It knows no ideology or party and has served us all quite well since its adoption in 1791. Its freedoms are foundational and should therefore form the bedrock of a solid social studies education.
<br /><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="PowerPoint.Slide"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft PowerPoint 11"><!--[if !mso]> <style> v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} p\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} v\:textbox {display:none;} </style> <![endif]--><title>Slide 5</title><meta name="Description" content="3/12/2010"><!--[if !ppt]--><style> .O {font-size:149%;} </style><style media="print"> <!--.sld {left:0px !important; width:6.0in !important; height:4.5in !important; font-size:103% !important;} --></style><p:colorscheme colors="#ffffff,#000000,#808080,#000000,#bbe0e3,#333399,#009999,#99cc00"></p:colorscheme>Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-56797905066343048262010-03-03T13:40:00.006-06:002010-03-03T14:02:04.372-06:00No ApologyOne could argue that Governor Mitt Romney's reprisal to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 rose from the ashes of his failed 2008 bid and the loss of his chief rival Senator John McCain to current president Barack Obama that November. In the interim, Romney has raised money prolifically for other Republican candidates, served as the voice of the party in media interviews, and offered terse criticism of the man who occupies the office he still covets. His new book, <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/noapology"><i>No Apology: The Case for American Greatness</i></a>, sets the stage for a second run, offering dense policy analysis in the 309-page volume.<br /><br />In an era where politically-polarizing tomes pepper book stores and cater to partisans on both extremes, allowing them to feed their heads in self-perpetuating echo chambers, No Apology is a departure of sorts. While the title is crafted as a direct refutation of President Obama's perceived apologies for what Romney considers "American exceptionalism," the former Massachusetts Governor offers more than caricatures of his opponents, and his well-articulated national agenda checks the appropriate conservative boxes, yet offers a level of detail that transcends a political culture premised on talking points.<br /><br />Whereas President Obama devoted a scant amount of verbiage to foreign policy in his recent State of the Union Address, No Apology leads with a call for a return to muscular national defense. Romney also delves into a number of domestic policy domains, defending the near-universal health care system he helped pass in Massachusetts, while at the same time rejecting comparisons to the Democratic bills currently circulating in Congress. His prescriptions move beyond the obstructionism of his fellow party members in Washington, but he does embrace their calls for tort reform and interstate competition among insurance companies.<br /><br />Romney also writes about education policy and laments the relative decline in America's competitiveness, embracing standardized testing, merit pay, mechanisms to remove incompetent educators, charter schools, school choice (though he questions its political viability), and distance learning. He reserves terse words for teacher unions, bodies he considers detrimental to requisite educational reforms.<br /><br />His energy policy relies on alternate energy sources including nuclear power, natural gas, clean coal, even hydrogen. He holds solar and wind power as promising complimentary energy sources, but doubts that either represent a panacea. In an early bid for support in the Iowa Caucuses, he touts his support for ethanol subsidies and production. Romney is highly critical of the cap and trade legislation passed by the House last year, and also dismisses the wisdom of a more direct carbon tax. However, he does tout the potential of a carbon tax coupled with reciprocal tax offsets in sales or payroll taxes.<br /><br />No Apology is a serious work that departs from standard campaign biographies. Indeed, its closest parallel is arguably Obama's <i>Audacity of Hope</i>. Romney intersperses brief biographical footnotes throughout, but its policy-orientation reigns. While he shares anecdotes from his failed 2008 presidential run, he avoids <i>ex post facto</i> analysis, and also strays from foreshadowing a future run for the nation's highest office. This means there is no dissection of how his Mormon faith proved an obstacle among conservative Christian voters, or his repositioning on major social issues that led many to conclude that he was a "flip-flopper" of convenience. He does make several references to his faith, and reaffirms his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.<br /><br />The irony is that Romney's 2008 campaign largely trumpeted social and military issues, peripheral to his core competency as an economic turn-around agent. In No Apology, he takes the opportunity to press the reset button, recasts himself as a more centrist, pragmatic technocrat, and lays the groundwork for a repeat presidential run during the most devastating economic times since the Great Depression.<br /><br />Governor Romney will make his only Chicago appearance on Wednesday March 24, 2010, at the Chase Auditorium (10 S Dearborn) in Chicago at 6pm in an event sponsored by the <a href="http://www.freedomproject.us/">McCormick Freedom Project</a>, in partnership with <a href="http://www.chicagoyrs.com/">Chicago Young Republicans</a>, the <a href="http://www.illinoispolicy.org/">Illinois Policy Institute</a> and <a href="http://www.wlsam.com/">WLS 890 AM Radio</a>. Join us for an insightful discussion about our First Amendment freedoms, a re-emerging conservative movement, and Governor Romney’s solutions for rebuilding industries, producing jobs, improving education, and restoring the military. General admission tickets are on sale <a href="http://freedomproject.us/events/registration/login.aspx">here</a> for $25. The price includes a signed copy of No Apology.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-21528168841469975562010-02-25T09:39:00.002-06:002010-02-25T09:48:01.240-06:00"Who is a legitimate journalist?"The National Enquirer, derided by most journalists as a tabloid rag, exposed John Edwards’ infidelity and love-child long before the former senator and vice-presidential candidate acknowledged his affair and many months before other news media grabbed hold of the story.<br />Eager to be recognized for its journalistic chops on that scoop and for work uncovering other scandals, the Enquirer campaigned last month for consideration in this year’s Pulitzer Prize competition.<br />After some hemming and hawing by Pulitzer officials on technicalities, Huffington Post blogger Emily Miller reported last week that the Pulitzer Prize Board has quietly agreed to accept the Enquirer’s submission for the Edwards story.<br />Another milestone reached in changing the definition of what we call journalism.<br />Several months back, the issue came up in another context: A U.S. Army general talked about embedding reporters with military units in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decision over who gets priority in going to the front line, he said, isn’t always so simple.<br />“Who’s a legitimate journalist?” the general asked with a fraction of frustration.<br />He was referring the many freelancers and bloggers, some of whom paid their own way to the war zones, and been accredited to cover the American military effort.<br />The decision isn’t so hard if journalists are from well-established institutions such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, from NBC and Fox News, or from CNN or another cable news outlet. But what if the choice on whom to embed is between an inexperienced reporter from a small, recognized newspaper versus a combat-experienced blogger who contributes to a half-dozen websites, or just to his or her own blog?<br />Does the institution or the work confer legitimacy? How do we define journalism?<br />The question also goes beyond political or military reporting and involves the Congress, the U.S. court system and even how journalists view themselves.<br />First Amendment protections apply, of course, to every American. But are bloggers, freelancers, students and others who call themselves journalists protected from revealing sources under “shield laws” adopted in more than 30 states?<br />A federal shield law offering that protection has been stalled in Congress for years. Last spring, the House approved a broad definition covering anyone who makes a portion of their living as a journalist. The Senate version, however, is much more restrictive, identifying and limiting those considered “legitimate” journalists to those who are salaried employees or independent contractors for an established outlet.<br />The Obama administration has been working with Senate leaders on a compromise formula to find common ground between the House and Senate versions, but it has remained on the back burner since last fall.<br />It seems self-evident that many freelancers and bloggers adhere to all the traditional values of journalism, but that professionalism is not evident to all.<br />For years, journalists from traditional print and broadcast institutions (aka mainstream media) questioned whether to consider bloggers as colleagues. An article for the Society for Professional Journalists in as late as 2006 framed it this way: “The controversy with Webloggers lies with accountability, accurate reporting and fair access to information. Some in the mainstream media question the truthfulness of blogging reports, while the bloggers themselves maintain they are an unheard, ubiquitous voice that filters missed opportunities by bigger media outlets.”<br />Occasions to rethink journalism and legitimacy follow one after another. Last weekend the Polk Award, one of journalism’s most cherished honors, was given for the anonymous video of the death of Neda Aghan-Soltan, who died during last year’s protests in Iran.<br />The idea of honoring the valor of a person in a crowd for using a cellphone camera to record an iconic news photo is unprecedented in the 61-year history of the awards, along with the category of “videography”. The image of the dying protestor was sent to at least two news organizations and quickly went viral on the Internet.<br />As more news organizations accept such “user-created content” in their reports, should so-called citizen journalists have the same access to press conferences, courtrooms and other meetings with elected officials?<br />Do they represent the public? Certainly many do and in an era of severe cutbacks in traditional media outlets, the public will need more and more information from fellow citizens operating as watchdogs of government and business.<br />But what if the citizen journalists represent a personal or perhaps hidden interest?<br />That question came up when a contributor to a suburban Chicago newspaper edition wrote an article praising the election campaign of a local candidate. The piece was printed, but days later the paper discovered the writer was also the candidate’s campaign manager. The paper created a policy insisting that citizen journalists must voluntarily declare if they have or might have a vested interest in the topic they are writing about.<br />Whether working for a recognized institution or striking out on their own to disseminate news and information, pairing the word legitimate with journalist has been a perplexing one. Back in 1996, Vigdor Schreibman was the first Internet-based journalist to apply for, and be denied, credentials to the Congressional press galleries. In 1995, Garrett Graff became the first full-time blogger to get White House press credentials. In both cases, the press associations were involved in the administration’s decision.<br />Merely writing for a newspaper, or appearing on television or radio does not mean the person is a journalist. Yet people commonly use the label freely, suggesting that anyone who reports or repeats some bit of news may consider himself or herself a journalist.<br />There is not, after all, any test to take, no licensing exam (at least not in this country) to pass, no government council (as there is in Britain and Australia) or private body to determine whether the person is reporting responsibly. There was consternation, for instance, when the FCC decided to describe Howard Stern as a journalist. Whatever their sympathies, I suspect that most reporters and editors oppose a government authority deciding who is or is not a journalist.<br />Writers and photographers without accreditation from any institution may be among the best journalists by their desire to discover and disseminate the truth. After working for the networks for several years, Kevin Sites took his own video camera to document wars around the world. After becoming a one-man operation for both words and images, Sites found a home for his work called the “Hot Zone” on Yahoo.com and picked up numerous journalism awards along the way.<br />Yes, there are standards and ethical practices that journalists learn either on the job or at school. There are many journalism and/or communication schools in the nation’s public and private universities and enrollment there, despite the decline the newspaper industry, is blooming. (Full disclosure here, I am also a lecturer at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism.)<br />The best guarantee of good journalism is not only the writing but the editing or vetting of a story before it is published or aired. Traditionally, or at least the tradition of the last 100 or so years, has been verifying or testing the facts and events. That came to the news industry in search of some credibility after the age of “Yellow Journalism,” when media barons used their newspapers to support one political cause or another.<br />Despite more recent political howling about bias on one side or another, the practice of journalism during much of the Twentieth Century was to seek independent verification of events and test observations with multiple sources.<br />That is the kind of work done not just in the news pages but even among opinion writers such as Thomas Friedman in The Times who are journalists employed to use their own reporting ability and experience to provide informed opinion.<br />Of course, there are also columnists whose opinion is not based on journalism principles but on political sympathy. Appearing on the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page, for instance, former adviser to President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, writes his heavily politicized commentary. I would no more call him a journalist than I would use that word to describe Garrison Keillor, the leftist humorist and usual Democratic supporter, who’s syndicated column appears regularly in the Chicago Tribune.<br />Brian Williams of NBC maintains a traditional position within the mainstream media, but Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN, was a journalist who gradually turned into an advocate for restrictive immigration policy and possibly will become a political candidate. He is a journalist no longer.<br />Two stalwarts of the print media co-authored a book back in 2001 titled “The Elements of Journalism,” echoing the name of the classic book on good writing “The Elements of Style”. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel aimed at setting out some pretty basic principles of journalism.<br />The pair stayed away from repeating words such as “fairness” and “balance,” along with the other overused journalistic words, “objective” and “neutral.”<br />Instead, Kovach and Rosentstiel came up with these nine principles:<br />1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.<br />2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.<br />3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.<br />4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.<br />5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.<br />6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.<br />7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.<br />8. It must keep the news interesting and proportional.<br />9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.<br />A discussion of what each of those principles entails would be worth having in every journalist’s newsroom and classroom. Just take the “discipline of verification” and see that verifying or checking it out is the basis for fair reporting.<br />Applying those principles to the general’s question of “Who is a legitimate journalist,” may be a better, if not an easier, method of coming up with an answer. Good journalists don’t need an institution to define them. The best reporting is based more on a reputation of honesty and the continuing work of the individual for truth-telling.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-21158680033552482522010-02-22T09:00:00.018-06:002010-02-22T09:25:51.556-06:00Game ChangeEven the most tried and true political junkie would have a hard time arguing that the 2008 presidential election demanded one more post mortem analysis. Yet journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin deliver just this in their recently released 436-page juicy collection of largely rehashed tidbits of the soap opera that yielded the historic victory of Barack Obama. They elevate Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin as the co-stars of this made for TV event, but one could argue that the media itself should garner nominations for their role as supporting actors.<br /><br />A gripping page-turner even if the story lines are all too familiar, <a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061966200/Game_Change/index.aspx"><em>Game Change</em></a> (2010, Harper Collins) is also all that is wrong with contemporary journalistic coverage of politics. True, we learned of candidate Obama's mettle and John McCain's meltdown in the midst of financial crisis, but we also delved deep into the marriages of the Obamas, McCains, and yes, the Clintons once more. We sifted through the savory details of John Edwards' own "bimbo eruption," along with his deranged vision to serve first as Obama's VP, and later his Attorney General. Altogether, <em>Game Change</em> elevates the horse race aspect of politics to its pinnacle, ignoring candidate resumes and policy positions for their gravitas on the trail.<br /><br />The first 267 pages are devoted to the two horse photo finish between Democratic contenders Obama and Clinton . The current president comes off as cool under pressure, while Clinton seemingly fell victim to a poorly managed campaign and a self-destructive husband whose late game antics bordered on race-baiting. So much for Bill Clinton's reputation as the "first black president." Hillary was both unable and unwilling to reign her husband in, but she is painted as a sympathetic figure who would have served capably as chief executive.<br /><br />The Republican primary, remarkable in its own right, garners a mere 50 pages. Perhaps the most interesting anecdotes relate to McCain's decision to bet the entire race on his support for the Iraq surge and New Hampshire town halls. Also interesting was the Republican field's mutual dislike for Governor Mitt Romney, the early favorite for the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022103689.html">2012 nomination</a>. An awkward pre-debate bathroom scene paints the picture of a candidate who couldn't even connect with his party rivals.<br /><br />Perhaps most illuminating is the authors' portraits of the vice presidential selection process by both candidates. For Obama, after a meticulous screening, it came down to Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, and the ultimate selection, Delaware Senator Joe Biden. The verbose statesman agreed to stick to the script as a condition of joining the ticket, and a late race slip aside, he mostly accomplished what many considered the impossible.<br /><br />McCain, on the other hand, pursued a by the seat of his pants strategy typical of his personality. He favored crossing the aisle and selecting Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman as his wingman in a double-down national security team. This may have even included a one-term promise to make certain that control of the presidency wouldn't change parties in the case of his death in office. Concerns about further alienating the conservative base led his selection team away from the losing 2000 VP candidate. The safe option was Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (a prospective 2012 candidate in his own right), but the unknown son of a truck driver from a blue state didn't represent the "game change" McCain sought, and probably needed to pull off the upset.<br /><br />He then shocked the world by elevating first term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the VP perch. She was a late entry who impressed McCain's selection team with her steely nerves, but damaging details surfaced almost immediately as the press "discovered" the 49th state, Troopergate, and Bristol Palin's pregnancy. She delivered a stunning speech at the Republican convention, but it was all downhill from there, punctuated by her successive slayings in national interviews by Charlie Gibson, and especially, Katie Couric.<br /><br />It's an understatement to say that Palin's portrayal in the media throughout the campaign and in the 15 months since Election Day has been disastrous, but <em>Game Change</em> delivers yet another devastating blow. She was clearly in over her head, surrounded by stacks of notecards containing factoids that should have been old hat to any candidate aspiring to stand a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Her debate preparations for her single standoff were startling in their elementary nature. She refused to even eat, and some in the campaign feared that she might have to at minimum cancel, or even withdraw from the race entirely.<br /><br />Only a late flight to McCain's Sedona ranch and a reunion with her family boosted her spirits. Palin somehow survived her exchange with the seasoned Biden as both played gently and spared the race of yet another "game change." Her endurance aside, even Palin's most devoted fans would have a hard time believing that she remains presidential timber, at least at this juncture, after encountering this troubling account.<br /><br />The authors selected an apt title for this best-selling volume, but it probably should be reworded in the plural. The thesis isn't premised on a single game change, but several. What they put forth is a campaign narrative constructed by the media. Whenever this script is altered, a "game change" supposedly surfaces.<br /><br />Obama's Iowa win made him the inevitable candidate until Clinton came back in New Hampshire five days later. The former Illinois Senator had the nomination wrapped up in February after a string of post-Super Tuesday wins, yet Clinton found traction once more with wins in Ohio and Texas. Obama's "race speech" stood as a defining moment until Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. Obama sealed the deal with a victory in the North Carolina primary and a narrow defeat in Indiana on the same day, but Clinton won the West Virginia primary by a stunning 40 points. To quote Yogi Berra, this race wasn't over until it was over, no matter how many times the talking heads told us so. And this was just one side of the coin.<br /><br />While I confess that <em>Game Change</em> was a thrilling read for this incorrigible junkie, it also speaks to a media culture that revels in its own self-importance and plays a disproportionate role in political outcomes. The "media primary" is alive and well as the party has largely stepped aside and left it to the pundits to vet would be office-seekers over the course of a protracted campaign. Its positioning in the general election was equally pivotal, and probably a sign of things to come in 2012 and beyond.<br /><br />Heilemann and Halperin contend that <em>Game Change</em> coalesced on the dual assumptions that we witnessed "as riveting and historic a spectacle as modern politics has ever produced," and that the story behind these headlines was not told. No disputing the former contention, but the latter is highly debatable. We knew enough about Michelle and Barack, Hillary and Bill, John and Cindy, and Sarah and Todd to consider them close acquaintances. <em>Game Change</em> arguably elevates them to family, and allows two accomplished journalists to put their own presidential experiences to bed.<br /><br />Nowadays, all of the jokes in a romantic comedy are seemingly packed in the trailer. We flock into the movie theater, laugh a couple of times, but leave disappointed. <em>Game Change</em> represents a close parallel. Media coverage close to its release informed us of Harry Reid's racially-tinged missteps, John Edwards' mistress, and Bill Clinton's continued philandering. These revelations aside, <span style="font-style: italic;">Game Change</span> largely sticks to a familiar script. It offers a rich narrative of memories ingrained somewhere in the back of our brains. For the politically obsessed among us, it allows us to finally lay the game-changing 2008 presidential election to rest.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-48196010450027539472010-02-17T16:24:00.006-06:002010-02-17T18:02:41.660-06:00State Secrets?I'm torn. Secret governments or open governments? It doesn't seem like it should be a tough choice. I'm forced to think about this because of yet another important story from the Chicago Tribune. Today the Tribune reported that many of Illinois' 59 senators participated in a private (no members of the public or press were allowed) "joint caucus" to hear presentations on budgeting and the economy from national experts (<a href="http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/illinois-senate-meets-in-secret-today.html">http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/02/illinois-senate-meets-in-secret-today.html</a>). Legislative leaders from both parties claimed this gathering, while rare, is perfectly legal. Presumably they were silent on whether it violated good governance principles. It seems to me that once again, our elected officials are demonstrating their contempt for those they govern by acting in secret. Whether it's private meetings by the party leaders to determine the marching orders which become law with little or no public debate or endless denials of Freedom of Information Requests, Illinois elected and appointed officials routinely act as if they are our masters rather than our public servants.<br /><br />If I feel so strongly, why am I torn on this issue? Simply put, I'm fond of pointing out periodically that our founding fathers met in secret in Philadelphia during the Constitutional Convention. In fact, they went so far as to post guards and they closed windows (during a sweltering summer in a time before air conditioning) to enable that generation of leaders to speak frankly without worry that an eavesdropper or member of the press might embarrass them. This gathering yielded, arguably, one the greatest political documents ever written and the brilliant and dedicated men who wrote it recognized how politics might preempt their efforts and they took the bold, anti-democratic, step of debating in private. The results (save for the shameful compromise on slavery) were, in my mind, miraculous and a gift to mankind.<br /><br />With that said, I think the Illinois legislative leaders erred. We live in a time of deep discontent and dissatisfaction with government officials at the same time (or perhaps because of the fact) that government has never before in America had as much control over each of our lives than it does now. Our government is established "of the people, by the people and for the people" and to leave people out of vital discussions on budget and economic issues when the state is in deep debt and near fiscal ruin, simply doesn't serve Illinois citizens. The founding fathers got away with meeting in secrecy but it's important to note that they weren't operating under a law which mandates that government meetings be open to the public. These laws serve the vital purpose of exposing elected and appointed officials to the illumination of transparency - they help build confidence in the system by exposing logic and illogic, altruism and personal gain. Ultimately, transparency requires them to articulate their beliefs, ask their questions and vote in a way that their masters - the public - have a chance to measure their decisions and capabilities. Had the founders had such a law, I've no doubt that they'd have followed it though I acknowledge it might have changed their work-product.<br /><br />Of course, this isn't all theory. The practical impact of this is the precedent this sets for future legislative actions. What other secret meetings will be justified with the same rationale (a "joint caucus")? How far can they take it? It's important for each of us to decide for ourselves what we expect of our leaders and how we intend to hold them accountable. <br /><br />I vote for no more state secrets. How about you?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-31560282731378505522010-02-17T08:30:00.000-06:002010-02-17T08:30:00.629-06:00Disconnect<div></div>I have long admired the work of political scientist Morris Fiorina, for he manages to bridge the divide between academia and practical politics better than anyone else in the field. His three-decade old retrospective voting model remains a paramount explanation for individual voting behavior at a macro level. More recently, Fiorina confronted what he considers a false Red State-Blue State paradigm in <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Culture-War/Morris-P-Fiorina/e/9780321366061">Culture War</a>?, where he disproves that the 2004 presidential election was decided on "gays, God, and guns." <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.oupress.com/bookdetail.asp?isbn=978-0-8061-4074-2">Disconnect</a> (Oklahoma U. Press, 2009, 196pp) is the latest installment of a research project contending that political polarization is elite-driven and not reflected in the general electorate.<br /><br />His basic argument suggests that we correlate voters' decisions to back liberal and conservative candidates with ideological alignment, yet most of us don't hold extreme positions on any number of issues, abortion most prominent among them. Moreover, our worldviews lack the clarity of the political class, and we fail to line up uniformly behind ideologically coherent party platforms. Thus the "disconnect" between the wider electorate and the ruling political class.<br /><br />Fiorina attributes the current fiercely polarized political environment to a plethora of factors. While the regional sorting by party that encompassed Republican replacement of conservative Democrats in the South, and Democratic takeovers of seats formerly held by moderate and liberal Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest, explains about one-third of contemporary polarization, additional and less heralded factors account for the balance.<br /><br />Robert Putnam famously documents the decline of civic organizations in <a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.bowlingalone.com/">Bowling Alone</a>, and Fiorina argues that these heterogeneous and inclusive organizations were replaced by more homogeneous and exclusive single-interest groups. Abortion, environmental, and religious groups are among the most prominent examples. Rather than stimulating civic engagement and integrating their members into politics, these emerging groups fan the flames of partisan animosity and for the most part engage their members in mere check-writing causes to further their exploits.<br /><br />Fiorina also claims that the stakes of winning and losing have increased in today's political environment, further stoking partisan animosity. The irony is that the field of political science, the author included, long called for "responsible party government" where the two major parties offered distinctive platforms and upon victory implemented their entire agenda. Then, during the next election cycle, voters would be the ultimate judges of their success or lack thereof. Their writing accompanied the 1960's and 1970's when the two parties were relatively heterogeneous ideologically and their overall power in relative decline. <br /><br />The scene changed during the Reagan years and perhaps most prominently in 1994 when Republicans recaptured Congress for the first time in a generation, effectively nationalizing an election under the "Contract with America." Parties and partisanship returned in full force, alternating between unified party control and gridlock. In retrospect, Fiorina prefers the earlier era he once lamented, contending that it was at least friendlier and perhaps not less productive.<br /><br />Most disappointing is Fiorina's failure to illuminate means of breaking this partisan stalemate. Legislative redistricting, the merits of it withstanding, is by no means the panacea that many of its proponents lay claim. The same holds true for campaign finance reform. Fiorina even allows that it may perpetuate the problem given its protection of ideological incumbents. Party primaries, though the most often attract an unrepresentative sample of the electorate, yield little discernible difference in this respect when their open and closed varieties are placed side-by-side for the sake of comparison. <br /><br />Fiorina does offer the prospect that the hot issues of the day may soon recede into the rearview mirror of history. Among them are the lingering cultural clashes of the 1960's, the current anti-immigrant fervor, and the changing nature of what formerly constituted the "religious right." He also makes way for a transformational figure, and sincerely hopes that President Obama is that man. Early returns predict quite the opposite, as he may prove every bit the "divider" of his predecessor.<div></div>Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-44323572540897145512010-02-10T14:50:00.004-06:002010-02-10T15:37:03.075-06:00Life Support for Lieutenant Governor<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} span.holder {mso-style-name:holder;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> In the last quarter-century, 24 lieutenant governors have been promoted to chief executives of their respective states, 14 on account of the career advancements of their predecessors (see Clinton, Bill, and Bush, George W.), 5 due to scandal-imposed resignations (see Blagojevich, Rod), and the other 5 death-related. Since statehood, 7 Illinois Lieutenant Governors, Pat Quinn included, were elevated for various reasons.<br /><br />The modern office is a <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-lt-governor-why-20100204,0,79428.story">product of the revised 1970 state constitution</a> when the Lieutenant Governor position was forever tied to the candidacy of the gubernatorial candidate atop the ticket, avoiding split ticket scenarios like the one in 1968 that paired Republican Governor Richard Ogilvie with a Democratic Lieutenant, the iconic Paul Simon. From this point forward, the two candidates ran as a team, though they (mostly) ran independent of one another in the party primary that set the ticket. Moreover, they forever divorced the Lieutenant Governor from his or her perch as President of the State Senate, removing the last vestiges of formal authority tied to the office. He lays the crux of the current dilemma facing both parties in Illinois.<br /><br />It is important to acknowledge that these problems are not unique to Illinois. Wisconsin State Senator Alan Lasee <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-10-things-about-lieutenant-governors-pictures,0,2245897.photogallery">described the duties</a> of Lieutenant Governor as “…sitting around, waiting for the current officeholder to pass on or leave town.” Our federal system enables great variability across states, some allowing split tickets, others enabling gubernatorial candidates to select their own running mates, and a few doing away with the position altogether. <br /><br />The powers associated with the seat span from Texas’ elevation of the second-in-command to the co-equal of the chief executive, while others are left to languish in a spiral of pet projects and lost causes. While the vice presidency has risen in importance with the succession of accomplished and empowered number twos (Gore, Cheney, now Biden), most of their state counterparts occupy an office equivalent to what former Vice President John Nance Garner once said equated in worth to little more than a “bucket of warm spit.” Some suggest that history substituted “spit” for an even more unsavory word.<br /><br />The diminished profile of the Lieutenant Governor position in Illinois established, it should then come as little surprise that the race for the respective nominations of both parties drew little attention from the news media and voters alike until the fruits of our labors (of lack thereof) led to the elevation of two political neophytes, one with more than his share of personal baggage. The unsavory past of former Democratic nominee Scott Lee Cohen has been well-profiled elsewhere, eclipsing the victory of Republican nominee Jason Plummer, a 27-year old lumber company executive employed by his family’s firm. Both candidates spent lavishly and thus bested arguably more qualified candidates in crowded fields.<br /><br />Democratic State Representative Art Turner was endorsed by both major Chicago newspapers, while the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tribune</span> picked Republican State Senator Matt Murphy, and the <span style="font-style: italic;">Sun-Times</span> downstate Mayor Brad Cole. Murphy was Andy McKenna’s running mate and was just eclipsed by Plummer at the finish line, while Turner probably split votes with rival State Senator Ricky Herndon, allowing Cohen to vault ahead by flaunting his credentials as a “small businessman” and job fair host.<br /><br />The gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and county board races gulped their share of print headlines and broadcast features, a reflection of their political power and statewide prominence. The news media industry in a large metropolitan region like Chicagoland simply lacks the resources to cover downballot races, most often because of the multitude of districts that cut across their readership and broadcast reach. The Lieutenant Governor’s office, while claiming statewide scope, remains out of the limelight unless the Governor is indicted, imprisoned, or falls ill.<br /><br />It took only a day before Cohen’s triumph attracted its own share of the headlines and column inches. When it became clear that Governor Pat Quinn would be forced to run alongside an accused domestic-abusing, prostitute-attracting, steroid-using deadbeat dad, Cohen’s exit from the race was all but inevitable. Speculation over and the scramble for his eventual replacement is the story this week, but the larger issue of the position’s utility lingers in the snow-filled February air.<br /><br />State Representative Lou Lang has <a href="http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2010/02/legislation-would-allow-ill-candidates-for-governor-to-pick-their-running-mate/">proposed</a> that gubernatorial candidates hereafter select their own running mates just as President Obama picked Vice President Biden and Senator John McCain selected former Governor Sarah Palin. State Representative Bill Mitchell takes reform <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2039034,CST-NWS-ltgov10.article">one step further</a> and kills the position altogether. His constitutional amendment would terminate the office by 2011, saving the state an estimated $2.5 million annually.<br /><br />Before panic sets in amongst the electorate, five states already make do without the office (Oregon, Arizona, Wyoming, New Hampshire and Maine), and others are contemplating similar death knells, including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who would make the Secretary in State his next-in-line successor. I should also note that Illinois has “survived” without a Number Two since last February.<br /><br />In sum, the latest political crisis in Illinois is once more one of our own making. We can either A, reform the selection process through which we nominate lieutenant governors and/ or enhance the power of the position, or B, eliminate the office altogether. Otherwise, option C will continue to haunt us. Below the radar candidates will rise, their skeletons hidden in the closet until it is too late, battling for a meaningless office that rises to importance only because of its association with the candidacy of an elevated stripe that has a notorious track record for sending a series of placeholders to prison. Scott Lee Cohen and Jason Plummer thus stand as natural outgrowths of a disjointed and erroneously prioritized process.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-22042941534137743992010-02-04T11:38:00.010-06:002010-02-04T17:54:23.651-06:00Primary Postmortem<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> It’s perhaps fitting that the 2010 Illinois primary was held on Groundhog’s Day given that the outcome in both parties’ gubernatorial races remained uncertain through this morning with the prospect of mutual “do-overs.” Acknowledging that neither the Democratic nor Republican Party produced clear winners, and that a number of absentee and provisional ballots have yet to be counted, not the mention the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-count-recount-20100203,0,6101833.story">prospect of a “discovery” recount</a>, the balance of this piece will work with the assumption that incumbent Governor Pat Quinn will represent the Democrats this fall against Republican State Senator Bill Brady.<br /><br />Quinn is currently <a href="http://elections.chicagotribune.com/results/">a little more than 8,000 votes</a> ahead of Comptroller Dan Hynes, who <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/dan-hynes-concession-illi_n_449231.html">conceded and pledged his support</a> to the incumbent this morning. The incumbent emerges scarred from a brutal two-way brawl marred by negative advertising that arguably had the effect of turning potential voters off entirely. Two weeks ago, Quinn staggered as Hynes <a href="http://fanningtheflames.blogspot.com/2010/01/hail-mary-mudslinging.html">brought Harold Washington back from the dead</a> to question his executive competence, but Quinn counterpunched by accusing Dan Hynes of malfeasance in the Burr Oaks Cemetery scandal. The comptroller may have employed with the uppercut one week too soon as the governor appeared to regain his swagger in the final hours of the campaign, enough to cling to power for at least another nine months, as he struck the continual chord of “jobs” alongside a continued barrage of jabs at his opponent.<br /><br />However, it goes without saying that Quinn is a wounded incumbent in a year where they are ripe for the picking from coast to coast. He barely eked out a majority over an opponent who ran a relatively lethargic campaign, as Democratic primary voters sent a message that Quinn’s first year in office was wobbly at best. He has until November to further polish his credentials and restore the luster he carried into an office his two predecessors forever tarnished.<br /><br />Quinn’s strongest trump card may be the fact that his fall opponent is <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/2027875,republican-illinois-politics-governor-020410.article">still to be determined</a>. Brady leads fellow State Senator Kirk Dillard by a mere 400 votes, and a recount is probable. This could take weeks or even months, shattering Republican unity and undermining their best shot at the Governor’s Mansion in more than a decade.<br /><br />The six Republican candidates split the vote almost proportionately, with five of them exceeding 14% and Brady leading the pack at 20.3%, a tenth of a percent ahead of Dillard. Brady was the only downstate candidate and benefited from the fact that he owned the Land of Lincoln south of I-80, the Springfield area excepted. Three DuPage County candidates (Dillard, Jim Ryan, and Adam Andrzejewski) and two Chicagoans (Andy McKenna and Dan Proft) fought fiercely on regional turf and diluted one another’s support.<br /><br />The Republican race was characterized by funding shortfalls across the board with the exception of former state party chairman Andy McKenna. A late entrant to the race, he aired clever ads early on, playing off of Rod Blagojevich’s ridiculous pompadour as symbolic of Springfield corruption, to raise his statewide profile. With name recognition came a reciprocal rise in the polls, and McKenna then turned on his top challengers, first relegating Ryan to and out-of-the-money fourth place finish and then pivoting to Dillard late in the race when internal polls predicted a late charge.<br /><br />While McKenna secured only a costly third place show for himself, he sent Ryan into a second political retirement and likely forced Dillard to fight for victory in the courtroom. Meanwhile, Brady built a strong southern turnout operation and vaulted himself unscathed into an apparent below-the-radar, come-from-behind victory, leaving Chicago area residents to ask yesterday in unison, “Who is this guy?”<br /><br />I’ll recuse myself from making a premature November prediction and conclude by lamenting the low voter turnout witnessed statewide on Tuesday. Sure, the <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/2023997,CST-NWS-brown02.article">early primary date</a> and two inches of snow share partial blame, as the state power brokers recognized the incumbency advantages of mid-winter polling first established to propel the favorite son presidential candidacy of Barack Obama. Also in play is the record voter turnout in the fall 2008 election, inflating voter registration lists and making Tuesday’s showing appear proportionately small.<br /><br />I would suggest that the largest factor was a slate of candidates, particularly at the top of the ticket, who failed to inspire and whose nominees have much to prove in the nine-month slog to the general election that lies ahead of this February fog. Haven’t we witnessed this before?Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-33682887576340153502010-01-27T10:59:00.006-06:002010-01-27T11:20:53.141-06:00Hail Mary Mudslinging<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> Last Monday, I spent Martin Luther King Day at the <a href="http://www.dusablemuseum.org/">DuSable Museum of African-American History</a> on Chicago’s South Side. While perusing the <a href="http://www.dusablemuseum.org/exhibits/details/a-slow-walk-to-greatness-the-harold-washington-story/">exhibits</a>, I came across a lifelike, robotic Harold Washington seated in an office modeled after his city hall digs while he served as Mayor of Chicago from 1983-1987. In separate segments he speaks about the racially divisive campaign that ultimately elevated him into office, his tumultuous tenure as mayor during the so-called “Council Wars” period, and most strangely, his untimely death.<br /><br />It was in this light that I viewed the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/dan-hynes-slams-pat-quinn_n_432302.html">latest attack ad</a> to surface in the <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/2011272,CST-NWS-brown26.article">brutal battle</a> for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in Illinois. Pat Quinn, the incumbent, has racked up endorsements from prominent African-American elected officials in recent weeks, with Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. headlining the list. Quinn also accused his opponent, Comptroller Dan Hynes, of standing in the way of Barack Obama’s campaign for U.S. Senator in 2004 when he ran in a competitive primary where the eventual president prevailed.<br /><br />Hynes fired back in a big way with an ad that resurrected Mayor Washington from his grave, a reprisal in many ways similar to my experience at DuSable. The ad spliced clips from a 1987 Washington interview where he reflected upon the recent firing of then city revenue director Pat Quinn. He labeled Quinn as “totally and completely undisciplined” and who’s actions “almost created shambles in that department.” Washington goes on to say that Quinn’s appointment was “perhaps (his) greatest mistake in government.”<br /><br />Harsh words about Quinn, and a risky ploy by his opponent Hynes. Does the ad represent a “game change” in this late hour of the campaign? Only time will tell, with the primary a mere six days away and the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/ct-met-governor-poll-20100122,0,5568343.story">latest polls</a> showing Hynes closing in on Quinn and within the margins of error. The larger issue that I would like to address in the balance of this post is the greater context of negative advertising, and specifically those ads that invoke race as a wedge between candidates and votes. In the process, I will point to Hynes’ motivating factors in generating this controversial and decisively negative ad.<br /><br />Campaign conduct, and specifically televised advertising, was identified as one of five key factors that contribute to a civically disengaged populace in a 2008 <a href="http://mccormickfoundation.org/">McCormick Foundation</a> report titled <a href="http://mccormickfoundation.org/publications/civicdisengagement.pdf">Civic Engagement in our Democracy</a>. Modern day political advertising campaigns are increasingly dominated by negative and comparative ads, the latter focusing on opponents’ records, advocacy, and character, and difficult to distinguish from the former. Emotive images, voiceovers, and music tend to dominate these productions, and the opposition feels compelled to run equally “emotive” and “demagogic” responses, as the unanswered negative ad is often accepted as truth. <br /><br />In the end, the impulse to vote is dampened, especially among weak partisans. While campaign consultants are paid hefty incomes to hoist their candidates to victory, all of the electorate loses as our perception of politics is permanently tainted.<br /><br />Negative advertising with a racial component only heightens these tensions, but it is certainly not without precedent. The infamous <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y">Willie Horton ad</a> generated by supporters of Republican President George H. Bush in 1988 against his opponent, Democratic Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, dealt a damaging blow by depicting the prison furlough of a black inmate who went on a crime spree, capitalizing on racial fears associated with rampant crime.<br /><br />A lesser known <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIyewCdXMzk">1990 ad</a> in the reelection campaign of Republican Senator Jesse Helms in North Carolina explicitly invoked race. Dubbed the “white hands” ad, it tells the story of a white job candidate who was the “victim” of affirmative action policies supported by the Democratic nominee, former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gannt, an African-American himself, and opposed by his white opponent, Helms.<br /><br />Both Bush and Helms would go on to victory, and these ads are credited with paving their paths. Hynes is playing with similar fire, but rather than invoke race as a wedge issue to polarize the electorate along racial lines, he is seeking to dislodge a key demographic of the Democratic electorate, African-American voters, from supporting Quinn and perhaps moving his way in the late stages of the campaign. Hynes capitalizes on the martyr status of Harold Washington in Chicago’s black community to undermine the credentials of Quinn.<br /><br />Hynes’ fourth quarter Hail Mary Pass will either be caught miraculously in the corner of the end zone for a last second victory, or veer off course and be intercepted by Quinn. In all likelihood, the negative campaigning practiced by both camps will further dilute an already anticipated scant turnout next Tuesday, as voters choose between “bad,” “ugly,” or “none of the above.” The victor will emerge bruised and battered for the nine month general election campaign to follow and be considered by most as the “lesser of two evils.”<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Note: The McCormick Freedom Project is a nonpartisan organization that engages in educational activity and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.</span>Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com54tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-84071742304903810862010-01-20T13:07:00.004-06:002010-01-20T13:12:10.001-06:00What the Latest Boston Tea Party Means for the Land of Lincoln<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> One year after President Barack Obama took the oath of office and pundits declared the beginning of Democratic ascendancy, the national political landscape has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/us/politics/20assess.html">dramatically transformed</a>. Republican State Senator Scott Brown’s stunning victory over Attorney General Martha Coakley yesterday in the Massachusetts special election to replace the deceased liberal lion, Senator Edward Kennedy, represents a “shot heard around the world,” or at least the nation, as Obama and his Democratic Party face midterm grades this November. <br /><br />Illinois has party primaries of its own looming in less than two weeks, a verdict that sets the stage for a marathon that ends in November with statewide elections that will produce a new Governor and U.S. Senator, not to mention a host of freshman constitutional officers, state legislators, and local government officials. To what extent does Brown’s victory last evening foreshadow the short-term future of Illinois politics? Critical variables to consider include the passage of time, the responses of both parties, the extent to which statewide races are nationalized, and the quality of individual candidates’ campaigns. <br /><br />I would like to begin with the caveat that nine months is an eternity in politics. One need look no further than my opening line for words of caution. Should the economy continue its recovery, particularly through rising employment figures, President Obama and his Democratic Party will fare far better than recent electoral debacles in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia. <br /><br />Moreover, health care reform is front and center at this juncture. Brown’s victory places its <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011904426.html">passage in peril</a>, and Massachusetts voters, according to a <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html">Republican-commissioned poll</a>, shun the legislation, while a plurality voted for Brown to stop it dead in its tracks. Should the measure die, or even be resurrected and successfully signed into law, passions <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> subside and be directed toward other issues like job creation and financial reform to the benefit of Obama and the Democrats. <br /><br />Turning to the national parties and their state counterparts in Illinois, it is incumbent upon the Democrats to circumvent the blame game that has already begun in Massachusetts and turn to their larger test this November. They still retain the White House for at least three more years, control strong majorities in Congress (the shattering of the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate acknowledged), and also hold a majority of the nation’s governor seats and state legislatures. Losses in midterm elections of a presidency are not inevitable, but typical, and Democrats should focus on minimizing attrition and maintaining the balance of power in Washington and state capitols across the country. <br /><br />Republicans, on the other hand, must move beyond being the “party of no” (Brown campaigned as the 41st vote against health care reform), offering an affirmative agenda that tackles the major issues of the day: economic growth, deficit spending, financial reform, climate change, and yes, health care. New Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1994 is instructive, as it formulated a positive agenda that effectively nationalized a midterm election and yielded Republican control of Congress for the first time in forty years. <br /><br />The GOP must also field qualified candidates for offices up and down the ballot. The only way to leverage a national tidal wave in your direction is to have party members in position to benefit. Scott Brown is case in point. A little-known state senator leveraged national angst, local discontent, and a flailing campaign staged by his opponent to return his seat to Republican control for the first time since 1952 when Senator Henry Cabot Lodge lost to a young, charismatic congressman by the name of John F. Kennedy. <br /><br />In Illinois, the GOP has a plethora of candidates contesting the major statewide offices, but less representation at the local level. The party will have to ensure that candidates are slated for open seats after the February 2 primary to position itself for electoral fruits parallel to those borne by Brown. <br /><br />It is likely that the major statewide races in Illinois will attract national attention. The contest for who will fill President Obama’s former Senate seat is sure to be fierce, as Republicans will target this is a toss-up favoring the challenger, while Democrats will play defense to avoid embarrassment, not to mention a dwindling majority. Former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s trial beginning this summer will also draw an unfavorable spotlight on the state, at the same time highlighting the race to replace him. <br /><br />Further down the ballot, however, I expect local issues to predominate, although a similar anti-incumbent fervor could grip a state fed up with endemic corruption and fiscal crisis. Given that Democrats control all of the state’s constitutional offices and strong majorities in the legislature, the party runs of the risk of bearing the blunt of the blame for an angry electorate. <br /><br />The national landscape and positioning of political parties aside, former House Speaker Tip O’Neil’s contention that “all politics is local” still resonates. One cannot ignore the individual campaigns that candidates orchestrate over the course of the coming spring, summer, and fall. Republican Senate candidate and current Congressman Mark Kirk is a strong local example of this phenomenon. He won repeatedly in a district that voted for three consecutive Democratic presidents, fending off tough challenges in 2006 and 2008 through independent positioning and stellar fundraising. <br /><br />Back in Massachusetts, Martha Coakley ran an above-the-fray campaign that assumed she was a shoo-in from the day she won the Democratic nomination in December. Only late-breaking polls revealing a tightening race awoke her from her “long winter’s nap,” and late miscues further undermined her credibility with independents and even members of her own party. Calling former Red Sox great Curt Shilling a “Yankee fan” is the Illinois equivalent of accusing Mike Ditka of being a closet Packer backer. <br /><br />Illinois candidates would be wise to study the Bears’ roster in advance of their November midterm exam graded by state voters.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Note: The McCormick Freedom Project is a nonpartisan organization that engages in educational activity and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.</span>Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-60420203107611372552010-01-12T12:16:00.004-06:002010-01-12T16:31:39.826-06:00Sunshine: The Great DisinfectantIn my post last Wednesday titled "<a href="http://fanningtheflames.blogspot.com/2010/01/cook-county-wars.html">Cook County Wars</a>," I reviewed a <a href="http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/CookCountyReport12-10-091.pdf">paper</a> written by UIC Political Science Professor Dick Simpson and graduate student Tom Kelly. Their work was inspired by the relative dearth of information specific to roll call votes by the Cook County Board of Commissioners.<br /><br />This morning, I received a phone call from Courtney Greve, spokeswoman for the Cook County Clerk, and she told me that her office is working to improve this data deficit. Although Greve did not receive significant negative feedback on this front, the Clerk's office was in the process of updating their <a href="http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/Pages/default.aspx">web site</a>, and will begin by posting minutes from Commissioners meetings starting today. My quick perusal of the <a href="http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/countyboard/boardmeetings/Pages/default.aspx">site</a> suggests that they are off to a good start as today's <a href="https://agenda.cookctyclerk.com/Upload/Agenda_pdf_011210_45.pdf">agenda</a> is posted.<br /><br />Greve said that web site visitors will be able to access minutes from past meetings, and promises a more user-friedly format moving forward. This will include information by date and a common phrase to describe the primary subject discussed at a meeting, such as video slot machines, for example. Roll call vote tallies will be posted here, too.<br /><br />However, one caveat is in order: minutes from board meetings cannot be posted immediately. The commissioners themselves have the authority by law to review agendas and minutes after the fact, so eager residents will have a wait a few days afterward for the juicy details.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-78968678961530651412010-01-11T16:34:00.010-06:002010-01-11T17:27:52.105-06:00Prehistoric Print Endorsements?It's newspaper endorsement season once more, and the rival <span style="font-style: italic;">Chicago Sun-Times</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Tribune</span> have cooked up different recipes for eager readers and recalcitrant voters. With the February 2 state primary in Illinois inching ever closer, these major dailies clearly feel obligated to weigh in on what to date has been a muddled field, but to what effect? In an era of declining readership and a politically disengaged populace, do newspaper endorsements reflect little more than the proverbial tree falling in a desolate forest?<br /><br />I would suggest that there still is a place for newspaper endorsements, even if voters are unlikely to read them in print form, if at all. Research suggests that editorial endorsements do sway voters in political contests down the ballot. For example, the Tribune's endorsement of Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election likely had little impact on his historic victory, but their picks for comptroller and treasurer this morning may push <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-0111edit1jan11,0,7434328.story">little known candidates</a> S. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly, respectively, over the top.<br /><br />Moreover, in a truncated primary season like this one, political information is at a premium, and the newspapers provide arguably the most objective, accessible, and thorough source. Ten-second soundbytes on local television emphasizing only the most visible races like governor tell us little about who should be his second-in-command. Given that Pat Quinn currently resides in the Governor's mansion even though he was twice elected to a lesser position, the importance of this office and others cannot be overstated.<br /><br />On top of that, many of the primary fields are quite crowded with candidates assuming policy positions that are difficult to distinguish from one another. Editorial boards have the luxury of unencumbered face time with most of these office seekers, and separate the wheat from the chafe for those of us in search of shortcuts as we lead otherwise busy lives.<br /><br />For example, the Sun-Times selected <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/endorsements/1980076,CST-EDT-edit08.article">State Senator Kirk Dillard</a> from a crowded Republican gubernatorial field, and <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/endorsements/1978017,CST-EDT-edit07.article">Quinn</a> in a competitive contest with Comptroller Dan Hynes. They centered on Dillard's vast Springfield experience and ability to work across the aisle, and Quinn's steady hand since assuming the reigns a year ago from the impeached Blagojevich.<br /><br />The Tribune, on the other hand, offers up <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-100108gop-endorse-link,0,3243757.story">Andy McKenna </a>on the Republican side and <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0110edit2jan10,0,946502.story">refuses</a> to endorse either Quinn or Hynes for the Democrats. McKenna is elevated for his fiscal austerity and business background, while the Democrats are assailed for Quinn's failure to lead on political reform and budget balancing, and Hynes' refusal to take on entrenched interests and support pension reform.<br /><br />Where does this leave Democratic voters, you might ask?<br /><br />I would argue it exemplifies the role of editorial endorsements themselves. They are merely suggestive information pieces that voters can consult to shape their ballot box decisions. Surely they operate within a complicated matrix of other guideposts like political parties, peer networks, personal appeals, policy positions, social media outreach, and television, radio, direct mail, and Internet advertisements.<br /><br />I might add that this voter in waiting is eagerly anticipating the newspapers' take on who should lead the Cook County Water Reclamation District.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-56673839180980771402010-01-06T11:35:00.012-06:002010-01-11T09:55:55.777-06:00Cook County Wars<span style="font-style: italic;">Note: The McCormick Freedom Project is a nonpartisan organization that engages in educational activity and does not support or oppose any candidate for public office.</span><br /><br />During the mid-1980's, Chicago's city council evolved from a "rubber stamp" on mayoral priorities to an open battle that all but stymied African-American Mayor Harold Washington's reform agenda. He later co-opted former remnants of the machine constructed by a string of Irish-American mayors hailing from Bridgeport, and also fought for allies in aldermanic races that tipped the Council majority in his favor, effectively ending the so-called "Council Wars."<br /><br />Since February 2007, Cook County Board President Todd Stroger has presided over a "war" of his own as commissioners have battled over budgets, borrowing, and taxation. University of Illinois political scientists Dick Simpson, himself a former Chicago alderman, and Tom Kelly released a report last month titled "<a href="http://www.uic.edu/depts/pols/ChicagoPolitics/CookCountyReport12-10-091.pdf">Cook County Wars</a>" that details fourteen major divided roll call votes on the County Board since 2007. Their work is a great public service just 27 days removed from a primary where Stroger and others place their fate before voters in party primaries, as the Cook County Clerk does not post divided roll call votes on its <a href="http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/Pages/default.aspx">web site</a>.<br /><br />While the Chicago City Council has returned to its "rubber stamp" style under Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Cook County Board has moved in the opposite direction. For example, 46% of aldermen voted with Daley 100% of the time and another 14% voted with him more than 90% of the time. In contrast, only 4 of the 17 commissioners on the County Board voted with Stroger 100% of the time, and 10 districts, represented by 11 commissioners, voted against him more than 50% of the time.<br /><br />The center of controversy at the county level has been the elevated sales tax first proposed by Stroger in September 2007. By increasing the overall rate in some municipalities to 11%, it represented the highest sales tax in the nation. Stroger successfully eked through the increase the following March by a 9-8 through carrots and alleged sticks that included a threatened immigration crackdown. All Republicans joined the opposition, as did three Democrats. The latter chorus would grow in the intervening months.<br /><br />Commissioner Tony Peraica, Stroger's 2006 Republican opponent, led the first call for the repeal of the tax increase in July 2008, dubbing it Stroger's "corruption tax." It failed 7-10, as Democratic Commissioner Robert Maldonado now stood in defense of the increase.<br /><br />Gradually, evidence surfaced that the tax hike was harming business in suburban municipalities, and in March of last year the Board voted 12-3 to repeal a portion of the increase. Stroger vetoed the measure as state law at the time required an exceptional 14 out of 17 votes to override a veto. The first attempt failed 11-4, and the second 9-6 last June. Last July, the override sunk once more by an inflated 12-2 margin, with 1 member voting present and 2 absent. In September, the measure fell short by a single vote, 13-4.<br /><br />Last October, the state legislature amended the statute to reduce the number of votes required to override a veto from 14 to 11, in line with other counties across Illinois on a percentage basis (65%). On cue, the County Board voted on November 16 to reduce the county portion of the sales tax from 1.75% to 1.25% by a 12-5 margin. On December 1, Stroger's veto was finally overriden, though he did question the constitutionality of the new law and claimed that county health care services will be severely crippled by this eventual reduction in revenues. The decrease is set to take effect on July 1, 2010.<br /><br />This successful veto override was the first in the 179-year history of Cook County and stands as an ominous sign for Stroger and his dwindling supporters on the County Board. <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-poll-county-presidentdec11,0,1399687.story">Polling data</a> suggests that Stroger will not even win his party's primary next month, and Simpson and Kelly predict that "a number of commissioners who have steadfastly supported high county budgets and sales tax increases are likely to be defeated as well." The implications of the "county wars" transcend mere electoral politics, too: the reforms necessary to streamline county government and place it on a sustainable path lie in waiting.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-71436421715409710742009-12-28T14:50:00.007-06:002009-12-28T15:30:52.180-06:0040 More YearsMark Twain once said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." Democratic pundit James Carville is guilty of the same dire forecasts for his Republican counterparts in his new book <em><a href="http://books.simonandschuster.com/40-More-Years/James-Carville/9781416569893/excerpt_with_id/13182">40 More Years</a></em>. Just as conservatives were wrong to predict the collapse of the Democratic Party in 2004, Carville and his compatriots danced prematurely in the aftermath of successive victories in 2006 and 2008.<br /><br />This book was published over the summer months, and by fall the fallacies of its content were all too apparent. Republican gubernatorial victories in purple Virginia and bright blue New Jersey should temper further grandiose claims and force Carville and his friends on the left to look beyond the exceptional candidacy of President Obama.<br /><br />True, demographic trends favor the Democrats as the country becomes more racially diverse, and voters under thirty bleed blue. But New Jersey and Virginia are instructive of the fact that young voters remain an unreliable base, and independents are wild cards who cannot be taken for granted. Plus, political parties are not static creatures, but instead adaptive animals who adjust to emerging realities on the ground.<br /><br />Carville is also guilty of the political trick played by both parties, namely equating correlation with causation. Case in point is his use of economic data to show how Democratic presidents are better fiscal managers, all the while failing to distinguish outliers or detailing the policies that produce superior outcomes.<br /><br />Moreover, his proximity to the Clinton White House forces him to defend the 1993-2001 span with reckless abandon, blaming all errant trends on the Bushes who bookended the Clinton's two terms. The reality, as President Obama is fast learning, is that presidents don't enter the White House with a blank slate. More than anything, they are left to manage the legacies of their predecessors, particularly during the early years of their presidencies.<br /><br />The book represents a mass of contradictions. Carville is wont to cherry pick data that justify the conclusions he reaches prematurely, yet he blames the right for doctrinaire policymaking all the while citing the need to bridge the partisan divide. He was an adament supporter of then Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primary, and adheres to his belief that she would have been a better candidate and executive, preferring to play Monday morning quarterback and argue that it was Obama who ran a superior campaign. Yet Obama is the lynchpin of his argument that Democrats will dominate the political landscape for the next 40 years.<br /><br />Much of Carville's book is dedicated to linking all that is evil with George W. Bush and Republican control of Congress. I was left waiting for him to detail a positive agenda for the Democratic Party, and something resembling a platform for the future emerges in Chapter 13. Dubbed the "Real Deal," Carville's cookbook for Democratic dominance hinges on environmental policy, yet he is overtly vague about what form this might take. Health care and entitlement reform receive brief mention, but more than anything, he urges the Democrats to adopt policies contrary to central GOP tenets, namely supply side economics, neoconservatism, and the social policies of the Christian right. In sum, his "big ideas" were disappointingly small.<br /><br />It is clear that 40 More Years was written to profit from Democratic successes in 2008, massaging fierce partisans who want nothing more than a generation of dominance, and blinding them from the reality of a polarized, still competitive two-party system. Carville didn't anticipate criticism because this book isn't written to open minds or initiate a dialogue, but rather to cement the beliefs of a flock of folks who march with him in lockstep. It is this ideological echo chamber that breeds political excess, and will likely send our electorate searching for alternatives as soon as next fall. Carville's hypothesis is in danger of extinction even before the ink is dry.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-7597646014571316582009-12-21T10:00:00.001-06:002009-12-21T10:01:33.594-06:00Who Will Pay for News?News of the imminent closing of Editor & Publisher, the newspaper industry magazine, is definitely a sign of the times: there’s less and less of an industry to report on. <br />The staid and venerable trade publication could hardly keep up with the changes in advertising and circulation that have put traditional newspapers and magazines in freefall.<br />E&P has been around in one form or another since 1884. While it soberly reported on job changes and new technology, the editors also didn’t shrink from taking journalists to task, most notably for failing to question the rationale for the Iraq invasion.<br />But E&P became part of the story of the demise of the once-monopolistic newspaper industry; how even a trade publication cannot find the correct business model to remain profitable.<br />For several years now, newspaper and magazines have been laying off staff, paring pages and trying to devise ways to maintain regular readers and, hopefully, attract new ones. More than 15,000 journalists lost their jobs in 2009 alone. The New York Times, the gold standard of newspaper journalism, is reducing another 100 editorial positions by the end of the month. <br />Publishers and journalists have redesigned, redeployed and reinvented their products to attract younger audiences and entice advertisers who now spread their marketing dollars across a growing field of mostly electronic options. Last year, for the first time, more Americans got their news online than from newspaper and magazine subscriptions.<br />If the Internet is print publishers’ nemesis, they hope it also will be their savior.<br />One of the possible sources of revenue they are exploring is establishing pay walls for online access, or as it is often described, “monetizing digital content.”<br />Whether the fee is monthly or annually, so far only the Wall Street Journal, with its select audience of business readers, has been able to pull that off. Nonetheless, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. which publishes the Journal and many other newspapers, is convinced that fees are the future.<br />“The old business model based mainly on advertising is dead…,” Murdoch told an FCC workshop on journalism and the Internet earlier this month. “In the new business model, we will be charging customers for the news we provide on our Internet sites.”<br />Back in September, the giant news aggregator Google informed the Newspaper Association of America that it was developing a click-for-fee program, or a “micropayment” system, where subscribers could pay anywhere from one cent to several dollars for individual news stories or other access. (The original micropayment idea was really “micro” in the hundredths or thousandths of a cent form for individual items. Google applied for the patent in 2004.)<br />Google has the heft to create buzz on new ideas, including this one based on “Google Checkout”. So micropayment thoughts quickly took off among industry writers. Visions of Google not only aggregating news but putting together “packages” of publications and seamlessly charging credit cards danced in their heads.<br />An analogous model for selling by the piece was Apple’s I-tunes, which developed the idea of paying for a single song for 99 cents that you could download on your computer. That was an amazing step, considering that not long ago, the music industry only allowed these options: turn on the radio or buy a record (or tape or CD) to listen in your own home.<br />Along the way, the Internet transformation saw computer users downloading music, legally and illegally, in various forms. Now downloading and sharing via MP3 players, laptops and cell phones makes it hard to imagine anything that limits choice. <br />Choice is the significant word in news as well as music. A major stumbling block to traditional newsgathering publication is that consumers are willing to pay only if there is a no alternative. So far, there are plenty of alternatives.<br />Despite the hope of finding a viable way to make newspapers profitable, I doubt there will ever again be just one business model to rely upon. <br />In a report titled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism,” Leonard Downie and Michael Schudson listed several possible avenues to re-energize the industry. <br />Not everyone will agree with their recommendations, but among the authors’ suggestions:<br />1. Changing IRS regulations to allow news organizations to operate at non-profit operations and received tax-deductible donations.<br />2. Encourage private philanthropists and foundations to support local news reporting.<br />3. Alter the philosophy of public radio and television to include more locally-oriented programming.<br />4. Encourage more universities and colleges to participate in news reporting activities following the lead of top journalism schools (including Northwestern University, where I teach) that report on community news and conduct their own investigations, what the authors call “accountability journalism.”<br />5. Create a national fund for local news using money from the FCC or broadcasters and others that use public airwaves. <br />The report, commissioned by the Columbia University School of Journalism, also suggests that journalists as well as governments increase the use of information collected by all levels of government and show readers how to access their public databases.<br />There is, obviously, no monopoly on gathering or distributing news. Along with millions of other news consumers, I am now accustomed to discovering for myself what I consider newsworthy.<br />I used to rely solely on the serendipity of newspaper or magazine editors selecting, editing and publishing. I might hear headlines on the radio or see a brief visual segment on television, but that only drove me to the print version of events for a fuller, more contextual, explanation.<br />Now I get less from print. I still enjoy the tactile feel of a newspaper, but I no longer think it sufficient and certainly not timely. Instead, I pick up news from alerts sent to my cell phone, from e-mails and links on social networks such as Facebook.<br />I scan the Internet not only for news but background information. I use links to go to original sources and to read or hear the cacophony of opinion. I suspect I am a fairly typical Internet user and, though the number of news publications has declined dramatically, the number of online newspaper readers has increased. <br />The overall impact on democracy isn’t yet clear. There is certainly more diversity of news and opinion; interactivity allows more awareness of events and government decision-making. <br />The Internet’s immediacy broadens an awareness of events around the globe. The protests after Iran’s allegedly fraudulent election, for instance, may have been reported by the correspondents who were still in the country, but they would not have had the “crowd-sourcing” impact of all the cell phone photos and text messages that were sent out while the demonstrations were underway.<br />Negatively, I believe, the problem of traditional news media’s decline is the lack of a common narrative about events and decisions. Readers and viewers may have disagreed with each other about what they saw or listened to, but they were all exposed to the same reports. The fracturing or diffusion of news and information now has many choosing to read or see only what they already are comfortable reading or seeing.<br />If nothing challenges beliefs or preconceptions, then the notion of common goals or understanding common threats is in danger.<br />Established publications seek a model that pays for an infrastructure that already exists, while others are appealing to non-profit and other civic foundations to subsidize or underwrite new, quality journalism. Is there salvation in philanthropy?<br />The large foundations, including the McCormick Foundation, and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation have been providing grants for many newsgathering operations. The new Chicago News Cooperative received its initial funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. These grants and programs are pushing ahead with new journalism models, including online news sites, local investigative projects, community or ethnic news services, and national or statewide investigative news operations. <br />Many of these may be boutique efforts that I doubt will be a panacea for traditional mass circulation publications, but they are broadening the public perception of newsgathering and the responsibility of citizens to inform themselves.<br />As for direct government sponsorship, there are many doubters (Murdoch called it a “chilling” suggestion) that governments provide public assistance to keep publications alive. <br />Still, there may be merit in using tax write-offs, employing the British model for the BBC, or relying on something similar to the U.S. government’s partial funding of public radio and television.<br />Many business and community models have been tried with limited success. The Pew Center for Civic Journalism funded pilot programs as early as 1993. Still, the search for a new business model is moving to ever newer combinations.<br />In addition, there is more than one storyline here. While large city newspapers are depressed and dying, a more optimistic picture is seen in community and small town publications. They have suffered reductions, but not near their big-city cousins. The reasons are worth exploring in a later posting.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-46063215991881131072009-12-17T09:50:00.011-06:002009-12-17T11:27:01.695-06:00Swinging Senators to BeSeven more shopping days until Christmas, and a mere forty more until voters must make their Election Day decisions for who will represent the Democratic, Republican, and Green parties on the ballot next November in Illinois. Yesterday's attendees of the <a href="http://www.ulcc.org/">Union League Club</a>'s Democratic U.S. Senatorial Candidate Forum were treated to a delectable selection of candidates largely in agreement on the issues of the day, but whose words and actions show little evidence that they have been infected by the holiday spirit.<br /><br />In their respective four corners, the four candidates vying for the Democratic senatorial nomination include State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, Chicago Urban League President Cheryle Robinson Jackson, and commercial litigator Jacob Meister. Giannoulias, a mere 33, has served as treasurer since 2007, and before that was vice president of family-owned Broadway Bank. Hoffman was inspector general the past four years and also boasts experience as an assistant U.S. attorney and Supreme Court clerk. Jackson has been with the Urban League since resigning as Governor Rod Blagojevich's press secretary after his first term in office. Meister worked previously as a congressional staffer.<br /><br />Giannoulias struck early at probable Republican nominee U.S. Representative Mark Kirk by tying him to former President Bush's "failed" economic policies. As state treasurer, he boasts of a record of consumer advocacy and economic development. Giannoulias celebrated his refusal to accept campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees (PACs), then went on with a story about "Tim and Susan," a husband and wife he allegedly met on the campaign trail who have fallen on hard times and stand as a microcosm of what plagues the country and the rationale for his candidacy.<br /><br />Hoffman suggests that this campaign is about who voters trust to be a strong and effective leader. In Illinois, he claims, the system works for those with political clout and hefty campaign war chests. Hoffman prods us to examine the character of those who we elect, and touted his credentials as a member of the Illinois Reform Commission, plus that fact that he has no ties to Blagojevich nor his financier Tony Rezko.<br /><br />Jackson, in her position at the Urban League, is "on the front lines and in the trenches." She shifted the organizational focus from social services to economic development, and from this vantage point witnessed the first signs of the recent recession. She listed early childhood education, access to health care, and investment in women as the issues closest to her heart.<br /><br />Meister has premised his campaign on "experience and purpose," and calls his 2020 jobs plan the "most comprehensive in the race."<br /><br />What follows is an issue-by-issue synopsis of the candidate's answers to a laundry list of questions posed by Union League Club moderator Chris Robling and members of the audience.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Economic Development</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Tax credits for businesses who hire new employees, a pay roll tax holiday for workers.<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Need to distribute stimulus funding immediately and encourage banks to lend to small businesses.</li><li>Jackson: Help small businesses with cash flow, focus on job training.</li><li>Meister: Develop green technologies and industries.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Financial Reform</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Create a "living will" for failing institutions.<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Focus on consumer protection.<br /></li><li>Jackson: Oversight and regulation a must, would create a consumer protection financial oversight agency.<br /></li><li>Meister: House legislation a good start, but should also regulate derivatives and further separate banking and securities.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Health Care</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Spent the bulk of this segment railing on Hoffman for investing in banks and later critiquing them.<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Countered with Giannoulias' association with Broadway Bank, one the "worst-performing institutions in the country."<br /></li><li>Jackson: The health care crisis must be addressed now, as current cost trends are simply unsustainable.<br /></li><li>Meister: Supports national health care which will help offset some of the legacy costs borne by the flailing auto industry.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Public Option</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Supports, and predicts it would create competition and rid system of waste.<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Supports system of universal coverage, and critiques Kirk's vote against lowering prescription drug costs.<br /></li><li>Jackson: Yes, to drive down costs and compete with private providers, but also to emphasize outcome-based medicine.<br /></li><li>Meister: "Absolutely"--lack of competition locks people out of the current system.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Thomson Detention Center</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Need to close Guantanamo, and Thomson is largely unused. Must address national security concerns, but we shouldn't engage in fear mongering (alluding to Kirk).<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Attacks Giannoulias for his youth, the fact that he's held only two jobs, one of them at his family's bank, and the fact that he couldn't protect the peoples' money while overseeing the Brightstar college savings program as treasurer.<br /></li><li>Jackson: The question is what's best for Illinois, and she responds with an unequivocal "yes."<br /></li><li>Meister: Touts the creation of 2,500-3,000 jobs, and therefore considers a "win-win" for Illinois and the nation.</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Unemployment</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Need to extend unemployment benefits.<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Banks must begin lending again, and the federal government should secure state safety nets.<br /></li><li>Jackson: Invest in emerging industries, better train our existing workforce, and improve our schools.<br /></li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Afghanistan</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: Supports the policies of the Obama Administration; cites the need to also focus on Pakistan and pursue an integrated approach in the region that transcends mere military force; considers a timetable for withdrawal "necessary."<br /></li><li>Hoffman: Against the recent escalation, but admits that the US must remain in the region. Sees Obama's new strategy as an expansion of our mission, with no form commitment for withdrawal.<br /></li><li>Jackson: Opposed expansion, and considers our national priorities flawed. Invasion is the wrong approach.<br /></li><li>Meister: Supports our president and the troops, and reminds us not to forget about Pakistan. Withdrawal should protect our "vital interests."</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">Middle East Peace Process</span><br /><ul><li>Giannoulias: First priority is the safety and security of the Israeli people; then, isolate Hamas and work to build a moderate alternative organization to represent the Palestinian people.<br /></li><li>Hoffman: A two-state solution is necessary, and the U.S. must play an active leadership role in this process, prodding both sides to make concessions.</li></ul>From a global perspective, this debate was clearly a standoff between Giannoulias and Hoffman. The latter's implied barbs drew direct fire from the former, which spawned <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-senate-debatedec17,0,4321093.story">repeated jabs throughout the balance of the debate</a> that served to distract the candidates and audience from the issues before them. Jackson and Meister preferred to stay above the fray. The proverbial elephant in the room was Mark Kirk, who drew the ire of both Giannoulias and Hoffman.<br /><br />Hoffman delivered the most compelling performance of the quartet, though he did come off an unnecessarily mean at times. Giannoulias nailed his talking points and did nothing to undermine his <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-poll-senate-14-dec14,0,5398298.story">frontrunner status</a>. Jackson, on the other hand, asked the moderator to repeat questions a handful of times, even after the other three candidates has responded, and then proceeded to stammer through her responses. Meister read directly from his briefing book, but showed sporadic flashes of brilliance, all the while invoking hand gestures off kilter with his words.<br /><br />While voters may have visions of sugar plums currently dancing in their heads, the Senate primary will follow the holiday hangover. It's never too early to pick a horse in this after Christmas sale with well-stocked shelves.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-71321115608093541362009-12-14T10:55:00.010-06:002009-12-14T12:53:51.350-06:00Canvassing in Cyberspace<a href="http://twitter.com/DanHynes">Via Twitter</a>, Illinois Comptroller and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Dan Hynes likes Notre Dame's hire of Brian Kelly as head football coach and hopes he brings the school their first national championship in more than two decades.<br /><br />On his <a href="http://www.danrutherford.org/">home page</a>, State Senator Dan Rutherford and treasurer candidate just sent "Bonnie," his Pontiac with 315,000 miles, to the "recycler in the sky" and replaced her with another of the same make, "Pongee."<br /><br />Current State Treasurer and Senate wanabe Alexi Giannoulias is more direct in his courting of digital voters, urging them to "Get involved in the campaign by donating, volunteering, writing a letter to the editor or suggesting our <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Alexi-Giannoulias/11436854110">Facebook page</a> to your friends."<br /><br />The common denominator here is that the social media tactics critical to President Obama's victory last fall have <a href="http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/nov/30/local/chi-ap-il-illinoise-campaig">trickled down to state-level races in Illinois</a> and bridged the partisan divide.<br /><br />Republicans have scurried to level the netroots landscape in light of the dramatic shift of young voters (18-29) to the Democratic Party. Candidates of all stripes seek low-cost means of mobilizing supporters in a primary season that straddles the holidays and where turnout in the February 2nd election is expected to be lackluster at best.<br /><br />They negotiate a fragmented media environment where target audiences are elusive and expensive to reach via traditional techniques. More than anything, they exploit an all-of-the-above approach, broadcasting a personalized message that they hope will resonate with faceless partisans on the other end of a wireless connection, the latest manifestation of the candidate-centered campaign.<br /><br />The jury is still out on the effectiveness of an integrated social media platform, but there are numbers to support the democratizing impact of these tools on political consumers. According to data from the National Conference in Citizenship's <a href="http://www.ncoc.net/index.php?tray=series&tid=top5&cid=2gp54">2009 Civic Health Index</a>, the "civic engagement gap" is narrower for those who utilize online tools. They collectively undermine the so-called "democracy divide" where engagement is tied to educational achievement and income, adding to the diversity of political participants. Social media tools provide more organic, less-structured, grass-roots opportunities for civic engagement, and these are especially important during recessional times when formal institutional structures crumble.<br /><br />On many measures of civic health, Illinois fares poorly in comparison to the national average, but state citizens are 7% more likely to use new media tools to stay informed and get involved. According to the <a href="http://www.freedomproject.us/files/pdf/IL2009CHI-FINAL_FINAL.pdf">Illinois Civic Health Index</a>, a state counterpart to the aforementioned national survey, 63% of Illinoisans generally follow news about government and public affairs. Nearly a quarter (22%) of state residents report using the Internet on a weekly basis to gather information about politics, a social issue, or a community problem, while 25% have watched a candidates' speech online. Twenty-three percent have watched an online video in support of or opposition to a presidential candidate.<br /><br />Truth be told, the Digital Age is still in its early reaches, especially as far as political outreach goes, and experimental reigns. By comparison, Ronald Reagan was arguably the first president to master the Television Age even though it was at least thirty years in the making. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean elevated the promise of digital media during his dark horse and ultimately unsuccessful bid for the Democratic president nomination in 2004. Barack Obama certainly took it to another level and has continued his use of social media tools as a means of governance, from maintaining a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog">White House blog</a> to using <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/11/weekly-address-learning-history-reform-wall-street">YouTube</a> to broadcast his weekly addresses. His meteoric rise shook the political world, and fellow office seekers have since sought to capture the same "lightning in a bottle."<br /><br />Questions remain about the uniqueness of the Obama candidacy and the degree to which social media success can be duplicated at lower levels of office. One could argue that the "rock star" status of our national candidates lends itself favorably to celebrity tweets along these lines, but does a comptroller or county coroner candidate have similar Facebook appeal? On the other hand, given the smaller campaign war chests at the state and local level, not to mention the resonance of "front porch" issues in these campaigns, a personal touch from a hometown candidate may be the modern equivalent of door-to-door canvassing.<br /><br />While the jury contemplates the verdict on these counts, the candidates continue to post movie reviews and dinner recipes, voting overwhelmingly in favor of Web 2.0.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-3588983322676727552009-12-11T09:00:00.000-06:002009-12-11T09:00:00.587-06:00Flags, Heroes and the Rest of UsSo, to be clear right from the start, I like the result. Actually, I love the result. What's not to love about a highly decorated veteran winning the right to fly the flag for which he fought, in front of his own home, against the preferences of a bureaucratic homeowners association? (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904393.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120904393.html)</a>. That's a great story that people of all backgrounds and political persuasions can support. <br /><br />What I worry about is: What happens to someone who hasn't won the Medal of Honor when his or her <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">homeowners</span> association tells them to take the flag down? What if the facts were a little different and a decorated veteran wanted to protest the troop surge in Afghanistan by flying an American flag upside down? What if it was a non-veteran flying an anti-war flag? What if was me flying a Chicago Bears flag (Packer fans can keep their comments to themselves)? <br /><br />Those of you in-the-know will respond (partially) correctly that the First <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Amendment</span> doesn't apply to homeowners associations because they aren't state actors. To be precise, Congress passed legislation which allows homeowners in associations to fly the American Flag provided they follow the guidelines of the association (presumably the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">association</span> must have reasonable regulations permitting American flag flying). Furthermore, the State of Illinois (and perhaps other states) has explicitly incorporated First Amendment protections in its public act which governs condominium associations. It's fair to point out that these are exceptions and, generally speaking, when one buys into a homeowners association, that person freely enters into a contract which subjects him or her to non-governmental oversight. I don't dispute this and in fact, I regularly argue in favor of personal property rights (an association of homeowners has vested property rights which they openly protect with rules, bylaws and declarations). I also believe that people are free to buy into these associations - or not - and to participate in the governance process which can establish & repeal rules, etc.<br /><br />So, what's the problem? Well, I'm on the board of an association, elected just last week, and I served on another in the early 90s so I have a sense for how they act. Simply put, they act like what they are...governments. There's really no getting around it. They are obligated to tax, spend, legislate and enforce rules, all for the common good. So, if they are a government in fact, without respect to what we call them, then I believe they should be held to the most fundamental principles to which our <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">governing</span> bodies are held. Among these are the five freedoms protected in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. With a nod toward reality, I'd even accept the compromise of enforcing First Amendment protections on political speech, press, petition, assembly and religious freedoms rather than the broader protections of commercial speech, press, etc (enabling associations to regulate the truly important issues like paint color and grass height, perhaps even Chicago Bear flags). <br /><br />When I ran for my condo board, I was a bit embarrassed by the atrocious quality of my own <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">handwriting</span> on the candidate form that the association distributed, so I drafted my own letter and distributed it door-to-door along with a proxy form. I signed my name, provided contact information and tried to be a good candidate - provide my qualifications without slighting other candidates or making promises I couldn't keep. I was proud of my work and my <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">commitment</span> to participate in the governing body that would, as a practical matter, have the greatest impact on my life. My moment of civic pride was dashed upon receiving an admonishing e-mail from the building manager who, at the direction of the board (my guess is just one or two board members) that my distribution of election material was in violation of the association rules requiring prior board review and approval (known as prior restraint, which is typically severely limited in its usage in the real world). One of the board members who would have had an opportunity to pass judgment on my material was one of my opponents. After my research and overcoming my extreme frustration and because there was no meaningful warning of a fine or other <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">repercussions</span>, I simply reminded the manager (a smart, courteous professional with whom I'm happy to now be working) that Illinois condominium law protects my First Amendment rights and went about my business.<br /><br />I'm an attorney by training, I used to run a museum dedicated to the First Amendment and I stay abreast of First Amendment issues, and even I had to pause to do some research to determine the board had - likely - overstepped it's authority in light of state law. However, even I wasn't sure. What would non-lawyer do? Similarly, how much support would I have had in my fight should it have gotten that far? What support would a non-hero or non-veteran have had in their battle to express their political beliefs - popular or not - whether with a flag or a candidate letter to their neighbors? <br /><br />It's time to eliminate the distinction, for First Amendment purposes, on governing bodies of homeowners associations and public legislative bodies. Some <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">rights</span> are fundamental and should be applied equally so that the law supports even those among us who haven't won the Medal of Honor.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-33754820426449818402009-12-10T16:12:00.002-06:002009-12-10T16:20:23.421-06:00Speech, speech and more speech<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CKLANDE%7E2.MCC%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Swis721 BT"; panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-2147483473 268443722 0 0 17 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Swis721 BT"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:15;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->I recently attended my first “un-conference,” the Conscience Un-Conference, co-sponsored by the United States Holocaust Museum and the George Mason University Center for History New Media. The un-conference focused on using social media as tools for doing good – ending genocide, combating hatred, increasing involvement in democracy, etc., and many interesting and varied organizations took part, both in person and virtually. As a newcomer to un-conferences, I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised. Because the sessions were more casual, and put together the morning of the un-conference, there weren’t long PowerPoint presentations and multiple handouts and laser pointers. Instead, there was discussion. Lots and lots of useful discussion.
<br />
<br />One of the most interesting discussions at the conference (that happened in several sessions) was discussing user generated content, and the scary moment of putting your collections, your materials, your creations, online for all to see, use and comment on. Many of the participants deal with sensitive material, and that material has elicited some disturbing comments in the past, comments filled with hatred, racism, or just plain anger. Is it appropriate to put that content online, leaving those associated with the content vulnerable to attack? It’s a difficult question to answer, especially when the content in question may be photos of Holocaust survivors, but an important one, with many First Amendment implications.
<br />
<br />In the course of our discussions about the topic, the old adage “The way to combat bad speech isn’t less speech, it’s more speech” was invoked, and seems very appropriate. Taking away resources and limiting the public’s access to valid and appropriate content because we’re afraid of hate speech only strengthens the power of hate speech overall. As one participant pointed out, showing the general public that hate speech still exists – and in some arenas, flourishes – goes farther in showing the need for institutions of tolerance than any prepared statement ever could. Institutions and organizations of conscience need to shine a light on intolerance and hatred in order to show the world how ugly and real it is, not limit how much we show due to fear and hope to keep things sanitized. Hate speech goes on with our without our posted content, and if we can use that speech for good, to make people more aware of the appalling nature of hate speech, and hopefully inspire them to do something to create more tolerance, we’ve beaten the hate-speechers at their own game. As a comment I made (that was tweeted by none other than Craig of Craigslist himself) succinctly puts it “Without freedom of speech, how will we know who the $#@!holes are?”
<br />
<br />Of course, this is an easy thing to say in theory, but a very difficult thing to do when you have the feelings of real people, people who have survived a horrifying event and confronted more hatred than most of us could ever imagine, to take into account. That’s why another initiative the Freedom Project is taking on in 2010 is also very important – media literacy. If we can help people distinguish between valid voices and information, and those just hatemongering, we’ve taken away a critical tool of people who use intolerance to incite violence and more hatred. Knowing who to trust, and where to go if you’re not sure if you should trust someone, is as important in our media adventures as they were when we were going on our first dates, going to college, or renting an apartment for the first time. People need the tools to weed out the unreliable voices or to refute them. Combined with the power of free speech, media literacy will go far in using hate speech for exactly the purposes it was not intended for – education, inclusion and tolerance.
<br />
<br />To find out more about the Conscience Un-Conference, visit the official blog at <a href="http://www.ushmm.org/social/blog">http://www.ushmm.org/social/blog</a>, or search for #conconf on Twitter to see live tweets during the sessions.
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-48869140273974011132009-12-02T09:54:00.008-06:002009-12-02T10:39:27.036-06:00Interesting BedfellowsAmong the five five freedoms the First Amendment guarantees is broad protections for a private press. Over time, this has encompassed almost absolute prohibition of prior government review of publication, a high standard to prove libel against public figures, and significant protection for reporters' use of anonymous sources. The private press considers these safeguards fundamental to their performance of the watchdog role critical to the perpetuation of democratic government, and has long cast suspicion on any active government role in propping up their existence.<br /><br />Indeed, the industry abides by three mantras that constitute their very own version of the "separation between church and state":<br /><ol><li>A wall between business interests (paid advertisers) and newspaper content.</li><li>Strict boundaries between reporting and editorializing (these have eroded in recent years).</li><li>Fierce independence from the public figures and government bodies they report upon.</li></ol>I'll leave aside mantras one and two for future posts, and center my attention on the third.<br /><br />Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569661532881656.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories">sponsored a conference</a> considering government assistance to the ailing newspaper industry. One option presented would ease antitrust exceptions that prohibit media organizations to own multiple entities in the same market. Others, namely Rupert Murdoch of <span style="font-style: italic;">Wall Street Journal</span> and Fox News fame, lamented about the scavenging of "free content" by online aggregators like the <span style="font-style: italic;">Huffington Post</span>. Ariana Huffington responded with a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/journalism-2009-desperate_b_374642.html">lengthy defense</a> of new media, taking offense to the us versus them mentality, yet labeling Murdoch and his denizens the "horse and buggies" of the Information Age.<br /><br />Other concrete proposals for government assistance have surfaced in recent months, including Maryland Senator Ben Cardin's idea to enable newspapers to operate as tax-exempt organizations. Let's not also forget that government support of the industry is nothing new, the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970, which created joint operating agreements in two-newspaper towns, the most prominent example.<br /><br />Geoffrey Cowan and David Westphal of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Online Journalism Review</span> <a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/davidwestphal/200911/1801/">recycle an important argument</a> made by <a href="http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Deciding-Whats-News/Herbert-J-Gans/e/9780394743547">Herbert Gans</a> and others: the federal and state governments have subsidized journalism since the founding of the Republic. Reduced postage rates, preferential tax treatment, and significant government print expenditures of public notices in private papers are the holy trinity of "church-state" syndicalism.<br /><br />Cowan and Westphal offer three notes of caution as the "brave new world" of government-newspaper cooperation encroaches:<br /><ol><li>Do No Harm: Government support should not retard necessary innovations in the industry. The <a href="http://www.newseum.org/">Newseum</a> in Washington is a wonderful archive of the industry's past, and any potential partnership should be forward-focused...</li><li>Encourage Experimentation: The authors elevate the Pentagon's investment in what evolved into the Internet as case in point.</li><li>Avoid "Excessive Entanglement": Broad protections like those highlighted above are preferable to government support of specific "news outlets, publications, or programs."</li></ol>I would offer a fourth note, one that places the First Amendment front and center.<br /><br />Broad press protections were embedded in our governing charter back in 1791 based on a basic concern: historically, the government and the press were one, and this parylzed self-government, for citizens were unable to gather the information necessary to evaluate candidates for public office (assuming competitive elections) and hold those elected accountable.<br /><br />I am confident that the press will survive in one form or another, but fear that the word "free" that does and should precede press is in increasing peril.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-38333008104665869972009-11-30T12:24:00.011-06:002009-11-30T13:12:55.283-06:00New Kid on the BlockA <a href="http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/at-work-in-washington-at-home-in-manny%E2%80%99s-deli/">feature story</a> on White House adviser David Axelrod's personal ties to his adopted home town. An <a href="http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/company-piles-up-profits-from-citys-parking-meter-deal/">investigative piece</a> on a private firm's profits from the City of Chicago's controversial parking meeting sell-off. A <a href="http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/chicago-bears%E2%80%99-new-identity-is-unrecognizable/">lengthy lament</a> about the Chicago Bears long slide from the Super Bowl Shuffle of 1985. All part of a quick perusal of today's <span style="font-style:italic;">Chicago Tribune</span>, right? Well then, you must be speaking of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Sun-Times</span>! Wrong again.<br /><br />There's a new kid on the local journalism block known as the <a href="http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/about-us/">Chicago News Cooperative</a>. The entity debuted this month by producing a biweekly local insert for the <span style="font-style:italic;">New York Times</span>, and promises a content-rich web site available on a subscription basis next year. Led by former Tribune and <span style="font-style:italic;">Los Angeles Times</span> editor Jim O'Shea, the CNC boasts a staff of 13, with heavy representation by fellow Tribune expatriates. They include Jim Warren, another past Tribune managing editor and current publisher of the weekly <span style="font-style:italic;">Chicago Reader</span>, city hall reporter Dan Mihalopoulos, and business columnist David Greising.<br /><br />The CNC is paid by the New York Times for their services, but also received seed money from the <a href="http://www.macfound.org/site/c.lkLXJ8MQKrH/b.3599935/k.66CA/MacArthur_Foundation_Home.htm">MacArthur Foundation</a> and <a href="http://www.cct.org/">Chicago Community Trust</a>. They anticipate being self-sustaining in 5 years, financed largely through subscription-based fees totaling an estimated $2 per week. The fee will provide more than web access to CNC material, offering to organize networking groups, soliciting original content, and assisting with op-ed drafting and placement.<br /><br />The Times is interested in winning back disaffected readers, but O'Shea and company, many who left the Tribune on less than amicable terms, must be bent on sticking it to their former employers, correct? O'Shea dismisses the notion outright, according to a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/media/23local.html">November 23 Times article</a>: "I would be doing this even if I had never worked fro them, and I saw a need. We've got to figure out how to do serious journalism and pay for it, that's what's motivating me."<br /><br />Warren, a CNC reporter, was less reserved in his motivations: "In (the Tribune's) mind, they've made it a more populist, utilitarian paper, and I think they've made it narrower, more lightweight, fueled by reflexive suspicion of the traditional ideas of traditional journalism."<br /><br />Two weeks in, this casual observer is both impressed with the CNC's contributions to local reporting, but skeptical that their two-page insert represents the death knell for the Tribune or the Sun-Times. Count the latter's Laura Washington <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/washington/1910712,CST-EDT-laura30.article">among the cynics</a>. <br /><br />As I've said repeatedly in <a href="http://fanningtheflames.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-newspapers-matter.html">previous posts</a>, my contention is that there is no panacea for the broken economic model of traditional journalism. Efforts like the CNC to plug holes and break new ground should be commended, and better yet, funded. <br /><br />Democracy wins when serious public affairs reporting flourishes. In my mind, two newspaper towns are inherently better than a one horse show, mostly because competition forces dailies to take risks and carve out their own independent niches. With both the Tribune and Sun-Times emerging from bankruptcy, and the <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7pEEJ6O5hFBc9IhqCsnos91yhTgD9C9I0201">potential peril this entails</a>, not to mention the lighter menu of stories both now offer, there is certainly room on local readers' plates for more hard-hitting content.<br /><br />Tribune managing editor Gerould Kern welcomes the challenge: "There's more competition every day, all the time, from every direction. So our view is, we will compete with anyone, any time, any place, and we believe we will win."<br /><br />Gerry, we root for your success, and recognize that a rising tide lifts all readers.Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33678141.post-8620733661443415482009-11-23T10:46:00.004-06:002009-11-23T10:57:21.595-06:00Senate Sextet<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CSHEALY%7E2.MCC%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Swis721 BT"; mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Swis721 BT"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"></p>On Saturday, the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate brought health care reform to the floor of the body with a strict party line vote, 60-39, the bare minimum to stave off a Republican-led filibuster. Unlike the House, a supermajority is often required to pass legislation in the Senate to invoke cloture and prevent the opposition’s stalling tactics, igniting floor debate and often a roll call vote. Democrats hold a firm 58 seats in the current Senate, with two independents also joining their caucus for a fragile filibuster-proof majority. Any fracture to this coalition requires bi-partisan support, a difficult proposition in what has become an intensely polarized body.
<br />
<br />Political scientist Keith Krehbiel developed the “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pivotal-Politics-Theory-U-S-Lawmaking/dp/0226452727">pivotal politics</a>” model more than a decade ago in a quest to examine the problem of legislative gridlock that rose to the common vernacular during the Reagan-Bush era. Clinton’s election in 1992, coupled with the Democratic Party’s hold on Congress, stirred excitement that gridlock would end with the return of unified control. To these proponents’ chagrin, however, little changed, and divided government returned shortly thereafter with the G.O.P.’s 1994 takeover of Congress. Something was amiss, and Krehbiel sought a more simplistic explanation for gridlock that transcended party control. Enter the “pivotal politics” model.
<br />
<br />The model centers on the median voter in Congress, but also accounts for presidential preferences, institutional features like the filibuster in the Senate, and the veto pen wielded by the President. The pivotal players in Congress are the median voter, those near the sixty vote margin necessary to end extended debate in the Senate through cloture, and those near the two-thirds threshold necessary to override a presidential veto. All of these preferences are placed on a unidimensional line, thus the simplicity of the model. Elections are the dynamic force where these preferences can shift along the line.
<br />
<br />A particularly compelling element is its ability to explain the productivity that usually accompanies the presidential honeymoon, the inevitable decline, even the lame duck status at the end of the second term. Presidents typically have coattails (Clinton and George W. Bush, excepted) and thus have favorable ideological alignments behind their programs upon entering office. The first hundred days is a natural outgrowth of this arrangement. The inevitable decline centers on this initial movement away from the status quo, leaving less to accomplish other than nibbling at the margins. Midterm losses are typically inevitable for the party of the President, and his productivity is thus undermined by the new ideological arrangement in Congress that emerges. Lame duck status is thus the logical outcome.
<br />
<br />Krehbiel rejects party-based explanations for maintenance of the status quo or gridlock. While refusing to dismiss their significance entirely, he suggests that they are not integral to a “good theory of lawmaking.” Gridlock is instead a product of an ideologically moderate status quo, supermajority requirements in Congress, and the heterogeneous preferences of legislators.
<br />
<br />How does Kriebel’s model illuminate the contemporary debate? Given that the House has already passed a reform bill, all eyes are on the Senate. The President made health care reform the centerpiece of his agenda, so the threat of a veto is non-existent, his signature on anything remotely smelling of reform inevtitable. The pivot is centrally located at the filibuster, or the sixtieth vote. By my calculation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can count on 56 votes for the legislation as it now stands, sufficient for passage assuming the opposition does not filibuster. Given the stakes involved, I find a truce unlikely.
<br />
<br />Those 56 votes exclude three Democrats and one independent, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson and Lieberman are both adamantly opposed to the public option, a staple of the current legislation. Arkansas Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu of Arkansas and Louisiana, respectively, also have major concerns about the bill as it stands. All four are moderates and stand near the 60-vote threshold of the Senate’s ideological continuum. Any <a href="http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/senator-reid-and-the-power-of-persuasion/?hp">attrition from this group</a> would require Reid to reach across the aisle, and likely the filibuster pivot, to recruit one or more moderate Republicans. Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are perhaps the only two possibilities, so Democratic defection greater than two equals defeat.
<br />
<br />Given the concerns voiced by Snowe for one about the public option as it now stands, her vote can only be won through a change to a state-based trigger mechanism instead of an opt-out as it now stands. Nelson and Lieberman seek its removal altogether, a deal-breaker for the more liberal members of the party and its voting base. For legislation to pass before Christmas or prior to the President’s State of the Union speech in January, I predict either a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202229.html">further neutered public option</a> or a 56-44 vote with the four Democratic caucus members voting against the bill, but also in favor of cloture.
<br />
<br />Through it all, keep your eyes on the pivot, for a sextet of Senators hold the keys to the fate of health care reform in America.<p class="MsoNormal"></p> Shawn Healyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04160906430591258486noreply@blogger.com0