Have you suspected that the country has become more partisan? An index supports that.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia produces a monthly index that measures one aspect of political partisanship. The authors explain:
The Partisan Conflict Index tracks the degree of political disagreement among U.S. politicians at the federal level by measuring the frequency of newspaper articles reporting disagreement in a given month. Higher index values indicate greater conflict among political parties, Congress, and the President.
The index is an outgrowth of recent Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia research that finds that the index tends to increase near elections and during debates over such contentious policies as the debt ceiling and health-care reform. Research suggests that increased partisan conflict increases uncertainty among firms and households. Such uncertainty has been shown to slow economic activity by delaying business investment and consumer spending.
The source of the data that comprises the index is “the frequency of newspaper articles that report lawmakers’ disagreement about policy,” according to a research paper by the author. (See Azzimonti, Marina (2014), “Partisan Conflict,” Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper 14-19.” Available at link below.)
Here is a graph of its index from its inception in 1981 to its most recent value in August 2020. As you can see, for nearly three decades the index hovered around or below the value of 100.
Then, in 2009, after the election of Barack Obama, the index started rising, indicating greater political disagreement. It meandered in an upward direction, reaching a local peak in October 2013 at the time of a 16-day federal government shutdown.
After that, the index returned to its previous range but rising sharply in November 2016, where there was a presidential election. It continued to rise, reaching its all-time high in March 2017, two months after Donald Trump took office.
From there, it mostly meandered downward, except for a peak in January 2019. The index reached its all-time lowest value in April 2020 as the nation grappled with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the nation was not at war (except for Afghanistan), the national mood was similar to wartime. As the author of the index has noted: “The lower-than-average values observed during wars suggest a ‘rally around the flag’ effect.”
In May and June, however, the index rose, perhaps as controversies surrounding the pandemic and the federal government’s response arose.
For more information on the index and to use an interactive version of the chart examples shown here, see Partisan Conflict Index.
In Wichita Story, Tim O’Bryhim reports on the visit of the Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate to Wichita:
“It is another hot August day in Kansas; a good day to be inside. But a crowd gathers in the (sadly only proverbial) shadow of the Keeper of the Plains to welcome Spike Cohen, the vice-presidential candidate of the third largest political party in the United States of America. If elections were the Olympics, the Libertarian Party would proudly climb on the medals stand every four years with a bronze medal around its neck. But in American politics, third place is almost always a distant finish.”
Today we learned that Herman Cain has died at the age of 74. He had been hospitalized with COVID-19, according to a statement on his website.
He was an interesting man. In 2010, as he was rising in national prominence, I interviewed him in his hotel suite in Las Vegas. He ran for president in 2012.
A presidential nominating caucus or primary would allow Trump skeptics in Kansas to have their say. It could provide a safety valve, a way to release the pressure that builds up from being told they are traitors to not only their party but to the country as well.
In September, leaders of the Kansas Republican Party decided to deny giving rank-and-file party members a voice in choosing its presidential nominee for 2020. In a release, the state party said : “The Kansas Republican Party will not organize a Caucus for the 2020 election because President Trump is an elected incumbent from the Republican Party.”
The release gave a reason: “Every time an elected incumbent Republican has run for re-election, except in 1912, the Kansas Republican Party state convention adopted a resolution instructing all delegates to vote for the elected incumbent. This has been the same standard for the Kansas Republican Party dating back to President Lincoln’s reelection.”
Recent correspondence with party leaders confirms this remains the current thinking of leadership. But it is not democratic. Kansas Republicans should have either a caucus or a primary election. To have neither, simply because the incumbent president is a Republican, deprives members of the Kansas GOP of a chance to make a decision.
All Kansas Republicans need to be involved in making a decision about the party’s next nominee. As we learn more negative information about the Trump Administration, I can’t help but think that Kansas Republicans will want to have a say in choosing our next nominee. Any day there could be some revelation that is so strongly negative and powerful that even the most committed Trump supporters may decide they can no longer support him.
I am a “Never Trump” Republican. Nonetheless, I remain a member of the party. While the numbers of Trump skeptics are not large, I think most of us feel we have no voice in the party. Any dissent is met with vile insults, as you can see on my Facebook and that of a handful of other Kansas Trump skeptics. I have been told that I am no Republican, that I ought to join the other party, and that I am mentally ill. Some of this comes from Republican officeholders and leaders.
A presidential nominating caucus or primary would allow Trump skeptics in Kansas to have their say. It could provide a safety valve, a way to release the pressure that builds up from being told they are traitors to not only their party but to the country as well.
I can hear the critics: “No one has a chance to beat Trump.” That’s hardly the point. Now, with Kansas and other states declining to hold nominating contests, this becomes self-fulfilling.
Some expressed concern over the cost of a caucus or primary election. I wasn’t aware that we should be so concerned about the cost of democracy and its elections. On this issue, I repeat the observation of the National Review editors: “The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.” (emphasis added)
By the way, should the situation change and Kansas Republicans decided they can lo longer support Trump as their nominee, who will decide the nominee? The answer is the same small group of party leaders that decided to do without a caucus or primary. That’s undemocratic.
What conservative voices say
After several states (including Kansas) decided to cancel or not schedule primary elections or caucuses, two noted conservative publications criticized these decisions. From the editors of National Review:
The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.
The vast majority of Republicans approve of what Trump has done on taxes, judges, regulation, and most other issues, though they also support electoral competition. Trump would be likely to win the primaries handily, demonstrating his strength among Republicans while the Democrats tussle. His allies should want to see that, rather than make it seem as though he is too weak to face competition. But regardless of how it works out for him, Republican primary voters are capable of making the decision among Trump and the others — who so far include William Weld and Joe Walsh as well as Sanford. They deserve to be able to do so. 1
In its op-ed, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal concluded with this:
When Mr. Trump won the GOP nomination in 2016, he disrupted a long tradition of Republican leadership and policy. He rejected GOP positions on trade and entitlement reform. In chief respects he abandoned the party’s hawkish stance on foreign policy. On guns and health care he has taken multiple positions, sometimes in the same week.
And — how to put it delicately? — Mr. Trump has introduced a new standard of presidential behavior, by turns abrasive, funny and appalling. These and related matters are far from settled in Republican circles, and it seems unwise to prevent the rank-and-file from debating them. If Mr. Trump is as popular with Republicans as the polls say, he has nothing to fear from letting voters show it in primaries. 2
At this time last year, the former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party wrote:
… unprecedented action on the part of the RNC to consolidate the Trump re-election campaign with the traditionally primary-neutral party efforts into a single organization called “Trump Victory.” Everything from fundraising, to data, to electing convention delegates will now be organized in tandem between the party and the campaign. This is the definition of what Trump himself might once have called rigging the system. …
The attempt to rig the system is, all on its own, an admission of Trump’s weakness. 3
The arguments advanced by this party official and two stalwarts of conservative thought aren’t welcomed by some Kansas Republicans, especially the (nearly) 150 that are in leadership positions and voted to abstain from holding a caucus. After I shared these articles on Facebook, the reaction was almost universally negative. The consensus was that I should leave the Republican Party and find somewhere else to call home so I can vote in a caucus or primary. That doesn’t seem conducive to winning elections, and Kansas Republicans need to be concerned with winning, having lost the governorship, one congressional district, and barely winning another.
Emblematic of the Trumpification of the Kansas Republican Party is this: I asked one person “And are you trying to attract people to the Republican Party, or drive them away?” The response was, “I would just as soon the Republican party would avoid attracting people such as yourself.”
Of note: Kansas Democrats plan to hold a presidential primary using ranked-choice voting. As Kansas Democrats apply new methods to vote and choose candidates, Kansas Republicans regress to the smoke-filled room.
Further, to give everyone an equal chance to have a voice, Kansas Republicans should abandon the caucus and hold a primary election. Participating in the caucus is difficult. Many people are not able to attend and cast their vote. No matter the cost to the party, Kansas should seek broad participation in its presidential nominating process. That means asking the people to make a selection, and it means a primary election instead of a caucus.
Polling
While Gallup reports Trump’s job approval rating among Republicans at 88 percent, there are signs of skepticism. A poll this week by Quinnipiac University found that 49 percent of Republicans support witness testimony. 4 This poll also found that many people are paying attention to impeachment. 5
Click for larger.
A poll by Ipsos/FiveThirtyEight last week found that the share of Republicans who support witnesses in the Senate trial has fallen to 41 percent. 6 The number has fallen, but it is still 41 percent.
A Yahoo News/YouGov poll taken at near the same time found that 35 percent of Republicans wanted witnesses called. 7
These figures are not majorities, and they are nationwide, not just Kansas Republicans. But they do not represent fringe minorities. Republicans need to keep these voters.
January 28, 2020 – 75% Of Voters Say Allow Witnesses In Senate Impeachment Trial, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; 53% Say President Trump Not Telling Truth About Ukraine. Available at https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3654. ↩
“How much attention have you been paying to news about impeachment: a lot, some, only a little, or none at all?” A lot 57%, Some 29%, Only a little 11%, None at all 2%. ↩
In deciding to forego a presidential caucus or primary, Kansas Republicans act contrary to mainstream conservative thought.
After several states (including Kansas) decided to cancel or not schedule primary elections or caucuses, two noted conservative publications criticized these decisions. From the editors of National Review, founded by William F. Buckley:
The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.
The vast majority of Republicans approve of what Trump has done on taxes, judges, regulation, and most other issues, though they also support electoral competition. Trump would be likely to win the primaries handily, demonstrating his strength among Republicans while the Democrats tussle. His allies should want to see that, rather than make it seem as though he is too weak to face competition. But regardless of how it works out for him, Republican primary voters are capable of making the decision among Trump and the others — who so far include William Weld and Joe Walsh as well as Sanford. They deserve to be able to do so. 1
In its op-ed, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal concluded with this:
When Mr. Trump won the GOP nomination in 2016, he disrupted a long tradition of Republican leadership and policy. He rejected GOP positions on trade and entitlement reform. In chief respects he abandoned the party’s hawkish stance on foreign policy. On guns and health care he has taken multiple positions, sometimes in the same week.
And — how to put it delicately? — Mr. Trump has introduced a new standard of presidential behavior, by turns abrasive, funny and appalling. These and related matters are far from settled in Republican circles, and it seems unwise to prevent the rank-and-file from debating them. If Mr. Trump is as popular with Republicans as the polls say, he has nothing to fear from letting voters show it in primaries. 2
The arguments advanced by these two stalwarts of conservative thought and opinion aren’t welcomed by some Kansas Republicans, especially 150 that are in leadership positions and voted to abstain from holding a caucus. After I shared these articles on Facebook, the reaction was almost universally negative. The consensus is that I should leave the Republican Party and find somewhere else to call home so I can vote in a caucus or primary. That doesn’t seem conducive to winning elections, and Kansas Republicans need to be concerned with winning, having lost the governorship, one congressional district, and barely winning another.
I asked one person “And are you trying to attract people to the Republican Party, or drive them away?” The response was, “I would just as soon the Republican party would avoid attracting people such as yourself.”
Some expressed concern over the cost of a caucus or primary election, but I wasn’t aware that we should be so concerned about the cost of democracy and its elections. On this issue, I repeat the observation of the National Review editors: “The president says he has nothing to do with these decisions, but also that holding primaries he is sure to win would be a waste of money. The susceptibility of this argument to abuse by a ruler ought to preclude its being made.” (emphasis added)
There are some who, correctly, note that the Kansas Republican Party had not scheduled a caucus, so there was no caucus to cancel. Therefore, no harm. Lack of a caucus is a non-issue. This type of over-lawyerly reasoning might appeal to some, but it is a distinction without a difference and solidifies power in the hands of party insiders.
Some noted that the challengers to Trump for the Republican nomination don’t have any chance of winning. Well, we hold elections on a schedule, not based on the popularity of a candidate or incumbent.
Just as important, we don’t know who all the Republican challengers to Trump might be. And, something could change between now and March when a caucus or primary might be held. Just this week serious allegations have been made against the president and his conduct in office. Whether these are true or not, the chaotic and volatile nature of Trump and his administration means there is a very real risk that something seriously damaging could emerge before next year. Kansas Republicans ought to insist on having a voice in choosing an alternative nominee.
Of note: Next year Kansas Democrats plan to hold a presidential primary using ranked-choice voting. It is no small irony that as Kansas Democrats apply new methods to vote and choose candidates, Kansas Republicans regress to the smoke-filled room.
Kansas Republicans should insist on having a voice in choosing the next Republican presidential nominee.
The Kansas Republican Party has decided to deny giving rank-and-file party members a voice in choosing its presidential nominee for next year. In a release, the party says : “The Kansas Republican Party will not organize a Caucus for the 2020 election because President Trump is an elected incumbent from the Republican Party.”
The release gives a reason: “Every time an elected incumbent Republican has run for re-election, except in 1912, the Kansas Republican Party state convention adopted a resolution instructing all delegates to vote for the elected incumbent. This has been the same standard for the Kansas Republican Party dating back to President Lincoln’s reelection ”
This reasoning is undemocratic (small “d”).
Kansas Republicans should have either a caucus or a primary election. To have neither, simply because the incumbent president is a Republican, deprives members of the Kansas GOP of a chance to make a decision.
Yes, President Trump is popular with Republicans, very much so. But not everyone agrees. There are Republicans, myself included, who would prefer someone else than Donald Trump as the party’s nominee. Already, there are several credible candidates. Perhaps there will be more. For the Kansas Republican Party to assume that Trump would win the caucus or primary smacks of elitism. Party elders know best who should receive our convention delegates, it says. The vote of the people does not matter — this is the message from Kansas GOP leadership.
I can hear the critics: “None of these have a chance to beat Trump.” That’s hardly the point. But these candidates are serious and have achieved success in politics. Some have been members of Congress and/or governors.
Between now and March 2020 — when a caucus or primary would likely be held — things could change. Kansas Republicans need to position the state to have a voice in who is the next Republican nominee for president.
Further, to give everyone an equal chance to have a voice, Kansas Republicans should abandon the caucus and hold a primary election. Participating in the caucus is difficult. Many people are not able to attend and cast their vote. No matter the cost to the party, Kansas should seek broad participation in its presidential nominating process. That means asking the people to make a selection, and it means a primary election instead of a caucus.
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: David Kensinger, President of Kensinger and Associates. His topic was “The Early Returns of the 2020 Presidential Election.” This audio presentation was recorded on August 2, 2019.
