Stanley Greenberg is the latest dot non-connector

Sandy Levinson

The Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg has a very interesting piece in today's NYTimes in which the principal question is why a Democratic Party that in fact is the majority party issue-by-issue is in such precarious shape as a political party. I won't go through his whole argument; you should read it yourself. But I do want to highlight several of his specific statements:

1) I see clearly that voters feel ever more estranged from government — and that they associate Democrats with government. If Democrats are going to be encumbered by that link, they need to change voters’ feelings about government.

2) ... [V]oters show they are fairly cynical about Democratic politicians’ stands. They tune out the politicians’ fine speeches and plans and express sentiments like these: “It’s just words.” “There’s just such a control of government by the wealthy that whatever happens, it’s not working for all the people; it’s working for a few of the people.” “We don’t have a representative government anymore.”

This distrust of government and politicians is unfolding as a full-blown crisis of legitimacy sidelines Democrats and liberalism. Just a quarter of the country is optimistic about our system of government — the lowest since polls by ABC and others began asking this question in 1974. But a crisis of government legitimacy is a crisis of liberalism. It doesn’t hurt Republicans. If government is seen as useless, what is the point of electing Democrats who aim to use government to advance some public end? (emphasis added)

One can quibble about whether Republicans don't also pay a price. Indeed, I think it may be a mistake to identify Tea Partiers with the institutional Republican Party, whose demise in some ways we are seeing in front of our eyes. It is clear that Tea Partiers properly view Mitch McConnell and John Boehner as opportunistic and completely cynical charlatans. And, of course, many Democrats have been wondering over the past month or two whether Barack Obama actually has any deep commitments that he's willing genuinely to fight for instead of rushing to make pre-emptive concessions to people who wish him (and the political coalition he so brilliantly put together in 2008) an unglorious demise. If such a deal is announced later today or tomorrow, I suspect that the sigh of relif will be mixed with sheer and justified rage at these "leaders'" willingness to take the country to the edge of the cliff for their own political purposes. (In my own cases, I have to remember that I think it is profound error to "personalize" our politics and thus turn away from the blame that should be attached to our Constitution and the dysfunctional political system it created.) If anyone believes that the not-so-grand bargain to be announced in the next 24 hours will lead to an uptick of "confidence" in our form of government, they are crazy. Anyone who doesn't feel "estranged" from our government is deluded.

But, of course, Greenberg is no more willing to connect the dots between our "system of government" and our decidedly defective Constitution than is anyone else with access to the New York Times. He makes the usual calls for campaign reform (with zero probability of being passed or, many would argue, of actually making a beneficial difference).

Consider, though, a conference that will be held at Harvard in September, co-sponsored byFix Congress First (organized by Larry Lessig), the Harvard Law School, AND Tea Party Patriots, precisely for the purpose of considering the need for a new constitutional convention. The Tea Party, as I've written before, is willing to connect the dots, for which they deserve at least one cheer. The fact that I disagree strongly with repealing the Seventeenth Amendment or adopting Randy Barnett's "Repeal Amendment" (though for reasons that might surprise some of you) is not at all the same thing as adopting the rhetoric of our "basically perfectly Constitution" that is the motif of too much of the response to Tea Party proposals. Precisely because it will be a truly "bi-partisan" (but not Tom Friedman's brand of "centrist") gathering, I suspect it will be unusually interesting and will potentially get some coverage even by the
Mainstream Press.

For what it is worth, I suspect that had public opinion polls and focus groups been available around 1775, at least a quarter of the population would have had confidence in the government of His Majesty King George III and been optimistic about the future. (There were, after all, quite a few Loyalists, even though we rarely learn about them.) Do we face a "revolution"? No. But do we face the possibility of significant "regime change" in the future. After all, the House of Representatives, as I've argued earlier, is basically claiming to be America's Parliament. Perhaps the House will in fact accept the "Grand Bargain," but will it get more than the minimum number of Republican votes to constitute a majority together with the far larger number of Democrats. Will John Boehner remain the Speaker, at least so long as that decision is up to the Republicans, led de facto by the "lean and hungry" Eric Cantor? And, of course, there will be the international consequences of America's decline as the "indeispensable" (military) power, because we can no longer afford to play that role.

In any event, I look forward to reading Mr. Greenberg's next piece in, say, six months, especially if the "estrangement" takes ever more visible form as ordinary people realize what the "Grand Bargain" will mean to their hopes for their (and their children's) futures.
Posted 3:37 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]