Aaron E. Wicks
Posted: Sunday, June 10, 2012 8:56 pm

Rochester, NY (June 11, 2012) --  Residents of the Rochester area will be treated to an avalanche of political advertisements this summer and fall. No, the Obama and Romney ads will probably be fairly sparse -- New York is not likely to give Romney the White House. One race that will be consistently advertised to the voters (among several) will be the contest between County Executive Maggie Brooks and incumbent Representative Louise Slaughter.

The issues they will highlight are likely to be the ones that have shaped the Presidential election so far: American finances (taxes, spending), the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security (though no one will propose a politically-viable solution) and, of course, the state of the American economy. Issues such as these have always driven American politics, but never before have they been contested in the environment in which they will be aired in 2012. Between the Tea Party movement, the Occupy Wall Street movement and the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision, political contests have become more ideologically-driven and dependent on huge sums of money -- much of it being spent by independent groups, not accountable to the candidates (or the voters).

A problem of incentives
The problem for voters is that candidates for office, well-meaning though they may be, are human beings who respond to incentives. Consider the incentives for Congressional candidates in 2012.

For Republicans, there is significant pressure to adopt hardline, budget-cutting positions. The national party (see Paul Ryan’s budget, the Republican Presidential candidates’ platforms) has staked an uncompromising position on this issue: the country is in desperate fiscal peril, only by slicing the federal budget can we get back on track. And if you even hint that some balance may be required (i.e. increased revenue), Grover Norquist and several major Super PACs will assail you and threaten to run a more conservative candidate.

Long-term, Republicans should be considering the fact that the country is changing: it is becoming more diverse, specifically, more black and brown. These are two groups Republicans have struggled to win over. One might think Republicans would want to lay the groundwork for a long-term party-building strategy. But political incentives are rarely long-term; more important is winning the next election. Building the broad coalition of the future will have to wait until the next election cycle.

Democrats are in no better shape, unfortunately.  Their political incentives are equally restrictive. Still trying to hold on to the sliver of their base that is unionized and the senior vote (reliable, large and easily influenced by scare tactics), Democrats have no incentive to take any risks that would alienate these groups. Accordingly, they will defend public employees and fight entitlement reform -- even though most would acknowledge that some ground will need to be ceded on both fronts. Democrats have donors and activists of their own to fear: some of them have threatened to dump President Obama because, they lament, he is just too moderate and willing to compromise. Ironically, talk radio portrays Obama as the most leftist, socialistic President to ever occupy the White House. Go figure.

Long-term, Democrats have a challenge similar to Republicans. While demographics may slightly favor them, Democrats have squandered opportunities to grow their base and show no inclination to change that pattern. A long-term strategy would look to consolidate support among independents and to continue to cultivate future, younger voters. But to do so, Democrats need to move toward the center -- precisely the move that has cost Obama significant enthusiasm among progressives. Like Republicans, they will expand their base during the next cycle -- they simply cannot afford to do so this year.

How Brooks and Slaughter are situated strategically
Although she is clearly ideologically at home on the left side of the spectrum, Louise Slaughter has proven over several years that she can serve her constituents effectively and that she can work with Republicans. But Slaughter will also vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker and will herself be a high-ranking party leader (Chair of the Rules Committee) if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives. There is no turning back from that path for Slaughter; she must convince voters that it will serve their interests well. In theory, Slaughter could argue that she will be in a position to broker the kinds of major compromises that will need to occur to preserve the nation’s fiscal security and to deal with the country’s structural budget deficit. In practice, though, Slaughter will have to work within the Democrats’ national strategy: if they retake the House it will be because they committed NOT to compromise. It is deeply unlikely they would renege on a commitment like that -- particularly if it is responsible for them winning control of the House.

Brooks is perhaps not as bound by past service as Slaughter, but her challenge is her Republican colleagues. Like Slaughter, Brooks will vote for her party’s leader for Speaker (presumably John Boehner). And though Brooks has not yet elaborated her positions on a number of national issues, she will have little latitude to contradict the national party’s platform. Brooks will toe the line on budget-cutting and taxes. She may make overtures for compromise and collaboration to solve the daunting national problems, but if elected, she will be under intense pressure to stick with her conference. And that Republican conference, if it maintains its majority (likely a smaller one) will be under intense pressure to stick together. In other words, Brooks will find it hard to translate her county executive experience to Washington DC.

Could Slaughter and Brooks talk about the deeper issues?
Incentives may limit their likely behavior, but there is still the theoretical possibility that they could launch a debate very different from the one that will envelop the rest of the country. Imagine if Brooks and Slaughter tackled these issues:

The role of money in politics
What if Slaughter and Brooks debated the Citizens United decision? Or if they discussed whether corporations should have constitutionally-protected speech to the extent that individual residents do? Even though we still live in a country where each person has one vote, we all know that much of our politics is decided before election day. Do Brooks and Slaughter have opinions on the role of money in politics? Do they have proposals that can protect free speech but also preserve our political system so it is truly democratic and not, like everything else, for sale to the highest bidder?

An electoral system with real alternatives
Will either Slaughter or Brooks take a stand for reforms to our electoral systems to promote greater competition and debate? Our present system is biased toward promoting a two-party system. By changing the rules, we could introduce more parties, more voices and greater competition -- but obviously Democrats and Republicans have a shared interest in fighting such reform. As long as they do so, politics will continue to stagnate along the familiar divisions, with voters continuing to migrate away from both of them.

Legislative reform to reduce gridlock
Although the Senate is best known for its filibuster and 60-vote supermajority to pass legislation, the US House could also stand some reform. Will Brooks and Slaughter debate the use of restrictive rules? When Democrats or Republicans have been in power, both parties have limited debate using rules that restrict amendments and limit changes to legislation. One argument for these rules is that they allow majorities to govern -- they keep legislation from being sabotaged by the minority on the floor. But they also shut down genuine debate and the need to compromise. If a majority did not protect itself with such restrictions, and if it wanted legislation to survive floor debate, it would have to work with the other party to ensure it could pass. Both parties are sinners in this area -- could Slaughter and Brooks begin the process of atonement? Slaughter herself has served on the Rules Committee (the committee that engages in this behavior), perhaps she could make some news by renouncing this partisan tactic.

A positive stand for a higher political culture
Finally, Brooks and Slaughter could both stand up for a different type of politics. Brooks could become one of a very small number of Republicans to renounce the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge. She could also go a step further and voice support for a bipartisan budget process (rather than endorsing the Ryan plan). Such a process may fail -- and Brooks could still fall back on the Ryan plan as a default -- but it would be an unusually positive, constructive gesture in a poisonous environment.

For her part, Slaughter could also commit to bi-partisan processes for the budget or for entitlement reform. Slaughter also has the stature to lead real change among her fellow Democrats. She stood up to Bill Clinton when he revealed his misconduct; she could do the same now, standing up to party leaders on both sides and calling for some gentler rhetoric and some common-sense solutions.

Will this campaign mirror all the others across the country or will Brooks and Slaughter offer a brand of leadership that the country desperately needs, but too seldom sees? With six months to go, they both have plenty of time to do the right thing.

Speak Up!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please log in in and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" box. Underneath your opinion, provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. We will only print opinions that include this information. If you're not a member yet, Register Here. It's FREE and easy.

Click here to get email updates!