THE VIRGINIA ELECTIONS PART I: DEMISE OF THE DEMOCRATS? NOT SO FAST!

                                                             

A Republican victory in Virginia’s off-year elections (and a closer than expected win by incumbent Democrat Phil Murphy in New Jersey’s governor’s race) prompted a spate of media stories about the Democratic Party’s supposedly dismal

electoral prospects. Coupled with President Biden’s falling poll numbers, the loss by former Governor Terry McAuliffe to Glenn Youngkin and GOP gains in the Virginia legislature generated rampant speculation about Democratic prospects in the 2022 midterms and through 2024.  Some

pundits suggested it’s a foregone conclusion we’ll have a Republican Congress in 2023 and a Republican in the White House in January 2025.   We don’t subscribe to the hype, but we recognize the Virginia outcome merits discussion of where Democrats stand and what they must do so they can keep a sufficient numerical advantage.

The question takes on so much importance because

of our fractured political landscape. Republicans seem bent on destroying Democracy. Only the Democratic Party obstructs the way. It’s essential, therefore, to evaluate where Democrats stand with the electorate

and understand how the country maintains this precarious equilibrium and doesn’t buy into the Republican zero-sum game.

 

The Narrative

Virginia has trended increasingly Democratic in

recent years. Biden won the state 54-44 in 2020. George W. Bush, with a 53-45 victory over John Kerry in 2004, was the last Republican presidential candidate who won the state.  Both Virginia’s Democratic senators, 2016 vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and Mark

Warner, easily won reelection the last time they ran (Kaine, 57-41 in 2018 and Warner, 56-44 in 2020). In 2017, in addition to the 53-45 gubernatorial victory of Ralph Northam, Democrats won majorities in both houses

of the Virginia legislature. A year later, they flipped control of the state’s congressional delegation. Because of these outcomes, the view of Virginia as a swing state eroded. Before the 2021 elections, many observers saw it as safe Democratic territory.

                                              

That prognosis, however, masked another truth

about Virginia. In its quirky odd-year races that follow election of a new president, the candidate of the party that lost the presidency usually wins the Virginia governor’s chair the next year. That happened when Northam won in 2017 following Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory. After Barack Obama won the White House in 2008, the next year Republican Bob McDonald took the Virginia governor’s race. In 2001, after George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential triumph, Warner captured the Virginia governorship. Republican George Allen won in Virginia in 1993 after Bill Clinton took the White House in 1992. Democrat Doug Wilder, the state’s first black governor, won in 1989 after George H.W. Bush captured the 1988 presidential election.

Virginia’s voters apparently like this arrangement, since they’ve engineered it so often. Perhaps analysts need not look beyond the history books for an understanding of the 2021 outcome.    

 

The Other Explanations             

Despite the history, however, political observers offered other explanations for Youngkin’s win and McAuliffe’s defeat:

·    The fact House Democrats didn’t pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill before the election. They approved it a few days later, but Warner asserted McAuliffe might have won if he could have campaigned on the roads, bridges, and other improvements the state would receive under the bill.

·    The Critical Race Theory boogey man. Despite no evidence any Virginia school district teaches Critical Race Theory or anything like it, Youngkin capitalized on the concerns of white parents about what’s being taught about race in public schools. McAuliffe made things worse with a tone-deaf comment that he didn’t “believe parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

·    Biden’s performance as president. This explanation begins with the messy Afghanistan exit. McAuliffe tied himself closely to Biden. Some conservative commentators argued that as Biden’s poll numbers fell in the wake of the bad Afghanistan optics, McAuliffe suffered some of the fallout.

·    Economic anxiety. Even if the economy is doing reasonably well in bouncing back from the pandemic, fears about inflation have ramped up. Some thought that hurt McAuliffe as well.  

 

Virginia and Malcom Gladwell

We’ve taken note before of the work of social commentator Malcom Gladwell who observed in

his 2008 book Outliers: The Story of Success, that one thing seldom causes an airplane crash. Instead, most air disasters result from a cascading series of events piled on top of each other. We think that also applies to political outcomes. Races one candidate should win but doesn’t – as happened with McAuliffe – usually have many explanations, not one.

Our list of what may have created the Virginia result probably isn’t all inclusive. Other things could have played a role.  But the cause is important in light of the question we began with: What does the Virginia outcome say about where the Democratic Party stands with the electorate as the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential cycle approach?

We adhere to Gladwell’s basic principle – one thing seldom causes a disaster. We point to the things we’ve listed and raise the possibility that winning

in 2022 and 2024 requires that Democrats look at the question in an entirely different way. While not ignoring the list of  possible reasons for the 2021 Virginia loss, perhaps Democrats should focus on the broader question of what policies they must offer that will insure their

standing with the electorate in the upcoming elections. Just on the politics, the Virginia outcome suggests Democrats are not now in a good place with voters. In our next post, we’ll offer suggestions about how they might rectify that situation. 

                                      

IN DEFENSE OF JOE BIDEN: SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

 

These have not been the best of times for

President Joe Biden’s administration. One crisis or another pops up every few days – the Afghanistan exit, surging COVID-19 infections, immigrants clamoring at the border, the debt ceiling. Then

there  are the potential catastrophes looming over the horizon – a divisive war over abortion, threats of inflation, potential failure in Congress of the

infrastructure bills, and, above all, a voting rights disaster that could help fuel a Republican takeover of Congress in 2022.

Not unexpectedly, Biden has drawn increasing fire from the right. The heaviest attacks have come from the usual suspects in the right wing

punditry like Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, a Trump apologist who recently railed about Biden’s “unprecedented string of self-inflicted disasters.” Moderate conservatives like The New York Times columnist Bret Stephens have also unleashed torrents of criticism. Stephens wrote that he voted for Biden in 2020 in the belief he would “restore dignity and prudence” to the White House but now sees him as “headstrong but shaky, ambitious but inept.”

Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating has dropped 14% since he took office to 43%, his lowest to date (Trump averaged 41% during his four years). Though presidential approval ratings often dip during the first year, we think the piling on hasn’t been right.

 

Unfair, Off the Mark, Unjustified

Stephens began his column with a critique of

America that seemingly blamed Biden for “a diminished nation.” He observed that the country couldn’t keep a demagogue out of the White House, couldn’t win or avoid losing a war against a “technologically retrograde enemy,” can’t conquer a disease for which safe and effective vaccines exist, and can’t bring itself to trust government, the media, the scientific establishment, the police, or “any other institution meant to operate for the common good.”

While this list offers literary flair, it bears little relationship to anything Biden caused or has failed in dealing with. The fact Trump got elected president certainly wasn’t Biden’s fault. Biden hardly lost or didn’t win the Afghanistan war. His three immediate predecessors get credit for that. He got out  as he promised and

as the American people clearly wanted. No one has promoted vaccines as the answer to the pandemic more vigorously than Biden. Development of a stubborn resistance to vaccination, mostly rooted in a group of irresponsible obstructionists in the opposition party, lies at Biden’s feet? Hardly. The lack of trust in institutions began a long time ago. Stephens and others launching such criticisms should recalibrate their artillery. They’re off the mark. A great deal of what they say is unfair and unjustified by the facts.

 

Bad Optics Don’t Mean a Bad Job

Much of the criticism leveled at Biden and

his team stems from the Afghanistan exit.  Yes, it looked bad, but how likely was a neat and tidy disengagement from a 20-year military involvement the planners had at most a few weeks to pull together? It’s true American intelligence overestimated how long
the Afghanistan government would survive without U.S. military support. Even with better intelligence, however, the exit likely would have looked ugly.  The bad optics – especially people hanging off airplanes – didn’t mean the United States failed, given the circumstances presented. After all, the American military evacuated 82,300 people in 11 days.

                                       

             

                  PhotoCredit: @adityaRajKaul/Twitter

Republican critics harped on the idea Biden “left behind” some Americans and Afghanis who helped the United States. People get left behind in military evacuations. Every student of the Second World War knows the 1940 British exit from Dunkirk, hailed as a  masterful

exercise in military logistics, left many behind. Britain’s leader, Winston Churchill, became a hero partly because of that operation. Movies got made about it. The British, however, “left behind” one allied soldier for every seven they got out. That’s the nature of the beast. Exits from war get messy. Anyone who says they don’t either has an agenda or hasn’t thought through the difficulty of such enterprises.

 

What’s Been Right?

Despite bad headlines and carping columnists, Biden has gotten things right in his eight

months and change in office. Start with the COVID relief package that provided a path breaking child tax credit from which millions of Americans can reap significant benefits. That administration-backed legislation also gave relief for health care workers, help for schools in dealing with the pandemic, and even funeral-expense assistance for those who lost loved ones to COVID. 

Meantime, the administration has undertaken foreign policy initiatives aimed at restoring the American position in the world following the isolationist, go-it-alone  approach of the Trump

years. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, long seen as a Trump ally, recently called Biden “a breath of fresh air.” Johnson likely had in mind the president’s reengagement with the NATO alliance and his decision that the United States would rejoin the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords.

A great deal of work remains for this administration. Sniping by critics like Stevens illustrates the difficulty inherent in politics now. No president has much margin for error. Any criticism can so easily take off like wildfire. So many seek something they can jump on. Biden operates in an environment poisoned by the efforts of former President Trump and his right wing allies to undermine democracy because it no longer serves their cultural and economic

interests.  We offer a simple caution. Let’s at least understand the facts concerning what mistakes, if any, this president has made and recognize what he’s done right.          

TRUMP AND A CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED “SIGNING STATEMENTS”: ANOTHER REASON FOR VOTING

In the American system, Congress passes laws,  the president signs and carries them out, and the courts interpret them or

determine if they’re constitutional, right?  It turns out it’s not quite that simple. Thanks to signing statements, presidents may put their thumbs on the scale and say more about what a law means, in practice, than does Congress.

 

President Trump exerted that kind of presidential primacy in connection with a key portion of the $2.2 trillion economic stimulus package aimed at helping the nation through the current coronavirus pandemic. Congress

passed that legislation March 27 and Trump signed it the same day. Hours later he released a signing statement indicating he doesn’t intend on complying with all the provisions of the law that would assure transparency in the $500 billion part of the legislation aimed at helping corporations. So, what’s a signing statement and can Trump do what he said he’d do?

A Tradition from Nowhere

Signing statements express a president’s view of the constitutionality of specific legislation or how his interpretation of the legislation will guide enforcement of it or its

anticipated impact. They date back to James Monroe’s presidency. Ronald Reagan rapidly expanded its use in the 1980s. The Gipper issued 250 of them. In only one term, his successor, George H.W. Bush, issued 228. Bill Clinton

issued 381 during his eight years in the White House, Barack Obama 37. Historians now regard George W. Bush as the king of signing statements. Though he issued only 161 separate signing statements, he used them in challenging over 1000 provisions of various laws. The great classicist and historian Garry Wills once told an audience the younger Bush challenged more provisions of laws through signing statements than all his predecessors combined.

 

Despite this history, the federal constitution does not include a signing statement provision. They’ve just sort of become part of the legislative process. Members of Congress and others have challenged the actions presidents have taken through signing statements. Such challenges assert the president acted in a way at odds with the intent of Congress in passing the law at issue. The challenges have a mixed record, with the outcome of the cases turning on whether the court concluded the president did or did not enforce the law as Congress intended. Courts have not, however, declared the practice of issuing and using signing statements unconstitutional. 

  

Trump and the Stimulus Legislation

Trump said his administration wouldn’t treat the stimulus legislation as permitting the inspector general provided for in the bill (also known as  the SIGPR) to issue reports to Congress without his approval. In other words, the special inspector general couldn’t give Congress potentially damaging information about how the $500 billion corporate relief part of the package is being

spent unless Trump personally approved. Congressional Democrats and watchdog groups fear much of the $500 billion will get used by corporations for things like stock buybacks and executive bonus payments, not worker salaries as Congress intended.

Trump’s signing statement flies in the face of

the transparency congressional Democrats, in particular, fought for in passing the bill. Many in Congress don’t trust that Trump and his Treasury

Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, will make sure the money benefits workers, not corporate executives as occurred with TARP money during the Great Recession of 2008.

               

Certainly, presidents have used signing statements for reasons that don’t suggest evil. These include telling the public what the president expects as a likely effect of the legislation or guiding subordinates in carrying out the legislative purpose. Presidents have also used signing statements in advising the public he views some part of the bill as unconstitutional and expects a court challenge. Trump, however, suggested none of these things in his statement. He just made clear the public will find out only what he wants it to find out about the $500 billion. 

     

What to Do

When someone with dishonest motives occupies the White House, the temptation

arises to say that the courts or Congress or someone should get rid of signing statements. After all, they have no textual foundation in the constitution and Congress has never enacted a statue providing for them. 

History, though, shows that presidents in both parties use them, perhaps for good reason.

Signing statements may, under certain circumstances, function as part of our system of checks and balances. Congress, for example, could go off the deep end with ill-advised legislation a president prefers not vetoing because it contains provisions

addressing a serious national need. A signing statement, and subsequent presidential action, limiting the negative impact of the bad parts of the legislation may represent the best course for the country. Perhaps signing statements aren’t all bad.  We believe the country can take some

comfort in knowing that the courts remain the final arbiter of any action the president takes pursuant to the execution of any signing statement.

The presence of signing statements in our system illustrates the power of the presidency

and emphasizes the importance of getting right who occupies that office. In November the voters weigh in on who can issue signing statements the next four years. As we’ve said before, we can’t mess this up.