Showing posts with label zero-sum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zero-sum. Show all posts

Thursday, November 18, 2021

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. 

                                      


Tuesday, August 24, 2021

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN MAKES US STRONGER

TITLE IX AND THE ASCENT OF THE AMERICAN FEMALE ATHLETE 


Without women, the United States Olympic team would have been in a world of hurt.  The Tokyo
games ended recently and the world now assesses the meaning of a COVID-19 marred Olympiad, while looking forward to next year’s winter games and the 2024 summer games in Paris.

One thing stands out about the American effort in
Tokyo. U.S. women made their presence felt. They captured over 58% of the medals Americans won. That didn’t just happen. It directly resulted from action American legislators took almost 50 years ago. The success of U.S. female athletes shows what can happen with a dedicated commitment to equal opportunity. It offers lessons that apply across society.



The Governmental Action was Title IX

Mostly without anyone looking, Congress in 1972 amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act with a
provision that said, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.…”  Before that enactment, one in 27 girls participated in school sports. Now that number exceeds two in five. Despite grudging compliance by school districts and universities with the requirement of equal funding for women’s sports, over the 35 years after Title IX’s passage, female involvement in high school sports jumped 904 % and college participation increased 456%.

We shouldn’t forget the opposition Title IX encountered in its early years, much of it from the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The
NCAA feared loss of power and control over lucrative men’s sports, especially football and basketball, if colleges and universities had to fund women’s sports programs. The NCAA first argued for exemption of college athletic departments from Title IX requirements, contending the departments
didn’t receive federal funds. That argument ignored the fact college athletic departments are part of institutions of higher education, nearly all of which receive federal money. They also argued equal sports funding for women would mean a loss of opportunities for men (a few men’s programs did get cut at individual schools, though overall men’s participation increased). Finally, the NCAA asserted Title IX equity formulas should exempt college football. 

Ultimately, courts and government agencies charged with enforcing Title IX rejected these contentions. The NCAA decided it couldn’t beat the women’s sports movement, so it took it over. In
1982 it forced out of existence the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), the organization that had promoted women’s college sports while the NCAA was doing everything it could to undermine support for women’s programs. Even today, though, the NCAA often treats women’s sports teams as second-class citizens, as last winter’s weight room fiasco demonstrated. It provided men with state of the art weight training facilities at basketball tournament sites while giving women a few dumbbells. 


The Olympic Dividend

We can’t say Congress knew it was birthing an Olympic medals bonanza for the United States
when it passed Title IX. The law passed because of the efforts of a small, determined group of women (and a few men) who, in the late ‘60s, began agitating for federal and state legislation assuring women equal rights in education. As noted, few people paid much attention when it passed, though the NCAA soon perceived a threat. Then something funny happened.

By the early ‘80s, U.S. women began excelling in international competition in sports, like track and
field and basketball, previously dominated by the Soviet Union and eastern European countries like East Germany (many of those eastern Europeans probably were on steroids, but that’s a subject for another day). All of a sudden U.S. women who’d gone through college and university programs started winning championships.

By the ‘80s and ‘90s, the U.S. was producing female stars, like Florence Griffith-Joyner and Jackie Joyner-Kersee in track and field and basketball greats like Cheryl Miller and Dawn Staley. In 1996, the U. S. women’s basketball team kicked off a gold medal streak that has reached seven and shows no signs of ending, despite the likely retirements of five-time gold medalists Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi.



In Tokyo, the American team won 113 medals (China finished second with 88). Women won 66 of
the U.S. total. Had the American women been a nation, they would have placed fourth in the overall medal count. Since 2012, American women have won the majority of U.S. Olympic medals.

 

Pride and Inspiration– for all Americans

Women can take great pride in what U.S. women
athletes have accomplished in the Olympics, as can men. Those are our sisters, daughters, granddaughters, nieces, even wives, winning those medals. Their achievements should inspire everyone.  We’re reminded of what Arkansas football coach Sam Pittman told his players after the Arkansas women’s basketball team upset perennial power Connecticut last winter. “They wear the same logo on their uniforms we do,” Pittman said. “Let’s be like them.” 

We also can take pride in the progress American women have made in Olympic sports since the advent of Title IX because of what that progress says about our country. The law’s role in the development of American female athletes shows what can happen when a nation decides it will treat
all its citizens fairly and equally. Title IX, especially when juxtaposed with the NCAA’s obstructionism, stands as an example of what happens when societies don’t engage in zero-sum game thinking. Every time someone gains something doesn’t mean someone else must lose something. The rise of the American female athlete lifts US all and serves as a model for the world.