Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Category: WPRI Blog (page 4 of 6)

Felons for Thee, Not for Me

Poor Rod Blagojevich. First, he gets pinched by the feds, and now – after he politely declined an offer to resign his governorship – Illinois legislators are beginning their own investigation into whether he should be impeached. Apparently, the legislature is trying to shake the impression that Illinois is to political corruption what Florida is to flamingoes.

Of course, defending Blagojevich is like defending rabies. However, while we all have a pretty good idea that he was trying to auction off Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, he hasn’t yet been convicted of anything. But that hasn’t slowed the calls for his ouster from legislators looking for political cover. It’s gotten so bad, some Illinois legislators could improve their image by getting their picture taken with George Bush.

In fact, herein lies one of the true ironies of the whole Blagojevich scandal. It appears elected officials of all parties are falling over themselves demanding the Illinois governor be thrown out of his job before he’s convicted of anything, in order to disassociate themselves from him. It makes sense, given what the evidence shows to this point. (One wonders whether Democrats are going to demand that Blagojevich be spared prison time, as he is one of the “nonviolent” offenders of which they believe the prison system is overflowing.)

But while politicians are more than willing to fire colleagues that reflect poorly on them, they never extend that courtesy to private businesses. In Wisconsin, an employee cannot be fired, prevented from being hired, or otherwise have any action taken against them because of arrest or conviction record. So if Rod Blagojevich was working the drive-thru at Popeye’s Fried Chicken and charged with a felony, his coworkers would be stuck listening to his foul-mouthed tirades about f’ing biscuits and gravy in perpetuity.

In 2005, the University of Wisconsin System came under fire from legislators when it was discovered that the system employed 40 convicted felons. Most were unclassified positions, like janitors. Actually, this number seems fairly low for any organization that employs 32,000 people. Look in the cubicle next to you – chances are that little old lady next to you is either a felon or would beat you in the head with a rake if given the chance.

So what did the UW Board of Regents do as a response to this revelation? They passed a new rule saying that action could be taken against any employee that is merely charged with a felony. Forget due process – they’re a government entity and they have some face to save. Once passed, this rule completely disappeared into the ether, never to be discussed again – although it almost certainly contradicts Wisconsin’s fair employment law. But it’s state government – so they have special rights that those silly private businesses shouldn’t.

According to Wisconsin state law – passed by the Legislature, of course – felons are prohibited from serving in the state Senate or Assembly. Clearly, it is the one job that requires so much integrity that it shan’t even be held by someone convicted of a felony 20 year ago. Apparently, the Legislature was concerned that it would make them look worse if there were a felon in their midst. Yet while they forbid any of those dirty criminals from working in their place of business, they mandate that they have to work with you. Clearly, the integrity of your workplace isn’t as important as that of our elected officials. THEY HAVE A VERY HIGH PUBLIC IMAGE TO UPHOLD, YOU KNOW.

Just ask this guy.

-December 16, 2008

Outsourcing State Government

In the 2008 presidential election, the economy featured prominently among the issues debated by the two candidates. The collapse of the housing sector interjected itself into the campaign, and swung the electorate solidly in favor of eventual winner Barack Obama. Obama was able to sell his message on the economy more ably than John McCain, capably reassuring American workers that their jobs were safe.

One of Obama’s primary economic talking points dealt with the outsourcing of American jobs, and what could be done to prevent it. One of the cornerstones of his economic plan was repealing “tax breaks” to “companies that shipped our jobs overseas.” Naturally, workers who already fear for their jobs want to do everything to make sure that job stays on American soil – and in an economy in collapse, that message resonates even more strongly.

Yet, as is the case in most campaigns, the truth became a casualty amid lofty rhetoric, shifting plans, and political charges. In reality, this campaign rhetoric is already light years behind the times – in an age of digital information and instantaneous delivery of data worldwide, jobs can be created in places like India and China at a fraction of the cost. Armies of Indian college students graduate every year, anxious to shed their native accents and join the global economy. They staff call centers helping Americans fix their computers, get credit cards, and order pay per view movies. They read ultrasounds sent to them digitally by American doctors and do legal research for American attorneys.

And, in many cases, they make American business more viable by holding down costs. Outsourcing allows many American companies to stay in business here in the U.S. by making profit possible. So while their customer service call center may be in Bangalore, their headquarters may employ hundreds of Americans here at home. And the cheaper they can run one arm of the company, the more they can offer the domestic employees. Furthermore, outsourcing allows companies to sell their goods cheaper, which benefits American consumers. Without it, we would pay more for virtually every good and service – as a result, American companies would sell fewer products and be able to hire fewer workers. This is why, even as jobs have been fleeing to other countries en masse, the unemployment rate in America has remained low.

While outsourcing is a worldwide issue, it has deep roots right here in Wisconsin. With an economy heavily dependent on manufacturing, Wisconsin workers are especially sensitive to the threat of their jobs being outsourced to a foreign country. As such, it has become a viable talking point for state politicians.

For the past two legislative sessions, Wisconsin State Representative Mark Pocan and State Senator Judy Robson have introduced what they have named the “American Jobs Act.” This proposed legislation would prevent state government from contracting for services performed outside the United States. For example, the State of Wisconsin contracts with JP Morgan Chase to provide food stamp recipients with electronic bank transfer cards (the Wisconsin QUEST card). When a recipient has a problem with their QUEST Card and they need to call a service center, they are not speaking to somebody in Wisconsin or the United States, but rather somebody from India or Mexico, whose wages are paid by Wisconsin taxpayers.

According to the bill’s authors, when state government outsources work, “we lose the income from those jobs, which support families and communities, pay for government services through taxes, and fuel the American economy. It is especially egregious when taxpayer dollars pay for those jobs in other countries.”

The Pocan/Robson jobs bill is illustrative, but perhaps not in the way the authors intended. It is clear state government contracts with businesses that outsource jobs, in order to keep costs down. If Wisconsin were to limit contracts to businesses that operate wholly in the U.S., it would likely substantially increase the cost of running the state programs those contracts support.

As has been shown in previous WPRI reports, Wisconsin currently has an imbalance between the taxes it collects and spending it conducts. For years, the state has had to use damaging budget gimmicks and schemes to keep state government afloat, as elected officials haven’t had the fortitude to scale back programs – in fact, at times when Wisconsin carried large deficits, the Governor and Legislature actually created expensive new state programs.

This brings up a provocative, and somewhat uncomfortable question. Would it be in Wisconsin’s best interest to outsource more of its services? If the Legislature isn’t willing to control costs by reining in spending, can the state follow the example of the private sector and utilize cheap labor to control costs?

The following points come to mind:

  • Outsourcing more state government work wouldn’t necessarily affect Wisconsin jobs – much of the work is likely done in other states, anyway.
  • Holding costs down in some areas through more extensive use of outsourcing allows the state to reallocate funds to programs with a higher priority. For example, money saved by shifting a call center overseas may allow the state to fund Medicaid or public schools without having to raise taxes on citizens.
  • When developing countries get American jobs, it creates new markets for American products. As India and China expand, so do the potential consumers of Miller Beer, Harley-Davidson, and Fox Valley paper companies – which helps retain Wisconsin jobs.
  • Wisconsin currently participates in the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement. Under the agreement, preferences in favor of the United States over a certain dollar amount are forbidden. Limiting outsourcing would actually put the state in violation of this trade agreement.

When the Legislature convenes to begin addressing the current $5.4 billion budget shortfall faced by the state, it will debate whether to cut spending or, more likely, which taxes to raise. One thing that likely won’t be discussed at length is how to stretch our tax dollars further to avoid tax increases or service cuts – which could be accomplished by finding cheaper ways to pay for routine state operations. If we can stop pretending there are such things as “American jobs” anymore, we can help keep money in the pockets of Wisconsin workers and help the state’s economy get moving again.

-December 3, 2008

Democrats in Wisconsin: Not Going Anywhere?

Since the November 4th electoral beatdown received by Wisconsin Republicans, state GOP party leaders have been scrambling to offer ways to fix the party. Some say the party has lost its way and needs to be more conservative. Others say the party needs to move to the center to gain new members. My suggestion to adopt a giant lobster with sunglasses as the new party mascot has been largely ignored.

Even if the party were somehow able to get together on a plan of action, the uphill climb is likely more substantial than anyone realizes. If conservatives sit around and wait for the Obama backlash to sweep them into office in 2010, they’ll soon be able to hold their state convention in a minivan in Osseo.

Now that Democrats hold a monopoly on power in Madison, there are several distinct, structural advantages they have which make it more difficult for Republicans to win seats. Many citizens are under the impression that the Legislature exists to serve them. In fact, the Legislature only takes actions that will keep them in power. George Carlin has a joke about jobs – employees do just enough work so they don’t get fired, and bosses pay their workers just enough so they don’t quit. And that, in a nutshell, is your Wisconsin Legislature.

Now, that all changes. When we have split houses, both sides push for electoral advantage. But with unilateral control, Democrats can take legislative action that puts Republicans at a distinct disadvantage. Soon, the Democrats’ de facto electoral edge become a de jure advantage. For instance:

Regulation of Speech

For years, so-called “good government” groups have been dying to get their spindly little fingers on your free speech rights. During campaigns, third parties groups on both sides crop up and run television ads of questionable taste. In many cases, they spend a great deal of money on these ads and don’t disclose their donors, in an effort to protect their members from political retribution.

As a result, many groups have pushed the Legislature to pass laws regulating the timing and content of these political ads. In fact, the Government Accountability Board, a team of unelected bureaucrats, recently deemed themselves eligible to be the political speech police come election time.

In the past, the Legislature has looked at plans that would regulate political speech – and no plan has come close to passing. Both parties seem to recognize that campaign spending takes place on both sides, and they like a lot of these groups doing the heavy lifting on behalf of their candidates. If a bill were to pass under a split Legislature, it is likely that the ads would be affected equally on both sides. Basically, the threat of mutually assured destruction has kept the Legislature from imposing these speech regulations.

However, with Democrats fully controlling the Legislature and governorship, the regulation of political speech can easily be turned into a partisan political weapon. When elected Assembly Speaker, Mike Sheridan of Janesville listed speech regulation as one of his first priorities. “”If you’re getting pounded, at least you should know where you’re getting pounded from,” Sheridan said following his ascendance to the speakership. And when the Democratic Legislature takes over speech regulation, it is almost certain they will slant the law in their favor.

Let’s look at the issue in the simplest possible way: WEAC, the state teacher’s union, spends millions of dollars on issue ads to promote their preferred candidates, usually Democrats. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s business lobby, usually spends equal amounts to promote Republican candidates, for the most part. But once Democrats get their hands on political speech, you can bet which side is going to be shut down come election time. It would be easy for Democrats to ban issue ads, but somehow magically exempt unions from the prohibition. As a result, millions will be spent in support of Democratic candidates, and very little will be spent on Republicans. Such are the dangers of government involving itself in the micromanagement of political debate.

The Natural Advantage of Incumbency

It’s no secret that incumbents win more often. Once someone is in office, it takes a pretty strong crowbar to pry them out. In the last two elections, Democrats have had such a crowbar, and his name was George W. Bush.

Incumbents enjoy a great deal of natural advantages once in office. They get huge mailing budgets to saturate their districts with mailings telling constituents all the great things they’re doing for them. They get hundreds of Blue Books they can send to important supporters. They get to knock on doors all summer on the taxpayers’ dime, while the poor schmuck running against them actually has to campaign while holding down a real job. They get to send press releases to all the press outlets in the district for their entire term, trying to garner earned media. They get a taxpayer funded staff who’s entire job is to make them look good, to grease the skids for re-election. Finally, they get to introduce legislation, which sets the agenda for the state and local press.

And now, more Democrats have these tools at their leisure than Republicans. In fact, an estimated 30 Assembly Republican staff members are likely out of jobs due to the switch in party control. These are the footsoldiers that help win GOP seats – and now they’ll be busy fabricating stuff to put on their resumes instead of working to make Wisconsin a red state. Unless there is a Republican tsunami in two years akin to the kind Democrats have had in the last four, these natural advantages of incumbency are going to be extremely difficult to overcome.

Redistricting

If things don’t turn around for Republicans in 2010, Democrats in the Legislature then get to re-draw legislative districts to their advantage. In the 2000 redistricting, the Scott Jensen-led Assembly drew their district lines to protect their incumbents and the Chuck Chvala-led Senate did the same. At some point, they had to compromise and send a final plan to the governor, who then had to approve it. Then, the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved the final plan, to make sure it passed several tests pursuant to the Voting Rights Act.

With Democrats wholly in charge of the redistricting process, solidifying a liberal majority in both houses will be a snap. For the sake of argument, think of three adjacent legislative districts – one is 70% GOP, and the other two are more marginally Republican – say, 51% GOP. Simply move 5% of the Republicans out of the moderate districts and into the more conservative district – then you end up with one 80% GOP seat and two 46% GOP seats. Dems up two seats, just by moving the line. (This is dramatically simplified, but you get the idea.) Pack as many Republicans into as few seats as possible, and Democrats can run the state for the next decade.

The convergence of all of these advantages, coupled with the tendency of the media to favor Democrats, all adds up to a daunting challenge for the GOP in the near future. Not only are they going to have to outscore Democrats, they’re going to have to cover a significant point spread in the process. Clearly, it’s going to take a lot more than simply complaining about the treatment Sarah Palin got from the media to turn the party around.

-November 13, 2008

Having a Gay Time in Milwaukee

When the new census figures are released, Milwaukee elected officials must cover their eyes. Once a vibrant, populous city, Milwaukee has been hemorrhaging residents for the past decade, as more and more citizens head for the suburbs, taking their jobs and wealth with them. This leaves lower income residents in the city to pick up an increasing share of the double digit tax increases foisted on them annually by barely competent elected officials.

Yet many cities are finding urban revitalization in an unexpected area. Specifically, they are counting on the Love that Dare Not Speak its Name to provide a spark.

Cities across the country have begun to openly cater to gays and lesbians, in an attempt to attract their wealth and lifestyle. In many cases, gay neighborhoods account for the highest property values and the greatest per capita wealth in inner city settings. They also provide centers of creativity, artistry, and innovation in urban areas desperately in need of revitalization.

This theory was famously detailed in the book “The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life,” by George Mason professor Richard Florida. Florida argues that as cities lose artists and gays, they also lose significant wealth. Florida actually ranks cities based on a “creativity index” to ascertain which urban areas do the best job of catering to their gay populations – Milwaukee ranks in the middle. (On the other hand, Madison, just an hour west, is number one in the “small city” category.)

Florida later published a study titled “There Goes the Neighborhood: How and Why Bohemians, Artists and Gays Effect Regional Housing Values,” in which he demonstrated (via his new “Gay-Bohemian Index”) how creative neighborhoods boost property values in inner cities. Florida argues that gay and artistic neighborhoods cultivate a “tolerance” and “open culture” premium that is attractive to high-income gay and straight residents alike.

Milwaukee already has several neighborhoods with significant gay populations. The revitalized Third Ward District and Sherman Park both cater to gays, while a conglomeration of gay bars can be found at Walker’s Point on the south side. But the race to attract gay and lesbian residents is on, and Milwaukee is falling behind. In Chicago, Mayor Richard Daley has recognized the value of gay neighborhoods – in 2006, he agreed to endorse and host the Gay Games in Boystown, which claims to be America’s first officially recognized gay village.

But what can a city really do to be more accommodating to gay residents? It would seem that many gay neighborhoods grow organically, rather than being foisted on a city. In an effort to revitalize a portion of their inner city in 2004, Oakland tried to set up a gay neighborhood, with mixed results. Plus, it seems any attempt to institute gay-friendly surroundings by elected officials would seem exceedingly stereotypical. A Milwaukee city council meeting where they discuss the types of things gays like would be comedy of the highest order. (A friend of mine with knowledge of Washington, D.C. gay neighborhoods suggested implementing Mazda Miata-only parking as a start.)

Sure, some religious and culturally conservative groups would have a problem with a city openly attempting to attract gay residents. But let’s be honest here – those groups most likely fled the city long ago. If you don’t want to visit a gay neighborhood, don’t visit a gay neighborhood. Those condemning for moral depravity in the inner city should see the gay lifestyle as a significant upgrade – at the very least, gay couples (generally) don’t produce fatherless children that go on to terrorize our streets. Plus, it’s not like the preponderance of art galleries and coffee houses makes anyone gay any more than there mere presence of a church in a neighborhood makes anyone Catholic.

So while state and local governments continue to pump billions of dollars into “economic development” programs in the inner city, we may be missing out on a valuable resource that can spur urban revitalization. When seeking out greater wealth and a more solid property tax base, the city should begin to look in new directions. Sadly, it just so happens that the city’s life preserver might be a little too “fabulous” for Milwaukee residents to tolerate.

-October 23, 2008

Everyone Out of the Presidential Pool

One of the understated joys of sifting through state statutes is finding little, arcane laws that are on the books for some reason, but are never enforced. In a lot of cases, you wonder how they got there in the first place – there must have been a great back story.

In any event, head on over to Chapter 6 of the Wisconsin Statutes, which governs which citizens are eligible to vote. Behold Wis. Stat. 6.03(2):

(2) No person shall be allowed to vote in any election in which the person has made or become interested, directly or indirectly, in any bet or wager depending upon the result of the election.

As it turns out, I myself am involved in a friendly wager based on the outcome of the election. I guess that means I can\’t vote. And anyone that takes part in any kind of \”guess the percantage pool?\” You\’re out, too. Apparently, if you have a financial stake in the outcome of an election, you\’re allowed to moderate a presidential debate, but not vote.

For me, this actually turns out to be good news: as of right now, my bet ain\’t lookin\’ so hot. So I can just pull out of it for fear the cops are going to haul me out of the voting booth and billy club me for trying to win my bet.

As a friend of mine noted, I should probably fear Wis. Stat 6.03(3) even more: Being declared mentally incompetent.

In all seriousness, this statute seems a little naive. Virtually everyone involved in a campaign is essentially placing a bet on the outcome of the election. One of the primary reasons candidates are able to draw people out to volunteer is the promise of a job or some other perk if they win. If a campaign contribution isn\’t essentially placing a bet on the outcome of the election, what is?

And for those actually interested in betting on the election, here are the Vegas lines as of this morning:

John McCain 3-1

Barack Obama 1-5

In layman\’s terms, Obama is an enormous favorite. If you bet $100 on McCain, you stand to make $300 if he wins. But if you want to make money betting on Obama, you have to lay $500 just to win $100. Just make sure you don\’t vote, as it would be illegal.

UPDATE: As I clicked \”publish\” on this post, I immediately went to Wispolitics\’ website, which is advertising a free subscription if you win their \”election picking\” contest. Hope that prize also comes with bail money.

Feelin\’ Prosperous

I spent last weekend in Washington, D.C. at the \”Defending the American Dream\” summit, hosted by the national chapter of Americans for Prosperity. (I also went to the Wisconsin event in February, and wrote about it here.) As I routinely say, my American Dream consists of some combination of Megan Fox, chocolate chip cookies, and Packer games – preferably all at once. But I suppose their American Dream vision is worth defending, too.

The conference began on Friday, and the first big event was a rally in front of the U.S. Capitol to promote free markets. Strangely, it looked exactly like the scene from Forrest Gump where Forrest addresses the anti-Vietnam crowd and they pull the plug on his speech – just without the hippies, drugs, and reckless sex. (Wait – why did I go to this thing, again?)

Before the rally actually began, the crowd milled around for a good two hours in the hot sun. Hand made signs were issued that said things like \”No Commies in Congress\” and \”Drill Our Soil for More Oil.\” A stereo system played a mix of working-guy anthems (I believe the Fabulous Thunderbirds\’ \”Tough Enough\” was in the mix) and country favorites, none of which I had heard. The music only partially drowned out a female Vietnamese folk band that was playing directly behind us on the Capitol lawn, next to a giant wooden white cross. They appeared to have one two-hour song that likely turned listeners against whatever cause they were championing.

The day was odd, in that the stock markets were still crashing down – yet we were there at a rally defending the free market. Obviously, smart people recognize that much of the economic downturn was caused by government intervention in the market, not by big business avarice. Laws that incentivized lenders to give high-risk individuals loans (and in some cases penalized them when they didn\’t) certainly played a major part in the economic downturn of last week. But I am absolutely certain that the lay person watching their retirement fund disappear like a honey ham at a weight watchers clinic blames the whole debacle on a lack of government regulation.

The rally featured Americans for Prosperity president Tim Phillips, who hammered home the (I believe, correct) theory that government intervention caused the market crash. You can listen to Phillips\’ comments here:

[audio:http://www.wpri.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/multimedia/audio/afp.mp3]

After the rally, all the sweaty participants piled back into the buses and headed back to the hotel to get ready for the evening program, which included drinks, dinner, and speeches from list of conservative heavy hitters. The dinner was held in an immense conference room, which purportedly held 1,700 hungry free market enthusiasts. There was barely a seat to be had, but I found one against the wall in a corner, approximately 16 miles from the stage. The dinner was, well… it was conference chicken. And I mean no disrespect to Ed Meese or his family, but I did sneak out during his speech for an extra drink. Or two.

The highlight of my night came later, when George Will spoke to the conference attendees. (And yes, I recognize that saying that previous sentence out loud would prevent me from ever seeing a live naked woman again.) Will was a little more combative than he usually appears on TV, pacing maniacally around the stage.

A couple of weeks ago, I appeared on a Milwaukee Public TV show (4th Street Forum), where the panel members were supposed to discuss how terrible gridlock in the state legislature is, and how we can get more bills passed. I was the resident contrarian on the panel, arguing that gridlock and partisanship aren\’t really all that terrible. In fact, the only thing worse than a government that works too slow is a government that works too fast, as we get stuck with new laws with wide-ranging unintended consequences.

In any event, George Will closed his speech on Friday night with this exact point. He argued that gridlock isn\’t an American failing, it is an American achievement. For people like us that tend to believe government does more \”to\” us than \”for\” us, a \”do-nothing\” Congress isn\’t all that horrible of a thing. Anyway, it was just nice to have my ideas validated by someone who I\’ve considered since my teenage years to be the foremost conservative writer in the U.S.

The next day included another slate of big hitters, and some break out sessions dealing with health care, entitlements, blogging, and campus activism. Throughout the two days, I really enjoyed meeting the good folks who had traveled from all over the country to be there. I know it\’s often easy for the media to describe \”the right\” as some monolithic group of Bible thumpers bent on taking over the country, but in actuality, they\’re just regular folks tired of seeing their basic freedoms recede in the name of government greed.

Here\’s some coverage of the aforementioned rally on Capitol Hill:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

The GAB’s Slimy Underbelly

Nearly a decade ago, British provocateur David Icke took a trip to Canada. As he swiped his passport through the scanner at the Vancouver airport, the words “WATCH FOR” appeared on the screen. Security quickly whisked him away to a holding cell.

Icke, a former English football player and BBC sports correspondent, had his career take a remarkable turn in 1991, when he declared himself to be the Son of God on a British talk show. Later, he wrote that he believed the Earth was secretly controlled by an extraterrestrial race of reptiles which, if they consume enough human blood, will enable them to take a human form. In his 1999 book, “The Biggest Secret: The Book that Will Change the World,” Icke exposed George H.W. Bush and Hillary Clinton as members of this reptilian ruling class.

While they appeared to some to be nothing more than the rantings of a madman, Icke’s theories were immediately denounced as anti-Semitic. While he never accused Jews of any plot to rule the world, some believed his “lizard race” theory was too similar to many other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. As a result, Icke was flagged by Canadian customs authorities, who had been pressured by anti-discrimination groups to keep him out of the country altogether.

In the airport holding cell, a man with rubber gloves rifled through Icke’s belongings to find anti-Semitic artifacts. Two immigrations officers berated him, trying to get him to admit he was an anti-Semite. “The families in positions of great financial power obsessively interbreed with one another,” he said. “But I’m not talking about one earth race, Jewish or non-Jewish. I’m talking about a genetic network that operates through all races, this bloodline being a fusion between human and reptilian genes,” he protested.

After four hours in the cell, the Canadian authorities concluded that when Icke said lizards, he really meant lizards. They released him, and he was free to go on his way. He began giving speeches to Canadian crowds, which were often cut short by protestors hurling pies at him.

Certainly, it’s a long way from lizard conspiracy theories and Canadian immigration agents to Wisconsin in 2008. Yet the state Government Accountability Board (GAB) is attempting to unilaterally impose Canadian-style restrictions on free speech, without any action by a single elected official. In essence, they’re going to give themselves the ability to decide whether or not people are talking about reptiles.

The unelected GAB, made up of former judges, was instituted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 2007, in order to more aggressively enforce existing elections laws. Instead, the Board has deigned it necessary to make new laws which have never been considered by the Legislature. (Also known as those who represent the people of Wisconsin.)

For instance, the GAB is trying to make itself the sole group that decides what can and can’t be said during an election. They are looking into promulgating rules that would allow them to regulate the timing and content of political speech in Wisconsin by determining what is and what is not “express advocacy.” Is a television ad urging people to call their legislators to support tax relief political speech? Only the GAB will know. Is a newspaper ad asking voters to support candidates who are pro-life “express advocacy?” If the GAB decides so, it could be yanked from the papers. As a result, many citizens who normally band together to criticize legislators or their policies will be intimidated into silence during campaign season.

With the power of free speech vested in such a small group of “elites,” who knows what they will decide is appropriate? Is an ad discussing Barack Obama’s ties to Jeremiah Wright’s church legitimate, or is it a secret racist code? Is an ad criticizing Sarah Palin’s lack of experience accurate, or is it an unfair attack on working mothers? Only the GAB will be able to decide. And if the future holds anything that is certain, it is that they won’t be able to fairly determine when a lizard is just a lizard.

-September 22, 2008

For more on the travails of David Icke, see “Them: Adventures with Extremists,” by Jon Ronson.

The GOP’s Trojan Horse

Recent years in America have seen a languid national Republican Party, which has been struggling to recruit members, formulate a salient message, and win elections. As the war in Iraq has drawn on and the government has grown exponentially in size, voters have avoided the Republican Party like Michael Moore avoids exercise. In winning the party’s nomination for the presidency, Senator John McCain had showed sparks of inspiration, but has largely been wearing the concrete boots of the Bush/Cheney administration.

That may have all changed on Wednesday night, as the Republicans introduced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to the world. Palin’s speech netted 38 million viewers – just as many as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s speech at the Democratic convention six days earlier – a speech that many hailed as the most anticipated in history.

Yet it appears the nation may be equally enthralled by the new GOP “Supermom.” For Republicans, Palin represents a trojan horse – buttressed by her credentials as a government reformer and mother of a special needs child, Palin struck a soft pose as she took the podium in front of a delirious convention on Wednesday night.

Yet much of Palin’s speech didn’t match the delicate exterior she portrays. She took a howitzer to her critics, and sarcastically mocked Barack Obama’s experience and qualifications – yet never stopped smiling.

Had it been Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty on that stage attacking Obama, America may have recoiled from the criticism of The Chosen One. They would have figured the shots delivered were just more Republican white guy vitriol. But because Palin’s.demeanor is so appealing, she may be the one VP pick McCain could have made that can penetrate Obama’s armor – and she seems to revel in the opportunity. It appears she will be Fed-Ex’ing Obama a weekly stool sandwich in her official duty as campaign attack dog.

Of course, it didn’t take long for Democrats to attack Palin – manufacturing stories before the convention even began. Yet the intensity of the Obama supporters’ criticisms are directly proportional to how quality of a pick she was for McCain. The Democrats know they need to take her out – now. Because she has what they like to call in football “breakaway speed.” Let her get a head of steam, and you may be looking at the back of her jersey until she gets to the goal line.

In this sense, Palin might be the Republicans’ performance-enhancing mom. She has given them the shot in the arm they needed to make this race competitive, as long as they don’t get a big Barry Bonds-sized head and blow it all.

-September 5, 2008

The Fonz Statue: Are Happy Days Here Again?

On Tuesday of this week, Wisconsin will finally close a shameful chapter in its history by paying tribute to one of our most enduring public figures. We are finally celebrating a Wisconsin resident who put us on the national map – someone who made Milwaukee a fashionable place. Set aside, for a moment, the fact that he remained enthusiastic about high school girls well into his 30’s – the man could start a jukebox with his fist. And thus, we honor The Fonz with his own statue for making Milwaukee “cool” for over a decade.

The Wisconsin landscape is replete with statues. Abraham Lincoln casts a watchful eye over the UW-Madison campus from his perch on Bascom Hill. (Presumably, watching modern students emancipate shots of Jose Cuervo from State Street bar drink specials.) Hans Christian Heg, the highest-ranking Wisconsin soldier killed in the Civil War, was honored in 1926 with a statue outside the Wisconsin Capitol. Certainly more recognizable to Wisconsin residents is Vince Lombardi, immortalized by a statue outside Lambeau Field. Jean Nicolet, credited as being the first white man to set foot in Northeast Wisconsin, is memorialized with a statue in Red Banks. (It is also rumored that after settling near Green Bay, Nicolet was the first man to call for Ted Thompson to be s-canned for running Brett Favre out of town.)

Despite these notable figures being immortalized by statues, it is curious that most of them were built nearly a century ago (Lombardi being the exception, but he’s a sports icon.) When reflecting on the significance of the Fonzie statue, it seems reasonable to ask: Why don’t we honor legitimately important people with statues anymore?

In fact, most of our recognizable statues actually seem to be more in the mold of the Fonzie statue. That is, they represent either fictional characters or animals.

Visitors to Eau Claire can go see the statues of Paul Bunyan and Babe, his blue ox. If you’re in Delavan, you can go see a statue of Romeo, the Killer Elephant, famous for killing five people during his circus career – fortunately for all involved, Romeo’s statue shows the elephant stomping on a circus clown. Sitting atop the State Capitol is “Wisconsin,” a statue of a hypothetical woman meant to symbolize our state motto, “Forward.” (Plans to alter the statue to make it more representative of the modern Wisconsin woman have been put on hold, as the sculptor is figuring out how to incorporate a beer, cigarette, and Favre jersey into the statue.)

So, why do we only build statues of fictional humans? It seems to me that there are two plausible explanations.

First, the public doesn’t have any confidence in their government leaders anymore. Think of the public officials of the last century in Wisconsin that everyone can agree deserves a statue. The most obvious seems to be Tommy Thompson, but even that seems to be a bit much, as Tommy had plenty of enemies. It appears Governor Thompson will merely have to settle for having every building around the Capitol named after him. Plus, Tommy is still living – the chances he does something to embarrass the state is still hanging out there.

It is clear the public has completely lost faith in its elected leaders. WPRI conducts annual polls that measure citizens’ views of their elected officials, and their approval rating has never been worse. Plus, there are “good government” groups whose only reason to exist is to convince the public that their public servants are corrupt. And in the infrequent event they’re right, it sullies the name of all public officials, whether truly deserved or only marginally deserved.

In fact, this disdain for public figures is so strong, it appears to be retroactive. Good luck trying to pay tribute to any of our Founding Fathers these days, as most of them were white slave owners. One can only imagine the opposition to building a statue of James Madison in our state’s capital, which just happens to be named after him. As a result, Madison features a statue of football coach Barry Alvarez, but not the author of the Bill of Rights.

Second, there simply aren’t the huge issues out there to be solved that would warrant a modern politician the adulation necessary for a statue. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, General George Washington saved our country from the British, and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jim Doyle addressed the closing of the Janesville auto plant by rapping.

When he was a child, Gaylord Nelson wondered whether a career in government was worth it – he thought his hero, Senator Robert M. La Follette, would have solved all the problems by then. (La Follette has a notable statue, but it is sitting in the National Statuary Hall in Washington, D.C.)

While it’s true that there are problems government needs to address (most notably, by showing some humility), it’s clear that the great issues may all be in our distant past – and with their passing, so go the individuals with the courage to fix them. Nobody’s building a statue of anyone for guaranteeing my constitutional right to smoke in a bar.

There appears to be a strong correlation between what people think about their elected officials and their desire to memorialize them with a statue. The days of universal admiration for our public servants is long gone – as are the great issues they stared down, with steely fortitude.

Instead, we now pay tribute to non-threatening fictional characters, sports figures, and deadly circus animals. Sadly, as our society becomes more and more fractured, elephants crushing clowns seems the be the only thing we can all get behind.

-August 18, 2008

Is Obama the “Hero We Need?”

(Note: This column contains references to the movie “The Dark Knight.” Although they’re not “spoilers,” considered yourself duly warned if you’re one of those people that doesn’t want to know anything about the movie before you see it. And given its box office numbers, if you haven’t seen it, you likely live in a community with no electricity.)

In recent years, the superhero movie genre has undergone a revival. Previously, movies featuring comic book heroes could be counted on for nothing more than some good action and bad tights. But that has all changed. Now the Hulk is a sensitive hero with father issues. Spiderman wrestles with the weight of his own conscience. Iron Man ends up accomplishing the formidable task of saving both the world and Robert Downey Jr.’s drug dealer from bankruptcy. Even a movie like “Unbreakable,” which doesn’t reveal itself as a superhero movie until late in the film, features superhuman characters with real world problems.

This weekend saw the release of the granddaddy of them all, “The Dark Knight.” The second Christian Bale Batman movie has been hailed in some circles as the greatest superhero movie ever made. And while it features people wearing clown makeup blowing stuff up,[i] there are actually some valuable real world lessons interwoven through the script.

There’s a danger in applying the lessons of movies where the main characters wear masks and capes to politics. (Although it’s well known that Russ Feingold occasionally wears a red codpiece on the Senate floor.) Until John McCain saves a busload of school kids from careening off a bridge with his teeth, there’s probably no real comparison. (The chances of this actually happening are really no greater than 10%.)

Yet in “The Dark Knight,” there’s a theme that seems to strike close to home in the 2008 presidential election. In the movie, the public becomes increasingly skeptical of Batman’s vigilante brand of law enforcement. Instead, they credit District Attorney Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhardt) with cleaning up much of Gotham’s crime. Although Batman clearly runs circles around the city’s law enforcement, he is content to accept the public’s scorn and pass the credit to Dent. At one point, Commissioner Gordon observes that “Batman is the hero Gotham deserves, not the one it needs.”

The dichotomy between what citizens “need” and what they “deserve” is essentially what voters are wrestling with in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In the context of the movie, what voters “need” is a figurehead that makes them feel better about themselves – that the government has things under control. While Dent was a newcomer to the District Attorney’s office, he made citizens feel like he was one of them. And while his accomplishments were mainly devoid of content, he served as Gotham’s avatar for justice.

In this context, Barack Obama fits neatly into the category of the politician we “need.” We need to feel better about ourselves, regardless of those pesky “policies” and “details.” We need someone who represents Hope and Change, despite not having a single idea that hasn’t been culled from the Democratic blueprint. A vote for Obama washes away our guilt over race relations and helps us erase the hangover from an unpopular war. Obama is essentially a political paint-by-numbers book, where the lines are drawn, but we are free to fill in whatever colors make us feel better. (Adding to the comparison is Obama’s proclivity to flip-flop, leading one to believe he might be “two faced.”)

On the other hand, McCain represents the politician we “deserve.” The world is full of maniacal dictators intent on bringing down the United States, and they won’t be allayed by the U.S. sending them a “World’s Greatest Despot” coffee mug. We deserve someone willing to confront America’s international dangers as they are, not as how they are perceived at the NPR offices.

We “deserve” a politician who is willing to talk to us like grown-ups when it comes to earmark and entitlement reform. America is poised for an economic disaster when Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare bills come due for baby boomers. Yet no one is willing to do anything about it, as these entitlement programs constitute the third rail of American politics. Congressman Paul Ryan of Janesville is pushing his “roadmap” for reforming these programs, but there’s a better chance that Congress declares Prince’s “Batdance” as the national anthem than Ryan’s “roadmap to making granny cry” becoming law.

(Perhaps most importantly, McCain has been known to dress like a rodent and kick his political opponents in the head, which pretty much completes the parallel.)

In November, voters could very well choose the candidate they think they need, rather than the one they believe they deserve. But after our national collective group hug, the job of actually governing remains. By then, it may be too late to send out the Bat Signal.

-July 21, 2008

Standing Up for Your Right to Dry

For centuries, all men have really wanted is the opportunity to have some woman look at their underwear. We have devised myriad strategies (jobs, cars, combovers, breath fresheners) in hopes of creating just the right moment for a lovely lady to gaze at our drawers. Fortunately for the men of the world, having people look at your tighty-whiteys could now actually save the planet.

Everyone these days is “going green.” Television stations turn off the lights for 30 seconds to convince you that somehow they’re being environmentally responsible. Companies throw the “green” tag on things like cleaning products and bottled water, despite their questionable environmental value. However, some businesses have seen millions of dollars in savings by “going green.” A young professionals’ group in Milwaukee lists a green way of life as one of the top reasons young people would be attracted to a city.

Obviously, if citizens continue to buy bogus “green” products at the same rate they currently are, it won’t do a thing to help the environment. Yet often times, government and nosy neighbors can stand in the way of green activities that actually matter. For instance, local governments and neighborhood associations across the U.S. have declared war on outdoor laundry lines, citing their lack of aesthetic quality. Some environmentalists are starting to rebel, pointing out how much energy it saves to hang your clothes out to dry rather than using an electric dryer. (Plus, many of them need the extra space in their laundry rooms for all the heat lamps and aluminum foil.)

In 2005, according to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, there were 88 million dryers in the United States. Annually, these dryers consume 1,079 kilowatt hours of energy per household, creating 2,224 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions.

Enter Project Laundry List, a tax-free 501(c)(3) group that claims to be fighting for individuals’ rights to leave their underwear flapping in the breeze. (The group’s website doesn’t show a Wisconsin chapter…yet.) Their website lays out the various state and local ordinances banning outdoor laundry lines, and urges introduction of “right to dry” legislation that protects the environmentally smart practice. (Several states have actually passed legislation pre-empting local governments’ right to ban laundry lines.)

The site also contains testimonials of people who associate laundry lines with the simpler days of yore, when they played in the backyard as children amongst drying laundry. Laundry line advocates also point out that hanging up clothes outside involves physical activity and spending more time outside with your neighbors – things society could use more of. (Then again, in the old days, there was less of a chance of some dirtbag stealing your bra so he could sell it to buy meth.)

Yet neighborhood associations (which rank somewhere between al-Qaeda and rat poison in public favorability rankings) maintain their right to promote pleasing aesthetics within their fiefdoms. They think nobody wants to see their neighbors’ unmentionables in public. (If you knew my neighbors, you’d recognize this as a valid concern.) It has been said that outdoor laundry is seen by some as a “flag of poverty”

This begs a larger question – how involved does government (or a neighborhood association) have to be in protecting us from the horrors of seeing things we don’t like? Government surely isn’t going to come in and force your co-worker to trim his gross nose hair. There’s no reason we need laws to ban us from having to view laundry. If you don’t like the sights, sounds, and smells of the outside world, go live in a bunker.

As in any case of public/private rights conflicts, accommodations can be made. Outdoor laundry can be limited to the back yard, to protect the most sensitive of citizens from having to see a skid mark on their stroll through the neighborhood. Outdoor drying can be allowed on one day per week. There are options here.

Few opportunities arise where people can make a meaningful environmental difference and save money at the same time. Our government just needs to throw us a line.

-July 8, 2008

Handicapping the Wisconsin Legislature

Wouldn’t it be great if life were a lot more like golf? We’d all benefit from the thrill of competition, we’d learn good sportsmanship, and we’d all get to enjoy the great outdoors on a daily basis. (In my case, I get to enjoy nature more than most, as I’m usually hitting out of a bird’s nest.) And best yet, if you’re a terrible golfer, you get a “handicap,” which levels the playing field by letting you shave strokes off your final score.

(Perhaps most importantly, any situation where it’s acceptable to wear plaid pants in public is okay in my book.)

The whole concept of making things fair by allowing for a handicap would be welcome in real life. All your friends would be uglier than you, so you’d look better by comparison. People would only be allowed to talk about books you have read, so you could dazzle them with your insight. You could walk right into your new job, declare yourself a substandard worker, and thus be allowed to do half the work of your colleagues. (One of the ironclad rules of the workplace – never do anything well the first time, because if you do, you’ll get stuck doing it forever.)

Apparently, Democrats in the Wisconsin State Legislature feel the same way about “leveling” the playing field in elections. Or at least they pretend to – in actuality, their plan for “fairness” in legislative redistricting is a naked attempt to provide themselves with a redistricting handicap, which would guarantee Democrat majorities for the foreseeable future.

The whole idea of fairness in redistricting and creating competitive districts has become a hot topic among “good government” groups, who are displeased with the idea of allowing legislators to set the boundaries of their own districts. Groups like the League of Women Voters and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign have lobbied for legislation to set up an independent panel to set legislative districts. In 2006, the League of Women Voters issued a survey for candidates that asked this question:

4. YES OR NO: Do you support and would you vote for legislative measures making electoral competitiveness a legal or constitutional standard that must be applied by the Legislature and the courts in establishing state legislative and congressional district boundaries?

Clearly, they are dissatisfied with the current makeup of the State Legislature and think there’s a better way to draw legislative districts. They think that the districts are rigged by the incumbent lawmakers that redraw them every decade. They think that somehow, the state Constitution should be rewritten to make “electoral competitiveness” the standard when drawing new districts.

In the 2007 session, they got their wish – Democratic Representatives Fred Kessler of Milwaukee and Spencer Black of Madison introduced a constitutional amendment (AJR 63) that sets up an independent board to write new districts and creates a standard of “fairness” that most districts will have to reflect.

So making all the districts in the state competitive sounds like a good idea, right? Then, more races will be contested, and democracy will flourish, correct? There’s only one problem with this theory: The Voting Rights Act.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which guaranteed the right to vote for all citizens. The Act was a response to Southern separatists, who responded to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making it more difficult for blacks to vote.

For the past 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to mold the meaning of the Civil Rights Act. One of the problems encountered by the courts has been that of “vote dilution,” used by segregationists to lessen the influence of black voters. These segregationist lawmakers would gerrymander districts to make sure only a sliver of black voters were present in each district, which guaranteed no minorities could be elected to office, and would “dilute” the efficacy of minority votes.

To address this nefarious tactic, the courts have ruled that wherever possible, minority representation must be present. The goal in redistricting has to be keeping minority voters together as a community. To that end, where there are majority-minority populations, there must be an opportunity to elect a minority to office. Of course, minorities, especially African-Americans, disproportionately vote for Democrats. Thus, in heavily black areas of Milwaukee, you find a lot of black Democrats that hold office. Here’s a map of downtown Milwaukee Assembly districts:

Of the inner city Milwaukee districts, look at the solid block that are represented by African Americans or other minorities: the 16th (Leon Young), 18th (Tamara Grigsby), 10th (Polly Williams), 17th (Barbara Toles), 8th (Pedro Colon), and 11th (Jason Fields). Additionally, these districts are represented by African-Americans Spencer Coggs and Lena Taylor in the State Senate. Of course, all of these minority representatives are Democrats, and represent heavily Democratic districts.

Now try to imagine drawing a map where each of these districts are “electorally competitive.” Think of how you could take these 90% Democratic districts and gerrymander them so they are each 50% Republican. You would essentially have about ten to fifteen districts made up primarily of the suburbs that pick off just a little sliver of inner city Milwaukee. The effect of this type of gerrymandering? Vote dilution.

Trying to make these districts “electorally competitive” would fracture the African-American community into little sections, where it would be increasingly more difficult to elect black representatives. I’m not willing to say that any of the current African-American representatives couldn’t be elected in majority white districts, but Wisconsin has yet to elect a minority in any district without a strong minority presence (Bob Turner from Racine, for instance). So the end result of the League of Women Voters’ plan to equalize districts would actually be to end minority representation in the state.

Not only would this be unlawful (as determined by the courts) it wouldn’t pass the test of public decency. Of course, what the League really wants to do is make heavily Republican districts more competitive. But in order to do that, you have to move the Republicans somewhere, and they would have to go into districts that cause problems with equal rights case law. Since Republicans continue to win seats in both state houses, they figure something must be wrong with the process of drawing districts – it’s obviously rigged.

Enter the Kessler/Black constitutional amendment, which makes an exception for majority-minority districts. The bill says:

[Article IV] Section 3 (2) Within 120 days after receipt of the final census report of the population count by census block, the legislative technology services bureau shall submit to the state redistricting board 3 apportionment proposals providing for competitive elections, all meeting the following criteria:

[…]

(b) African−Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and members of any other demographic group protected by the laws of the United States shall be the voting age majority in the number of assembly and senate districts in proportion to the percentage of the population in counties or groups of counties having a sufficient geographic concentration of their members.

Translation: All districts have to be competitive, except for the ones that are majority-minority, which (rightfully) can’t be touched. If you consider the six Assembly districts currently represented by minorities, then add in a couple more that could very easily be represented by minorities, you’re essentially giving Assembly Democrats an eight-seat handicap going into every election. (Kessler’s district probably should have a minority representative, but he was helped by his guest spot on rapper Jay-Z’s last album.) The bill does nothing but rig elections to favor Democrats, pure and simple.

This is just another example of interest groups either not thinking through the implications of their policy positions, or making a blatant power grab, engineered by the state constitution. Who ever thought the League of Women Voters would advocate undermining the Voting Rights Act? Someone call Tiger Woods.

Wisconsin’s Third Party Animals

On the evening of November 5, 2002, the election results began to roll in. A rainy election day had come to wash away the grime from an often-brutal gubernatorial race in Wisconsin, which had seen the candidates refer to each other as “crooked” and “absolutely disreputable.” Incumbent Republican Governor Scott McCallum, who had been in office scarcely two years, faced a strong challenge from long-time Democratic Attorney General Jim Doyle. The race was a crucial turning point for Wisconsin, as it represented the first time in sixteen years iconic Governor Tommy Thompson was not on the ballot.

Merely a year earlier, Republican officials could only have dreamed about Doyle pulling a paltry 45% of the vote on election night. McCallum had suffered in Thompson’s shadow after Tommy had left to be Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush Administration. McCallum, saddled with a large budget deficit, sought to cut spending to local governments to make up the difference. Naturally, local officials, many of them Republicans, appeared all too willing to defenestrate McCallum in favor of the Democrat.

Yet on election night, Doyle’s poor showing did little to cheer up the GOP faithful. While the Democrat had fallen well short of the magic 50% mark, McCallum had pulled in a woeful 41%, losing to Doyle by nearly 66,000 votes. For the first time in sixteen years, Wisconsin would be led by a Democrat – and a long time bitter Thompson foe, at that.

The reason both major candidates together could only muster 86% of the total vote could be found in bucolic Tomah, Wisconsin (pop. 8,400). Former boxer, professional card player, tavern owner, and Tomah Mayor Ed Thompson had decided a year earlier to run for Governor in 2002. Thompson, a short, stout man with glasses so thick they looked like they could plausibly protect him from a bullet, had signed on with the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin in order to make his third party charge toward the state’s highest office. His sole qualification for the office of governor appeared to be that he once emerged from the same womb as his brother, Governor Tommy Thompson.

Thompson’s 2002 run for governor represented a perfect storm for a third party candidacy in Wisconsin. The Legislature was in the midst of a scandal that eventually led to leaders of both houses being convicted of felonies for crimes such as extortion, bribery, and using state offices for fundraising. The economic downturn of 2001 left voters skeptical of either party’s ability to deal with their financial troubles. By September 2002, 45 percent of Wisconsin residents felt the state was on the wrong track, up from 20 percent only three years earlier. Seventy-five percent of citizens believed lobbyists had more say in how the government spent money than voters did.

Of course, Thompson’s last name didn’t hurt either. As the brother of the state’s most beloved political figure, Ed Thompson had immediate name recognition throughout the state. Plus, it’s not entirely impossible that some voters may have actually confused Ed Thompson with his famous brother. Confusion over names at the polls isn’t exactly unprecedented—it is believed by some historians that Wisconsin’s first African-American legislator, Lucien Palmer, was elected in 1906 because voters confused him with another political Palmer, who was white. Lucien Palmer only lasted one two-year term, which may have been just enough time for voters to figure out their “mistake.”

Perhaps the most famous example of mistaken identity in Wisconsin politics occurred in 1970, when a Sheboygan gas station attendant Robert A. Zimmerman ran as a Democrat for the position of secretary of state. At the time, the incumbent secretary of state happened to be a popular Republican, Robert C. Zimmerman. Robert A. Zimmerman, who wasn’t allowed to speak during the campaign by his mentor Edmond Hou-Seye, won the Democratic primary against up-and-comer Tom Fox, presumably because voters confused him with the incumbent secretary. (Fox went on to become commissioner of insurance in Wisconsin.) Zimmerman, the mute gas station attendant, went on to lose to Zimmerman the secretary of state. Hou-Seye went on to run several ill-fated races for statewide office himself, coining the phrase “journalism is the science of distortion” along the way.

Wisconsin historically has been a sanctuary for third parties. It was in Wisconsin where Robert M. LaFollette, Jr. split the Progressive Party off from the GOP in 1934. That year, the Progressives won a landslide of state offices, including Philip LaFollette winning the governor’s office for the first time as a Progressive candidate. Milwaukee famously elected three Socialist mayors in the first half of the twentieth century, the only major city in the U.S. to have done so.

In recent years, third parties in Wisconsin have continued to affect statewide elections. In 2000, Vice President Al Gore defeated Texas Governor George W. Bush by 5,708 votes in Wisconsin. Gore’s margin of victory was actually less than the 6,640 Wisconsin votes cast for Libertarian Harry Browne for president in that same election. In the 2000 election, third party presidential votes numbered 116,445 in Wisconsin—nearly 20 times the size of Gore’s margin of victory. Everyone remembers the vote count debacle and subsequent court action in Florida following that presidential election, yet that charade would not have occurred had a small fraction of third party voters in Wisconsin shifted their votes to George W. Bush.

Strong third party voting in Wisconsin held true to form in 2004, when Senator John Kerry beat Bush by 11,384 votes. In that election, Wisconsin saw 26,397 votes cast for third party candidates. While well below the 2000 third party vote (due mostly to a drastically diminished Ralph Nader effort), the third party total still greatly exceeded the final margin of victory for Kerry.

Naturally, Ed Thompson wasn’t the only third party candidate in the field in 2002. Thompson was joined by 34-year-old Aneb Jah Rasta Sensas-Utcha Nefer-I, who insisted that he was already governor of Wisconsin. “I was born to rule, because God’s judgment will judge all unrighteousness,” said Sensas-Utcha, a native of Milwaukee. “I’m the damn governor of the State of Wisconsin.” To back up this claim, Sensas-Utcha pointed to several bills regarding E Coli that he had passed earlier. Unfortunately, he was unable to describe the details of this important legislation, claiming the press might be able to use it against him. Despite his previous hypothetical electoral success, Sensas-Utcha was only able to muster 929 votes statewide in November.

Thompson was also joined as a third party gubernatorial candidate by Mike Mangan, who campaigned wearing a gorilla suit. Mangan, a self-employed energy consultant from Waukesha, waged what he called a “guerilla attack against state spending.” Mangan criticized the state’s “King Kong deficit,” which is quite a coincidence since he happened to own a gorilla mask. (Fortunately for Mangan, the deficit wasn’t the size of a turtle, as he would have had to scramble for a new costume.) Mangan was actually a fan of Ed Thompson’s run, seeing it as a breakthrough for third parties in future races, saying, “I think he’s opening doors.”

These independent candidates represent only a small sliver of the colorful history of third party politicians in Wisconsin. In 1974, flamboyant West Milwaukee used car dealer James Groh legally changed his name to “Crazy Jim” to run for governor as an independent. Crazy Jim was a staunch advocate of legalized gambling, and frequently spun a tale of how he once played cards with Frank Sinatra in Las Vegas. At the time, the concept of legal gambling in Wisconsin seemed to be far-fetched—yet Crazy Jim turned out to be a visionary, as Wisconsin adopted a state lottery and welcomed almost unlimited Indian casino gambling by the 1990s. Crazy Jim lost to incumbent Patrick Lucey 629,000 votes to 12,100; but his family said he took solace throughout his life in the fact that he carried Waushara County. (Although he did not—records show he only garnered 47 votes in Waushara County, which placed him a distant fifth.) Crazy Jim died in 2002 of a heart attack.

In Madison, self-described “futurist” Richard H. Anderson has run for numerous offices, including state assembly, mayor, and city council. Anderson routinely ran on an “anti-mind control” platform, believing the government had planted a cybernetic chip in his brain. A self-described bisexual, Anderson fought for better treatment of minorities and, as a surprise to exactly no one, for legalized marijuana. “Just because I’m a pot head doesn’t mean I’m not qualified to hold office,” he once said. Unfortunately, the government rarely used mind control to direct voters to vote for him, as he once mustered a scant six votes in a race for the state Assembly against now-Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. Naturally, the Progressive Capital Times newspaper said Anderson had “made a good impression.”

(One has to wonder what a debate between a “pro-mind control” and “anti-mind control” candidate is like. Presumably, the “anti” candidate would get up to speak, the “pro” candidate would glare and point his finger at them, and the “anti” candidate would sheepishly sit back down without saying a word.)

Yet the candidacy of Ed Thompson in 2002 represented a breakthrough for independent candidates, who had previously been relegated to the scrap heap of oddities, curiosities, and also-rans. In early 2001, Thompson was a man without a party. Without the backing of a more established third party, a Thompson candidacy could have been viewed as a fringe endeavor and may have lost traction quickly.

Early that year, Thompson met with notorious independent Governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura of Minnesota, who had been carried by his nationwide wrestling fame to victory in 1998. (Thompson would later joke that he should be called Ed “The Belly.”) The meeting was arranged by Bob Collison, leader of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin. Soon thereafter, Thompson signed on as the official Libertarian candidate for governor of Wisconsin. It was a symbiotic relationship—the Libertarian tag gave Thompson the legitimacy his campaign needed, while Thompson gave the Libertarians a big enough name to finally make a splash in state politics.

Yet there remained an internecine struggle within the party between Libertarians who fundamentally subscribed to the Libertarian principles of limited government and those looking for statewide legitimacy in the electoral process. Clearly, Ed Thompson wasn’t a dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian, although he espoused many of the dangers of government police powers. In the late 1990s, Thompson’s Tee Pee supper club was raided by authorities and four nickel slot machines were confiscated. He refused to cut a deal and plead guilty, and the charges were dropped when the county district attorney was voted out of office over the raid. Thompson said that one of his motivations for running for governor was to beat then-Attorney General Jim Doyle, whom he believes had ordered the raid on the Tee Pee.

However, this desire for deregulated gambling alone wasn’t enough to make him a Libertarian. As mayor of Tomah, Thompson governed as if he were any mayor of any small town in Wisconsin. His gubernatorial platform included more environmental regulation to preserve Wisconsin’s natural spaces and more money for the University of Wisconsin system. Thompson’s supporters bred more distrust among philosophical libertarians when they bitterly complained about Thompson not receiving enough public tax money to run his campaign—a concept anathema to those truly interested in restricting government spending.

Furthermore, as his running mate, Thompson signed up retiring Democratic Assembly Representative and former Ladysmith Mayor Marty Reynolds. While Reynolds described himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, throughout his twelve years as a representative he represented a reliable vote for Assembly Democrats when they sought to expand taxes and spending. Yet, as is required of Northern Democrats in Wisconsin, Reynolds was staunchly in favor of individual rights with regard to firearms and property. Before picking him as his running mate, Thompson said he had never actually met Reynolds—he had only read an editorial the representative had written decrying the “corruption” at the State Capitol. Thompson praised Reynolds’ experience as a legislator, saying he would be an “active participant” in his administration, instead of “playing basketball all the time”—a thinly veiled shot at McCallum, who was known for his hard court wizardry during his brother’s administration.

On November 15, 2001, at the State Capitol, Thompson officially announced his candidacy for governor of Wisconsin. He posited himself as the everyman candidate, saying:

I am no big time Charlie. I’m just a common hard-working man who is dedicated to serving the hard-working people of Wisconsin. I’m a fighter. I’ve been in the ring many times as a boxer and there is nothing I like better than a good fight. This is the biggest fight of my life, and I plan on winning it.

Having announced he was running, it was time for Thompson to mobilize his supporters. This included Libertarian Party of Wisconsin President Bob Collison, who had introduced Thompson to Jesse Ventura. Collison had recently garnered press attention for his opposition to the U.S. Census, believing the questions asked on their survey were too personal. (Collison would later leave the Libertarian Party to make an unsuccessful run for the Wisconsin State Assembly.)

Also in the mix was Wisconsin Libertarian Vice Chair Rolf Lindgren, who in November 2003 was accused of stealing $50 out of a bar apron at the Irish Waters Tavern in Madison. After being accused of stealing the cash, Lindgren was arrested for his fourth drunk driving violation. At his trial, he pleaded insanity, testifying that the stress caused by the police accusations related to the Irish Waters incident caused him to blow a .23 on the breathalyzer (11 times the legal limit for someone with three prior drunk driving arrests).

Lindgren also said he was feeling anxiety over appearing in a documentary about Ed Thompson’s life the next morning, and suggested that his arrest was retribution for his attempt to recall Jim Doyle from the governor’s office. Said Lindgren, “it doesn’t really matter why they [filed charges]. What really matters is that they did do it. If I were a black person, I’d be charging racism. What are they saying, all white people look alike?”

The charge against Lindgren for stealing the $50 from the tavern was dropped, as the Dane County District Attorney said the prosecuting attorney needed more time to prosecute the drunk driving charge. In 2006, a jury rejected Lindgren’s insanity plea and he was sentenced to five months in jail for driving while intoxicated.

With his campaign team mobilized, Thompson hit the road in his beat-up, 20-year-old motor home. In the week following his campaign announcement, he visited Waukesha, Wausau, Superior, Eau Claire, and Sparta. On the trail, Thompson’s policy agenda began to round into shape. He espoused the benefits of lower taxes and more local government control. He pushed for legalization of marijuana and for the release of nonviolent felons from prison. He argued for term limits that would limit governors and legislators to eight years in office.

However, Thompson most often used what he thought was his most powerful talking point—that government was corrupt and it was time for a third party candidate to change it. Eventually, discussion of policy issues merely faded into the background in favor of his corruption speech. When Thompson launched his first radio ads in April 2002, they focused on the ongoing criminal investigation of the Legislature. “Our state government is being tarnished by corruption,” Thompson boomed in the ad. “Enough is enough. It’s time to put the people’s interests above special interests. We need common sense and accountability in government,” he said.

At one point in May 2002, students at a campaign appearance at Rice Lake High School asked Thompson what a Libertarian was. “It means you have the right to live your life as you want, as long as you don’t physically hurt someone and no one physically hurts you,” he said. “It takes the business attitude of the Republican Party and the social attitude of the Democratic Party and improves them,” he added.

Later that day, at Bob’s Grill in Rice Lake, an 81-year-old patron asked Thompson what life was like in Washington D.C. “No, that’s my brother,” Ed Thompson politely replied. He then mentioned that he’s three years younger but ten years smarter than Tommy, and definitely better looking.

As the campaign wound into the oppressive Wisconsin summer months, Thompson was able to set himself apart from the other candidates in one regard: his yard and highway campaign signs seemed to outnumber his opponents’ by a fifty-to-one ratio. By September, Thompson had 850 large highway signs and 9,000 yard signs out the door. Thompson’s close ties to the Wisconsin Tavern League virtually guaranteed a black and yellow Ed Thompson sign would be in front of every bar in the state. In rural Wisconsin, those bars are often the centers of civic debate. Tommy Thompson’s exploits in local bars are often credited with catapulting him to statewide recognition. It seemed his little brother may be able to capture a little of the same plainspoken magic.

Meanwhile, the race between the major party candidates raged ahead. McCallum ran a television ad that accused Attorney General Doyle of being “crooked” for not aggressively pursuing corruption in the Legislature. Doyle volunteers held a “bingo party” at a Kenosha home for the developmentally disabled where there also conveniently happened to be absentee ballots available for residents to fill out on site.

As election day grew nearer, Thompson was finding it harder and harder to take his “common man” message to the voters. For one, he was having difficulty working his way into debates, which required a candidate to earn six percent of the total vote in the primary. Since Thompson ran unopposed in the Libertarian primary, he didn’t garner enough votes. He argued, accurately, that rather than waste their vote on him, his supporters likely voted in the contested primaries between the major candidates.

Eventually, Thompson filed a complaint with the State Elections Board, arguing his exclusion amounted to an illegal campaign contribution to the major candidates. He lost the complaint, but went on to take part in minor debates throughout October. Finally, on October 29th, he participated in a debate broadcast statewide. But by that point, the race between Doyle and McCallum had turned bitter and personal, and Thompson was left without much time to speak between the bickering.

When the dust settled on election night a week later, Thompson had received 10.5% of the vote. While it wasn’t nearly enough to win, it was the largest percentage any third party candidate for governor had received in sixty years. Watching the results at the Tee Pee, Thompson seemed upbeat. “We changed the face of politics in Wisconsin,” he beamed, adding, “We’ve made the third party viable.” Furthermore, reaching the 10% vote level meant that the Libertarian Party would be validated by having an official representative on the State Elections Board.

Thompson’s supporters, however, were confused as to why their candidate didn’t fare better. Following the election, Rolf Lindgren wrote an editorial claiming that Ed Thompson hadn’t been beaten by the voters; he had instead been beaten by the polls. In the column (in which he listed his credential as “1986 UW-Madison Mathematics Graduate,”) Lindgren expressed disbelief that Thompson only received 10.5% of the vote, when a poll prior to the election had Thompson’s approval rating at 39%. Since a candidate merely had to receive 34% to win the three-way election, Lindgren was confused as to why Thompson wasn’t able to garner enough support to emerge victorious. Apparently, he was unaware that approval ratings measure a candidate’s popularity against only themselves, while actual elections pit candidates against each other.

Lindgren went on to argue, as only a 1986 mathematics graduate could, that polls published during the campaign that showed Thompson with single digit support actually depressed his popularity. Lindgren believed the polls showing (accurately, as it turned out) Thompson with little support drove away individuals that normally would have been supporters. “In hindsight, if he had done a few more polls at key moments, and put out a few more polls-related press releases, he might have won the election,” said Lindgren.

The debate still rages in Wisconsin about whether Ed Thompson handed the state over to Jim Doyle by stealing votes from McCallum. Conventional wisdom tells us that since Libertarians are further to the right, they steal votes from Republicans. Thus, the GOP immediately groused that Thompson’s 10.5% vote total may have swung the race to the incumbent Governor had “Fightin’ Ed” not run.

The numbers seem to indicate that, even had Thompson not run, a McCallum victory would have been a long shot. When Thompson’s 185,000 votes are divided up, McCallum would have had to win 67.7% of them to overcome Doyle’s 66,000-vote margin. While it is true that Thompson did extremely well in GOP-dominated counties like his home Monroe County (Thompson 45%, McCallum 27%, Doyle 26%), Thompson also pulled substantial votes out of the city of Madison, likely due to his support for legalized marijuana. (It is estimated Thompson received 100% of the vote from the much sought-after “dudes who make late night trips to Taco Bell” demographic.)

Additionally, rather than merely being a Libertarian, Ed Thompson was a once-in-a-generation cult of personality. There’s no evidence that his votes were from people who lean Libertarian. It’s possible his votes were comprised of voters sick of the two parties generally and who recognized his family name as a safe haven for their vote. His addition of Marty Reynolds to the ticket may have made it even easier for Democrats to vote for him.

On the other hand, it is possible that Thompson pulled more votes from Republicans than Democrats. Aside from the votes on election day, Thompson’s entry into the race drew other types of resources away from the major candidates—he was able to raise and spend over $400,000, which may have favored McCallum, had Thompson not been able to get his hands on it. Furthermore, the curiosity of Thompson’s campaign took up media time that may have changed the face of the race had he not been in it (although given the press McCallum was getting at the time, it might have been better for him to get less coverage throughout the campaign).

Whether Ed Thompson gift-wrapped the 2002 election for Democrat Jim Doyle, we can never really know (although Doyle did defeat a strong Republican challenger, Republican Congressman Mark Green, in 2006). What we do know is that third parties in Wisconsin are a force to be reckoned with. While many regard third parties as a motley group of political nutballs, they have what the major candidates need—votes.

Given the proclivity of Wisconsin voters to cast their ballots for a third party, the 2008 presidential election could hinge on how well candidates relate to these third party voters. With Wisconsin’s traditional razor-thin margins of victory, the major candidate who appeals most to third party voters could be the one who emerges victorious. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama need to tap into the wealth of Wisconsin votes that could easily stray into third party territory. With big names like Former Congressman (and star of “Borat”) Bob Barr running as a Libertarian, Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney seeking the Green Party nomination, and Ralph Nader doing whatever it is he does, independent voters could very well decide Wisconsin, and therefore the presidency.

In 2005, three years after his gubernatorial run, Ed Thompson was elected to the city council back in Tomah. The problem was, he didn’t know he was running. Thompson had benefited from a write-in vote effort of which he was unaware. After receiving 31 of 34 votes, he begrudgingly took office. In 2007, Thompson flirted with the idea of running for president himself after aligning himself with a group of “9/11 Truthers” who believe the U.S. government had a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks. In 2008, he was once again sworn in as Mayor of Tomah, assuming the comfortable position he had left to run for governor. It appears he is now content to be an important footnote in Wisconsin’s political history—one that major candidates should not soon forget.

How Jim Doyle Can Save Wisconsin’s Republican Party

With the state weary from a long, drawn-out war overseas, one of Wisconsin’s political parties was taking a beating at the polls. The party’s national elected officials had gone to war seven years previously, and voters were demonstrating their displeasure at the ballot box. The party, which had strayed significantly from its traditional values, was a mere afterthought in Wisconsin government, and appeared to be sinking even lower.

Then Jim Doyle showed up to save it. Not the current governor, the other one.

The year was 1948, and Democrats in Wisconsin were foundering. German voters, who had traditionally been Democrats, had fled the party due in large part to Woodrow Wilson’s declaration of war on Germany in 1918. (At the time, many of Wisconsin’s Germans were still foreign born, and had ties to the homeland.) While German Americans in Wisconsin were very much in favor of U.S. involvement in World War II, the war reinforced their desire to stay away from the Democratic Party. The Progressive Party in Wisconsin was nearly extinct, and many of its members were returning to the Republican Party, from whence they came in 1934.

By 1948, it had been sixteen years since a Democrat had won the Wisconsin governorship (former Madison Mayor Alfred Schmedeman, who served only one two-year term). Even worse, Democrats won only three Wisconsin gubernatorial elections in the previous 73 years and had been in the minority in the State Senate and Assembly since 1893. For four straight legislative sessions (1923-1929), there were no Democrats in the Senate. The 1925 Assembly featured 92 Republicans, one Democrat, and seven Socialist Party members.

In May of 1948, several upstarts within the Democratic Party met in Fond du Lac to chart a course for a new, revitalized party. Among the attendees were Jim Doyle Sr., Ruth Doyle, Horace Wilkie, and Gaylord Nelson. The “Young Turks,” as they were called, formed the Democratic Organizing Committee (DOC), with the intent of circumventing the traditional, more conservative (and largely ineffective) Democratic Party leadership. In doing so, they began planting the seeds for future Democratic success in Wisconsin. Their dream came to fruition in 1957, when Bill Proxmire won the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Joseph McCarthy prior to his death. A year later, Gaylord Nelson won the Wisconsin governorship.

It was the plan formulated in the nascent years of the DOC that precipitated Wisconsin eventually becoming a state where Democrats could once again succeed. Doyle, Nelson, Patrick Lucey, and others worked tirelessly to organize county parties and recruit members, which was a tough task for a party that had been struggling so mightily for so long. As Doyle famously once said, “There are places around the state where it takes courage to be a Democrat. The few professed Democrats are like the early Christians. They feel as though they should hold their meetings in the catacombs.”

It is now 2008, and another of Wisconsin’s major political parties in on the ropes. Wisconsin Republicans are still feeling the backlash from a long war, just as Democrats had in 1948. The party has largely lost its identity, with voters unable to differentiate its platform on taxes and spending from that of the Democrats.

If there’s any good news, it is that Wisconsin Republicans aren’t in anywhere near as bad shape as the Democrats were in 1948. While the war is still unpopular, it doesn’t offend the national pride of any voting bloc in Wisconsin politics. (This type of mass defection is unlikely to happen to the Republicans unless John McCain declares war on the Green Bay Packers.) The Assembly is still Republican, but by a shrinking margin. Republicans in the Senate only need to pick up two seats to retake the majority that they lost in stunning fashion in 2006.

Yet even if Republicans were able to buck the odds and regain majorities in both houses, nobody really expects any shift towards fiscal conservatism. Wisconsin citizens will see that the Republican Party is currently propped up on a rotting foundation, set adrift with few principles, and no platform on which to stand.

What Wisconsin Republicans need to do now is to follow the DOC blueprint for revitalizing the party. If that means a group of talented insiders get together and plot the overthrow of the current leadership, then so be it. It won’t be easy work, and certainly the national GOP zeitgeist will affect the amount of change that can be felt at the state level. The reason Democrats in Wisconsin are such a formidable foe is because of the efforts of a handful of individuals determined to breathe life into their party’s corpse. So it can be done, and the future of the Republican Party in Wisconsin depends on it.

When the new GOP braintrust gets together, here are some suggestions for a blueprint back into the majority:

BUILD AND BREAK CONSTITUENCIES

When Democrats built themselves into a majority in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s, they did so by consolidating existing constituencies and building new ones. Labor unions banded together within the Democratic Party, and former Progressives found the party much more to their liking. Perhaps most importantly, they recognized what effect the expansion of government dependency would have on their base. Democrats recognized the fact that when more individuals received a check from the government, those individuals would become Democratic voters. They would continue to support the party that would keep the checks rolling in. As government grows and grows, so do the fortunes of those chained to a government check – so the built-in constituency will always be there to lobby for Democrats.

Republicans don’t have to stand on the sidelines in building constituencies for their programs, and constituencies don’t have to be built solely on government handouts. Getting people hooked on tax incentives and less government regulation can resonate.

For instance, the GOP needs more people to become dependent on programs that employ free market principles, to make sure voters know such programs can succeed. Last week, the Wisconsin State Journal highlighted a charter school set up to teach Native American children their traditional Ojibway language and culture. Charter schools are a perfect example of how educational choice can empower parents to direct how they want their children to be educated. Just because a program is conservative, it doesn’t have to benefit fat, cigar-chomping white guys.

Additionally, Milwaukee shouldn’t have a monopoly on school choice – it should be a topic statewide for two reasons: First, so out-state school districts and parents don’t see it as the enemy of their kids’ schools and cheer for its demise. Second, because as it becomes a state issue, more momentum statewide will grow, laying the groundwork for more educational choice in areas other than just Milwaukee. School choice is one of Wisconsin’s crown jewels, and should be discussed by Republicans statewide.

However, school choice is only one area where the GOP can create a new statewide constituency. Health Savings Accounts have been around as an issue for a decade, but Republicans seem content to allow HSAs to twist in the wind as a merely theoretical issue. The longer that happens, the more skepticism people will have that they can actually work. Where’s the Republican plan to give all state employees HSAs instead of the traditional budget-busting health coverage? Why aren’t they telling everyone who will listen that the best way to show that HSAs work is to build a market with the 70,000 state employees? That would be a pretty good start – and for the naysayers that think the unions would never let that happen, ask the unions what they think of the Qualified Economic Offer (QEO), which restricts teacher salaries. It can happen.

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

Building a permanent GOP majority means going where the voters are and locking them down as Republican voters. For the GOP in Wisconsin, that means heading west.

For the political nerds living in the Milwaukee-Madison corridor, the picture of Wisconsin is clear; Madison is liberal, Waukesha is conservative. For the most part, those two counties should cancel each other out. That leaves the rest of the state to offset liberal Milwaukee. Green Bay and the Fox Valley help Republicans, while areas like Stevens Point and Wausau favor Democrats.

This analysis ignores a sleeping giant in Western Wisconsin that should be fertile ground for the GOP in the years to come. St. Croix County is the fastest growing county in the state, and is solidly Republican. It’s difficult for people to picture, but one day St, Croix will be the Waukesha County of the west. It is a Twin Cities suburb in the same way Washington and Ozaukee Counties are Milwaukee suburbs. It would be a huge mistake for the state GOP to ignore the growth potential in that area of the state. Lock down the growth areas, and that means more GOP voters statewide in the years to come.

Furthermore, more attention need be paid to Southwestern Wisconsin. This is an area that was once solidly Republican; yet lackluster leadership and disinterested elected officials have now handed the lower half of the 3rd Congressional District over to the Democrats. While their GOP state senators and representatives may have been able to do enough constituent service to keep them in office, those days are long gone as the population continues to slip out of their grasp. The area needs a dynamic Republican representative who is actually interested in selling the statewide GOP message, rather than merely pushing parochial bills to stay in office. There’s no better indicator that people are willing to vote for a Republican than the fact that they actually used to.

TRIM THE WEEDS

A concerted effort should be made to cut the dead weight out of Wisconsin’s contingent of GOP elected officials. A senator or representative who sits in a solidly Republican district and does nothing with it is an albatross around the neck of the state party.

In this respect, primaries can be an invaluable tool in the quest for a more vibrant GOP statewide. In fact, “Fighting Bob” LaFollette championed primaries primarily because he knew he could wrest control of the Republican party away from the conservatives in the 1890’s. Through LaFollette’s liberal (and often vindictive) use of primaries, he was able to shape the GOP in the Progressive image throughout the early 1900s. And it can be primaries once again that should be used to trim the noxious weeds from the ranks of the GOP elected officials.

This doesn’t necessarily mean a district needs the most conservative representative. Certainly, an elected official needs to fit the district in order to ensure election in the November general election. It doesn’t make sense to run a conservative against a moderate if it means that seat is going to go Democrat in the general. But a moderate Republican willing to be active in promoting the statewide GOP message is infinitely more valuable to the effort than one who introduces one bill per session, and who might get around to doing a press release if someone noteworthy in their district dies.

The party cannot sit idly by with do-nothing Republicans hogging seats in areas where a vibrant newcomer could freshen the party’s image. These seats have to be viewed not as what they are, but as what they could be. Plus, they are a farm system for major state offices in the future. (For instance, the 1950 Legislature had four future governors in its ranks, as well as two future U.S. Senators and the mother of a future governor.) Representatives who sleepwalk through their jobs in these valuable seats are clogging the arteries of the future GOP circulatory system.

REPUBLICAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Fair or not, voters pick candidates they are comfortable with. More and more, these voters are growing increasingly uncomfortable with white males. The minorities that currently vote Republican do so primarily because they don’t like other minorities, not necessarily because they trust white guys to do the right thing.

There are minorities out there that share the GOP message of limited government, low taxes, and family values. And women have been dropping quickly in the ranks of Republican elected officials. An effort should be made to recruit them to run for office, and they should quickly move to the front of the line in GOP leadership. And if they get better committee assignments or party support than a deserving white legislator who’s been in office for a decade, so be it. Get over it, whitey.

Think about it – in order to become a majority party once again, the GOP needs new voters. And where is the growth in new voters going to come? It’s going to come in the minority groups that are growing more quickly. If Republicans stick with caucasians to pull the freight, the party will be infinitely disappointed as their base shrinks. And the best way to convince minority voters that the GOP is a safe place for their vote is to prove it through their slate of candidates.

Furthermore, we have seen recently how much attention minority candidates can draw. Set aside the media love affair with Barack Obama. Look at Bobby Jindal in Louisiana – the guy gets elected as governor ten minutes ago, and before my hot pocket cools off, he’s already mentioned as a serious Vice Presidential candidate. This isn’t because Jindal is necessarily a political genius – it is because he represents the changing face of politics. A change the GOP desperately needs if it seeks to grow its base.

(As a side note, women and minorities deserve to be elected for reasons other that just making Republicans look better. Thought that should be mentioned.)

MORE SPREADSHEETS

Exactly what is the Republican message in the upcoming state and national elections?

Anyone?

Can any Wisconsin resident name a single accomplishment of the GOP in the past two years?

Naturally, Republicans are at a disadvantage when taking credit for certain governmental “achievements” (which may actually be an oxymoron.) It is easy for Democrats to say they “funded drugs for seniors” or “supported expansion of the Stewardship program.” Simple and direct. Republicans have to explain what governmental initiatives they blocked, and why we’ll all be better off because of something they have denied us. Of course, a detailed explanation of the role of market economics and how free trade makes our lives better is usually out of the question. Personally, I would much prefer eating a burrito right now over a conservative telling me how Milton Friedman’s theories enable me to one day have the freedom to purchase my own burrito. Dude, I’m hungry.

Yet, as George Will has recently said, conservatives have one thing going for them. Market-based conservatism is the truth. And, as difficult as that may be, that truth has to be made understandable. The longer people are allowed to be told that gas prices are going to fall if Barack Obama doesn’t accept money from oil companies, the longer the GOP will flounder with voters. The basic fact is this: students aren’t being taught economics in school. State and local Republican parties have to break down the door with a message of financial literacy.

Furthermore, Republicans should be the party willing to talk to voters like grown-ups. We can handle it. Being against bogus campaign finance reform proposals doesn’t make you look like you’re pro-corruption. It makes you look like you value free speech. Cowering from the inevitable critics of allowing private Social Security accounts doesn’t gain you any votes – it makes you look like a spineless coward.

Wisconsin Republican Congressman Paul Ryan has led the way in this regard, with his recent plan to pull the U.S. out of fiscal insolvency by recognizing the entitlement disaster heading our way. The longer the state is willing to fix its budget woes with gimmicks and deferred obligations, and as long as Republicans are willing to accede to such nonsense, the party has no ground on which to stand when the fiscal apocalypse comes.

Of course, getting Republicans statewide to coalesce around any one message is like stapling Jell-O to a wall. But having more willing carriers of the message (See point 3) will help immeasurably.

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA

Do this, and the state goes GOP overnight. Instead of being motivated to go to the polls, half of the City of Madison will be motivated to watch I Love Lucy reruns, eat Peanut Butter Cap’n Crunch, and nap.

***

None of the Young Turk Democrats in 1948 thought their party’s turnaround was going to be immediate. Young Democrats like Jim Doyle, Sr. drove from county to county to rebuild the party from scratch. (A feat that would be a lot less possible if his son’s proposal to raise the gas tax by seven cents had been in effect in 1948.) They had to patience to plant the seeds, and put in the hard work that eventually made them a force in Wisconsin politics. The GOP should thank Doyle for his blueprint.

-June 9, 2008

Helpful historical sources for this commentary include “Wisconsin Votes,” by Robert Booth Fowler, and “The Man from Clear Lake: Earth Day Founder Gaylord Nelson,” by Bill Christofferson.

The Grand Old Patriarchy: Whither the Republican Women?

This one’s for the ladies.

On September 10th of 2002, I was in my car on the way to the Peggy Rosenzweig for Senate victory party. Rosenzweig, a moderate Republican incumbent who had spent 20 years in the Legislature, was being challenged in a primary by the more conservative Tom Reynolds, who had previously run for Congress several times. I called ahead to one of her campaign staffers to see how the party was going. “Turn around,” he said. “We just lost.”

The early 2000s were good to GOP women. In 2002, the majority of Republican state senators in Wisconsin were female. In January of 2003, Mary Panzer became the state’s first female majority leader. Margaret Farrow became the state’s first female Lieutenant Governor in 2001. In 2002, 12 women held Assembly seats. Yet Rosenzweig’s loss was a harbinger of things to come. (A full list of women who have served in the Wisconsin Legislature can be found here. A full list of women who won’t answer my daily e-mails can be found here.)

In 2008, the landscape for Republican women looks entirely different. With the retirement of long-time Republican State Senator Carol Roessler, the number of female senators has dwindled to three – five fewer than held office just seven years ago. And of those three that remain, two (Sheila Harsdorf and Alberta Darling) are priority targets for the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. With the announced retirement of three female representatives, the Assembly is down to six Republican women. Not since my debut as a Chippendale’s dancer has an establishment seen so many women fleeing the premises. (I used to run on stage nude, while women threw money at me to put my clothes back on. It was lucrative, to say the least.)

During this year’s state Republican Convention, Wispolitics.com took a straw poll of potential GOP candidates for both governor and U.S. senator. There were zero female names on the list, despite names like Rick Graber, Mark Neumann, Scott Klug, and Tim Michels making the cut. High profile female legislators like Kitty Rhoades (the chair of the Legislature’s most powerful committee) and Leah Vukmir (chair of the Assembly Health Committee) weren’t even considered. With all due respect to Neumann and Klug, neither of them have held elected office in a decade. Exactly what does one have to do to get their name off the Republican VIP list? Would two decades do it? Perhaps the GOP should just dig up the skeleton of Lucius Fairchild and run him in 2010.

Some would suggest the dwindling number of GOP women is a conspiracy by the “old boys” network to keep “the ladies” out of power. The fact that primaries were run against Rosenzweig and Panzer, both moderates and both defeated by men, gives these conspiracy theorists the ammunition they need. It more likely speaks to the general impression, whether fair or not, that Republican women tend to be more moderate. The fact that Rosenzweig and Panzer were challenged likely spoke more to voters’ frustration over spiraling taxes than the fact that they were women. But the liberal stereotype attached to their gender probably didn’t help them in their heavily conservative districts.

It is perhaps more likely that, with the Legislature’s approval rating hovering just between “warts” and “arsenic,” more women are just deciding that they have better things to do than jump on a sinking ship. After her election in 2002, State Senator Cathy Stepp quickly grew tired of the endless meetings and pointless time-wasting that occurred at the Capitol. As the owner of a private business, Stepp was frustrated by the inefficiency of the legislative process, which cost her time at home with her young children. Near the end of her tenure, she would pass the time on the floor of the Senate by playing pranks on her colleagues – such as the time she went desk to desk, shocking her fellow senators with a pack of trick electric gum. Stepp left the Senate after serving just one term.

Furthermore, it’s not as if Democrats don’t have their own issues with their female legislators. When the 2007-09 biennial budget passed the Legislature, Senate Democrats immediately dumped their majority leader, Judy Robson, citing the need for “more direct” leadership. Robson immediately charged sexism, believing some of her colleagues simply didn’t want to be led by a woman. (In a blog post, Stepp actually agreed that gender played a part how Robson’s leadership style was portrayed.)

However, Democrats have a slightly better record retaining their incumbent females. When a woman Democrat leaves the Legislature, they’re usually moving up, not out. For instance, Gwen Moore and Tammy Baldwin both left the Legislature to become Wisconsin’s first two female U.S. Representatives. Republican women such as Terri McCormick and Jean Hundertmark left the Assembly to run for higher office, yet both were unsuccessful. As mentioned, Margaret Farrow moved up to become Lieutenant Governor, but her stint with Governor McCallum lasted about as long a trip to a Chinese buffet.

Many conservatives would argue that whether they elect women or not is irrelevant – they want to see a legislator who is more in tune with their vision of smaller government and lower taxes. And if that costs them a moderate Mary Panzer in favor of a more conservative Glenn Grothman, then so be it. In the end analysis, your property tax bill doesn’t care whether your legislator has a Y chromosome. You owe what you owe.

While this point is incontrovertible, it sets up a false choice. Being conservative and being a woman aren’t mutually exclusive. There are women in the Legislature who are conservative and perhaps should be given more of a pulpit to enhance their statewide visibility. And the GOP should be out recruiting more women who can appeal to their right wing base. As mentioned before, when a female legislator does something that strays from the party line, it tends to stick to her more than it would one of her male counterparts. Conversely, many Republican women face harsher Democrat criticism for taking principled conservative votes because they’re “voting against women’s interests.”

Female legislators have flaws, just like male elected officials. And while a representative’s gender is meaningless when it comes to their voting record, there’s no question that women provide a diversity of viewpoint that is needed in the Capitol. It’s not impossible for that viewpoint to be both female and conservative.

Each year in Madison, a local grocery store holds “Bratfest,” which they brag is the “World’s largest sausage festival.” Unfortunately, this year Bratfest will be bumped to number two, just behind the Wisconsin Legislature.

-May 19, 2008

(Christian Schneider spent eight years working in the State Legislature, where he worked for three different women.)

« Older posts Newer posts »