An interesting article in Salon, by Michael Lind, tells, “How Democrats can win big in 2010 and beyond — by doing the opposite of what they’re doing now.” Prior to 1968, Lind says, the two party system consisted of the Roosevelt Party and the Hover Party, but since 1968, the two party system has been the Nixon Party and the McGovern Party.

Lind writes, “Beginning with its namesake, George McGovern, in 1972, the McGovern Party has been trounced repeatedly by the Nixon Party, not because of its economic agenda, which the public actually prefers to the alternative, but because of its unpopular stands on issues like race-based affirmative action, illegal immigration, crime and punishment, and national security.”

He says, “There is no doubt that at some point between 2004 and 2008 American politics changed. It is clear to everyone, not least conservatives, that the era of right-wing hegemony that began with Richard Nixon’s election in 1968 has come to an end.” Excerpts from the article:

“Between 1932 and 1964, the Roosevelt Party won seven of nine presidential elections, losing only in 1952 and 1956. Between 1968 and 2004, the Nixon Party won seven out of 10 presidential elections, losing only three times, to Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Was this because red-state Rooseveltians were won over to supply-side economics, while blue-state blue-bloods suddenly became enamored of abortion rights and separation of church and state? No. Today’s red-state Republican children of New Deal Democrats still like Social Security, and the Republican grandparents of today’s blue-state Protestant Democrats were in favor of birth control — for the Catholics, in particular. The values of these voting blocs didn’t change. The issues that defined national politics changed. …

“The Roosevelt Party ran on economic issues, and didn’t care whether voters were in favor of sex or against it on principle as long as they supported the New Deal. The McGovern Party, by contrast, has made social issues its litmus test. Economic conservatives have had a home in the McGovern Party, as long as they support abortion rights and affirmative action, but social democrats and populists who are pro-life or anti-affirmative action are not made nearly as welcome. …

“FDR was able to assemble his coalition only because social issues did not divide his voters. Nobody ever asked FDR or Harry Truman or John F. Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson their views on contraception, or abortion, or censorship. Not only were those issues not central to the message of the New Deal Democrats, they were not even national issues. …

“In fact, the majority of Americans, including many social conservatives, never ceased to support New Deal policies, which from Social Security and Medicare to the G.I. Bill have remained popular with the public throughout the entire Nixon-to-Bush era. Consider the results of a June 17, 2008, Rockefeller Foundation/Time poll. When “favor strongly” and “favor somewhat” are combined, one gets the following percentages for policies favored by overwhelming majorities: increase the minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living (88 percent); increase government spending on things like public-works projects to create jobs (86 percent); put stricter limits on pollution we put into the atmosphere (85 percent); limit rate increases on adjustable rate mortgages (82 percent); provide quality healthcare to all, regardless of ability to pay (81 percent); impose higher tax incentives for alternative energy (81 percent); provide government-funded childcare to all parents so they can work (77 percent); provide more paid maternity/dependent care leave (76 percent); make it less profitable for companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries (76 percent); expand unemployment benefits (76 percent).

“Note that almost all of the policy proposals that excite the American public are exactly the sort of old-fashioned, “paleoliberal” spending programs or systems of government regulation that are supposed to be obsolete in this era of privatization, deregulation and free-market globalization, according to neoliberals and libertarians.

“The public wants the middle-class welfare state to be rounded out by a few major additions — chiefly, healthcare and childcare — and the public also wants the government to grow the economy by investing in public works and favoring companies that locate their production facilities inside the U.S. There, in a sentence, is a program for a neo-Rooseveltian party that could effect an epochal realignment in American politics.

“A Newer Deal party that ran on this economic agenda could attract Southern Baptist creationists as well as Marin County agnostics. …Had Clinton been interested in restoring the Roosevelt coalition, he would have veered left on economics and right on cultural issues. Instead, under the influence of Robert Rubin, Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which dismantled many firewalls between investment banks, securities firms and commercial banks that the New Deal Congress had put in place, inadvertently contributing to the economic disaster we are now experiencing. Instead of opposing race-based affirmative action in favor of universal programs open to economically disadvantaged whites, Clinton said he would “mend it, not end it” and then forgot even to mend it. …

“A big reason that the Democrats won back Congress in 2006 and are likely to keep it in 2008 is nominating and electing socially conservative economic populists like Heath Shuler. More progress. But to create an updated version of the New Deal, the Democrats have to treat economically liberal social conservatives as equal partners, with their own spokesmen and leadership roles in the party, not just as a handful of swing voters brought on reluctantly at the last moment….

“Unfortunately, the upper-middle-class left, with its unerring instinct for political suicide, is probably incapable of seizing the moment and bringing more Baptists and Catholics into the Democratic Party, because it has developed an almost superstitious distaste for religious conservatives. This might make sense if the religious right were still a menace, as it was a generation ago. But with the exception of state referenda and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, religious conservatives have lost one battle after another, from failed attempts to promote creationism on school boards to the doomed effort to repeal Roe v. Wade.

“There would have been no Progressive Era without the followers of William Jennings Bryan and no New Deal without the support of ancestors of many of today’s Protestant evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics. Social conservatives, having lost the culture war, should be offered not only a truce but also an opportunity to join a broad economic campaign for a middle-class America, as many of them did between 1932 and 1968. When pro-choicers and pro-lifers unite in cheering the public investment and living wage planks at the convention of the neo-Roosevelt party, we will know that the political era that began in 1968 is truly and finally over.”

From, “The Newer Deal: The path to a Democratic supermajority,” written by Michael Lind, appearing in Salon.Com

The latest issue of Mother Jones tells that Congressman Mike Turner “has declared himself to be a pork buster” and that he is sponsoring legislation to prohibit House and Senate members from using earmarks as a “backdoor” means to get funding for local projects. But, the magazine reports, “For Turner, pork has been a family affair. Since 2004, Turner has requested millions in earmarks for a local organization that later hired his wife, and a highway project that would benefit one of her business partners.” Excerpts from the article:

• Turner, hit a patch of trouble earlier this year when the Dayton Daily News disclosed that his wife, Lori Turner, who owns and operates a PR company, Turner Effect, had been awarded a lucrative no-bid contract by the Dayton Development Coalition, which lobbies Congress for funding for local projects. …After the story broke, Lori Turner dropped the contract. Her firm had already been paid nearly $400,000.
• According to tax records, the Dayton Development Coalition — many of whose members are also major Turner donors — shared an address, phone number and president with a partner organization called Development Projects, Inc. (DPI). What did not come out in the news stories was that Congressman Turner had requested $3.4 million in federal earmarks for local development that would be passed through DPI, of which about $700,000 was actually approved and disbursed.
• Turner has received more campaign contributions from developers than from any other industry. In 2002, Lori Turner and Tom Peebles, a prominent Dayton developer and longtime Turner donor, incorporated a real estate firm called Peebles Homes of Beavercreek. Congressional ethics rules state that “interest in a limited partnership established to purchase real estate” must be revealed as part of members’ financial disclosure, but Peebles Homes did not appear on any of Turner’s filings. Turner’s spokesman says it was not reported because the real estate firm was actually a subsidiary of Turner’s wife’s company, Turner Effect.
• In 2004, Turner won $6.75 million in earmarks for a massive new highway project south of Dayton. Foes of the project call it an assault on Dayton’s urban center, but it will be a boon for developers — including Tom Peebles
• This past February, three weeks after the Dayton Daily News disclosed Lori Turner’s contract with the Dayton Development Coalition, her partnership with Tom Peebles was dissolved. Lori Turner says the business ended “due to market conditions.”

From Mother Jones, “Honey, I Got The Earmark,” written by Ryan Grim

I got a nice e-mail from DDN reporter Jessica Wehrman in response to my e-mail about Congressman Mike Turner’s impeachment vote and about his use of the franking privilege to print and mail literature to voters in the 3rd District.

In my original e-mail, I questioned whether Turner used the franking privilege to target different geographic regions with different literature — a practice widely used in campaigns, but, it seems to me, a practice that could hardly be justified as a proper use of the franking privilege, especially during a reelection campaign. The franking privilege, using government money to send literature to constituents, I’m sure, has rules regulating its use. Targeting geographic regions with different literature — depending on the region’s economic or political status — is a campaign tactic. It would seem that this would be a good question — Did Congressman Turner violate franking rules? — for an investigative reporter to look into, and I’m hoping that Ms Wehrman might take up the challenge.

Wehrman replied in her e-mail that Turner’s opposition, Jane Mitakidas, in fact, made the same accusation, that Turner, “does send different pieces to different geographic regions of the district.” I’m wondering if Ms Wehrman will research an article about Turner’s use of the franking privilege and will print her findings in the DDN (?)

Jessica Wehman’s e-mail to me:

Hey, Mike,
I’m on vacation for a few days but will be returning later this week. I’ll be glad to e-mail you back in detail then, but let me say off the top of my head that I think I wrote something about the impeachment article, and I think Turner’s explanation for that vote was not because he wanted Bush impeached, but I think (if I remember correctly) he wanted to send it to Judiciary where they could effectively bury it in committee. I think that was what he said, but I’ll try to look it up when I get back.

I hadn’t heard of the propeller franking piece. I know his opponent said that he does send different pieces to different geographic regions of the district. The House disclosure doesn’t say exactly where he sends which particular piece, so without getting it from his office I don’t think I could tell you which areas get what.

Hope that helps….
Jessica Wehrman

My response to Jessica:
Jessica,
I can’t find any record of DDN printing a story about Turner’s impeachment vote. Maybe, at this point, since the story is getting old, there isn’t a story worth reporting. But the fact is, Kucinich, himself, made the motion to send the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee and all Democrats voted “Yes.” Turner was one of nine Republicans who voted “Yes,” and the action of these nine Republicans by Daily Kos and other blogs was described as “breaking ranks.” I saw one internet article that referred to these nine Republicans, who voted “Yes,” as RHINO’s (Republican in Name Only). I don’t think this is how Turner wants to be identified, and so, I wonder if Turner simply mis-voted? After all, the votes of the nine Republicans were not needed since all Democrats supported the vote. Regardless, it seems to me that Turner’s surprising vote to back the Kucinich resolution is of sufficient importance that Turner should have been called upon to explain his vote. I believe that there should have been an article about the matter in the DDN, and I can’t find a record of such an article.

The use of the franking privilege during an election year, I feel, should be more thoroughly reported. It should be reported how many pieces of literature were sent, at what cost, etc. Explaining the advantage the franking privilege gives incumbents is a topic your readers should be informed about; it is a topic well worth an article. The literature I received from Congressman Turner (I live in Kettering) starts, “Now is the time to reduce our dependence on foreign oil …”, and has the picture of Turner superimposed on a picture of a scene showing huge electricity producing windmills. The literature that I received from Turner sounds like a different piece of literature from what your article described. Sending different literature to different voters, of course, is an accepted campaign strategy — but since this literature was paid for by using the franking privilege, it seems to me, Turner should be called upon to explain his actions. I posted this article, “Dayton Daily News Should Do In-Depth Reporting About Congressman Mike Turner,” on DaytonOS

Mike