I've started reading political blogs again ― not often and not a lot, but a few of them occasionally. My favorite now is Andrew Sullivan, oddly enough. Back in the 1990s, during his New Republic days, I didn't think much of Sullivan. It wasn't so much that I disagreed with him on issues (though I often did); it was that I thought he was a frivolous smart-ass. But now I like him, so go figure. Which of us has changed, I wonder. Probably both.

I suppose Sullivan still counts as a "conservative", though it's hard to tell these days. (Blurring of left-right distinctions often appeals to me....) In the era of Bush conservatism, Sullivan doesn't seem particularly conservative. Partly because his cultural background ― being gay is part of that, but not all of it ― and even more because he's one of the leading conservative critics of President Bush.

As far as I can tell, Sullivan's complaints with Bush fall in two categories, neither of which has anything to do with left and right. One is that the Bush administration has such inept management function that it not only does a miserable job of whatever goals it pursues, but threatens to damage the very institution of our federal government. Note that this criticism applies to the whole administration, not to the president specifically. Liberal critics like to rail about how Mr Bush is stupid, irreponsible, corrupt, or whatever. The reality (as noted by Machiavelli, among others) is that even a fool can be a decent leader so long as the organization around him is sound.

The second category is not so broad. It is that our current government's practice of torture as an instrument of foreign policy is among the most despicable and morally reprehensible episodes in the history of the United States. Any president who persists in defending this practice, even in the face of opposition from a majority in his own party, has simply got to go, no matter what else you think of him.

This is Sullivan's pet issue, not mine. And it's easy enough for me to go along with it since I don't like Bush anyway and he's not the leader of my party. Still, I can't say I disagree.

Daily Kos is probably the most prominent liberal blog of which I was never a regular reader, nor even an intermittent one, but a recent link from Sullivan sent me there for one particular story. My friend REG and I have been having one of our private political dialogues discussing, among other things, what Democrats nowadays believe in, so it seemed timely to check in and see what my own partisans are buzzing about.

It wasn't pretty. The issue here is California's Proposition 77, a measure sponsored by Republican Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger. Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi doesn't just oppose the measure, she goes so far as to state that defeating it is her number one priority. Kos, usually a reliably partisan Democrat, supports it.

Prop 77, for those who don't know, is a plan which would set new rules for defining California congressional districts so as to make them more fair and more representative. The Republican interest in this idea isn't hard to see. California is a state with a Democratic majority. Since Democrats are able to (partially) control how the district lines are drawn, they've been able to mildly gerrymander the state so that it sends Democrats to Congress in even greater proportion than the Party's share of support statewide. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Most states have a bit of gerrymandering ― the only real exceptions being Iowa plus the seven states with only one Congressman.

A nifty side effect of typical gerrymandering is that the incumbents in both parties find their seats safer than they'd otherwise be. Of California's 53 members of Congress, only three of them polled less than 60% of the vote. That's nice for them, but it's part of what's wrong with Congress. As much as we might dislike the ugly business of members of Congress perpetually running for re-election, it's better than the alternative. Congress would be better if it were more representative of the electorate, not less. When seats are rigged so that they're all "safe", it rewards partisanship on both sides, whether that comes in the form of extremism or currying favor with the party leadership.

You might think that lack of serious electoral challenge would at least have the virtue of relieving members of Congress of the need to be constantly whoring themselves for campaign funds. In practice, they still collect the funds, but instead of using them to woo the electorate, they are stockpiled as a deterrent or used to woo party leadership (or contribute to their legal defense funds). My least favorite congressman, for example, spread his bounty among others in his party who were less accomplished at political whoring, thereby to secure himself the chair of the House Resources Committee. Richard Pombo also holds the distinction of being the only Republican representative anywhere near the Bay Area. In the core of the Bay Area, gerrymandering is neither necessary nor possible, since it's so thoroughly Democratic anyway. In the peripheries (near where my friend Pete lives), there are enough Republicans that it becomes necessary to carefully separate them out to make a single safe Republican seat.

But I digress. Getting back to Prop 77, it is pretty much stipulated as a given by everyone on both sides of the debate that if the measure passes, Democrats will lose seats in Congress in California, with the typical estimates being somewhere around four or five seats. Hence Democrats' quandary. In the comments section attached to Kos's post, his readers were opposed by a margin of about four to one, more or less. (If comments are weighted for intellectual coherence, a bit less; if weighted for venom and vulgarity, considerably more.)

As you might guess, I'm entirely behind Kos on this one. My only reservation is that, not being a resident of California anymore, I'm not familiar with the details of the proposal, so I can't say with confidence how effective it would be. Even so, it's hard to imagine it isn't at least a step in the right direction. Of the hundreds of arguments against, the only one that made any impression on me at all was that of the League of Women Voters which says, in its usual sober and understated way, that although the goal is a good idea, this proposal doesn't do a very good job of it and we'd do better to reject it and wait for a better one.

Kos's argument in favor wavers between principle and pragmatism. If we oppose anti-gerrymandering here in California where it favors Democrats, how can we support similar anti-gerrymandering in states where it favors Republicans? Democratic opponents of the measure offer up numerous petty distinctions ― the Ohio law is good because it is so-and-so, but the California law is bad because it is such-and-such. None of these are very convincing. The more common objections ― in Kos's comments section anyway ― are more basic: "If Arnold supports it, it must be bad." "This is all-out partisan warfare, don't give an inch." Or even, "Goddamn evil Republican bastards, fuck Bush."

Kos worries about a political backlash, that for Democrats to oppose Prop 77 on obvious partisan grounds sets us up for Republicans to attack us as hypocrites. He also hopes that success in California will give life to similar movements in Republican states which will win seats back for the Democrats. There's one on the ballot in Ohio already, and proposals under consideration in Florida and Pennsylvania. All three of these states are gerrymandered to favor Republicans more than California favors Democrats (as measured by comparing Congressional representation with share of the presidential vote, which admittedly is an imperfect measurement). Kos worries that Democratic opposition to fairer districts in California will make it harder for similar measures to pass in these other states.

Me, I don't care about the pragmatism here. I'm all principle. Assuming that this law really would make the congressional districts more fair and more representative, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, you have to vote for it simply because it's the right thing to do. The point of Congress is to represent the voters, whether you or I agree with those voters or not. Government which is more representative and more responsive is better government. If we think the electorate as a whole is wrong, then we should take up the debate to win their hearts and minds, not figure out legal ways to disenfranchise them. Democrats should believe in democracy more than in keeping their incumbents in power.

One prominent liberal blog I used to read regularly, and have started reading again, is the one I still think of as "CalPundit", even though he's been Political Animal for years now. The post that caught my attention there was about the recommendations from the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. Again, the debate hovers between principle and pragmatism.

Having just come away from the donnybrook at Kos, I couldn't help noticing how much more informed and articulate are the commenters at Political Animal. It fascinates me that such a difference can evolve. As far as I know, both forums are open for anyone to register and post to, and both are mainstream liberal blogs. Why such a difference in personality?

At Kos I see something that I used to notice at Atrios back when I read that one. The left partisans have this peculiar ritual ― even more perverse than right partisans' weird obsession with Hillary Clinton ― of distorting the names of the opposing party. When I was eight years old, our elementary school principal was named Mr Putnam, and it amused us to call him "Mr Butt-nam". On Kos, it's the same thing with Republicans. I marvel at how often "Republican" is instead spelled "Repuglican" (often shortened to "repugs") or "Rethuglican" (and in one case even "Repuglicunt").

I can understand using strong language or expletives when discussing a topic one feels passionately about, and I can understand wanting to work some clever wordplay into one's writings. But this is neither of those things. It's just stupid. Do conservatives do this sort of thing? I find it embarrassing.

...

Enh. This is as far as I got before I got sidetracked. The plan was to continue with a discussion of the various features of the tax reform proposal, but it may be a while before I get to that. Better to post this now, I guess. The Fun with Taxes post has already fallen off Political Animal's front page, and the actual proposals have already been pronounced dead on arrival. But tax reform itself isn't going anywhere. It'll keep.

8:53:33 PM  [permalink]  comment []