Tonight thanks to the sponsorship of The Martin Institute at Stonehill College the MassPoliticsProfs begin a statewide conversation about the Massachusetts Primary process, Party Matters. We’ll launch at 6:30 in District Hall 75 Northern Avenue, Boston. I suspect some readers think that party doesn’t matter much, or it shouldn’t; but our democracy depends on vigorous parties and we should do what we can to strengthen them.
Nobody likes Congress. And that’s not much of an exaggeration—only 16% of Americans hold a favorable view of the United States Congress—while 46% approve of the President. The high-jinx that played out last week certainly does not bolster confidence in the institution nor are shutdowns a cost-effective way to run government. The scholar in me is just as concerned about the assault on standards of knowledge that occurs off camera though.
A piece of legislation that passed the House last November in the previous Congressional session offers a telling example. Congressman Christopher Stewart (R-UT) introduced H.R. 1422, The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, and it passed the Republican House 229-191 on almost a straight party-line vote. At root, the Act altered the composition of the Scientific Advisory Board (SBA) to the Environmental Protection Agency to include more industry representatives and barred SBA scholars from providing insight to the EPA on the very matters of their expertise -- the subjects on which they conduct systematic, empirical research. So in this bill, House Republicans called into question the very standards of knowledge that brought us the Enlightenment. Congressman Stewart’s legislation sought a “balance” of researchers and industry backed representatives who have an undeniable financial investment in the findings. It barred scientists, but not these industry representatives, from weighing in on the very subjects on which they have done painstaking research. This is akin to asking Pedro Martinez for advice about your swim team of Bill Gates’ take on k-pop.
The Globe’s resident wingnut has written another Gem. This time he’s trying to help Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s damage-control efforts in the wake of his feigned ignorance of President Obama’s religion. Jacoby thinks that, on the one hand, the 2016 Republican presidential prospect shouldn’t have to respond to questions about the president’s religion, and on the other hand, shouldn’t be expected to know that President Obama is a Christian. A tall order to be sure and Jacoby comes up well short. For an example of an intelligent analysis of this issue from a conservative perspective, read this offering from New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. The contrast should make the editors of the Boston Globe weep.
Ideas on how to fix the T are manifold in policy circles but, unfortunately, neoliberal solutions—replicating private laissez-faire market practices and values in government—seem to be dominating Governor Baker’s favored fixes. The research suggests it will be the less affluent who pay if neoliberalism wins.
If the Democrats coalesce early around Clinton and use the head start to frame the election in party and policy-centric terms; as a referendum on Republican Party control of all three branches of the federal government (a frame that will almost certainly be abetted by both the performance of the Republican-controlled 114th Congress and the ongoing GOP nomination circus), then the danger to Democratic chances of giving Clinton a “free ride” to the November ballot should be minimal.