Utah's Republican Hegemony

Utah again elected a Republican as governor and a Republican as United States Senator.  Both Gov. Herbert and Sen.-elect Lee won by wide 2-1 margins against moderate-to-conservative Democrats.  These are perhaps the least surprising election results since racist Democrats owned the South from Reconstruction to the Civil Rights Era.  In Utah, Republicans win and they win big, particularly for governor and United States Senate, which are the big, important statewide elections.

It got me wondering when the last time was that Utahns elected a Democrat to statewide office.  It turns out that Utah has not had a Democrat in statewide office since Scott Matheson (father of current Rep. Matheson) left the governor's office in January of 1985.  That's about 26 years.  Utah has not had a Democrat in the United State Senate since Frank Moss was defeated by Sen. Hatch and left office in January of 1977.  Sen. Hatch, ironically, made a big deal that Sen. Moss' 16 years in office were too many and that he had lost touch with Utahns.  Sen. Hatch has now been a senator for about 34 years.

I then began to wonder how this Republican hegemony stacked up against other states that are perceived to be dominated by one political party.  The results were not good for Utah.  No other state has gone as long as Utah voting for a single party in the major statewide elections of governor and senator.  The results follow.

I first looked at governors.  Out of all the states in the Union, 42 have elected governors from both parties in the last 16 years (since the 1994 elections).  Those that haven't, with the last year of opposite-party control in parentheses, are:  South Dakota (last Democrat in 1978), Utah (last Democrat in 1984), Washington (Republican 1984), Oregon (Republican 1986), Delaware (Republican 1992), North Dakota (Democrat 1992), and North Carolina (Republican 1993).  Connecticut last had a non-Republican Independent governor in office in 1994, and a Democrat in 1990.  Every other state has voted for both Republicans and Democrats for governor in the past 16 years.

So I took those eight states that showed a lack of diversity in governorships and compared the last time they elected a United States Senator from the opposite party.  Connecticut was easy because while they have been voting for Republican governors for the past few years they have also been voting for Democratic senators.  Both current Connecticut senators are Democrats, and the last time they had a Republican senator in office was 1998.  So hegemony is not a problem there.

North Carolina was similarly easy in the opposite direction.  That is a conservative state but has been voting for Democratic governors consistently for years.  They have a healthy mix of both Republican and Democrat senators over the past few years and currently have one of each.

The Dakotas, I would have thought, would have been the conservative states to challenge Utah in terms of hegemony, but I was wrong.  North Dakota currently has two Democratic senators and South Dakota has one.

Delaware and Washington, a couple of liberal states, both last had Republican senators in 2000, and Oregon, another liberal state, last had a Republican senator in 2008.  That last Republican Oregon senator was Gordon Smith, a Mormon, who was defeated in the Democratic surge that year.

And that leaves Utah, who, as I mentioned earlier, last had a Democratic senator in 1976.  That means it has been 26 years since Utah last had a non-Republican hold major statewide office.  No other state comes close to that record of hegemony.  The closest competitors for this ignominious distinction are Idaho and Texas, both practicing hegemony for 16 years.  Idaho last had a Democratic governor in 1994 and last had a Democratic senator in 1980.  Texas last had a Democratic governor in 1994 (the election that George W. Bush won) and last had a Democratic senator in 1993.  Delaware and Washington, as outlined above, have seen ten years of hegemony.

This is a bad thing, as I've written about before.  It detaches the controlling party from reality in that they are not really accountable to voters and there is never a threat that their bad choices will be reflected in election results.  Most importantly, though, is that one-party hegemony suffocates opposing points of view, healthy debate, and thus democracy itself.  As the Deseret News reported recently, it also suppresses voter turnout at elections.  Utah has seen voter turnout decline for decades to go from one of the highest voter turnouts in the country to 48th out of 50 states.  Many Utahns feel that our elections are foregone conclusions, which in essence they are.  I doubt Utah has had a surprise election result in decades.

I'm sure we could dig deeper and look at state legislature control, party identification, and how close elections have been, and I'm sure they would all show that Utah is far more one-party oriented than any state in the country.  It is not hard to see why people believe that many, many Utah Republicans blindly vote for the party without studying the candidates and issues and voting with an independent mind.  If voters never knew which parties Herbert and Corroon, Lee and Granato belonged to and simply voted based on their characters and stances on the issues, I think this election would have gone much differently.  Herbert and Lee hold extreme positions on many issues whereas Corroon and Granato hold moderate positions on just about every issue.  The latter two, in my opinion, more closely represent the beliefs and positions of a majority of Utahs, unfortunately they both had a D next to their names and never stood a chance.

I've been saying for a long time that the time will come when Utahns will take a turn toward the left (or at least more towards the center) and start voting in a more balanced way.  I'm beginning to doubt myself, to be honest.  It may be that this rut will last for another 30 years, or it may be that some big scandal or decision will cause a sudden course change.  Or maybe we need some sort of Huntsman-esque Manchurian candidate type who gets elected as a popular moderate Republican and then reveals that s/he will switch parties to become a Democrat, broadening many horizons along the way.  In the meantime, the current hegemony that prevails in Utah is harmful to our state.

The Economy, Mitigated by the Tea Party

. . . unfortunately.

This was certainly a drubbing for Democrats, no doubt about it.  After making six years of gains they have lost the House in resounding fashion, lost a bunch of governorships, and lost a handful of Senate seats.  I have no problem with fluidity in political power, but when you take a look at the underlying factors in the Republican landslide last night, the picture isn't so neat and clear as it might seem.

Take a look at the polling that asks Americans which issues are most important to them.  The economy is always the most important by a wide margin.  In the most recent CNN poll 52% of respondents said it was the most important issue while only eight percent thought issues such as the deficit, health care, our lame wars, etc., respectively were the most important.  In a recent Pew poll 39% thought the economy was the most pressing issue, 25% said health care was, and 17% said the deficit was.  In a recent Bloomberg poll 49% listed the economy as problem number one, compared to 27% for the deficit and ten percent for health care.  In a recent CBS poll it was 57% for the economy, seven percent for health care, three percent for things like immigration and the deficit.  Exit polls from last night show the same thing.

When the economy is bad and jobs are scarce, the party in power loses.  When the economy is really bad, the party in power loses really badly (and when the American public gets upset . . . people DIE!).  It happens to both parties.  And since neither party is very adept at actually solving problems, voters are fluctuating randomly and widely, trying to find the right combination of people to get the country back on track.  I think we'll flop around between Democratic and Republican control of the various political institutions for a few years, to be honest.

But, in any case, the objective data show that this election had precious little to do with health care reform, or the budget deficit, or taxes, or anything else other than the health of the economy.  This was not a fundamental repudiation of liberalism or a fundamental acceptance of conservatism, just like the opposite wasn't true for the last few years.  This is an American public feeling lost and injured, trying to wend our way through the wilderness.  There are lots of liberals and lots of conservatives and even more moderates and it will be that way for a long time.

The election was also colored by the Tea Party.  Last night MSNBC was running a graphic showing how Tea Party candidates fared.  The last one I saw showed that about 35 had won and about 60 had lost.  I can't find anything on this today, if you can please put it in the comments.  So while they generally raised Republican enthusiasm during the election, they were at best a mixed bag.  In the Senate, specifically, they might have cost Republicans control.  It looks like the new Senate will have 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and two independents that caucus with the Democrats (giving them essentially 53).  The Republicans threw away three seats because of the Tea Party: Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware.  The thought is that if they had picked up those seats and brought the Senate to 50-50 they could have persuaded someone like Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson to switch and caucus with Republicans, giving them a majority.

In the end, Republicans can feel pretty good about this election, but they should stop with all the rhetoric about the American people finally waking up, repudiating Pres. Obama (who still has okay poll numbers, all things considered), or giving them some sweeping mandate.  We're actually totally depressed about our country and you are depressing, the Democrats are depressing, and we seem to be just randomly picking candidates at this point.

Divided we Stand, United we Fall

Election Day 2010. 19 Seats are in play for the Senate with the Democrats currently holding 46 and the Republicans holding 35. 111 Seats are in play for the House with the Democrats currently holding 150 and the Republicans holding 174.

I have a feeling that no matter what the final roll call is at the end of the day, there will be no satisfaction and there will be no progress. Why? Because the willingness to accept differences, concede changes, or invoke cooperation in the our delightful partisan government is as rare as rocking horse poo.

Along with my major frustration with political campaigning are the empty promises. Take Sharron Angle from Nevada for example. Set aside the fact that Mrs. Angle is as dirty and manipulative as they come, and focus only on her promise that her first act as senator would be to submit legislation to repeal "Obamacare". Fair enough, she's not alone in wanting to draft such legislation (Minority leader Jim DeMint and Colorado candidate Ken Buck, among many others). What bothers me is that there is almost no chance that they can repeal the healthcare bill. Let's assume that the predicted becomes reality and Republicans gain control of the House. This doesn't help any of the senators cause, because their legislation has to first be approved in the Senate. Let's assume that all craziness is realized and Republicans gain power in both the House and the Senate. Maybe under these conditions they could get legislation pushed through - right onto President Obama's desk, and next to his Veto pen.

So, we are going to have a new congress, with the same old problems. Despite what all the candidates are promising, and until enough of those that (ostensibly) represent us mature to the point that they can cooperate, there will be no revolutions. Maybe we should turn to the punks for advice:

"I'm tired politicians, of patriots and nots. I'm tired of deeper knowledge...It's hard to know the right choice to be made, and harder still to keep....Be not afraid to hold out your hand. Be not ashamed, to not understand." - Crazy Arm, Still to Keep

"Unity, as one we stand together. Unity, revolution's gonna come." - Operation Ivy, Unity

"Constant entertainment for our restless minds. Constant stimulation for epic appetites. Is there something wrong with these songs? Maybe there's something wrong with the audience." Against Me!, Don't Lose Touch