By Jason Atkinson, on Wed Oct 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM ET
By Jeff Smith, on Tue Oct 8, 2013 at 1:30 PM ET
Ben White, Matt Zeitlin and Tim Carney are our guests this week.
With guest host: New School Professor and former Missouri Senator Jeff Smith
Show produced by Katherine Caperton.
Original Air Date: October 5, 2013 on SiriusXM “POTUS” Channel 124.
Listen to the show by clicking here.
Show also available for download on Apple iTunes by clicking here
 Hi – I’m Jeff Smith, public policy professor at The New School in New York City, sitting in for Josh this week – a week full of political intrigue. Between Senator Ted Cruz’s theatrics, the government shutdown, the Obamacare rollout, and the looming debt ceiling, there’s a lot to talk about – and the standoff also raises intriguing questions about party alignment. This week we hosted three reporters who’ve been in the thick of it, Politico’s Ben White, Buzzfeed’s Matt Zeitlin, and the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney.
* * *
Few political science concepts have been as heatedly debated in academia (and in journalism, to a lesser degree) as the term “realignment.” Some scholars argue that party realignments happen in a single election; others say they take decades. Some define realignment as a durable shift in the voting behavior of certain groups, while others stress elite-level policy shifts. During realignments, a “rare, massive, and enduring shift of the electoral equilibrium” occurs, and while some suggest that realignment occurs through mobilization of new groupsor generational replacement, others stress actual partisan conversion in the electorate. Whatever the cause, the shift profoundly alters party coalitions and the relative strength of various factions within them.
Alignments typically occur when the dominant issue cleavage in a political system is disturbed by a new set of issues leading to widespread public demand for action. Given a two-dimensional issue space – imagine economic issues on one axis and cultural issues on the other – the minority party will naturally attempt to shift the focus of political debate to issues which will help it divide the other party’s coalition and attract more voters – which is what Republicans are attempting to do by focusing on Obamacare, which unites Republicans but splits Democrats from Democratic-leaning independents. Repeated iterations of such attempts by political parties may gradually produce a rotational movement of party realignment over time in a two-dimensional space. Such rotation helps explain why the 2000 electoral map was almost the mirror image of the 1896 map: it wasn’t that electorates in Nebraska and Manhattan traded their world-views and economic interests over decades; it was that in many respects, the two parties traded places. A realignment, then, comprises two elements: 1) a newly dominant issue cleavage and 2) a transformation not of political preferences generally but of the way that people holding those preferences align by party.
And so, although this week’s show mostly focuses on the shutdown and debt limit default, we also raise broader questions about how these battles may affect party alignment. For instance, does Wall Street’s alignment with the president against the Tea Party portend a broader switch of allegiances to a pro-business Democratic party under the banner of Wall Street-backed Hillary Clinton versus a populist Ted Cruz or Fed-auditing Rand Paul? Or might the emergence of a Clinton candidacy buoyed by Wall Street bundlers inspire a Warren-esque anti-financier insurgency that attracts elements sympathetic to both Occupy and anti-bailout libertarians – particularly if Wall Street-backed Chris Christie is the Republican standard-bearer?
This week, Polioptics fans get to hear three whip-smart young journalists –Politico’s Ben White, Buzzfeed’s Matt Zeitlin, and the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney – delve into all of this and more. Matt and Ben explain the shutdown’s economic impact and the financial implications of default – globally, and locally – with an eye towards possible shifts in party alignment that might result from Washington’s current battles. And Tim takes a deep dive into the future of the Republican Party – and the conservative movement more broadly. Three unique perspectives not just on today’s news, but on tomorrow’s…and perhaps next year’s as well.
By John Y. Brown III, on Tue Oct 8, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET
Sometimes I stumble across a new website and it is like free falling into a black hole.
I start clicking and next thing I know 45 minutes has passed. Or 2 hours. Or longer.
One topic of interest leads to another topic and so on and so on until you are in a zone and are in the thrall of the thrill of discovering a brand new website that “you get” and that “gets you.”
It can be a time waster, of course…but also very much a reflection of who you really are— and where you are in your life.
Which makes me a little skittish about boastfully recommending the very compelling, timely, topical and substantive new website I found tonight:
AARP.org. ===
AARP is just too stodgy an acronym to make people turning 50 want to join. It doesn’t sound topical or interesting. Or like it has activities that someone 49 would ever look forward to participating in.Instead, it sounds like a place to go to play bingo and have group exercises in tho pool. With a the cafeteria that serves lots of soup and easy-to-chew entrees…..and probably offers prunes as a side dish at every meal.
It’s re-branding time.
We need a new name. And we know how to do this. Or at least the pharma companies that cater to us do.
How about Flomax! (with an exclamation point)? That sounds like an aging super-hero (with a cape and a dignified cane to beat off the bad guys). But it sounds fun too. Like a group with activities such as white water rafting, skiiing, surfing and Boogie Boards (with hand rails). But it’s better than AARP.
I don’t even know what AARP stands for. Ok. I do now. I just looked it up. American Association of Retired Persons. And if you’ll note that is without an exclamation point.
Who wants to join a group that makes you think of being put out to pasture—but protected somehow. And with some group activities so you don’t reach enfeebled oblivion sooner than expected.
No. No. No. If you look at the website it can clearly be cool to be 50 and over. Or at least 50–55. It’s not that old. Not really. OK, it is “that” old. But it’s not, like, a death march. It’s no the end! Only the beginning of the end. Or…..maybe…..the beginning of the beginning of the end. Or BOTBOTE. Bot and bote. Sounds a little French…but so does AARP. But BOTBOTE sounds like some place I wouldn’t mind seeing on the 4th day of a tourist trip to France. Not looking forward to it….but not dreading either. And keeping the possibility open of being surprised. AARP –if it was on the itinerary of the same trip, on the other hand, sounds like something you’d want to avoid before lunch or dinner. And that you’d quickly snap off a few pictures off and leave —before someone mistakes you for someone who belongs in that group rather than a tourist walking by.
I’m going with BOTBOTE. It’s mysterious. Doesn’t seem to ask a lot of us. But if we are at Barnes & Nobles and want the magazine, we wouldn’t have to buy another magazine (like Pscyhology Today) to hide it under as we walked to the counter. BOTBOTE could be something we buy with our coffee in the cafe. Along with a bowl of fancy tomato soup and a over-sized bran muffin. ; )
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Oct 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET  Does it pay to be an author?
Of course it does.
Sometimes it pays a whole lot.
Other times not so much and you just have to hope to aim higher and hit the next time around.
And at still other times, depending on what sort of math calculations you choose to use, writing can actually cause you to lose money and make you wonder, “Is merely having a book listed on Amazon.com worth the money you are in debt to make this book?”
I can say that of the three categories I am probably most familiar with the third category.
 Above is a copy of my first check for profit on my book Musings from the Middle. I chose not to try to make money off it and charge only about a dollar profit a book just to cover costs.
As you can see my first check (which I have been advised is going to be by far my biggest) is $119.12. Now that’s nothing to sneeze at, of course, and is clearly in the “three figure range.” At least until you realize that has to cover a family of four including two teenagers with one in college and one just a few years away. When looked at that way, $119.12 doesn’t sound like as much as it did at first blush.
Given today’s college tuition prices, $119.12 will only cover about 33 minutes of one class your freshman year at a state university.
When you factor in the help I got putting the book together, organizing it, designing a cover, etc, well….all that cost about $400. So when you add the $119.12 to that figure you get something like….well, about — $280.
So let’s assume that over the next year (or five years), I get other checks totaling this amount? I am trying to be realistic. My book is currently ranked on Amazon.com at #1,972,197. Again, nothing to sneeze at. Until you realize that means that 1,972,196 books are ranked ahead of you.
So if I do get a total profit on the book of $240 that means I am only in the hole a mere $160.
 Click here to purchase Which now leads to the big question. Would I pay $160 to be able to say I have a book on Amazon.com?
The answer is, I apparently already have.
Had I not yet done it, I would be willing to pay…..hmmm…..maybe $150. And could see myself caving in if pushed on $160. So, I guess, all in all it is a good deal. And 33 minutes in a class at a state university is nothing to sneeze at–with today’s college tuition prices.
Especially if you are an author.
By RP Staff, on Mon Oct 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM ET  Crisis management and scandal recovery have captured the moment, from big-league sports to New York City’s current political silly season. PR firms are rebranding themselves as crisis advisers. Ex-White House aides are peddling their bona fides. While the public sees scandal through a tabloid lens, at its heart are flawed human beings making mistakes, acting emotionally, and trying to preserve their reputations and careers. “Recovering politicians” who suffered highly publicized scandals share their stories, offer guidance, and comment on the latest attempts to launch second acts.
A conversation with:
Krystal Ball, co-host, MSNBC’s “The Cycle;” former Virginia congressional candidate
Jonathan Miller, Daily Beast columnist; No Labels co-founder; former Kentucky state treasurer
Michael Steele, co-chairman, Purple Nation Strategies; former Republican National Committee chairman
Moderated by:
Jeff Smith, assistant professor of politics and advocacy, The New School; former Missouri state senator
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Oct 7, 2013 at 9:15 AM ET There is an historic impasse between two groups of our nation’s leaders.
One group believes that the root cause of what is most wrong in their lives is the threat of implementation of the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare as some prefer to call it).
The other group believes that the root cause of what is most distressing in their lives is… the Tea Party movement and its influence on the Republican Party.
This is, for both groups, far more than merely a work-related or ordinary civic cause. It is, for most in this debate, the defining question at the defining moment for each of them and everyone around them.
And each group is ridiculing the other for being ignorant and self-righteous and trying to ruin America. But the problem is that those doing the name calling don’t really know –or at least know well–what those they declaim are really like in their daily lives. They often only understand only a caricature or stereotype of their political rivals.
So, here is my modest proposal.
Since you have the week off and are presumably with family, please sit down with them and give each a single sheet of paper and a pen. Then ask each family member to write down the 5 things about you that in their opinion are causing the most trouble for you personally and for your family.
These are the people who know you best and have your best interest at heart–and theirs.
I doubt the “implementation of the ACA” or the “Tea Party movement” will make the cut on many of those lists. And I suspect you’ll be surprised by what does make the list.
And now here is the immodest part of my proposal. If that is truly what occurs, will you show the same visceral disdain and devotion to ridding those things from your life that really are causing daily pain to you and your family and those around you–and do so with the same resolve and enthusiasm you show today when railing against either Obamacare or Tea Partiers?
If you answer yes, then I suspect you’ll all be back at work sooner than planned.
And if the rest of us who are deeply engaged and emotionally invested in this national healthcare stand-off would try a similar experiment at our home —and devotedly seek to resolve those items written on our lists, I suspect next week will be a lot less testy and a lot more pleasant for each one of us. And that is good for our health—and the political health of our nation.
By John Y. Brown III, on Sun Oct 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Marriage therapists agree it may be time for republicans and democrats in Congress to consider divorcing one another.
“Normally, spouses (and political parties) can work through difficult discussions by agreeing that a “Time Out” can be called by either party when there is disagreement and emotions are running high —but that is contingent on each side respecting the other when a “Time Out” is called.
Some therapists agree that a “prolonged time out” could be beneficial but if parties are going to start insisting on complete shutdowns lasting for several weeks, that other options, including divorce, need to be explored.
“We had felt, as a group, a structured separation made the most sense if things didn’t improve during implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act,” said a spokesperson for the group, “but it is clear now that the two parties have irreconcilable differences that are beyond the scope of the most sophisticated tools our profession has to offer.” Adding that “Even make-up intimacy” (or bi-partisan feel good legislation) seems no longer to hold any allure for either party.
Not all marriage therapists agree. Some professional marriage counselors believe that insisting on using “Mirroring techniques” where members on the floor are required to repeat what they believe they heard another member say –and get confirmation from that member their understanding is correct — before criticizing or name-calling a colleague would be helpful and clear up some of the confusion and hurt feelings experienced now on both sides. But some First Amendment experts say that would be a violation of free speech.
Still others family therapists have suggested the required use of “I” statements when hurling accusations against those not in their political party. For example, instead of shouting something like, ‘You lie!’ to President Obama, Representative Joe Wilson would be required to instead shout something like, “When you talk about your new immigration policy, I feel afraid on the inside.”
Again, however, Constitutional scholars question if such requirements wouldn’t violate the First Amendment.
As for the children, there is the possibility of joint custody. Under this arrangement, Congressional republicans will govern Americans on Mondays and Wednesdays and Fridays and get us every third weekend and half the summer. Democrats in Congress get to govern the country on odd days and two of three weekends and split summers, probably in the Hamptons.
A few marriage counselors suggested that the cause of the breakdown is traceable to the Tea Party being a jealous and controlling mistress for the Republican Party. One therapist, who asked to remain anonymous, compared U.S Senator Ted Cruz to Glenn Close’s character in Fatal Attraction and his recent filibuster reminiscent of the “rabbit stew scene.” A majority of therapists, however, trace primary blame on an earlier ‘straying” with an inter-party dalliance among Congressional Democrats that turned into a torrid romance with now president Barack Obama. Although democrats in congress now claim it is purely a professional and platonic working relationship, many republican colleagues now admit they felt that “Despite years of being together and taking the good with the bad that they were about to be replaced by a new Trophy Politician, President Barack Obama” and never were able to forgive the very public seduction they had to witness. Quoting another marriage therapist who also asked to remain anonymous, “It was like rubbing salt into that fresh wound by making such a priority about “President Obama’s big idea, the healthcare bill. It’s like asking your spouse to chauffeur your new girlfriend around town and expecting them to say, ‘Sure, I’d love to.’ It’s just not realistic.” Adding, “Anyone in our profession could have predicted a retaliatory tryst with the Tea Party was just a matter of time.”
Is this dramatic dissolution of Congress really necessary? As one top marriage counselor said, “It has to be. The example Congress is setting for the children, I mean the people, isn’t healthy and will likely be repeated if any of them ever make it to Congress. This sort of maladjusted and entitled behavior can take years of therapy to overcome. And that would mean adding additional therapeutic coverage to Obamacare and I just don’t see that happening right now. A divorce is really best for all concerned.”
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Oct 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM ET Did Jon Stewart predict the current government shutdown?
It has been wisely observed that comedians can sometimes be our most useful philosophers.
9 years ago this month an epic moment of honest candid discussion occurred on what was then the most influential political debate show in the nation. It is worth watching right now, in my opinion, if you want to better understand the underlying cause of our nation’s current political dysfunction.
Consider the video clip ad comedian Jon Stewart predicting in 2004 the government shutdown in 2013. At least that is my take.
I don’t believe it matters much who is most at fault. I believe it matters a lot, however, if we as a nation have permantly transformed political debate into a form of sport-like entertainment where the point is merely to “win” –and that we have forgotten how to discuss together, deliberate candidly, and expect our elected officials to honestly craft policy that is within the realm of the possible?
I don’t know the answer. But when I watch this clip I believe Jon Stewart is saying something that is both obvious and profound. And I contend is far more important than any speeches given today on the floor of Congress.
By Jason Grill, on Fri Oct 4, 2013 at 3:00 PM ET  Recovering politician, and former Missouri State Representative Jason Grill, talked about the government shutdown, on The Mitch Albom Show.
Click here to download the podcast.
Click here to learn more about (and invest in) Jason’s latest venture, Sock 101.
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Oct 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM ET Have you ever noticed that the people who bragged the loudest about the SAT scores when they were 17 are hardly ever the same people in middle age who boast regularly about the Credit Score?
Sure both tests are on a scale that goes up to about 800 and both are important.
But I think there may be some sort of inverse relationship between high SAT scores and high credit scores.
And what about the rest of us? Those who haven’t had a chance to brag about either score? Is there a third test in our later years we could still ace and get to brag about?
If not, we sure would appreciate it if someone out there would please think of one. And one more thing.
I think that the “Super Score” rule for the SAT should apply with Credit Reports, too.
Whatever my highest score on any given day for the year was with Experian, Transunion, and Equifax should be “My score” for that year.
|
|
