Bush Didn't Misspeak: The GOP Wants to Dismantle Reproductive Health Programs

Aug 5, 2015Andrea Flynn

Last night Jeb Bush made a slip of the tongue that let us know just where he stands on reproductive health. “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” he said at an event in Nashville. In a way, he’s right: We actually need much more than half a billion dollars to fully meet the need for publicly funded reproductive health services.

Last night Jeb Bush made a slip of the tongue that let us know just where he stands on reproductive health. “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues,” he said at an event in Nashville. In a way, he’s right: We actually need much more than half a billion dollars to fully meet the need for publicly funded reproductive health services. Bush has since backtracked on his comment, which came on the heels of Senate Republicans’ failed attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, but we should not be fooled. His remarks and the recent furor that led to said defunding attempt are a clear illustration of the resentment GOP lawmakers and candidates have for our nation’s reproductive health programs, and reflect their resolve to diminish them.

It’s important to consider Bush’s remarks and the attacks on Planned Parenthood in the political context of the past four years. As Elizabeth Warren indicated in her impassioned speech before the Senate this week, over the past five years Republican state lawmakers have passed nearly 300 new restrictions on reproductive health access. In the first quarter of 2015, lawmakers in 43 states introduced a total of 332 provisions to restrict abortion access, which is increasingly out of reach for women throughout the country. Republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has dramatically improved women’s health coverage and access. In the fall of 2013, the party orchestrated a costly government shutdown motivated by their opposition to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. And in June, House Republicans proposed eliminating funding for Title X, the federal family planning program.

When conservatives talk about “women’s health” funding, they aren’t talking about funding for abortion. Federal law already prohibits public dollars from being spent on abortion or abortion-related care. They’re talking about funding for family planning and other reproductive health services (pregnancy counseling, cancer screenings, STD treatment, etc.), which mainly comes through Medicaid and Title X, two programs that are consistently in conservative crosshairs.

There are no two ways about it: Funding for public reproductive health programs is far below where it should be. Today funding for Title X is 70 percent lower than it was in 1980 (accounting for inflation). If funding for this program had kept up with inflation over the last 35 years, the current funding level would be $941.5 million. In 2015, Congress appropriated $286.5 million for Title X (down from $317 million in 2010).

Congress approved these funding decreases (and Republican senators have proposed even further cuts while their House colleagues have proposed complete elimination of Title X) despite a growing need for services. The Guttmacher Institute reports that between 2000 and 2010, the number of women who needed publicly funded contraceptive services and supplies grew by 17 percent and by 2013 had grown by an additional 5 percent (an additional 918,000 women). Guttmacher attributes this to an increase in the proportion of adult women who are poor or low-income; the current U.S. public family planning program is only able to serve approximately 42 percent of those in need. Turns out “half a billion” isn’t quite enough.

"Title X-funded health centers provide essential preventive care to millions of women and men across the country and are often the only source of health care they receive all year," said Clare Coleman, President and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association. "The network of publicly funded family planning providers has long been underfunded despite a growing need for these vital services."

Title X-funded clinics—of which some, but not all, are Planned Parenthood providers—are the backbone of the nation’s reproductive health care system, ensuring that low-income individuals, young people, immigrants, and women of color are able to access affordable, quality reproductive health services. Every year, nearly 5 million individuals rely on these providers for birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, pregnancy testing, and a range of other preventive services. In 2012, Title X clinics helped women avert 1.1 million unintended pregnancies that would have otherwise resulted in 527,000 unplanned births and 363,000 abortions. In addition to the extraordinary health benefits, Title X is smart economics. It’s estimated that every dollar invested in family planning yields a taxpayer savings of $7.09, and that Title X-funded clinics save more than $5 billion annually in pubic spending.  

Conservative lawmakers have spent much more time in recent years finding ways to restrict access basic health care than they have solving the actual problems that plague women and families like pay inequity, low wages, weak worker protections, and a lack of work–family benefits. If recent events are any indication, they’re not going to veer from that course now. Jeb Bush’s recent remarks, the hoopla over Planned Parenthood, and the relentless assault on reproductive health and rights is a clear reminder of where issues central to women and families fall on the priority list of conservative lawmakers: dead last.

Andrea Flynn is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. Follow her on Twitter at @dreaflynn.

Share This

Why Democrats Should Worry About Republicans' Newfound Economic Populism

May 7, 2015Richard Kirsch

It would be a huge mistake for Democrats to dismiss the newfound economic populism of Republican presidential candidates as obviously laughable given Republicans’ deep alliance with corporate America. Republicans are aiming to pull off a populist jiu jitsu, using anger at corporate influence over government to justify even more dismantling of government. It could work.

It would be a huge mistake for Democrats to dismiss the newfound economic populism of Republican presidential candidates as obviously laughable given Republicans’ deep alliance with corporate America. Republicans are aiming to pull off a populist jiu jitsu, using anger at corporate influence over government to justify even more dismantling of government. It could work.

The good news for progressives is that attention to the squeeze on the middle class and the capture of government by corporations is finally taking center stage in American politics. Pollsters for both political parties are advising candidates to recognize the struggle of families to meet the basics, and the cynicism about government being able to do anything about their problems because it's under the control of the rich and powerful corporations.

This should be a huge opening for Democrats who are aggressive in assigning blame to corporations and pushing for what should be the obvious solution: stand up to those powerful forces with tough measures. If the banks are screwing homeowners, government should enact regulations that stop bank rip-offs and make housing affordable. If corporations and the rich are profiting from huge loopholes in the tax code, close those loopholes and raise their taxes.

But Republicans on the campaign trail are offering a different solution: if government is captured, then shrink government. Marco Rubio laid it out most clearly in an interview on NPR:

And so I hope the Republican Party can become the champion of the working class because I think our policy proposals of limited government and free enterprise are better for the people who are trying to make it than big government is. The fact is that big government helps the people who have made it. If you can afford to hire an army of lawyers, lobbyists and others to help you navigate and sometimes influence the law, you'll benefit. And so that's why you see big banks, big companies, keep winning. And everybody else is stuck and being left behind.

Rand Paul, who champions free-market, anti-regulatory economics, began his announcement speech for president by declaring, "We have come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank, the special interests that are more concerned with their personal welfare than the general welfare."

And Carly Fiorina bounced off the scourge of Wall Street abuses, Elizabeth Warren, to turn around Warren’s argument: “Crony capitalism is alive and well. Elizabeth Warren, of course, is wrong about what to do about it. She claims that the way to solve crony capitalism is more complexity, more regulations, more legislation, worse tax codes. And of course the more complicated government gets — and it's really complicated now — the less the small and the powerless can deal with it."

It’s easy to laugh at their argument, which can be reduced to “if the fox is getting into the hen house, tear down the hen house.” But it would be foolish to do so. It starts where people are at, as one Republican message guru wrote after the election last fall: “[F]rom the reddest rural towns to the bluest big cities, the sentiment is the same. People say Washington is broken and on the decline, that government no longer works for them — only for the rich and powerful.”

The argument takes advantage of the record-high public distrust of government, reached in no small part because of decades of Republicans stripping government’s effectiveness at tackling problems and championing shrinking government and cutting taxes as the solutions for everything.

Having said that, the current political environment should still be winning turf for Democrats who are willing to tell their own version of the problem and solution. After all, building a hen house that keeps out the foxes is clearly a better way to be sure you get fresh eggs for breakfast. But winning the debate will take something Democrats are not always willing to do: naming villains and pushing solutions that will really address the problems facing American families.

As I wrote in a column analyzing the messages that Democrats who won used last fall, naming specific villains is essential to demonstrating that the candidate understands who is responsible for the problem and is willing to stand up to those powerful forces. Because of our campaign finance system, this is more of a challenge for Democrats. If they actually take on the rich and powerful, it will result in less campaign cash. Republicans don’t have to worry about that, since their patrons understand the game.

Having named the villains, Democrats then need to propose bold solutions that demonstrate that they understand the depth of the problems people face, solutions that people can imagine might actually help. Naming bold solutions is another way to demonstrate to people that you are willing to take on the status quo.

In a debate—whether real or the virtual debates of ad campaigns—Democrats will win if they point out that what Republicans want to do is tear down the hen house, and then name the foxes and describe the fortified, fox-slaying house.

Of course, that’s the biggest question for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Will she name the villains and keep naming them, even though many of them will supply her campaign with funds? Will she advance bold solutions or try to duck tough issues? We know one thing: Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and the Draft Warren campaign will be making it tough for her to hide.

It’s a question not just for Clinton, but for every Democrat. Will Democrats be bold enough to advance a politics that meets the despair and cynicism of Americans with directness, honesty, and hope for a better future?

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

Share This

Daily Digest - February 12: Populism Won The Day

Feb 12, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How Democratic Progressives Survived a Landslide (TAP)

Bob Moser says that populist, localized campaign messages, not the party's own turnout strategy, saved a few key Democratic races in the 2014 midterm elections.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

How Democratic Progressives Survived a Landslide (TAP)

Bob Moser says that populist, localized campaign messages, not the party's own turnout strategy, saved a few key Democratic races in the 2014 midterm elections.

  • Roosevelt Take: Moser references Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch's post-election analysis on winning populist messaging.

What ‘Audit the Fed’ Really Means – and Threatens (WSJ)

Robert Litan explains that Senator Paul's proposal calls on Government Accountability Office economists to go outside their expertise to report on the Fed's activity and minimize its independence.

Payday Loans Are Bleeding American Workers Dry. Finally, the Obama Administration Is Cracking Down. (TNR)

Danny Vinik breaks down how payday loans harm consumers: the initial loan might not be so bad, but the repeated roll-overs have a high cost. Limiting those roll-overs is one potential regulation.

The “War on Women” is a Fiscal Nightmare: Taxpayers on the Hook for Millions as Republicans Gut Family Planning (Salon)

Katie McDonough looks at Kansas as an example of where legal fees to fight for potentially unconstitutional abortion restrictions and cuts to family planning services create massive costs.

Is Republican Concern About Middle-Class Wage Stagnation Just a Big Con? (MoJo)

Kevin Drum doesn't think this is a sign of Republican reformers succeeding in shifting the party in a populist direction, and says that the more likely explanation is an attempt to defuse Democrats.

New on Next New Deal

The Politics of Responsibility – Not Envy

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch argues that voters are responding not to envy, but to the knowledge that everyone needs to take a fair share of responsibility for shared prosperity.

Share This

Daily Digest - January 14: Advice From Mario Cuomo for Today's Democrats

Jan 14, 2015Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Mario Cuomo, the Speech and the Challenge to Democrats Today (In These Times)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Mario Cuomo, the Speech and the Challenge to Democrats Today (In These Times)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch and Dan Cantor point to Mario Cuomo's vision of mutuality laid out at the 1984 Democratic National Convention as an example today's Democrats should follow.

5 Books: Reading Race and Economics (The Nation)

Joelle Gamble, National Director of the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, recommends books on the intersection of race and economics to accompany an article on the economic dimension of #BlackLivesMatter.

Plunge In Wall Street Money Bolsters Populist Shift Among Democrats (HuffPo)

Paul Blumenthal says Wall Street's dramatic shift of campaign resources away from the Democrats isn't the cause of recent populist moves, but less campaign donations creates less industry pressure on the party.

  • Roosevelt Take: Blumenthal links to Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Ferguson's work on where different industries make their political donations; read his most recent paper on that topic here.

Calls for 'A Living Wage' (Times Union)

Matthew Hamilton reports on a Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy forum, "New York's Cities: Confronting Income Inequality," which featured Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal.

Labor at a Crossroads: How We Know We Haven't Yet Found the Right Model for the Worker Organizations (TAP)

Sejal Parikh cites the recent closing of hundreds of Wet Seal clothing stores and subsequent brief worker outburst online as proof that with the right organization, these stories wouldn't fizzle out.

How Medicaid for Children Recoups Much of Its Cost in the Long Run (NYT)

Margot Sanger-Katz looks at a new study that shows a correlation between Medicaid eligibility and future earnings. Higher earnings means higher taxes, repaying the investment in childhood health.

Elizabeth Warren Is Taking Control of the Democratic Agenda (TNR)

David Dayen writes that Antonio Weiss's withdrawal from his Treasury nomination is proof that Senator Warren has quickly learned how to exert her power over all aspects of the Senate's work.

Share This

News Flash: Progressives Have a Winning Economic Narrative -- and Democrats Who Used It Won

Nov 11, 2014Richard Kirsch

Democrats can connect with voters by telling a story about how they'll make the economy work for all of us.

The big post-election consensus is that Democrats believe, as The New York Times put it, they were missing “a broad economic message to enthuse supporters and convert some independents.”

Democrats can connect with voters by telling a story about how they'll make the economy work for all of us.

The big post-election consensus is that Democrats believe, as The New York Times put it, they were missing “a broad economic message to enthuse supporters and convert some independents.”

So what would that missing narrative be? The point of a narrative is to give people an explanation of what they are experiencing that includes what is wrong, who is responsible, and what we can do about it.

Take a look at two explanations of what’s happening that are very similar but different in important ways.

The first, from Republican message guru Frank Luntz, writing in The New York Times: “[F]rom the reddest rural towns to the bluest big cities, the sentiment is the same. People say Washington is broken and on the decline, that government no longer works for them — only for the rich and powerful.”

The second, from Democratic message advisors James Carville and Stan Greenberg, along with Page Gardner: “People believe that the rich are using their influence to rig the system so the economy works for them but not the middle class.”

The big difference here is how the common sentiment among Americans – that the rich call the shots – is framed to suggest a solution. By focusing on the government, Luntz sets up the Republican push for limited government. Or as successful Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst said in a debate, “When Washington is picking… winners and losers, it’s almost always our Iowa middle-class families that lose.”

For Carville, Greenberg, and Gardner, the focus is on the economy being rigged. Or as one ad for Oregon’s Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley said, “It is Jeff leading the fight to hold Wall Street and big banks accountable when they prey on working families and small businesses. ”

Merkley won and so did Ernst. The explanation, according to progressive pundits, is that Democrats like Merkley who used a populist message – which means they connected people’s economic concerns to the rich and powerful who are responsible – were successful while Dems who ran away from that message lost. As someone who has been leading the Progressive Economic Narrative (PEN) project, I really wanted to believe that. But as it seemed too easy, I decided to look at some campaigns and see whether it was spin or the truth. It turns out to be the truth.

The first case I looked at was Minnesota Democrat Al Franken’s campaign. After eking out a victory in the great Democratic year of 2008, Franken won handily this year, even as Republicans took over the Minnesota House of Representatives. Imagine my smile when I quickly found Franken ads based on the key value statement in our Progressive Economic Narrative, “We all do better when we all do better.” This was also a key theme of Minnesota’s great progressive senator, Paul Wellstone.

Franken’s progressive populism makes a key distinction when he uses the key word in that values phrase, “all.” As he says in another ad,  “I work for all Minnesotans. Wall Street wasn’t happy about that. But I don’t work for Wall Street. I work for you.”

The name of our Progressive Economic Narrative is “An America that works for all of us,” which is central to the aspirational power of our story. However, what is needed for that message to win is to make it clear who is not included in “all of us” (i.e., the wealthy). A poll of voters last spring found that voters preferred “growing the economy” over “an economy that works for all of us” by 10 percentage points. By contrast, voters chose “an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy” over “growing the economy” by 22 points!

Merkley was also sure to name the villains of the economic story throughout his campaign, as in the Wall Street ad mentioned above.

So what about those Democrats who lost in purple states? I would have thought Iowa Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley, who founded the populist caucus when he got to Congress in 2007, would have run a populist campaign. Instead, Braley ran on working across the aisle to get things done in Iowa and not “letting the extremists from either party get in the way.” Because voters are skeptical about anything getting done for them in Washington, his message fell flat.

Braley listed progressive issues, but without a narrative to link them together. His only villains were the “Koch brothers and their extreme agenda,” but he didn’t say what made their agenda extreme. Contrast that with how Merkley described “the billionaire Koch brothers,” who want to give “more tax breaks to millionaires and reward companies that ship jobs overseas.”

What about Mark Udall in Colorado, another Democrat who lost in a purple state that Obama carried? Udall built his campaign narrative around a war on women by his opponent Rep. Corey Gardner. He, like Braley, ticked off a list of progressive issues – from minimum wage to pay equity to protecting Social Security – without providing any framing story to link them together. He left out who the villains are in the story.

Udall also committed the ultimate narrative sin: delivering your opponent’s story. Here’s the closing line of a Udall ad: “I’m Mark Udall. No one – not government, not Washington – should have the power to take those rights and freedoms away.” Voters who wanted the anti-government candidate chose the real thing!

Udall would have had a much broader audience for his “war on women” message if he framed it as part of a broader war on American families by the rich and powerful. It is easy to make opposition to pay equity or a woman’s right to make her own decisions part of this broader story, which speaks to Americans’ deep concerns about their families.

One part of the story I didn’t see in the candidate ads was how Democrats should address Luntz’s “blame government” narrative. The answer, as Hart Research pollster Guy Molyneaux explains in The New York Times, quoting almost verbatim from the Progressive Economic Narrative, is that “the important question facing America today is not how big government should be so much as who government should work for: corporations and the wealthy, or all Americans?”

As Molyneaux points out, “That is a debate Democrats can and will win.”

What even progressive Democrats need to do better is tell a story about how to create that economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy. This is a matter of both clear narrative and bold policy.

The core of our economic theory is, as we say in the Progressive Economic Narrative, “working people and the middle class are the engines of the economy.” Another version of this, popularized by the Center for American Progress, is “we build the economy from the middle-out, not trickle-down.”

The story we are telling is that people are the job creators, not businesses. That raising the minimum wage is not just about fairness, but about creating economy-boosting jobs that put money in people’s pockets to spend in their communities. “We all do better when we all do better” is not just a statement of values; it’s the progressive belief about how the economy works.

Our narrative connects to policy with the phrase “we build a strong middle class by decisions we make together.” Democrats need to step up with bold policies, many of which are already out there, waiting to be championed. Here are just three:

1.     A massive public investment to dramatically increase the use of clean energy  – which would at the same time tackle the challenge of climate disruption – with a requirement that all the jobs created pay wages that can support a family.

2.     A $15/hr minimum wage that grows with productivity, so that workers get their fare share of the wealth they create. 

3.     A robust system of public financing that would allow candidates to win office without taking big campaign contributions from anyone, addressing the public’s belief that the rich call the shots.

One thing Democrats had better not say is “Oh, what’s the narrative? What do we say about the economy?” Progressives have a powerful narrative and bold solutions to create an America and an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy. Candidates who run on this have won and will win. And an America that runs on these policies will do to what too many Americans no longer believe is possible: provide a better life for our children. 

Richard Kirsch is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a Senior Adviser to USAction, and the author of Fighting for Our Health. He was National Campaign Manager of Health Care for America Now during the legislative battle to pass reform.

2014 election results map courtesy of Politico.

Share This

Expand Registration Efforts on Campus to Increase Youth Turnout

Nov 10, 2014Megan Ernst

A little-known provision of the Higher Education Act which creates a federal obligation for colleges to help with voter registration could be a key for youth turnout efforts.

A little-known provision of the Higher Education Act which creates a federal obligation for colleges to help with voter registration could be a key for youth turnout efforts.

After a disappointing election night, it’s time to start thinking about the effects of the collective decision our country has made. Despite the importance of Tuesday’s election for determining the direction of policy for the next two years and setting the tone for the 2016 presidential campaign, youth turnout was low – as it almost always is. Youth aged 18 to 29 made up only 13 percent of this year’s voting electorate, even though we represent nearly double that percentage of the population. Additionally, approximately half of 18-year-olds aren’t registered to vote.

Understanding and increasing youth turnout has been the topic of many policy papers and op-eds. The problem is twofold – we must register young voters in higher numbers, and then increase the number who show up to vote. Here’s the difference: often, it’s adults pushing registration and get out the vote efforts on newly eligible voters. What if, instead, we took the initiative to encourage our peers, create policy, and hold institutions accountable in order to get more youth engaged, registered, and voting?

Colleges have a federal obligation to “make the voter registration forms widely available to your students and distribute the forms individually to your degree or certificate program students who are physically in attendance at your institution.” If every “covered institution” made the broadest effort under this provision of the Higher Education Act, they would make sure every student at that university or community college was provided a voter registration form and the necessary instructions to complete it. Universities could also make registration change forms readily available to students who registered to vote in their parents’ district, but would prefer to vote in their school’s district. This would minimize the burden of voting on students as they could fulfill their voting responsibilities locally.

Here’s the first thing students can do: If students think their institution falls under this requirement, they should make sure it is fulfilling its obligation to its student body. If not, they should talk to administrators to try to find out what more the college or university can do.

In the state of Georgia, individuals are eligible to register to vote six months before they turn 18. Given the age range of most entering college freshmen, schools could provide voter registration forms at college and university orientation, as well as a time and place to complete the form and return it for mailing. This is such a simple policy change at the university level that could have significant impact. If students can prove to colleges that they are required to do this, and that they can fulfill this obligation in one fell swoop at orientation, why wouldn’t they?

Even if colleges have responsibilities to their students regarding registration, these institutions don’t necessarily provide unique opportunities to increase voting. Countless student organizations, nonprofits, and campaigns run get out the vote efforts on campuses, but universities themselves aren’t doing anything to increase turnout. Colleges could take responsibility for providing absentee ballot request forms in the same manner that they provide registration forms.

Some states provide special voting provisions for college students. Pennsylvania offers emergency absentee ballots for voters who could not apply for an absentee ballot by the regular deadline. One of the qualifications for receiving an emergency ballot is status as a college student. These ballot requests must be placed by the Friday before Election Day. States could help students (and other voters) apply for absentee ballots online, minimizing the burden on young voters to participate in this process.

Another chance to speak up: Students should talk to their colleges about what opportunities exist on their campuses to make voting easier. Students can help administrators devise or improve plans to offer absentee ballot request forms for students and could also develop policy proposals to take to their state government that argue for broader options in applying for absentee ballots.

Not all youth are in college, though, and a majority of engagement efforts targeting this demographic focus on college campuses. Even though there is significant room for improvement in those initiatives, we must also look at broader policy that could reach every eligible youth. The state of California opened online voter registration for one month before this year’s election. Though it was only open for a short time, the results are “striking.” Online registration appeared popular with all voters, but young voters in particular utilized this new method of registration. Thirty percent of online registrants were under 25, and this led to an eight percent increase in turnout in that age bracket.

Time for another action step: Roosevelt Institute Campus Network members should write policy proposals to bring online voter registration to their states. California’s success is an important metric to show lawmakers and stakeholders in other states that this form of registration is a viable option.

Colleges have historically been hotbeds of political activity and activism. It’s time to capitalize on the enthusiasm of young students and translate that into votes. Additionally, we should spread the spirit of political engagement on college campuses to youth outside the ivory tower. We need to be inclusive when it comes to youth registration and voting efforts, targeting nonstudent youth through statewide efforts. Expanding registration efforts, which by necessity involves talking to young people about voting, will make a big difference on Election Day 2016.

Megan Ernst, a senior at the University of Georgia studying journalism, political science, and public administration, serves as the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s Senior Fellow for Education.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 10: Could an Obamacare Brawl Help the Democrats?

Nov 10, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

There will not be a new Daily Digest on Tuesday, November 11, in observance of Veterans Day. The Daily Digest will return on Wednesday, November 12.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

There will not be a new Daily Digest on Tuesday, November 11, in observance of Veterans Day. The Daily Digest will return on Wednesday, November 12.

The Fight Against Obamacare Continues (Melissa Harris-Perry)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren says that if the Republican-controlled Senate pushes to end subsidies on the federal exchange, it could prove an electoral advantage for the Democrats.

U.S. High-Speed Internet Lags Behind on Price, Cost (Science Friday)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that with little federal action, it's mayors who are pressuring Internet providers to offer faster and cheaper service.

Minimum-Wage Workers Just Got a Raise, But Will Bosses Steal It? (The Nation)

Michelle Chen points out that rampant wage theft in low-wage fields could eliminate the gains from minimum wage increases, making regulation and enforcement even more important today.

Unemployment Is Down: Why Aren’t Americans Buying the Good News? (New Yorker)

Vauhini Vara says that voters may be right in their worries about the economy, as expressed in last week's exit polling, because labor force participation and wages remain flat.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal points out that economic growth was slower in 2013, which helps put the midterm results in context.

U.S. Unemployment Rate Falls to Lowest Level Since 2008 (The Guardian)

Heidi Moore evaluates the October jobs report. While the numbers look good, many are cautioning that the labor market is certainly not yet back to normal.

Labor Board Says Cablevision Chief Tied Raises to Vote Against a Union (NYT)

Steven Greenhouse reports on the National Labor Relations Board's charges against Cablevision, which is accused of three years of bargaining in bad faith since workers voted to unionize.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 7: Big Money Sets the Agenda for Both Parties

Nov 7, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Most Expensive Off Year Election in History (Real News Network)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Most Expensive Off Year Election in History (Real News Network)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Ferguson says that the huge sums spent on this election created races in which the Democrat sounded as corporate as the Republican.

What Democrats Get Wrong About Inequality (The Week)

Ryan Cooper cites Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal's work on financialization to explain why economic inequality must be discussed as an issue of growth and fairness.

  • Roosevelt Take: Cooper links to Konczal's new article on this topic in Washington Monthly, as well as a piece by Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz.

The $9 Billion Witness: Meet JPMorgan Chase's Worst Nightmare (Rolling Stone)

Matt Taibbi reports on Alayne Fleischmann, the whistleblower who initiated one of the largest white-collar crime cases in American history, and how JPMorgan has tried to keep her story quiet.

A Bright Spot in Tuesday’s Bloodbath: Massachusetts Voters Passed a Strong Paid Sick Leave Bill (In These Times)

Massachusetts's new paid sick leave program is the most comprehensive and ambitious in the nation, writes Michael Arria, with full-time workers earning 40 hours of paid sick leave per year.

My Fearless Predictions for the Next 18 Months (MoJo)

Kevin Drum predicts that very little will actually happen in Congress following this election, limiting possible accomplishments to trade agreements and tweaks to Obamacare.

It’s Opposite Day for the Hawks and Doves at the Federal Reserve (WaPo)

Ylan Q. Mui explains that the hawks are now asking whether unemployment will fall too low, while the doves worry about whether inflation is rising according to plan.

New on Next New Deal

With This Political Scene, Millennial Turnout Isn't a Surprise

Roosevelt Institute Associate Director of Networked Initiatives Alan Smith argues that low Millennial turnout should be blamed on the dysfunctional system – and suggests some improvements.

Share This

With This Political Scene, Millennial Turnout Isn't a Surprise

Nov 6, 2014Alan Smith

Millennials aren't engaged in the current model of partisan politics, but true networks of engagement would bring far more young people into the political fold.

Millennials aren't engaged in the current model of partisan politics, but true networks of engagement would bring far more young people into the political fold.

As pundits predicted (Nate Silver really has taken the drama out of election returns) the Republicans swept to a classic 6th year victory, winning senate and gubernatorial majorities on the backs of disillusionment with Obama and low turnout across the board. Also as predicted, young voters’ share of the electorate dropped: from 19 percent in 2012 to 13 percent this year. This pretty much mirrors the turnout in the last two midterm elections, and we can safely call this a trend in Millennial political engagement.

I'm not going to spend time trying to debunk the notion of Millennials as lazy or disengaged. I don't buy those narratives, either anecdotally or statistically, but what's important today is that we've seen the confirmation of a very dangerous trend: this moment of low turnout is perfectly in line with an all-time low in people's faith in our institutions of government.  If what we want from voting is for people to engage more with the rules that govern their lives, we need to make the process of engaging much more meaningful that what currently passes as voting.

I can't blame us, either. The connection between voting and positive change has never been so tenuous. The elimination of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act has opened the door for disenfranchisement movements around the country, and there will be more felons prevented from voting in Georgia then the entire Alaskan electorate (who, by the way, still got to pick a senator). Money, as the Daily Show observed, pretty roundly trumped ideas in this election. Even worse, zooming further out reveals a federal government that seems pathologically incapable of doing anything at all. Why should we care that the senate swung red, or a congressional seat remained blue? We have passionate debates about global warming, about immigration, and about how to fix a healthcare system and an economy that both leave out large numbers of Americans, but when we get to the ballot box those debates seem very removed. How do you know if your vote is a vote for a carbon cap-and-trade program, or against gun control? You don't, and you can't, because the systems that govern our democracy are simply not that responsive.

While I've heard plenty of arguments that yes, this is how representative democracy is supposed to work, it seems to me that we risk a generation of voters systemically having their worst fears and cynicism (and thus disengagement) re-enforced by real results.

It's a real problem. So what? 

My title at the Roosevelt Institute is “Associate Director of Networked Initiatives.” I often end up trying to explain to people what, exactly, that means. Sometimes I'm not sure myself. But if we know that traditional institutions - from Beltway politics to social structures - are crumbling, then how can we take that knowledge and make something positive from it?  So the challenge of my position at Roosevelt is to figure out how organizations that already exist, and those that are starting every day, can work independently while being a part of a network.

In this, there is a vision for how we think about political parties. Not as top down institutions, but as networks of people who support and push each other toward social change, and then are moved to vote as a part of the process they are already engaged in.  

We know that Millennials are civically minded from extensive polling. We are interested in starting our own organizations, and are passionate about many issues. This is not, simply put, a generation that has checked out on change. We're running divestment campaigns, we're starting non-profits, and we're throwing ourselves into the breach as teachers. But with so much re-inventing of the wheel, the Millennial generation's activism is not reaching the scale that we need.

For our Federal government to work at all, we need people to buy in as voters. We need people to show up, to use voting as a starting point, and to assist on projects for the greater good. What if, instead of looking for people to joining the organizations that already exist to build to federal levels of power, we were looking instead for an affiliation of organizations? We are, at this point in our technological history, capable of communications structures and consensus building that is far more complex and more nuanced than it has ever been. And we're also at a point where simply repeating the same tired political process is not just not working, it's actively driving people away.

I am not suggesting creating a loose coalition of organizations, where people sign off on national legislation, or add their votes to other people's petitions. Roosevelt is a network in the sense of communicating between different nodes: active sharing of ideas and information and resources, as well as shared problem solving, to go along with the combined sense of purpose, and shared values. Imagine with me, a party that recruited organizations that already existed, without trying to change their mission. Education organizations, environmental groups, crowdfunding platforms, and better business bureaus with a shared set of values, sharing their work and collaborating with each other. Imagine a network, in the truest sense, that takes what is the same about local problems and elevates the core issues to a national platform, while giving each local group the agency to tackle things the way they need to be tackled. Instead of making voting the core part of how we engage as active citizens, let's make it an end product for engaged people who realize that they've reached the logical end of what they can do locally, and thus need to pass some power up the chain to a Federal government that is ready and waiting. 

There was a glimmer of this process in last night, with organizations that were able to move important issues like minimum wage hikes in Nebraska and South Dakota and soda taxes in Berkeley. A network of organizations that supports local groups, finds candidates that share similar values, and passes on best practices? That sounds like a network that Millennials are already engaged in.

Today, America is angry at Millennials for not voting. Instead, I would suggest that we should be angry at an American government that has passed on actual democratic principles in exchange for the consolidation of power. I think Millennials are smart enough to see this, and that we're building different civic infrastructures, some of which will eventually grow to scale. 

Could political parties be one of these things? Maybe. But they would need to embrace the grassroots, and stop worrying so much if that means getting some grass stains on their message. 

Alan Smith is the Roosevelt Institute's Associate Director of Networked Initiatives.

Share This

Daily Digest - November 6: Electoral Cycles Aren't Enough for Voter Engagement

Nov 6, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Understanding the Electorate (All In with Chris Hayes)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Understanding the Electorate (All In with Chris Hayes)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren says that political parties need to figure out a way to engage voters outside of the electoral cycle if they're going to increase turnout in the midterms.

Private Equity’s Sunshine Problem (PE Hub)

Chris Witkowsky builds on Roosevelt Institute Fellow Saqib Bhatti's recent letter to the editor in The New York Times, creating a proposal for some private equity fund terms to be made public.

A Big Night For Minimum Wage Increases (FiveThirtyEight)

Ben Casselman says that voters' approval of minimum wage increases and Republicans winning statewide office may seem at odds, but these votes stem from the same economic fears.

Three States Could Have Ended Legal Abortion. Only One Did. (MoJo)

Erika Eichelberger reports on the failed personhood measures in Colorado and North Dakota, as well as Tennessee's successful one, which is expected to lead to extreme anti-choice laws.

Voters in Seattle Just Taxed Themselves to Pay for Preschool for the Poor (WaPo)

Emily Badger looks at one local progressive win from Tuesday's elections. The Seattle proposition will fully subsidize preschool for families earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level.

New on Next New Deal

In Blowout Aftermath, Remember GDP Growth Was Slower in 2013 Than in 2012

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal reminds us that the Great Recession isn't actually over. The data explains why voters, still worried about the economy, are expressing such discontent.

Leadership Wanted: Pushing for More College Attainment? Start in Public Housing.

Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Leadership Director Kevin Stump argues that public housing creates an opportunity to bring together resources to help needy students where they live.

Share This

Pages