Jerry Bowyer: Pennsylvania Seriously Divided

This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html

Pennsylvania Divided

By Jerry Bowyer

As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.

One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.
As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.

Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.

And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.

I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.

When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.

If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.

Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.

Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.

Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.

To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.

Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."

Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.

Dear Pennsylvanians and others interested in Keystone State politics, please visit my blog focused on the state at: pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Occasionally, I'll cross post from this national blog to the PA one, but generally the columns there will be distinctive.

MURTHA: BUYING VOTES IN PENNSYLVANIA

In 2002, Edward Rendell, a candidate for Governor, spent a huge amount of money on his campaign: $42 million. For Election Day "activities," he spent $700,000. Of that money, $450,000 went to Rendell backers in the 66 wards of Philadelphia. (Note: This information comes from The Almanac of American Politics, 2008 edition.)

In Democratic Party tradition, the $450,000 is known as "walking around money." It goes to individuals -- usually in cash -- who are supposedly getting out the vote for the Democrat, Rendell in this case. Gee, does some of that vast sum of money get spent to pay people to vote for someone like Rendell? Of course it does.

But isn't buying votes illegal? Technically, yes. However, it occurs all over the country, mostly in heavily Democratic areas -- and usually in mostly Black areas.

How did Rendell do in Philadelphia? He won 79% of the vote there. He prevailed statewide by 57% to 43% -- even though he carried only TWO counties outside the Philly metro area. The massive vote for Rendell in Philly obliterated the large vote against him outside his home turf.

How did Philadelphia do under Mayor Rendell? It became the Misery Capital of the U.S., with extremely high rates of poverty, murder, and hopelessness, as well as an educational system in a state of collapse. A man with no sense of irony, Rendell called it "The Philadelphia Miracle."

Does John Murtha buy votes? Surely you jest: of course he does.

In a previous column, I noted that Murtha spent nearly $1.6 million on his campaign in 2004 -- when he was unopposed. He got 100% of the vote.

Could he won if he had spent, say, $0? Yes, and he still would have gotten 100% of the votes cast, because there was no one opposing him.

But why would companies, executives, unions, and lobbyists have given him $1.6 million IF HE HAD NO NEED OF THE MONEY?

I regret to inform you that they gave him the money "for services rendered." He designated tax monies -- YOUR tax monies -- to various organizations that rewarded him with his "cut" -- that is, his portion of the tax monies. If you have another explanation, I'd love to hear it. I'd also love to hear Murtha's explanation, although that will not happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this.

In his campaigns, Murtha spends lots of monies on private investigators. Among other tasks, they exert a lot of energy trying to dig up dirt on Murtha's opponents, perhaps including yours truly, but certainly including opposing candidates. He also sends money to various printers, political hacks, and old friends who make sure Jack Murtha gets re-elected until the time when God in His infinite wisdom "takes him home."

John Murtha is not a candidate who has anything so mundane as a campaign slogan, but if he did, it might be: "You scratch my back; I scratch your back." Or, if he went for just a few words, it could be: "Let's make a deal."

People ask me: "Why on earth would the good people of the 12th District vote for such a corrupt cynic as Murtha?"

Many people do so out of habit. Others have given up on politics and don't vote at all -- one reason the 12th has the lowest vote totals in Pennsylvania. Still others are afraid that without Murtha an economically distressed area -- which most of the 12th is -- will collapse and start resembling the economies of Somalia or North Korea.

In fact, the greatest barrier to economic growth in the 12th -- a beautiful area with hardy people -- is Murtha himself. What companies are going to invest in an area where the federal representative and his cronies always have their hands out for "donations?"

Even in Murtha's hometown of Johnstown, the Median Household Income is about half the total for the U.S. as a whole. Population has been declining in Johnstown for 60 years -- it has lost an additional 6% in this century. It has many buildings named after John Murtha and his relatives, but not many local residents actually working in those buildings. The young people get good educations at the University of Pittsburgh-Johnstown and other institutions, but after they graduate, most of them leave to find real jobs.

My bet? That John Murtha will not buy able to buy enough votes this year to win in the 12th congressional district. Lt. Col. Bill Russell is his worst nightmare -- and the best hope for the people in this long-neglected district.